Where Was The Media?

[Smallc]

Given the way that our voting falls along party lines, it doesn't now.

[g_bambino]

The governing party held majorities then, and didn`t require every member in the house to vote for government legislation did it.

What's that got to do with anything? It was said that the prorogation was called due to the Olympics, but the past two Olympics in Canada didn't prompt a prorogation of parliament. If the present make up of parliament requires that all MPs be there to vote on legislation, they should be there voting on legislation, rather than sipping hot cider in Whistler chalets.

[nicky10013]

What's that got to do with anything? It was said that the prorogation was called due to the Olympics, but the past two Olympics in Canada didn't prompt a prorogation of parliament. If the present make up of parliament requires that all MPs be there to vote on legislation, they should be there voting on legislation, rather than sipping hot cider in Whistler chalets.

It's no point. They'll keep on coming up with non-existant excuses as to why it's being done. This is the 4th excuse I've seen from alta4ever. First it was alright because they wanted to reset the agenda and it was the liberals that are the problem. He had the audacity to post how horrible it was that Trudeau prorogued in 1972. Then it just became a normal occurence, just like every other prorogual even though not more than 48 hours ago he was saying the exact opposite. You can't argue with people who intend only to obfuscate and not make any sense.

[Smallc]

The only reason I see it as ok is related to Senate committees. As more information comes to light, I see this prorogation as being much more sinister than I thought. As of right now, the Conservatives have again lost my vote....now, if only there was someone else I could give it to.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

The only reason I see it as ok is related to Senate committees. As more information comes to light, I see this prorogation as being much more sinister than I thought. As of right now, the Conservatives have again lost my vote....now, if only there was someone else I could give it to.

Clearly the choice is yours, but if there was ever a situation to vote strategically IE liberal, now would be it.

[Smallc]

Well, the riding where I live will go Conservative no matter what. I voted Conservative last time...and they lost me last December....until Ignatieff lost me in July - September....and now Harper has lost me again. I have a Liberal membership card that I've had for years (since the beginning of Paul Martin or thereabouts), but I need to see something from them in order to support them.

[g_bambino]

Then it just became a normal occurence, just like every other prorogual...

Well, it is normal. However, I think we should all drop the pretences (as well as the over-inflated, doomsday reactions) and just admit why it was really done: as with many other prorogations, whether advised by a Liberal or Conservative PM, this one was carried out for political reasons.

[Alta4ever]

Well, it is normal. However, I think we should all drop the pretences (as well as the over-inflated, doomsday reactions) and just admit why it was really done: as with many other prorogations, whether advised by a Liberal or Conservative PM, this one was carried out for political reasons.

This one like all others, was carried out for political reasons

Bingo...... We have a winner.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Wild Bill]

Clearly the choice is yours, but if there was ever a situation to vote strategically IE liberal, now would be it.

But if I do that, doesn't that mean I have to accept everything else the Liberals stand for?

Don't I have to take the whole thing and not just this one issue?

What do I do if all those other Liberal things bother me too?

[Argus]

Clearly the choice is yours, but if there was ever a situation to vote strategically IE liberal, now would be it.

Yeah, cause Liberals are so much better, so much different, so much more honest and unlike the Tories, they don't put their own personal political interests ahead of the country.

[nicky10013]

Well, the riding where I live will go Conservative no matter what. I voted Conservative last time...and they lost me last December....until Ignatieff lost me in July - September....and now Harper has lost me again. I have a Liberal membership card that I've had for years (since the beginning of Paul Martin or thereabouts), but I need to see something from them in order to support them.

I agree. They need a platform. They need to show Canadians at least where they stand.

[nicky10013]

Well, it is normal. However, I think we should all drop the pretences (as well as the over-inflated, doomsday reactions) and just admit why it was really done: as with many other prorogations, whether advised by a Liberal or Conservative PM, this one was carried out for political reasons.

No, that's not what happens regularly. What happens regularly is the government finishes their agenda, they prorogue for a week, come back with a new agenda and throne speech. No politics. Trudeau didn't do it for political reasons, Chretien didn't do it for political reasons so please, tell me how what Harper has done is normal? It isn't! Furthermore, this is about the 18th time the conservatives on this board have changed their reason for why it's been done. If the story changes, the people spinning it know it and therefore probably know the real reason for why it's being done.

[nicky10013]

Yeah, cause Liberals are so much better, so much different, so much more honest and unlike the Tories, they don't put their own personal political interests ahead of the country.

I can see the conservative tagline for the next election:

"The Conservative Party: Don't blame us, the Liberals did it first! Except for, you know, the whole suspending of democracy thing"

Sorry, I added in the last bit.

As for the Liberal Party being worse, I admit, the party in the 90s took a lot of liberties, a lot of liberties I didn't like. However, the party of the 90s is simply a different animal than the party today. Conservatives can't just hang onto adscam as an excuse for everything bad that they do now. They ran on personal accountability and are delivering excuses. No past behaviour on the part of any party excuses what they're doing now.

Edited January 10, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wild Bill]

As for the Liberal Party being worse, I admit, the party in the 90s took a lot of liberties, a lot of liberties I didn't like. However, the party of the 90s is simply a different animal than the party today. Conservatives can't just hang onto adscam as an excuse for everything bad that they do now. They ran on personal accountability and are delivering excuses. No past behaviour on the part of any party excuses what they're doing now.

How do I know the Liberal party of today is so different? Because you say so?

Forgive me, but they've burned me so many times over the decades that I no longer take anything on blind faith, particularly a change for the better in the character of ANY political party!

I'm willing to be shown and that will take years!

[nicky10013]

How do I know the Liberal party of today is so different? Because you say so?

Forgive me, but they've burned me so many times over the decades that I no longer take anything on blind faith, particularly a change for the better in the character of ANY political party!

I'm willing to be shown and that will take years!

Then just admit you're a partisan. It's not hard nor is it a bad thing. Party politics is what makes the system go.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, cause Liberals are so much better, so much different, so much more honest and unlike the Tories, they don't put their own personal political interests ahead of the country.

Since Tory behavior is now apparently defined by Liberal behavior, can we dispense with the notion that we're getting anything particularly different in voting for a Tory government? At least then we can dispense with "Tories are more honest" and "Liberals are evil", and get down to what seems to count; just how much pork can the candidate from each riding deliver in exchange for being voting zombies.

[Wild Bill]

Since Tory behavior is now apparently defined by Liberal behavior, can we dispense with the notion that we're getting anything particularly different in voting for a Tory government? At least then we can dispense with "Tories are more honest" and "Liberals are evil", and get down to what seems to count; just how much pork can the candidate from each riding deliver in exchange for being voting zombies.

Now you're learning! I've been saying all along, we're left with who smells the least!

Canada has always had what's termed "brokerage politics", which is essentially as you've described. Manning used to illustrate this with a story about a man on the corner girl watching, who had a completely different approach and value system if he was looking for a prostitute or a wife.

Obviously, we tend to vote in whichever prostitute offers the best tricks. Or as Mulroney put it so eloquently years ago:

"There's no whore like an old whore!"

The trick is to be able to see them for what they are REGARDLESS of their party! Too many of us can't see past the jersey.

[nicky10013]

Now you're learning! I've been saying all along, we're left with who smells the least!

Canada has always had what's termed "brokerage politics", which is essentially as you've described. Manning used to illustrate this with a story about a man on the corner girl watching, who had a completely different approach and value system if he was looking for a prostitute or a wife.

Obviously, we tend to vote in whichever prostitute offers the best tricks. Or as Mulroney put it so eloquently years ago:

"There's no whore like an old whore!"

The trick is to be able to see them for what they are REGARDLESS of their party! Too many of us can't see past the jersey.

Brokerage parties are parties that are in the middle of the political spectrum. They offer broad policies which happen to appeal to a broad number of voters. Isn't that what politics is about?

[Smallc]

Ideologues often have trouble with compromise, and so they think anything that offends their sensibilities must automatically be bad...and there's no compromise to be made.

The reality is, since day 1 Canada has been all about positive compromise, and that spirit continues to this day.

[Wild Bill]

Brokerage parties are parties that are in the middle of the political spectrum. They offer broad policies which happen to appeal to a broad number of voters. Isn't that what politics is about?

A party can offer a policy designed to recover cod fish stocks. Or they can offer higher than normal EI benefits. One is good politics. The other is just a bribe. The accepted definition of "brokerage politics" is all about offering "pork", or bribes. Like lots of jobs at dozens of canoe museums set up with federal money around Shawinigan, Quebec.

This definition has been around for decades. You're entitled to yours but it wouldn't make sense to expect everyone else to go by it.

[nicky10013]

A party can offer a policy designed to recover cod fish stocks. Or they can offer higher than normal EI benefits. One is good politics. The other is just a bribe. The accepted definition of "brokerage politics" is all about offering "pork", or bribes. Like lots of jobs at dozens of canoe museums set up with federal money around Shawinigan, Quebec.

This definition has been around for decades. You're entitled to yours but it wouldn't make sense to expect everyone else to go by it.

The definition of pork is pork. The only definition of brokerage policy to come out of a textbook is mine.

[ToadBrother]

Now you're learning! I've been saying all along, we're left with who smells the least!

Don't recall any previous Liberal or PC minority governments abusing prorogation to evade the will of Parliament.

Canada has always had what's termed "brokerage politics", which is essentially as you've described. Manning used to illustrate this with a story about a man on the corner girl watching, who had a completely different approach and value system if he was looking for a prostitute or a wife.

Obviously, we tend to vote in whichever prostitute offers the best tricks. Or as Mulroney put it so eloquently years ago:

"There's no whore like an old whore!"

The trick is to be able to see them for what they are REGARDLESS of their party! Too many of us can't see past the jersey.

I'm not affiliated to any party. In the last 19 years, since I've been eligible to vote, I have voted, at the provincial and Federal level; PC, NDP, Liberal and Reform, based in part on strategic voting, and in part on the candidate. Since my local Conservative Candidate is a religious looney-tune, I have found it too unpalatable to vote for him, and after Harper basically shut down Parliament in 2008 to get out of a confidence vote, I won't vote Conservative until the local nutbar isn't a candidate any more and Harper is gone. I don't reward parties that fear Parliament with my vote.

[Alta4ever]

Brokerage parties are parties that are in the middle of the political spectrum. They offer broad policies which happen to appeal to a broad number of voters. Isn't that what politics is about?

What broad policies are being offered, I have yet to see anything describe as broad from the NDP and bloc, and absolutely no policies from liberals. So tell me where you think think these broad all encompassing polcies are coming from? I have not seen one party in the house offer these broad middle of the road policies.

Besides what is the middle of the spectrum? There is no good definition of middle of the road. What would the centre be between mulrooney and Ignatieff, apposed to Trudeau and Turner?

You are confusing the idea of "political centre" with populist policy.

[g_bambino]

No, that's not what happens regularly. What happens regularly is the government finishes their agenda, they prorogue for a week, come back with a new agenda and throne speech. No politics.

Please, this kind of revisionism doesn't help either. Parliaments have been ended, let alone prorogued, for partisan purposes before: to have what was calculated to be a beneficial election, or to put an end to the inquiry into the death of Shidane Arone. The latter was even final, the issue never to be revisited again, as opposed to the Afghan detainee matter, which can resume its course in March. Do try to keep a level head.

[g_bambino]

Since Tory behavior is now apparently defined by Liberal behavior, can we dispense with the notion that we're getting anything particularly different in voting for a Tory government?

In terms of stretching parliamentary procedure for political benefit, no, it would seem we arent getting anything terribly new. The only thing that appears different is the carelessness with which these particular Ministers of the Crown carry out such acts; Harper's demonstrated ignorance in December 2008 of the workings of parliament would have been funny, had he not actually been the Prime Minister of Canada. Chrétien, for all his thuggishness, at least conducted his parliamentary shenanigans with some finesse, comparatively speaking.

[+]

Edited January 10, 2010 by g_bambino