Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[nicky10013]

But not the cognizant MPs or PM....natch!

Who said any MPs were cognizant? The Minister of Finance sets the budget which then goes to treasury which then sends out the money. No MP would ever be aware of the dealings of some crooks that far down the food chain. The Gomery Inquiry proved as much despite the abuse Chretien recieved from Justice Gomery.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who said any MPs were cognizant? The Minister of Finance sets the budget which then goes to treasury which then sends out the money. No MP would ever be aware of the dealings of some crooks that far down the food chain. The Gomery Inquiry proved as much despite the abuse Chretien recieved from Justice Gomery.

Really? You like Gomery hearings? OK....

During the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, Cote testified that he received $120,000 in $100 bills from the executive director of the party's Quebec wing. He distributed that money to 12 Liberal candidates in the 1997 federal election.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think the Conservatives are out to lunch on that score! I think that would be a real dumb move for anyone to make. I do think that if it can be proven that things went all the way up the food chain, then where ever the buck stopped would be the location of the guy with many eggs on their face. Beside if you went that way it would look like a military witch hunt at first, a nice little trap for the politicians.

[nicky10013]

Really? You like Gomery hearings? OK....

During the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, Cote testified that he received $120,000 in $100 bills from the executive director of the party's Quebec wing. He distributed that money to 12 Liberal candidates in the 1997 federal election.

Nobodies denies there was corruption. The assumption that Martin and Chretien knew is another matter entirely.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Nobodies denies there was corruption. The assumption that Martin and Chretien knew is another matter entirely.

Its the past, let it go. Those guys are gone and there are bigger fish to fry.

[jbg]

Who said any MPs were cognizant? The Minister of Finance sets the budget which then goes to treasury which then sends out the money. No MP would ever be aware of the dealings of some crooks that far down the food chain. The Gomery Inquiry proved as much despite the abuse Chretien recieved from Justice Gomery.

Nobodies Nobody (fixed) denies there was corruption. The assumption that Martin and Chretien knew is another matter entirely.

Either the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister knew and were responsible or they didn't know and were irresponsible.

Edited January 10, 2010 by jbg

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Either the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister knew and were responsible or they didn't know and were irresponsible.

Nice touch....a definite two pointer!

[jbg]

Nice touch....a definite two pointer!

I seem to recall someone saying that during Watergate. I can't track it down.

[g_bambino]

Parties are the toxic sewer of democracy.

And here, again, is reference to the problem with our parties and how they function, amongst other interesting observations and comparisons, from John Ibbitson.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And here, again, is reference to the problem with our parties and how they function, amongst other interesting observations and comparisons, from John Ibbitson.

I enjoyed that little read! Thanks!

[bush_cheney2004]

And here, again, is reference to the problem with our parties and how they function, amongst other interesting observations and comparisons, from John Ibbitson.

For the English speaking world, eh?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

For the English speaking world, eh?

What of the content BC....what do you think?

[bush_cheney2004]

What of the content BC....what do you think?

It's skewed for failed execution, not design. Any minority government in Canada would need a Post-T-Vac because of the permanent regional fractures...oui?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's skewed for failed execution, not design. Any minority government in Canada would need a Post-T-Vac because of the permanent regional fractures...oui?

Thats why I like you dude! You just hit the nail on the head once again. Good call.

[g_bambino]

It's skewed for failed execution, not design.

Huh?

[bush_cheney2004]

Huh?

This, from the biggest cheerleader of all? Don't worry, the Queen's viceroy will make it all better.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Huh?

I think he means the intent of the design is not worked out through constitutional definitions. The design is fine but the practical application is junk. Probably why he favours a republic with its checks and balances.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This, from the biggest cheerleader of all? Don't worry, the Queen's viceroy will make it all better.

The GG could make it more entertaining ...I will grant you that. If she allowed a coalition to form a government then Ottawa would go into fits and the public would giggle a lot I think.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think he means the intent of the design is not worked out through constitutional definitions. The design is fine but the practical application is junk. Probably why he favours a republic with its checks and balances.

More or less...Canada has bastardized the design with one foot in the past and one in the present. Either there is a constitution that rises above all parties and monarchs or there isn't. Don't complain when it falls short of this, particularly for such short term political wrangling.

[bush_cheney2004]

The GG could make it more entertaining ...I will grant you that. If she allowed a coalition to form a government then Ottawa would go into fits and the public would giggle a lot I think.

Maybe that would be valuable if only to force a change to the status quo...permanently. Are Canadians afraid of this possibility now that the "natural ruling party" is on the outside looking in?

[g_bambino]

I think he means the intent of the design is not worked out through constitutional definitions. The design is fine but the practical application is junk. Probably why he favours a republic with its checks and balances.

And you favour that too. However, if the design is fine, as you (oddly) say, but the use is not, why change the former and not the latter? It's becoming more and more evident to me that the problem is not with our parliamentary system - it functions fine enough for the other constitutional monarchies Ibbitson points to - but with the internal operation of the political parties in, and using, parliament - which is not the same as any of the constitutional monarchies Ibbitson points to. The solution to much that ails us in the legislature may lie in returning to the British party orders we abandoned some decades ago.

[AngelDust]

For me, this is really an abuse of political power on the part of Harper. Just as the poll had said, he should just "face the music" and stop hiding.

Symptoms of Candida

[bush_cheney2004]

....The solution to much that ails us in the legislature may lie in returning to the British party orders we abandoned some decades ago.

Correct....other "English speaking" (and non-English speaking) nations seem to manage without such consistent drama...even with coalitions. So what's Canada's problem? What kind of system has the electorate dreading too many elections, and the cost?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

More or less...Canada has bastardized the design with one foot in the past and one in the present. Either there is a constitution that rises above all parties and monarchs or there isn't. Don't complain when it falls short of this, particularly for such short term political wrangling.

That about sums it up nicely.

[g_bambino]

That about sums it up nicely.

The design is fine but the practical application is junk.

f the design is fine, but the use is not, why change the former and not the latter?

Still waiting, Jerry.