Canadian Political Polls

[ToadBrother]

oh really? If the Speaker rules against the Opposition motions... wouldn't that suggest a change to our system of governance... that the executive would no longer be accountable to the House of Commons?

Which is why all the money is on the Speaker ruling for the Opposition. To do anything else would be to override the notions of privileges that has held true to Parliament since it refused to accept Charles II's claims that his actions could not be scrutinized by Parliament.

[M.Dancer]

oh really? If the Speaker rules against the Opposition motions... wouldn't that suggest a change to our system of governance... that the executive would no longer be accountable to the House of Commons?

No it wouldn't. There has always been matters of priviledge.

Whether this is one of them is yet to be decided.

[ToadBrother]

No it wouldn't. There has always been matters of priviledge.

Tell me, what's fundamentally different between Charles II's position on his executive rights in 1629 when he prorogued Parliament and began the Personal Rule and again in 1640 when he dismissed the Short Parliament and the Tory position on executive rights? Didn't our ancestors (if not blood ancestors, then political ancestors at least) fight a rather nasty civil war over just what Parliament's rights are?

[eyeball]

It's hard to take you seriously when you write this kind of thing. You are either idealistic to a fault or have little comprehension of human nature.

It's just as hard to take you seriously when you just as idealistically keep flogging the dead horse that's dragging our dilapidated buggy of a democracy around.

Surely a review of the last five or six thousand years suggests a common theme; regardless of governmental system, the government and the governed will always be separated by a wide gulf.

That review also suggests the existence of a common expectation that the abuse of power would be corrected by the judgement of an all seeing God. That's obviously a bunch of hooey but thankfully we have the Internet. We also have procedures and protocols for governments to follow, the means to audit these and to even physically monitor the government if need be. More and more people are also talking about dealing with the "culture of secrecy" that is rotting our government from the inside out.

Sooner or later somebody is going to put it all together and our governance will never be the same again.

Edited April 23, 2010 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Tell me, what's fundamentally different between Charles II's position on his executive rights in 1629 when he prorogued Parliament and began the Personal Rule and again in 1640 when he dismissed the Short Parliament and the Tory position on executive rights?

Lawyers

[ToadBrother]

Lawyers

There were lawyers in 1629.

[M.Dancer]

There were lawyers in 1629.

There are more now.

[ToadBrother]

There are more now.

There may be more, but I doubt there are that many more wandering around Parliament. Charles II would have had his own legal advisors, and his Ministers would have functioned as such, and they too would have had their own legal advisers. Four hundred years ago, the law may not have been as complex as it was now, but the Common Law was still a large and complicated thing, a mix of Anglo-Saxon and Continental concepts, and required some skill to wade through. In particular, the underlying claim that the Crown held at least some remaining supremacy over Parliament in issues of foreign affairs (sounds familiar, no?) was grounded in Medieval law and even Canon law (which is why everyone thought, and not without reason, that most of the the Stuart kings were crypto-Catholics).

While Charles II's notion of absolutism was grounded in Medieval notions of Divine Right, his argument ultimately was little different than the current Government's; that there are some powers of the Executive which Parliament has little or no power of oversight, and which the Executive can execute without interference. Of course, Parliament's argument then was that the Magna Carta essentially put the Crown under the law, and seeing as Parliament holds the legislative powers, the King therefore must be under Parliament, or at least his Royal Prerogatives cannot be exercised in opposition to Parliament (nowadays, those Prerogatives are exercised on the advice of the Ministers of the Crown, so they too cannot use those prerogatives in defiance of Parliament). This was a theory that was ultimately decided by Charles II losing the English Civil War and ending up lighter the weight of his head. After the Restoration, James II decided to give it another go, and this time Parliament simply threw him out of the country, offered the throne to his daughter and son-in-law providing they accepted the Supremacy of Parliament, and the Bill of Rights 1689, which William and Mary gave assent to, formalized that great constitutional compromise, which, unless someone has amended it without anyone noticing it, is still in effect in Canada today, meaning the Executive cannot oppose Parliament.

Edited April 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[waldo]

oh really? If the Speaker rules against the Opposition motions... wouldn't that suggest a change to our system of governance... that the executive would no longer be accountable to the House of Commons?

No it wouldn't. There has always been matters of priviledge.

Whether this is one of them is yet to be decided.

a point of privilege... for he who would be king!

If Stephen Harper can open and close Parliament at will, and tell the honourable members of that institution that he will disclose to them what he wishes when he chooses, then he will have rolled back four centuries of parliamentary governance. He will be Charles I, circa 1635.

But still, when Parliament is permitted to sit, it can express its will. And if parliamentary sovereignty means anything, a prime minister must obey the clearly expressed will of Parliament.

That is why it was so significant that Stephen Harper told Parliament that, no, he would not hand over documents related to the Afghan detainee controversy. Parliament had clearly and explicitly demanded the government do so. For the prime minister to refuse is to assert that he, not Parliament, is sovereign.

And so we come to the ruling of House Speaker Peter Milliken on whether the prime minister is in contempt of Parliament, which is expected soon. If Milliken sides with the government, we might as well fire all the MPs and turn the House of Commons into a bingo parlour.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

a point of privilege... for he who would be king!

I think that if the speaker dares to rule against the Prime Minister a political firestorm will occur.

[Smallc]

I think that if the speaker dares to rule against the Prime Minister a political firestorm will occur.

Why? He's the speaker. It doesn't matter what the Prime Minister thinks.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Smallc

[bloodyminded]

Why? He's the speaker. It doesn't matter what th Prime Minister thinks.

I agree.

"Dares to"?....ye gods.

[normanchateau]

The Liberals cannot deny they have at least partially accepted Graves' advice to launch a culture war to malign the Tories in the minds of Canadians.

If they have accepted Graves' advice, they're not acting on it. When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper not only voted against same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition but even attempted to take away that right in December, 2006, AFTER he became Prime Minister of Canada? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper was a founding member of the pro-apartheid Northern Foundation? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper was President of the anti-public health care National Citizens Coalition?

[Alta4ever]

If they have accepted Graves' advice, they're not acting on it. When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper not only voted against same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition but even attempted to take away that right in December, 2006, AFTER he became Prime Minister of Canada? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper was a founding member of the pro-apartheid Northern Foundation? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper was President of the anti-public health care National Citizens Coalition?

your an idiot. Nothing in this post is accurate.

[normanchateau]

your an idiot.

Judging by your spelling ability, debating skills and level of literacy, it is not difficult to guess your party preference.

[Jack Weber]

Judging by your spelling ability, debating skills and level of literacy, it is not difficult to guess your party preference.

Ah...The "sanity" (dementedness) of Alberta!!!

[madmax]

Harris Decima

CPC= 29%

LPC= 27%

NDP= 20%

Regional Breakdowns.

The Bloc Quebecois, meanwhile, tightened its grip on Quebec, scoring 45 per cent to the Liberals' 21 per cent and the NDP's 12. The Tories trailed with the Greens at 10 per cent.

In Ontario, the Liberals were ahead with 36 per cent. The Conservatives were at 31, the NDP at 19, and the Greens at 12.

The Liberals also led in Atlantic Canada, with 39 per cent, with the Tories at 31, the NDP at 24 and the Greens at five.

In B.C., the NDP pulled into a slight lead, with 31 per cent compared to 30 for the Tories, 21 for the Liberals and 18 for the Greens.

In Manitoba-Saskatchewan, the Conservatives were down eight points to 39 per cent, followed by the NDP at 31 per cent, the Liberals at 16, and the Greens at 12.

The Tories remained unchallenged in Alberta, with 56 per cent to the Liberals' 16, the NDP's 12, and the Greens' 14.

Among women voters, the Liberals, Tories and New Democrats were in a virtual three-way tie, with 28, 26 and 24 per cent respectively.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5i9f8UB2zdikwWwi2T_5gGGHQBQ2Q

[wyly]

If they have accepted Graves' advice, they're not acting on it. When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper not only voted against same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition but even attempted to take away that right in December, 2006, AFTER he became Prime Minister of Canada? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper was a founding member of the pro-apartheid Northern Foundation? When has Ignatieff reminded Canadians that Stephen Harper was President of the anti-public health care National Citizens Coalition?

true enough...

[wyly]

Judging by your spelling ability, debating skills and level of literacy, it is not difficult to guess your party preference.

and he plays a banjo too...

[capricorn]

Harris Decima

CPC= 29%

LPC= 27%

NDP= 20%

Clearly the place for Liberals to gain seats is not so much in NDP territory but in Tory territory, the question then is how to do this without becoming a clone of the Harper Conservatives?

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-22884-Canada-Politics-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Ignatieff-should-ignore-Frank-Graves

When I saw the results of the poll you posted, I was thinking it's interesting the drop of Conservative support seems to have gone to the NDP and not the Liberals.

[ToadBrother]

I think that if the speaker dares to rule against the Prime Minister a political firestorm will occur.

First of all, the Speaker dares nothing. He does not owe his position to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister cannot unilaterally remove him. In affairs dealing with the orderly conduct of the House and the defense of its rights and privileges the Speaker is supreme.

[Wild Bill]

First of all, the Speaker dares nothing. He does not owe his position to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister cannot unilaterally remove him. In affairs dealing with the orderly conduct of the House and the defense of its rights and privileges the Speaker is supreme.

Technically true, but the Speaker was an MP and a member of a party before he became Speaker and presumably will be one once again.

He may win a battle with the PM but at the cost of never having another political job once he steps down as Speaker.

[ToadBrother]

Technically true, but the Speaker was an MP and a member of a party before he became Speaker and presumably will be one once again.

Well yes, but he essentially abandons party affiliation upon taking office. Milliken is in fact a Liberal, but that's meaningless in his current role, as meaningless as, say, the Governor General's former political leanings. In fact, Milliken has been elected Speaker by the House of Commons four times, and is now the longest serving Speaker in Canadian history. Even if Harper wanted to remove him, he doesn't have the votes in the House, and it's almost assured that the Opposition parties would oppose such an attempt.

Now I suppose the Tories could try to oust him from his riding in the next election, but considering that he's successfully ran seven times now, I think that's not what one would refer to as a winning strategy. Beyond that, even ousting Milliken is no guarantee, because whoever replaces him is pretty much going to have to have the approval of the House anyways.

He may win a battle with the PM but at the cost of never having another political job once he steps down as Speaker.

Again, I don't see how this is a meaningful threat. Milliken is a Liberal, so he wouldn't be getting a job with the current Government anyways. His job is secure so long as the House of Commons as a whole decides they approve of him (which clearly they do, no other Speaker has occupied the job so long) or until he decides to leave. Milliken may actually be the best-placed Speaker in modern history to rule against the Government. He's effectively untouchable.

[wyly]

Technically true, but the Speaker was an MP and a member of a party before he became Speaker and presumably will be one once again.

He may win a battle with the PM but at the cost of never having another political job once he steps down as Speaker.

he'll always get re-elected...

[Wild Bill]

Again, I don't see how this is a meaningful threat. Milliken is a Liberal, so he wouldn't be getting a job with the current Government anyways. His job is secure so long as the House of Commons as a whole decides they approve of him (which clearly they do, no other Speaker has occupied the job so long) or until he decides to leave. Milliken may actually be the best-placed Speaker in modern history to rule against the Government. He's effectively untouchable.

I guess your right! I had forgotten that Milliken is a Liberal.

Well, I would never cry about busting the PMO's chops. I've been watching this unholy gathering of supreme power into the PMO since before Mulroney's term. It was at its worst of course under Chretien but Harper seems to have used ole Jean as his role model, at least for issues like this.

Can you imagine a day when not only is Parliament supreme but MP's almost always have free votes? When they could and would vote as their riding constituents wished and not as the PMO told them?

Excuse me. I started thinking of John Lennon but then that led to an image of Yoko and I need some eyewash...