Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes Topaz, everyone makes mistakes. Even Einstein made mistakes. However, the type of mistakes we make can tell everyone how smart we are. There are some approaches that are a real good try and there are some approaches that show the person trying is simply a bonehead!

THAT's why so many people don't respect Bob Rae for his term as Ontario premier! He made BONEHEAD mistakes!

If you saw someone bailing with a bucket held upside down would you keep forgiving him his mistakes? Especially as the water is filling up the boat??!!

Or would you throw him over the side and let someone who at least knows how a bucket WORKS have a try at the job?

Trudeau will follow Iggy, not Rae.

[Argus]

THAT's why so many people don't respect Bob Rae for his term as Ontario premier! He made BONEHEAD mistakes!

Bob Rae almost won the leadership of the Liberal Party,and in most respets is now number 2 in the party and desined for a very high position in any Liberal government. He might still be leader if Ignatieff quits.

Rae Prorogued the Ontario Legislature. All premiers and prime ministrs of all parties have done so, sometimes routinely, sometimes when it was politically expedient to do so. There's nothing particularly unusual about Harper doing it now.

[ToadBrother]

ame='Wild Bill' date='27 January 2010 - 08:21 AM' timestamp='1264596789' post='503695']

Rae Prorogued the Ontario Legislature. All premiers and prime ministrs of all parties have done so, sometimes routinely, sometimes when it was politically expedient to do so. There's nothing particularly unusual about Harper doing it now.

Then you'll be good enough to point out the last time anywhere in the Commonwealth that a Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to evade a confidence motion.

I mean, if it's so damned typical, you should even be able to produce multiple examples, right? So get to it. Find me some examples.

[ToadBrother]

Would you have given Chrétien the same lecture for proroguing in such a manner as to cause the release of the AG's report (you know, Adscam) on Martin's watch?

I have repeatedly said the 2009 prorogation, while not exactly a sign of a Government that respects or even recognizes Parliament's authority, isn't the bad one. When someone can show me anywhere in a modern (post-18th century) Westminster parliament where a confidence motion was evaded by use of prorogation, we'll talk. In other words, it's the 2008 prorogation that was the bad one.

I agree, a bit cynical. The opposition knew it couldn't risk an election with its very iffy leadership. It knew from public reaction that a coalion attempt would badly backfire.

That may be. But the Conservatives should have been given a kick in the butt, whether or not the Opposition stood to gain from it.

[myata]

The Opposition could have toppled the government in January 2009 and they could again topple it in March.

Is this going to be a "sequitir" of the day? Did the government shut down the Parliament twice in the course of one calendar year? Yes or now? And should it be allowed to interfere with the work of legislation in what is seen as a modern (i.e reflecting the realities of this 21 century, rather than the times of Kings or faraohs), transparent and functional democracy?

Please try your best to stay on subject.

The government in any democracy is only as strong as the opposition is weak.

And that would be what, a general truism of the day? The range of democracies is very wide (from US to say, Afghanistan) and in every one of them the issues of government vs opposition are addressed differently. Some provide checks and balances for each branch of power to stay within its own constitutional domain without interfering with the work of other branches. Ours, here - does not. It has one big stick, the election, and nothing, yada in between. Even if our glorious ancestors made it that way, still doesn't look very smart to me whichever way you turn it.

No system can possibly make up for an Opposition without the balls to back up their anger.

I already said awhile back that the faults of this Opposition that I do not deny in any way, do not negate the glaring deficiencies of the system, that gives far too many in essence undemocratic means to the government to obstruct and interfere with the work of the Parliament.

You mean that I don't endlessly repeat answers to questions already asked and answered. The fact is that you don't like the answers, but rather than say "no, that sucks", you keep rephrasing leading questions.

Nope, just that "this is little Johnny/Molly, the way things are, and shall be, forever" isn't really an answer to anything.

[ToadBrother]

Is this going to be a "sequitir" of the day?

I'm thinking you don't know what "non sequitur" means.

Did the government shut down the Parliament twice in the course of one calendar year? Yes or now? And should it be allowed to interfere with the work of legislation in what is seen as a modern (i.e reflecting the realities of this 21 century, rather than the times of Kings or faraohs), transparent and functional democracy?

Please try your best to stay on subject.

AS I said, again, the Opposition could have brought down the government in January of 2009, and they could again this coming March.

And that would be what, a general truism of the day? The range of democracies is very wide (from US to say, Afghanistan) and in every one of them the issues of government vs opposition are addressed differently. Some provide checks and balances for each branch of power to stay within its own constitutional domain without interfering with the work of other branches. Ours, here - does not. It has one big stick, the election, and nothing, yada in between. Even if our glorious ancestors made it that way, still doesn't look very smart to me whichever way you turn it.

It still is conceivable for the Opposition to form a coalition. The last time it was tried, the coalition collapsed. You can't blame that on Harper. For some reason, a lot of Liberal MPs didn't want to be lead by a failed would-be Prime Minister, or to get in bed with the Bloc.

I already said awhile back that the faults of this Opposition that I do not deny in any way, do not negate the glaring deficiencies of the system, that gives far too many in essence undemocratic means to the government to obstruct and interfere with the work of the Parliament.

It's the Opposition's duty to hold the government accountable. They blinked, and thus Harper squeaked through. They are to blame as much as him.

Nope, just that "this is little Johnny/Molly, the way things are, and shall be, forever" isn't really an answer to anything.

Where have I ever said things should stay the same?

[Bugs]

Hey, IF you keep looking at the rear-view mirror, you'll never see what's coming at you!! Bob Rae has said over and over, that as Premier he did make mistakes but the Rae Days, tried to keep people working and have some income coming in. When Harris took over CUPE, I'm sure they had Rae back. He didn't send the OPP on them, he didn't cut jobs, so HARRIS was worst than Rae!!

Full disclosure: Bob Rae is what took me out of the NDP camp.

The media focus is on the issues between the unions and Rae ... as if that was a big deal. In fact, Rae gave the unions a big pay day shortly after coming to power. A year later, he was saying 'Whoops' ... He also stomped on one of the oldest of the party's promises, going back to CCF days -- government car insurance.

But that isn't why people despise Bob Rae. Rae Days is a nostalgic memory.

Bob Rae ran the most racist and sexist government that this country has ever seen! And that's the truth.

Oh, sure, it was all stuff about fixing the past, and all of that ... his racism and sexism was of the redemptive sort. It got so bad that the job postings that circulate within the civil service ended with the cryptic suggestion that no white male Canadians need apply. The Rae government was all about making sure all promotions went to women, and gender became a job qualification of increasing importance as you went up the hierarchy.

The same applied to race.

They still do it. Well, they don't put the 'No white male Canadians need apply' on the bottom anymore ... now they add a longish paragraph which states that applications are particularly sought from women, first nations, visible minorities, etc. etc ... same thing. White males drink out of that fountain over there.

It isn't that people disagree with this stuff as a goal, to evolve towards. It does seem that a fair hiring system would have people of every colour and natioality in every work caregory. But Bob Rae has no time for evolution.

Bob Rae wanted every employer in Ontario to have a workforce that matched the racial and gender demographics of the census tracts that they were in, and he wanted step one done at end of Year 2, and he wanted it to be irreversible before the next election. What made it so impossible was things that people might have been accommodated over a generation were being forced to happen within a few years.

This isn't a myth. Stats Can actually made provisions to change the census so that Rae's racial police could have the info they needed to enforce. I tried to order it, but it cost $90!

Bob Rae started a cultural war. When he was elected, I saw myself as a worker who'd often been in unions, and who supported the working persons party. When they came to power, I found myself to be the enemy, one of the white males that were being held responsible for all the evil in the world. It was the time when every form of anti-male hate was permissible, even encouraged, when the Montreal Massacre happened, remember how they trooped University Student Presidents before the cameras, all to say that they, themselves, as white males, felt they had responsibility for the tragedy? It was like a Stalin show-trial, held in front of TV cameras.

Not all of that was Rae's doing, but that's what the times were like. It was a different kind of mass delusion than our most recent -- global warming -- but it was the environment Bob Rae fit into, and he carried it further. That's why people hate and despise Bob Rae, Topaz.

This is how bad it was. When that white ribbon stuff started, I worked in an office with an East Indian guy who was really sharp, and we actually had a lot of fun together. One day he comes in with a white ribbon, and he's trying to get everyone to wear one. He comes to me. I crack: "I don't need one, I don't beat my wife." It was a joke. He knew I was divorced, I didn't even have a wife. I got fired. I tried to get some support, to appeal. Everyone just looked at me with distaste. It didn't matter what the law seemed to say. Nothing there for me. It was really an educational experience, in a Kafkaesque sense.

Rae Days have bugger all to do with it.

Due to Bob Rae, my son, and his peers, now have no real shot with the best employer in the country, the civil service. The extends, in diluted form, to the state-regulated monopolies. Find a white male with Rogers. It is important to recognize that there is a terror here, which acts through the occupational structure, not through politics.

That's sexism, pure and simple. It justifies itself with claims of fighting racism, but not very many black men are beneficiaries; it's a woman thing. and Bob Rae's the equivalent of Daryl Duke as far as I am concerned.

That's the unspoken truth. Bob Rae is hated because of the cultural war he inflamed. By now, people have forgotten all the details of those days, but they remember when shaken. The terror comes through the job market, and Bob Rae is a terrorist in that sense. He pushes all the agenda items to the max, and he really tries to achieve them. He is probably the most radical politician in the country, and he doesn't care what the electorate thinks.

If he gets office at his age, he'll care even less.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Bugs

[Shady]

Harper is definately not a major league player when it comes to the subject of prorogation. As it turns out, Bob Rae, perhaps Harper's most vocal critic is somewhat of an expert on prorogation. While Premier of Ontario, the holier-than-thou Rae prorogued the legislature at Queen's Park THREE TIMES!

Any comment about Rae? Perhaps our future Prime Minister I think those of you on the left should look in the mirror.

Can you say HYPOCRITE?

Right on! That's what makes these anti-prorogue tea-baggers so disingenuous.

[ToadBrother]

Right on! That's what makes these anti-prorogue tea-baggers so disingenuous.

Perhaps you could explain how it makes my concerns disingenuous? Have you found another example in the Commonwealth or the old Empire of where a government used prorogation to evade a confidence motion?

[Shady]

Have you found another example in the Commonwealth or the old Empire of where a government used prorogation to evade a confidence motion?

Have you found another example of an attempt to replace an elected government with a coalition government formed from political opponents who's goal it is to break up the country of said government? Sometimes unprecedented attacks call for unprecedented defenses.

But as has already been pointed out by several posters. The political device of the prorogue is hardly new. If you don't like it, work to change the contitutional law, instead of uselessly criticizing those who follow it.

[myata]

I'm thinking you don't know what "non sequitur" means.

AS I said, again, the Opposition could have brought down the government in January of 2009, and they could again this coming March.

Call it in latin or plain English, but I fail to see a logical connection between:

1) the ability of the executive branch to obstruct and shut down the Parliament; and:

2) the power of the Parliament to cause the fall of the government. Regardless of #2, #1 should never be permitted in a responsible democracy, and so if you see some sort of logical connection or sequence here, it still needs to be explained.

It still is conceivable for the Opposition to form a coalition. The last time it was tried, the coalition collapsed. You can't blame that on Harper.

I'm not blaming that on Harper. I'm blaming the system that is seriously out of touch with the realities of modern political process for allowing him to avoid the will of the Parliament. If the event played out by the rules of modern and responsible democracy, we may have ended up with a bad PM (by far not the first such case in our history). As it happened, we ended up with an unprecedented event where a minority faction forced its will on the elected majority and shut down the legislature (and with it, all meaningful "accountability").

And please do note, I'm not at all saying that the Coalition would in fact have come to be as it all depends on the whim of unelected official appointed by noone else but the government. Such are the realities of this system.

It's the Opposition's duty to hold the government accountable. They blinked, and thus Harper squeaked through. They are to blame as much as him.

Which instruments do they have for that though? Let's see, it's all here right before our eyes:

1) A parliamentary commission that can be ignored and obstructed at will

2) Ordering information from the government that can be ignored or ridiculed

3) Parliamentary sessions that can be shut down at will

And finally, and for the grand finale:

voting non confidence some six months later when everybody has long forgot what it was all about.

To me it looks much more like a political theatre created somewhere in the dawn of political times to let out steam, that the actual ability to "hold the government accountable" in a responsible democracy.

Where have I ever said things should stay the same?

OK (you did mention some of the possible changes) but even the first part is not really an answer to anything. If things "are" does not mean that they are "good" or "should stay the same", given the obvious reason to be concerned about the way they are being used.

[g_bambino]

1) the ability of the executive branch to obstruct and shut down the Parliament; and:

2) the power of the Parliament to cause the fall of the government.

Regardless of #2, #1 should never be permitted in a responsible democracy...

So, your own personal opinion of a "modern" "21st century" democracy is a legislature without bounds. See tyranny of the majority.

[myata]

So, your own personal opinion of a "modern" "21st century" democracy is a legislature without bounds. See tyranny of the majority.

Thanks for the link though it's got nothing to do with my personal opinion. I said, and will say one more time that my view of modern democracy is that of the three branches of power working independently and transparently to ensure efficient and open governing. Legislature, creating good laws and keeping an oversight over the government through work of independent (truly) watchdogs, committies and investigations; without meddling in its day to day work. The government, efficient management of the country within the framework of law and without interfering with work of other democratical institutions. And the judicial, upholding supremacy of law.

As it should be obvious from events of the last year, we still have a distance to cover to get to that (or equivalent to it, in achieving the same goal of transparent, efficient and independent operation of democratic institutions; I do not insist that my view is the only one that is correct) state of affairs.

[ToadBrother]

Have you found another example of an attempt to replace an elected government with a coalition government formed from political opponents who's goal it is to break up the country of said government? Sometimes unprecedented attacks call for unprecedented defenses.

Not coalitions, but certainly other parties forming government. But your question is incredibly leading, not to mention pretty spurious, when you consider Harper had rather openly pondered an identical coalition just a few years earlier.

But as has already been pointed out by several posters. The political device of the prorogue is hardly new. If you don't like it, work to change the contitutional law, instead of uselessly criticizing those who follow it.

Oh, it's constitutional, in the respect that the GG pretty much is bound to accept the advice of the Prime Minister. But as far as a precedent that sits well with our system, no it is not. Confidence is Parliament's key check on the power of a Government, and whether you or I like it, Parliament should never be hampered in testing confidence.

[ToadBrother]

Call it in latin or plain English, but I fail to see a logical connection between:

1) the ability of the executive branch to obstruct and shut down the Parliament; and:

The GG has a number of powers that could potentially interfere with Parliament. Much greater, in theory at least, is the power to refuse assent. It's only happened in modern times in Westminster parliaments a handful of times (actually two that I know of; the aforementioned refusal of assent by the Queen of legislation in the British parliament that would have transferred a Royal Prerogative to the legislature, and the refusal of assent to some pretty awful anti-free press legislation by the Alberta Social Credit government by the Lieutenant Governor back in the 1930s).

Your outrage is incredibly lopsided. Your angry about prorogation, which is probably a lesser of the Reserve Powers, but have nothing to say on potentially more wide-reaching Reserve Powers.

2) the power of the Parliament to cause the fall of the government. Regardless of #2, #1 should never be permitted in a responsible democracy, and so if you see some sort of logical connection or sequence here, it still needs to be explained.

The 2008 prorogation was a bad thing for accountability, I won't deny it. Confidence is a key check on government. At the same time, you have already voiced your notion that an election was not necessary, that the Coalition could just have stepped in. You seem to want Parliament to work in a way that makes results you deem desirable more likely. At any rate, the 2008 prorogation lasted just over a month, but the Opposition coalition, which already had spokes falling off the wheel before Harper visited Rideau Hall, was completely dead by the time Parliament reconvened. And this is the Coalition that people like you seem to insist was better than the Harper government.

I'm not blaming that on Harper. I'm blaming the system that is seriously out of touch with the realities of modern political process for allowing him to avoid the will of the Parliament.

If Parliament wanted to take Harper out since that prorogation, they have had plenty of opportunities. I wish they had of. They're as guilty of limiting Parliament's role as he is.

If the event played out by the rules of modern and responsible democracy, we may have ended up with a bad PM (by far not the first such case in our history).

You keep saying this, but it keeps turning out that you have little notion of what you intend by "modern and responsible" democracy. From what I can tell, you want a government that is effectively emasculated, at least in minority. How you propose to fix shortcomings when a government has a majority is missing. That's largely because I don't think you really give that much of a damn. You were obviously a supporter of the coalition, and angry that Harper outmaneuvered them.

As it happened, we ended up with an unprecedented event where a minority faction forced its will on the elected majority and shut down the legislature (and with it, all meaningful "accountability").

So why didn't the majority take Harper out in January 2009? I mean, every new session of Parliament has to open with a Speech from the Throne, and Iggy and Co. could have blown Harper out of the water right then and there.

And please do note, I'm not at all saying that the Coalition would in fact have come to be as it all depends on the whim of unelected official appointed by noone else but the government. Such are the realities of this system.

That unelected official has two choices; call an election or ask someone else to form Parliament. That hardly resembles some sort of vast undemocratic conspiracy against Parliament.

Which instruments do they have for that though? Let's see, it's all here right before our eyes:

1) A parliamentary commission that can be ignored and obstructed at will

And I have problems with that as well. This is what resembles Charles I's affronts to Parliament. He too didn't like Parliament questioning his (disastrous) foreign policy and that was one of the chief reasons he prorogued Parliament and began the Personal Rule. Harper should feel glad he didn't live back in the 17th century, because the ultimate solution that Parliament came up with then was to cut off Charles I's head.

2) Ordering information from the government that can be ignored or ridiculed

I'm angry about this as well. Let us hope that the Opposition doesn't drop the ball like it did this time last year.

3) Parliamentary sessions that can be shut down at will

At the will of the government, mind you, but yes, that's a problem. The problem is that the solution put forth likely isn't constitutional.

And finally, and for the grand finale:

voting non confidence some six months later when everybody has long forgot what it was all about.

Now hold on a minute here. You can't blame the GG, Harper or anyone else for the short memory spans of voters. That is the fault of the electorate, and no constitutional amendment on Earth is going to solve the problem of people to stupid and navel-gazing to realize the stakes. Maybe this latest prorogation will have lit some fires and even if the solutions put forward can't work, Tory MPs will feel sufficiently burned by it that they constrain Harper in the future.

To me it looks much more like a political theatre created somewhere in the dawn of political times to let out steam, that the actual ability to "hold the government accountable" in a responsible democracy.

That demonstrates just how little you know about our system. In the olden days, MPs were considerably more vocal when the government went awry of Parliament's will. Heck, in Britain in the last two decades there have been at least three attempts (one successful, two unsuccessful) by a governing party's MPs to unseat a leader. The flaw is not in the system, the flaw is in MPs and the electorate.

OK (you did mention some of the possible changes) but even the first part is not really an answer to anything. If things "are" does not mean that they are "good" or "should stay the same", given the obvious reason to be concerned about the way they are being used.

I never defended anything on the basis of simply existing. But our system isn't the weak-kneed anti-democratic institution you make it out to be. What often seems to be is the electorate itself.

[g_bambino]

Thanks for the link though it's got nothing to do with my personal opinion. I said, and will say one more time that my view of modern democracy is that of the three branches of power working independently and transparently to ensure efficient and open governing. Legislature, creating good laws and keeping an oversight over the government... I do not insist that my view is the only one that is correct...

Of course it has relevance to your opinions. You're advocating a legislature that has no checks on itself; get rid of the Crown and the Royal Prerogative so that the House of Commons (do you care about the Senate?) can meet when it wants and enforce what it wants. You speak about independent branches - implying the same unbridled freedom for the executive and judiciary - but then contradict yourself by outlining that the government must be held accountable to the legislature (which is fine) but not vice-versa (which is not fine). So, again, a parliament that controls everything with impunity. What would be the result but a tyranny of the majority, wherein the biggest group of ideologically like-minded MPs would band together to implement their own desired legislation, including the removal of any number of guarantees we have now? TB already highlighted attempts by the elected house of a unicameral parliament to pass legislation that suppressed free speech. You think that wouldn't happen, especially once the constraints parliament has now were erased by you, upsetting the present balance maintained by each branch limiting the other two?

If you do, then you really don't understand what democracy is, despite anointing your own version of it as one of the "correct" ones.

[+]

Edited January 27, 2010 by g_bambino

[jbg]

Then you'll be good enough to point out the last time anywhere in the Commonwealth that a Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to evade a confidence motion.

There aren't too many miinority government examples to know if it's typical. But in December 2008 it wasn't a confidence motion Harper was trying to evade, it was a coalition. Harper would have been only too happy for the Liberals to force an election less than 45 days after having been to the polls. Edited January 28, 2010 by jbg

[jbg]

But that isn't why people despise Bob Rae. Rae Days is a nostalgic memory.

Weren't those days Raes of sunshine?

[WestViking]

It is not difficult to establish that since confederation, Canadas parliament has been prorogued 118 times. From confederation to the end of WW-II, Prime Ministers employed prorogation 80 times or an average of once every 1.3 years.

From the end of WW-II to the present, Prime ministers have employed proroguing 38 times, or an average of once every 1.7 years. The record by Prime Minister is:

Mackenzie King - 4

St. Laurent - 11

Diefenbaker - 4

Pearson - 3

Trudeau - 7

Mulroney - 3

Chretien - 4

Harper 2

Those who contend that Harpers proroguing is unique or that we need to curb the use of proroguing are ignorant of our institutions, history and of the sound reasons to employ prorogation. The current hysteria is irrational and pathetic.

Edited January 28, 2010 by WestViking

[nicky10013]

It is not difficult to establish that since confederation, Canada’s parliament has been prorogued 118 times. From confederation to the end of WW-II, Prime Ministers employed prorogation 80 times or an average of once every 1.3 years.

From the end of WW-II to the present, Prime ministers have employed proroguing 38 times, or an average of once every 1.7 years. The record by Prime Minister is:

Mackenzie King - 4

St. Laurent - 11

Diefenbaker - 4

Pearson - 3

Trudeau - 7

Mulroney - 3

Chretien - 4

Harper – 2

Those who contend that Harper’s proroguing is unique or that we need to curb the use of proroguing are ignorant of our institutions, history and of the sound reasons to employ prorogation. The current hysteria is irrational and pathetic.

The idiocy in which you compare Harper's prorgation to the others is pathetic. No other government has killed 36 of its own bills to hide from an issue. No other government did it to hide from a non-confidence motion. Period. End of story.

[jbg]

The idiocy in which you compare Harper's prorgation to the others is pathetic. No other government has killed 36 of its own bills to hide from an issue. No other government did it to hide from a non-confidence motion. Period. End of story.

I'd look in the same household device you use when shaving or putting on your makeup (assuming you're old enough to shave) to find the idiocy.

Edited January 28, 2010 by jbg

[WestViking]

The idiocy in which you compare Harper's prorgation to the others is pathetic. No other government has killed 36 of its own bills to hide from an issue. No other government did it to hide from a non-confidence motion. Period. End of story.

Emotional outbursts are for children. Your contention that Harper faced no non-confidence votes after 04/12/08 is nonsense. The troika coalition fell apart faster than a cardboard suitcase in a monsoon and no amount of nonsense from you can change the facts. The opposition has not made good several threats to vote Harper out of office during 2009. Grow up and accept that your rants respecting prorogation ring as hollow as an Ignatieff political threat.

[myata]

Emotional outbursts are for children.

What is denying obvious facts then? I'll try. BS.

[jbg]

The opposition has not made good several threats to vote Harper out of office during 2009. Grow up and accept that your rants respecting prorogation ring as hollow as an Ignatieff political threat.

I don't see you posting on here often but that's both a good point and very well put. It actually got me laughing.

[cybercoma]

This is how bad it was. When that white ribbon stuff started, I worked in an office with an East Indian guy who was really sharp, and we actually had a lot of fun together. One day he comes in with a white ribbon, and he's trying to get everyone to wear one. He comes to me. I crack: "I don't need one, I don't beat my wife." It was a joke. He knew I was divorced, I didn't even have a wife. I got fired. I tried to get some support, to appeal. Everyone just looked at me with distaste. It didn't matter what the law seemed to say. Nothing there for me. It was really an educational experience, in a Kafkaesque sense.

No offense, but your comment warranted you being fired. At best the joke was in bad taste, more likely it was taken as a racist insult. When you said, "I don't need one; I don't beat my wife," you implied that those who were wearing one do beat their wives. In particular, the person handing you one was an East Indian and already suffered from the stereotype of being abusive. I don't know any workplace in the country that would allow a racist insult like that go unpunished.

Furthermore, you may believe that equal opportunity laws are racist towards white males, and by definition they are, but what you did was even more reprehensible than the things you're decrying. The majority of power holders in this country, be them CEOs, MPs, or lawyers are white men. The problems of equal opportunity evidently have not resulted in racist discrimination for men and a complete shift in the balance of power.

None of that has anything to do with proroguing parliament though.