Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[jbg]

If I want to spell defence the Canadian way I will.

1) You're describing a U.S. Government agency (link), not a Canadian agency, so the U.S. spelling (which is actually the correct English) should be adhered to;

2) Another Canadian way to spell it is Ministre de la Défense nationale (link). And technically neither your spelling nor that one is in the Canadian language;

Second your lack off knowledge of powers of post shows you need to educate yourself and come back to the forum.

Incoherent, garbled gibberish. Were you on the bottle or toking weed when you posted that.

I'll only say Gates position is very powerful, he has the ability to authorize nuclear strikes on his own, something only the president can also do. Also Congress is a very powerful organization, and congresspersons are powerful people. Governors are also very powerful people.

I repeat. Gates reports to a Democratic, not Republican President. The President is the Commander in Chief. Governors generally and Congresspeople in minority parties have little power over foreign policy.

[Smallc]

(which is actually the correct English)

No, it's not.

[jbg]

No, it's not.

Who has more English-speakers, the U.S. or Canada + Great Britain? I'm not counting India since only the educated use English and most use English as a second language. Thus, the U.S. is the world's largest truly English-speaking country (even if you call Chretien-ese or Dionian "English).

[Smallc]

Who has more English-speakers,

That's irrelevant to the point. America didn't invent the English language, the English and Scottish did. They're spelling is definitely the proper English spelling. You're using the proper American spelling, and that's fine, but don't try to say that the way that the English spell English words is incorrect. Or, to put it another way, get with the programme.

[William Ashley]

1) You're describing a U.S. Government agency (link), not a Canadian agency, so the U.S. spelling (which is actually the correct English) should be adhered to;

If they can't fly the flag the right way, I don't need to spell their way.

Why repeat spelling errors - even if a whole country can't spell right.

2) Another Canadian way to spell it is Ministre de la Défense nationale (link). And technically neither your spelling nor that one is in the Canadian language;

Incoherent, garbled gibberish. Were you on the bottle or toking weed when you posted that.

I repeat. Gates reports to a Democratic, not Republican President. The President is the Commander in Chief. Governors generally and Congresspeople in minority parties have little power over foreign policy.

suck on an egg. spelling the french way while communicating in English shows a lack of brain cells.

If alcohol wasn't such a large part of early American life I doubt half the spelling errors that were accepted would of been. It takes a lot for a nation to institutionalize incorrect spelling as acceptable. You are clearly just an american lap dog that doesn't know how to spell English the right way. Try setting your spell checker to "Canadian English" rather than American English - especially when you are communicating on a Canadian Website. It demonstrates ignorance when you post on a Canadian website then criticize the right way of spelling trying to say it is the wrong way of spelling.

Edited February 22, 2010 by William Ashley

[jbg]

If alcohol wasn't such a large part of early American life I doubt half the spelling errors that were accepted would of been. It takes a lot for a nation to institutionalize incorrect spelling as acceptable. You are clearly just an american lap dog that doesn't know how to spell English the right way.

All kidding aside, the creator of Webster's Dictionary deliberately changed some spellings to move American English away from Queen's English. The War of 1812 had already been fought to a draw. A dumb and pointless American exercise if there ever was one. On a league with Esperanto.

[waldo]

... they didn't anticipate the blowback! Harper didn't want to perogy - they talked him into it... against his will. They made him do it!!!

The federal Tories admit that they did not anticipate the blowback from prorogation.

The Prime Minister has never minded criticism, but in this case all the flak he's taken since the start of the year must be galling, since he had to be talked into prorogation against his will, according to a number of senior Conservatives.

"If it had been down to him, Parliament would have taken a 10-day break and come back to work," revealed one MP.

While discussing this jaw-dropping revelation with other Conservatives, one said he was not surprised. "Guy Giorno has been an unmitigated disaster. I'm amazed we're still leading in the polls," he said. "We're governing from crisis to crisis, managing issues as opposed to managing Parliament."

[Smallc]

It's very possible that he was in fact talked into it. Either way, he won't be doing it again in this type of circumstance. I don't see Harper's lower poll numbers mattering much as Ignatieff doesn't seem to have the courage to bring down the government and face the electorate.

[waldo]

It's very possible that he was in fact talked into it. Either way, he won't be doing it again in this type of circumstance. I don't see Harper's lower poll numbers mattering much as Ignatieff doesn't seem to have the courage to bring down the government and face the electorate.

whatever - who cares... it's just carrying-water Ivison following a PMO desire to soften Harper's direct role/involvement. "Don't blame Steve... they made him do it"

[g_bambino]

If I want to spell defence the Canadian way I will.

Then also use a saxon genitive to indicate possession. Or, did the Conservatives set yours on fire?

[g_bambino]

America didn't invent the English language, the English and Scottish did.

Errr... Have you ever heard a Scot speak English??

[Smallc]

Errr... Have you ever heard a Scot speak English??

Haha, I said they could spell it, not speak it.

[Shakeyhands]

... they didn't anticipate the blowback! Harper didn't want to perogy - they talked him into it... against his will. They made him do it!!!

Really... thats quite rich.

[ToadBrother]

... they didn't anticipate the blowback! Harper didn't want to perogy - they talked him into it... against his will. They made him do it!!!

So now they'll throw another staffer under a train to salvage the party. Good grief. Harper and his pals should at least have the kahoonas to own up to the screw up, rather than hunting around for a patsy.

[myata]

You ignore every point. You don't even read what you write, condemning our system because some of the safeguards are traditional rather than codified, and the bragging up the Dutch system, which works exactly the same way! You have no sense of proportion. Small differences in how countries function are blown into monstrous divides, and heck, even where there is no difference, you still see one (ie. your silly claims about the Irish constitution).

OK, if:

- proportionally elected vs first by the post

- coalition as a norm vs coalition as an anathema direct from political Hell

- elected by popular vote vs appointed by the government

- working to set schedule as opposed to convened and suspended by the government when and as needed

- constitutional right to investigation and access to information as opposed to well established pracice of ignoring, obstruction and plain ridicule by the government

all sound like "exactly the same way", I'm not sure in what other way I can be of any further assistance here. Maybe only to ask for the meaning of "wordplay" and "circular argument" in your framework of logic?

Let's just cut to the chase here. I want you to explain precisely how you would bring about constitutional change in this country, and how the end result would be any different than what happened during Mulroney's tenure, and the aftershocks like the 1995 Quebec referendum which almost saw our country split up and saw the installment of what now seems to be a permanent separatist bloc in Parliament.

The only practical way I could think of is this: stop voting for any of the two political behemoth parties, on principle. Their main preoccupation is with taking turns at the power political wrestling show associated with it, and real meangful change is the one thing they are most terrified of because it brings RISK and UNKNOWN and CHANGE to their well puffed up comfy positions in this country's political system. This may already be happening anyways, and darn me if "prorogation" Harper vs "go figure" Iggy duo would add any more interest to our federal politics that were already running at dangerously low levels of substance.

Eventually, one of two things will happen: either, voter participation would drop to ridiculously low levels making it impossible to pretend any longer that we still have THE BEST DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. Or, we'll see a new face at the power control that could be more conductive (and less terrified of) real democratic change.

[ToadBrother]

OK, if:

- proportionally elected vs first by the post

That will change how a parliament is created, it will not change the fundamental rules of Parliament. New Zealand's system of government did not change when it went to a proportional voting system, though of course the alterations to Parliament made substantial changes in how it functions. Still, New Zealand remains one of only two countries on the face of the Earth where Parliament is truly supreme (the other being the UK). I'm surprised you aren't railing against this clearly non-modern system.

- coalition as a norm vs coalition as an anathema direct from political Hell

Coalitions would be the norm in most jurisdictions that use some sort of proportional system. But plenty of countries don't. The United States, for instance, does not. In fact, in the US the electorate does not even directly vote in the president, that's left to the Electoral College.

- elected by popular vote vs appointed by the government

Which still, at the end of the day, means very little. If the executive is bound by the government's decisions, then it does not matter a whit whether the executive is elected or appointed.

- working to set schedule as opposed to convened and suspended by the government when and as needed

Which is a pretty small difference, and simply sets up a reverse situation where recall of Parliament for special sessions would still require the executive's decision based on the advice of the Government (the German republic does do things a bit differently here, allowing 1/3 of legislators to force a recall).

- constitutional right to investigation and access to information as opposed to well established pracice of ignoring, obstruction and plain ridicule by the government

And we have that here. Parliament can demand any and all documents. If, when parliament returns, Mackay and Co. does not produce the documents, he will very likely be found in Contempt of Parliament. You keep acting like we don't have this feature in our system, and I keep telling you we do. So either you are deaf, or you are lying. The next time you repeat this, I will assume you are a liar.

all sound like "exactly the same way", I'm not sure in what other way I can be of any further assistance here. Maybe only to ask for the meaning of "wordplay" and "circular argument" in your framework of logic?

No two Westminster-styled or more generally parliamentary-styled systems are identical. We are not the same as the UK, the UK is not the same as Australia, so and so forth. But the general principle that the Executive act only on the advice of the Government (as constituted by Parliament) is to be found in almost all parliamentary systems, and the foundation of that is the Constitutional settlement of 1688-89 when William and Mary accepted the the English and Scottish thrones with the commitment that Parliament was supreme.

I never said any two parliaments were identical. Heck, procedurally, I'm sure every provincial legislature in this country has some differences. Does that mean that they are somehow not in large measure the same?

You have this bizarre need to prove your point, and continue further down the road into irrelevancy and, in some cases, into private fantasy.

The only practical way I could think of is this: stop voting for any of the two political behemoth parties,

That isn't going to happen...

on principle. Their main preoccupation is with taking turns at the power political wrestling show associated with it, and real meangful change is the one thing they are most terrified of because it brings RISK and UNKNOWN and CHANGE to their well puffed up comfy positions in this country's political system. This may already be happening anyways, and darn me if "prorogation" Harper vs "go figure" Iggy duo would add any more interest to our federal politics that were already running at dangerously low levels of substance.

Political pressure may very well solve the prorogation problem, so far as there is a problem (if we return to majority governments, our complaints will largely evaporate).

Eventually, one of two things will happen: either, voter participation would drop to ridiculously low levels making it impossible to pretend any longer that we still have THE BEST DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. Or, we'll see a new face at the power control that could be more conductive (and less terrified of) real democratic change.

So you have no solution whatsoever, beyond faery land nonsense. This is largely because you really are ignorant of the nature of Canada, of regional differences, of how the system works, and why trying to reopen the constitution right now would be ludicrously reckless for very little gain.

[g_bambino]

If the executive is bound by the government's decisions, then it does not matter a whit whether the executive is elected or appointed.

That's debatable. Once the executive becomes an elected position, it will inevitably shift into the arena of party politics, thereby eliminating the guaranteed political, regional, and national impartiality we have now. Not only would another election create one more fissure through the country, but the head of state would be, at best, under a perennial cloud of suspicion, blatantly favourable to his party, at worst. The differences between an elected and non-elected head of state in a parliamentary system are minimal in theory, only.

[ToadBrother]

That's debatable. Once the executive becomes an elected position, it will inevitably shift into the arena of party politics, thereby eliminating the guaranteed political, regional, and national impartiality we have now. Not only would another election create one more fissure through the country, but the head of state would be, at best, under a perennial cloud of suspicion, blatantly favourable to his party, at worst. The differences between an elected and non-elected head of state in a parliamentary system are minimal in theory, only.

I think that particular objection has been overblown. I don't see a lot of evidence in parliamentary republics where elected presidents interfere that much in the political process. In a situation like we had in 2008, there might be some question of legitimacy, but generally in parliamentary systems there simply isn't that much latitude for partisan politics on the part of the executive. In theory and in practice, the executive simply does not possess enough access to their powers to be of that big a worry.

This is part of what I've tried to explain to myata. If we kept our current system, with the exception that we had an elected president instead of an appointed GG, the 2008 prorogation would still have gone precisely the same way, because the executive is still constitutionally bound to act on the advice of the government. The Coalition's failure to replace the Tories had nothing to do with whether our head of state is elected or not, and everything to do with the Coalition's complete bungling of things by giving Harper several days to find a constitutional solution. Unless we're advocating a complete departure from our system, 2008 would still have played exactly the same way.

Let's remember here there have been plenty of former politicians who were given the job, the last two being something of an exception. Just as surely as accusations of potential partisanship could be leveled at an elected executive of identical powers to the GG, most assuredly similar accusations could have been leveled at many GGs. In some ways, the original practice of the British Crown sending someone in to do the job for a few years was probably superior in that regard, since it was considerably more difficult to accuse someone like Lord Byng of partisanship when he refused Mackenzie King's request to dissolve Parliament than, say, some former Cabinet Minister given the job by a Prime Minister of his party.

All in all, Monarch, viceroy or president, the Executive in parliamentary governments tend to abide by the singular rule to be above the fray.

[g_bambino]

I think that particular objection has been overblown. I don't see a lot of evidence in parliamentary republics where elected presidents interfere that much in the political process.

It's the big messes that matter; who can trust a politician to referee politicians? Especially one that's on the same team as some of the players? IMHO, the parliamentary system works at its finest when headed by a truly non-partisan individual, usually trained from birth for the job, and essentially incorruptible. Presidents and prime ministers have come to loggerheads over policy, disagreeing with one another but both insisting they have the democratic mandate of the people to impose their will. It doesn't happen often, but it happens.

Politicians have their place, but I don't think they belong at the head of a nation, and certainly not one as geographically, linguistically, and culturally divided as Canada.

[jbg]

Really... thats quite rich.

No. What's rich is your denial that Chretien prorogued at least twice to kill investigations.

[DrGreenthumb]

No. What's rich is your denial that Chretien prorogued at least twice to kill investigations.

Who was it again that campaigned as being not like the Liberals? On being open and accountable?

BTW Cretien had a MAJORITY, and so had the support of Parliament to shut down, or prorogue, at ANY time. He certainly didn't shut down the house to evade the will of of the majority of Parliamentarians, when he had the majority of Parliamentarians as members of his own party.

[ToadBrother]

It's the big messes that matter; who can trust a politician to referee politicians? Especially one that's on the same team as some of the players? IMHO, the parliamentary system works at its finest when headed by a truly non-partisan individual, usually trained from birth for the job, and essentially incorruptible. Presidents and prime ministers have come to loggerheads over policy, disagreeing with one another but both insisting they have the democratic mandate of the people to impose their will. It doesn't happen often, but it happens.

Politicians have their place, but I don't think they belong at the head of a nation, and certainly not one as geographically, linguistically, and culturally divided as Canada.

I'm kind of fishing for some concrete examples here, otherwise you're simply arguing in a similar way to myata, appealing to could-bes and maybes and the like. I don't track every parliamentary republic on the planet, but I can't think of any examples off the top of my head where a president in such a republic has been accused of favoritism. I know the Israeli president is in hot water, but that's corruption, and not any particular influence on Israeli legislators.

And, as I said, what's the difference between a party man getting elected to the highest spot or a party man being put there by a Prime Minister from his own party? If having politicians becoming the executive is a bad thing, due to potential favoritism, then that would probably disqualify most of the GGs in over half a century.

[ToadBrother]

No. What's rich is your denial that Chretien prorogued at least twice to kill investigations.

It's not just rich. It's kind of pathetic. Even if Chretien had used prorogation to evade investigations, that would constitute a bad thing. After months of Tory supporters here declaring at every opportunity how honest Harper is, they're defense of prorogation now becomes "Harper is allowed to be as underhanded as Jean Chretien".

That's the difference between an ideologue and a normal person. An ideologue would slavishly defend their favored person, even reducing their own expectations for that person to the point where it's difficult to sort out why they favor the person. A regular person would go "Just because some guy who came before may have done something bad hardly constitutes a justification for this guy doing it."

[myata]

Which still, at the end of the day, means very little. If the executive is bound by the government's decisions, then it does not matter a whit whether the executive is elected or appointed.

"If" is indeed a good term here. Look at our PM for example: he is "bound" by any number of rules and decisions, like: observing "supremacy of the Parliament"; obligation to provide documents to Parliamentarty investigations; the law (his own) to hold elections on fixed dates; a number of other laws that he does not like to mention. And? Look where's our Parliament, "fixed" elections and the documents?

Right. This is because most grown up individuals understand that making something happen may take more than writing it into glancy picture books. Hint: this is why unlike us and a few other rare and in between exceptions, most modern democracies have introduced independence of democratic institions, limited their powers and created checks and balances so that no one branch of government dominates political process. We here seem to yet to wake up to realisation that the problem even exists.

Which is a pretty small difference, and simply sets up a reverse situation where recall of Parliament for special sessions would still require the executive's decision based on the advice of the Government (the German republic does do things a bit differently here, allowing 1/3 of legislators to force a recall).

I'm really getting tired of useless repetitions. Their Parliament is working and ours is you know where. Is it a big or "small" difference? To me it's about the same one that differentiates a functional, vibrant democracy from a formal one.

And we have that here. Parliament can demand any and all documents. If, when parliament returns, Mackay and Co. does not produce the documents, he will very likely be found in Contempt of Parliament. You keep acting like we don't have this feature in our system, and I keep telling you we do. So either you are deaf, or you are lying. The next time you repeat this, I will assume you are a liar.

And again "can demand" is not the same as "can conduct investigations free of obstruction or interference". When the Parliament returns after the Olympics they would need to reset all committees, recreate agendas, order of the day etc. Who knows how long it'll take them to get to the point where they could actually demand those documents againt - if ever (right where they were last September). Looks like you're still struggling to understand that there may be a difference between something that' written in the book and what is actually working. Is our Parliament working? Well I hope you at least should be able to answer that trivial question.

Anyways, wouldn't one find the ability of the executive to obstruct and interrupt inconvenient investigation of its activities at will and for a long, long and long time quite astounding - for a "vibrant" democracy?

I never said any two parliaments were identical. Heck, procedurally, I'm sure every provincial legislature in this country has some differences. Does that mean that they are somehow not in large measure the same?

Well, and please listen carefully this time, there's token, procedural difference and difference in principle. If one branch of government is allowed to obstruct and interrupt its oversight and control, wouldn't it undermine the very principle of independent powers, and therefore the princiles of accountability and responsible democratic governance?

That isn't going to happen...

Then change isn't going to happen too. Dinosaurs also believed in that, should ask them for an advice in this situation.

Political pressure may very well solve the prorogation problem, so far as there is a problem (if we return to majority governments, our complaints will largely evaporate).

As said, this could only happen now in a case of a major screw up by one of our two majority behemoths. Neither has anything new to offer, and more importantly, reluctant and terrified of offering anything new.

So you have no solution whatsoever, beyond faery land nonsense. This is largely because you really are ignorant of the nature of Canada, of regional differences, of how the system works, and why trying to reopen the constitution right now would be ludicrously reckless for very little gain.

It is a solution, it can work and it has worked but of course unlike some here I cannot speak for the country. People can choose change or they can choose to stick with the status quo and the choice determines their future, I can only say as much.

[ToadBrother]

"If" is indeed a good term here. Look at our PM for example: he is "bound" by any number of rules and decisions, like: observing "supremacy of the Parliament"; obligation to provide documents to Parliamentarty investigations; the law (his own) to hold elections on fixed dates; a number of other laws that he does not like to mention. And? Look where's our Parliament, "fixed" elections and the documents?

First of all, the PM is not the one who has to supply the documents. That's Mackay. That may seem like a quibble, but at the end of the day, Mackay is the one in the firing line.

As to "fixed" elections. Could you be clear here? I know of no fixed election in Federal history, unless you mean something quite different by "fixed".

Right. This is because most grown up individuals understand that making something happen may take more than writing it into glancy picture books. Hint: this is why unlike us and a few other rare and in between exceptions, most modern democracies have introduced independence of democratic institions, limited their powers and created checks and balances so that no one branch of government dominates political process. We here seem to yet to wake up to realisation that the problem even exists.

Oh good grief. You're like the energizer bunny. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. Pretty much every parliamentary democracy works the same; parliament holds the lion's share of the power, the executive is largely bound by the government's decisions. The chief check in parliamentary system is confidence. But that's right, you don't like elections.

I'm really getting tired of useless repetitions.

Then come up with something new to say.

Their Parliament is working and ours is you know where.

Do you actually know this? Maybe you should pick up a newspaper every once in a while.

Is it a big or "small" difference? To me it's about the same one that differentiates a functional, vibrant democracy from a formal one.

I don't see their system as being any more democratic than ours. "Vibrant" is just a pointless adjective that has no quantifiable value.

And again "can demand" is not the same as "can conduct investigations free of obstruction or interference".

I don't know of a political or legal system ever invented that can't be held up by obstructionism. Could you point me to such a system?

When the Parliament returns after the Olympics they would need to reset all committees, recreate agendas, order of the day etc. Who knows how long it'll take them to get to the point where they could actually demand those documents againt - if ever (right where they were last September).

Yes, there will be work. So what? I doubt it would take very long to get the Afghan investigation going, and remember, if government doesn't co-operate, everyone can always send them packing.

Looks like you're still struggling to understand that there may be a difference between something that' written in the book and what is actually working. Is our Parliament working? Well I hope you at least should be able to answer that trivial question.

Ah, I see. Politics would work fine without all those durned politics. What you want, it seems, isn't better rules, you don't really want rules at all.

Anyways, wouldn't one find the ability of the executive to obstruct and interrupt inconvenient investigation of its activities at will and for a long, long and long time quite astounding - for a "vibrant" democracy?

It's hardly a long long time. At most it might take a few weeks to get the committees on the same ground again. And again, the word "vibrant" is just pointless jibber-jabber. You can't even stay focused for the space of twenty or thirty words without falling into that hyperbolic trap.

Well, and please listen carefully this time, there's token, procedural difference and difference in principle. If one branch of government is allowed to obstruct and interrupt its oversight and control, wouldn't it undermine the very principle of independent powers, and therefore the princiles of accountability and responsible democratic governance?

The opposition can take the government out within a few weeks if it wants. If that isn't accountability I don't know what it is.

Then change isn't going to happen too. Dinosaurs also believed in that, should ask them for an advice in this situation.

More pointless rhetoric. I have patiently and repeatedly explained the regional situation to you. You keep blaming the system for what is ultimately a socio-political issue. No constitution on the planet can overcome that, which is why Belgium was nearly torn to pieces a couple of years ago.

As said, this could only happen now in a case of a major screw up by one of our two majority behemoths. Neither has anything new to offer, and more importantly, reluctant and terrified of offering anything new.

That may be true, but there doesn't appear to be any other party on the horizon with the capacity to do any better. That's not a fault of the system, that's a fault of the electorate. Again, you're shooting at the wrong target.

It is a solution, it can work and it has worked but of course unlike some here I cannot speak for the country. People can choose change or they can choose to stick with the status quo and the choice determines their future, I can only say as much.

Or it could see us enter another period of political instability, which, this time, we might not come out of. All so your precious Coalition which could not even survive three months, could take power without obeying the general forms of our constitution.