Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

ToadBrother · February 10, 2010

Explain that one to me, what has mackay doen that warrants the PM protection,

If the investigation does find something, then it's clear MacKay stood up in the House of Commons and either knowingly lied to Parliament, or was speaking from a position of ignorance. If the former, well, then, he should be held in contempt, if the latter, one wonders why exactly he's in that particular portfolio.

any military man I have spoken to, has no problem with mackay.

Which is irrelevant.

Any body could be better then any liberal defence minister, they don't call it the decade of darkenss for nothing.

You really are an ideological drone.

PIK · February 10, 2010

If the investigation does find something, then it's clear MacKay stood up in the House of Commons and either knowingly lied to Parliament, or was speaking from a position of ignorance. If the former, well, then, he should be held in contempt, if the latter, one wonders why exactly he's in that particular portfolio.

Which is irrelevant.

You really are an ideological drone.

Not at all,if the liberals were still in power would we be able to do what we did for haiti, we would still be waiting to rent some russian aircraft. And anybody that says the libs did not try and kill the military is a drone. But I will give Martin credit for trying to turn it around ,he knew what chretien was up to. And what do you mean it is irrelevant what military men says. The minister job is to do what ever he can for the military to keep them safe as can be, with the best equipment, to go against his masters and fight for the military, something liberal ministers did not do. Edited February 10, 2010 by PIK

myata · February 10, 2010

I've already detailed the important check, the confidence of the House. If the government loses confidence, then regardless of the GG's decision (and there are only two; asking someone else to form a new government or dissolution), the government is gone.

Your rephrasing of what was said doesn't change much, does it? If an election happened recently and people don't want another one, the executive branch will have a free hand (just as we see - if we still can see), and there's nothing in this whole beautiful system to hold it accountable in any way. Thank-you.

Few other democracies save those of the Westminster model can boast that. If the US president begins behaving like a lunatic, you can't get rid of him until the end of his term.

Forgetting Clinton, are you? Oops. Denying obvious reality is bound to lead to such accidents.

Let me tell you that they have: a working system of checks and balances where a President cannot shut the House of Reps at will, nor the House dictate to President how to run the country. Still to come near you, in some distant political future.

I'd say our system affords a much more stunning and immediate solution to a disastrous government.

But it can't keep it accountable or responsible can it? Parliament oversight, hello-ooo? Where are you?

Jamaica is obscure?

No, the token and standard of modern democracy, for everybody to aspire to.

But in actuality most countries whose governments began in the Westminster tradition, like India or Ireland, have similar institutions, even if the British Monarch has been replaced by an elected president.

Already addressed. Elected president is very similar to a birthright Monarch or appointed viceroy. All are human, after all.

These two countries have in most aspects maintained a relatively weak executive who, like the Queen, acts only on the advice of Cabinet. All without any sort of system of privileges. If our system is good enough for the world's largest democracy, it can't be all that bad.

You lost me here. Are you saying that we have "relatively weak" executive too? Have you looked out that window, of late?

And the reason has nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with regionalism. It goes back to my key observation; you want the changes you want made to be as easy as pie. You don't give a crap about democracy at all, because if you did, you would respect the fact that this country presently does not want the massive reforms that you posit.

Well, thank you, but as you noticed I attempted to summarize the state of affairs (and our discussion) without going on sidetracks of reasons and possibilities. Being able to see the actual state of affairs as they are is the first and critical step in any change. And if seeing these serious flaws, the country still does not want the change I think my diagnosis may have a dole of truth. It shouldn't hurt to look in the mirror once in a while should it?

To my mind, the most key aspect of a modern, true democracy, is that those who lose a vote respect the will of the majority. Why do you have such a hard time respecting the will of the majority?

You lost me again (or just parrotting tired old stuff having nothing more to add). Didn't I say awhile back that both elections and functional political process have important place in a modern democracy? One can't go to elections every time a government screws up for the obvious reasons of losing all interest and participation in the process, and obviously no democracy could exist without free elections. Try to understand, it's the AND and not OR as in some binary visions of the world.

The problem is that you seem to have little enough understanding of the present institutions, of how democracies work elsewhere, and most sadly, a tragic lack of curiosity. You, to my mind, are the most profoundly unaware person of the science of politics I have ever met, and yet the most keen to spout catchphrases of little meaning.

Well you had a chance to address each one of my statements specifically and in detail, and you choose to hide behind these generic accusations. Doesn't speak much for your position does it? My advice: try to see the meaning of things as they are abstracting from irrelevant details as they are written in containers and mega bookshelves of those glancy books and posters. If we had functional independent federal watchdogs, we would see them in work, now. If we had an independent and supreme Parliament, it would be working now, making laws and keeping the government in check. This is the reality as it is and as opposed to the glancy coloured picture books good for use only on the JRK level of political discussion.

Edited February 10, 2010 by myata

ToadBrother · February 10, 2010

Your rephrasing of what was said doesn't change much, does it? If an election happened recently and people don't want another one, the executive branch will have a free hand (just as we see - if we still can see), and there's nothing in this whole beautiful system to hold it accountable in any way. Thank-you.

Of course there is. In January 2009 there was a Throne Speech, which is a confidence motion, which means the Coalition could have brought down the Government. I keep repeating this over and over and over and over, and you ignore the point with such predictability that I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually sensing that it pretty much makes everything you're saying B.S.

Forgetting Clinton, are you? Oops. Denying obvious reality is bound to lead to such accidents.

Are you referring to the failed impeachment? Yes, there are means in the US constitution to bring a president down, but there has never been a successful impeachment of a President (Nixon resigned before he could be impeached). Maybe you should go on the American forums and declare how flawed their system is because bad presidents aren't impeached (and actually, impeachment is damned hard to do, requiring a 2/3s majority in the Senate).

Let me tell you that they have: a working system of checks and balances where a President cannot shut the House of Reps at will, nor the House dictate to President how to run the country. Still to come near you, in some distant political future.

The US system is considerably different. For starters, it works on a fixed calendar (we've already talked about this, I'm unsure why you're bringing it up again). Secondly there is no notion of confidence for either the President or either house of Congress. Congressmen sit for as long as their terms allow (two years for a Representative, six years for a Senator). I'd dearly love to replicate aspects of that system, in particular an effective upper house with unique powers, but also some powers that overlap the House of Commons.

But it can't keep it accountable or responsible can it? Parliament oversight, hello-ooo? Where are you?

And again, it's called a Confidence motion. None of the Parliamentary officers whose role is oversight are constitutional anyways, they exist solely because Parliament says "We should have a budget office!" Are you suggesting we create constitutionally-empowered oversight? I'd consider the idea, though I think one would have to be extraordinarily careful that one didn't create another constitutional player who could disrupt the system.

No, the token and standard of modern democracy, for everybody to aspire to.

I'm not going to play this "modern democracy" game. After all, the American system is less than a hundred years younger than ours.

Already addressed. Elected president is very similar to a birthright Monarch or appointed viceroy. All are human, after all.

What exactly did you address? Everyone is a frickin' human. We're talking here about a Westminster-style system, where the Executive's powers are used on the advice of the Government. This is an extraordinarily common system, whether the Executive happens to be a monarch or a president.

You lost me here. Are you saying that we have "relatively weak" executive too? Have you looked out that window, of late?

Since the Executive acts only on the advice of government, save in rare situations (which we've already delved into), yes, it is a weak executive. The Crown has enormous powers, but because the Constitutional settlement of 1688 forces the Crown to only use those powers on the advice of Parliament, effective political power is not wielded by the executive branch at all, or more accurately, executive functions are placed in the hands of the government as the Crown's advisor.

Well, thank you, but as you noticed I attempted to summarize the state of affairs (and our discussion) without going on sidetracks of reasons and possibilities. Being able to see the actual state of affairs as they are is the first and critical step in any change.

I agree. Let me know when you know enough about the system to actually see the state of affairs.

And if seeing these serious flaws, the country still does not want the change I think my diagnosis may have a dole of truth. It shouldn't hurt to look in the mirror once in a while should it?

The country does not want to change, because change risks unity. This will probably hold true for some time to come. The Constitution, as I have said repeatedly, has a number of options for amending the Constitution. What it doesn't have is a way to bash peoples heads in so they don't threaten to tear the country apart every time the phrase "change the Constitution" is invoked.

You lost me again (or just parrotting tired old stuff having nothing more to add).

I keep losing you because you're not really interested in what I have to say. I keep repeating things, because you keep ignoring them.

Didn't I say awhile back that both elections and functional political process have important place in a modern democracy? One can't go to elections every time a government screws up for the obvious reasons of losing all interest and participation in the process, and obviously no democracy could exist without free elections. Try to understand, it's the AND and not OR as in some binary visions of the world.

I still say elections are by far the superior way to formulate a new government. Clearly we cannot know what would have happened if, in January 2009, the Coalition hadn't collapsed, and had voted no confidence to the Throne Speech. I'd say better than even odds that the GG would have asked the Coalition to form a government, seeing as less than three months had passed since the last election. But the Coalition did collapse, no vote of confidence was made, and here we are.

Well you had a chance to address each one of my statements specifically and in detail, and you choose to hide behind these generic accusations. Doesn't speak much for your position does it? My advice: try to see the meaning of things as they are abstracting from irrelevant details as they are written in containers and mega bookshelves of those glancy books and posters. If we had functional independent federal watchdogs, we would see them in work, now. If we had an independent and supreme Parliament, it would be working now, making laws and keeping the government in check. This is the reality as it is and as opposed to the glancy coloured picture books good for use only on the JRK level of political discussion.

You know what. I'd wager if I asked anyone here that was following our little conversation would say that I answer questions posed to me, give my opinion is reasonably comprehensible terms, don't delve into sloganeering at every opportunity, and ahve at least some understanding of how our system works, and how other systems work.

Tell me, do you think anyone else would feel the same about the way you express yourself to me?

g_bambino · February 10, 2010

Which makes me curious why he feels compelled to worry about our political system at all.

What else is left but vandalism? Even iconoclasm requires a grasp on the meaning of the icon one wants to destroy. Vandals, on the other hand, usually carry out crude, knee-jerk revenge; perhaps for not permitting the unfettered ascension of a certain coalition?

ToadBrother · February 10, 2010

What else is left but vandalism? Even iconoclasm requires a grasp on the meaning of the icon one wants to destroy. Vandals, on the other hand, usually carry out crude, knee-jerk revenge; perhaps for not permitting the unfettered ascension of a certain coalition?

I get that he's mad that the Coalition didn't get a shot. I can even understand it to point. What's more, I don't think proroguing Parliament to save your hide is really in keeping with the spirit of how things are supposed to work. But at the end of the day, any Coalition claiming that it could form a stable, working government that couldn't survive less than two months of a Parliamentary hiatus (and to be honest, was already showing some big problems even before Harper went to Rideau Hall) ultimately demonstrates that the GG's decision to give everyone a "time out" was indeed in the best interests of good governance.

g_bambino · February 10, 2010

What's more, I don't think proroguing Parliament to save your hide is really in keeping with the spirit of how things are supposed to work. But at the end of the day... the GG's decision to give everyone a "time out" was indeed in the best interests of good governance.

Indeed, putting off a pending motion of non-confidence put the Governor General in a severely awkward position and set a terrible precedent. However, the point myata keeps ignoring - well, one of countless points he keeps ignoring - is that the opposition was in no way forced by the government to dissolve the coalition and vote in favour of the Throne Speech at the beginning of 2009. Of course, such facts inconveniently clog up his vitriol factory, which runs on pure imagination.

myata · February 10, 2010

And again, it's called a Confidence motion.

Now it does indeed begin to sound like that broken telephone. No, no argument from me here, in this system that thing is indeed the sole, only and the one meangful tool of holding the government to any kind of accountability and responsibility.

Agreed, confirmed, and closed?

And when and if that tool is impracttical, inconvenint or impossible to use, like e.g. in case an election happened last month and nobody wants it again, nor would it make any sense? Then that simple math that you neglected in high school so fully giving yourself to the studies of our glorious and past history, would have told you that the number of meaningful working tools to hold the government to any kind of account quickly and obviously comes down to:

1 - 1 = 0, zero, zilch, yada and nada.

That's correct, that would be the full and true worth of Parliamentary supremacy, government resposibily and accountability when THE ONE TRUE INSTRUMENT OF DEMOCRACY couldn't be applied, for any practical reasons. And, most surprisingly, in a full agreement with our observations of reality. Parliamentary oversight, where are you? Hello-oooooooo?

This is the best democratic system in the world, AKA holding all your democratic eggs in one "Motion of Confidence" basket, courtesy of the late British Empire (which itself as pretty much everybody else, including Austratia, New Zealand, India and Ireland has long moved on. Leaving us here along with maybe Jamaica to carefully treasure and preserve the precious political realities of the past long past for the benefit and bewilderment of the posterity).

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2010

Are you referring to the failed impeachment? Yes, there are means in the US constitution to bring a president down, but there has never been a successful impeachment of a President (Nixon resigned before he could be impeached).

A common misconception.....Presidents Andrew Johnson and William Clinton were impeached by the US House of Representatives. Both were acquitted after trial in the US Senate.

g_bambino · February 10, 2010

And when... [non-confidence] is impracttical, inconvenint or impossible to use, like e.g. in case an election happened last month and nobody wants it again, it [would not] make any sense.

Translation: In myata-land, democracy means having elections only when everyone wants it.

This is the best democratic system in the world, AKA holding all your democratic eggs in one "Motion of Confidence" basket, courtesy of the late British Empire (which itself as pretty much everybody else, including Austratia, New Zealand, India and Ireland has long moved on. Leaving us here along with maybe Jamaica to carefully treasure and preserve the precious political realities of the past long past for the benefit and bewilderment of the posterity).

Translation: In myata-land, the British Empire continunes to exist, and it, Australia, New Zealand, India, and Ireland do not use the Westminster parliamentary system, having instead other (still to be defined) ways for their parliaments to hold their governments in check.

In myata-land, other countries still stuck with Westminster parliamentary systems after their days in the British Empire include such cesspools as Japan, Israel, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, and the Netherlands.

myata · February 10, 2010

In myata-land, other countries still stuck with Westminster parliamentary systems after their days in the British Empire include such cesspools as Japan, Israel, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Nice try there, speaking for me (next time maybe you could try something of your own?). But here's the thing, why hiding behind that generic and meaningless "Westminister system" (because unlike us here, every single country mentioned in your list has redefined that system in some practical way), instead try to name another first world democracy where a minority government could obstruct, ignore and shut down the Parliament at will, just like it has been recently demonstrated by our honourable PM here?

ToadBrother · February 10, 2010

Now it does indeed begin to sound like that broken telephone. No, no argument from me here, in this system that thing is indeed the sole, only and the one meangful tool of holding the government to any kind of accountability and responsibility.

Agreed, confirmed, and closed?

It's the only constitutional measure at Parliament's disposal, but so what? Surely that should be enough of a threat to back off from a course of action? If it isn't, well, then, the Opposition isn't doing its job, and I don't know what system that one could ever invent that could help us if no one in Parliament takes responsibility. Perhaps you could explain how such a system would work.

And when and if that tool is impracttical, inconvenint or impossible to use, like e.g. in case an election happened last month and nobody wants it again,

Then, if that's the case, and someone else can form a government, why the GG asks them to form a government.

nor would it make any sense? Then that simple math that you neglected in high school so fully giving yourself to the studies of our glorious and past history, would have told you that the number of meaningful working tools to hold the government to any kind of account quickly and obviously comes down to:

1 - 1 = 0, zero, zilch, yada and nada.

And we're back to sloganeering. Please debate facts, not your not-so-poetic rhetoric. With every breath you take now, you reveal the extremes of your prejudices. You want the only possible route to be a coalition government. That has become very clear. You don't like elections, because elections carry the risk that your Coalition could in fact lose, or just as likely, the senior coalition partner could get enough seats that they don't feel the need to have anyone in the driver's seat with them.

That's correct, that would be the full and true worth of Parliamentary supremacy, government resposibily and accountability when THE ONE TRUE INSTRUMENT OF DEMOCRACY couldn't be applied, for any practical reasons. And, most surprisingly, in a full agreement with our observations of reality. Parliamentary oversight, where are you? Hello-oooooooo?

The Opposition is the oversight. That's its job.

This is the best democratic system in the world, AKA holding all your democratic eggs in one "Motion of Confidence" basket, courtesy of the late British Empire (which itself as pretty much everybody else, including Austratia, New Zealand, India and Ireland has long moved on.

WTF are you talking about? The four countries you listed still use a system that in essentials is the same as ours. Australia and New Zealand use different voting systems (well, Australia's is only used for the upper house), but the powers of their parliament, their cabinet and government and of the executive are pretty much the same.

Where is exactly that you get your information from how other national legislatures function? I've been resisting this sort of a question, but you've displayed sufficient ignorance of how other governments work that I think it's time to start asking serious questions pertaining to the body of knowledge you seem to (or don't seem to) possess.

Leaving us here along with maybe Jamaica to carefully treasure and preserve the precious political realities of the past long past for the benefit and bewilderment of the posterity).

This is more sloganeering. I'm eagerly awaiting your assessment of your own knowledge.

Edited February 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

g_bambino · February 11, 2010

Nice try there, speaking for me. But here's the thing, why hiding behind that generic and meaningless "Westminister system" (because unlike us here, every single country mentioned in your list has redefined that system in some practical way), instead try to name another first world democracy where a minority government could obstruct, ignore and shut down the Parliament at will?

Of course you speak for you; I was merely translating what you said so others understand the parameters of reality and importance you set and expect other to operate in. For instance, glibly tossing aside the concept of Westminster democracy is myata-esque for: "I don't know what the Westminster parliamentary system is and therefore have no idea that one of its key tenets is that parliament's ultimate hold on government is the granting and denial of confidence, ergo I had no grounds to say Australia, New Zealand, India, and Ireland did not have this in common with Canada (and Jamaica)." Further, your question is a plurium interrogationum intended to limit response to only that which serves your agenda.

myata · February 11, 2010

Of course you speak for you; I was merely translating what you said so others understand the parameters of reality and importance you set and expect other to operate in.

No, eh? No such example?

Would it imply that Canada's Westminister system where every minority PM could kick and shut down the Parliament at will, is something entirely different from e.g. Ireland's or India's?

Or because unelected viceroy is "similar" to elected President, "Westiminister" system where PM is limited only by the reach of his/her (political) fantasms would be exactly the same as those in which they are bound by strict constitutional processes, checks and balances?

g_bambino · February 11, 2010

No, eh? No such example?

You evidently didn't read my response; no surprise there.

I didn't even attempt to answer your question because, as I said, it was a loaded one, resting on the assumption that your imagination is fact, thereby forcing any answer to fit within the parameters of your personal bias. I won't take that bait.

If you want to know if Canada is the only country that uses the Westminster parliamentary system, the answer is, as I already said: no. India, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, and a raft of other countries do, as well. If you want to know if one of the Westminster parliamentary system's key elements is that the elected lower chamber holds the government in check purely through the granting and denial of confidence, the answer is, as I already said: yes. If you want to know if the presence of an elected senate, a unicameral legislator, a monarch, or a president makes any difference in the regard of confidence matters, the answer is: no. In the Westminster system, confidence always remains a matter for the lower house, and the chief of state, whether monarchical or presidential, is required by convention to act almost always on the advice of the prime minister.

You can infer from those facts whatever you want about what minority PMs in those countries can and cannot do.

[+]

Edited February 11, 2010 by g_bambino

myata · February 11, 2010

You evidently didn't read my response; no surprise there.

I didn't even attempt to answer your question because, as I said, it was a loaded one, resting on the assumption that your imagination is fact, thereby forcing any answer to fit within the parameters of your personal bias. I won't take that bait.

No, it was a precise question but it appears that as soon as it comes to those, a sudden bout of obtusive disease (or is it temporary hearling loss?) strikes right out of the blue.

But not to worry, for your conventience I'll repeat it one more time:

In which of aforementioned "Westminister" countries, or any other first world democracies, constitutional framework allows a minority PM to shut down the Parliament for up to one full year at a time, and at any time of their choosing?

Please attempt your best to stay on subject this time around.

g_bambino · February 11, 2010

No, it was a precise question...

No, it was a loaded question. It implied the government faces no consequence for its actions, when that is not the case.

[+]

Edited February 11, 2010 by g_bambino

myata · February 11, 2010

No, it was a loaded question. It implied the government faces no consequence for its actions, when that is not the case.

[+]

And still no answer, and so again:

In which of aforementioned "Westminister" countries, or any other first world democracies, constitutional framework allows a minority PM to shut down the Parliament for up to one full year at a time, and at any time of their choosing?

Looks like "Westminister" means different things in different places. In some, it's about real checks and balances and division of powers. In others, token "supremacy" (of Parliament), while in practice near complete and unchecked domination of the executive. To say that the former "Westminister" is just like the latter one would be just like saying that appointed viceroy is the same as elected President or Chair of legislature. Which we already did, so I'm not really surprised.

ToadBrother · February 11, 2010

No, it was a precise question but it appears that as soon as it comes to those, a sudden bout of obtusive disease (or is it temporary hearling loss?) strikes right out of the blue.

But not to worry, for your conventience I'll repeat it one more time:

In which of aforementioned "Westminister" countries, or any other first world democracies, constitutional framework allows a minority PM to shut down the Parliament for up to one full year at a time, and at any time of their choosing?

Please attempt your best to stay on subject this time around.

Can't speak to India (they've got the longest constitution in the world, and I don't have time to read through the sections about the Parliament), but Ireland's constitution reads thusly:

Article 15 - Clause 9

The Oireachtas (parliament) shall hold one session every year.

I doubt you'll find it very different in any parliamentary system. The government, in such a system, almost always formulates policy, the bulk of the legislation, and hence controls the legislative agenda and calendar.

Edited February 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

ToadBrother · February 11, 2010

No, eh? No such example?

Would it imply that Canada's Westminister system where every minority PM could kick and shut down the Parliament at will, is something entirely different from e.g. Ireland's or India's?

Any system where the Executive acts solely on the advice of the govermnent will likely have similar features. The whole point of the Westminster system (which is in fact the inspiration for pretty much all parliamentary systems out there) is that the executive is heavily constrained in the use of what are often rather broad powers. In most cases it's utterly irrelevant as to whether the executive is an elected president or hereditary monarch.

Or because unelected viceroy is "similar" to elected President, "Westiminister" system where PM is limited only by the reach of his/her (political) fantasms would be exactly the same as those in which they are bound by strict constitutional processes, checks and balances?

Clearly the PM in our system does not possess unlimited powers. The constitution constrains what he can formulate policy on, and Parliament itself can simply vote no confidence if they feel he and his government are no longer serving the interests of the country. As well, the GG, like pretty much all heads of state or vice-regal representatives who oversee parliamentary democracies the world over, has the power to dismiss a Government government. Such an action is extraordinarily rare, suggesting that despite all your protestations that our system leads to tyranny that in fact, GG's and their presidential counterparts in similar parliamentary systems do not.

PIK · February 11, 2010

The BC goverment is also in a prorogue state also. so it seems everybody is getting into it.

g_bambino · February 11, 2010

And still no answer, and so again...

That wasn't the question you originally asked. To it, you're not going to get an answer from me.

Per that to the revised question: it should wait until the present matter has been settled. And so...

Looks like "Westminister" means different things in different places.

No. It has key principals common to every jurisdiction in which it is employed:

The essential features of the system are:
- The Government is chosen by the democratically elected lower house. The government requires the continuing support of a majority of members of that chamber to stay in office.

- The head of government is the Prime Minister, who leads a Cabinet which is responsible to the lower house.

- A loyal Opposition exists, led by the leader of the party or parties with the second largest number of seats in the lower house.

- A constitutional monarch, if one exists, who is "above politics" and acts on the advice of the prime minister.

- There is a career public service which impartially serves the government of the day.

- The armed services are outside of politics and act on the instructions of the government.

- The rule of law prevails, with an independent judiciary, subject to the Constitution.

Westminster System

Unique elements do not undermine the core principals of the original.

[c/e]

Edited February 11, 2010 by g_bambino

ToadBrother · February 11, 2010

The BC goverment is also in a prorogue state also. so it seems everybody is getting into it.

Answered elsewhere. When you can provide one single incident in the last 200 years of our system where a government prorogued to escape losing a confidence motion, I'll concede the point. Prorogation to end a session of Parliament is indeed a regular facet of our system. Proroguing to escape bad news (like reports or committee findings) is less common (and is basically what Charles I did that ended up having him lightened the weight of his head). Proroguing Parliament to escape a confidence motion has never been done in a Westminster Parliament before. The closest you'll find is Sir John A. Macdonald proroguing to avoid censure (which would likely have lead to the defeat of the Conservative government of the day).

g_bambino · February 11, 2010

When you can provide one single incident in the last 200 years of our system where a government prorogued to escape losing a confidence motion, I'll concede the point.

Well, prorogued to postpone a confidence motion. As you've acknowledged, the Throne Speech - a matter of confidence - was inevitable.

myata · February 11, 2010

Unique elements do not undermine the core principals of the original.

OK, that was the third calling and I have to assume that you have no answer to that clearly stated question. No other democracy of the first world grants its executive the privilege to shut down the Parliament for extended periods of time and at will, leaving it completely free of any oversight or accountability, whether under thin guise of "Royal Prerogative" or any other centuries old mumbo jumbo.

True, that makes us unique among the democracies of the developed world just as was said all along. You can certainly take comfort that it "does not undermine principles" or the "orignal", it depends entirely on which principles or the original you want to notice and which - not, but the fact, the reality of the matter will remain exactly the same principles or not, that no other advanced democracy still allows such a ridiculous disbalance of political power in favour of the executive. It worked so far due to quite unique combination of factors here (federative structure, remoteness, lack of conflicts or population pressures) but as said, reliance on dumb luck can only be stretched so far and there's always first time for those who just won't learn on mistakes of others.