When dalton prorogues

[PIK]

I expect the same treatment as harper been given and this seems even more for power then anything. lol

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/2010wintergames/McGuinty+prorogues+legislature/2543050/story.html

[myata]

I said already that I'm not in favour of "executive" prorogations in principle, so this one is wrong and it just cost McGuinty's Liberals my vote.

Despite the obvious difference with above mentioned Harper's case, that holding a majority they could simply have run this through the Parliament.

Anyways these kind of tactical plays in nothing but an abuse of Parliament and in a responsible Parliamentary democracy should be a thing of long past. Neither branch of power should be allowed to interfere with and ultimately, shut out the other it's a travesty and ridicule of democratic process still possible, of all democracies of the world, probably only here and in Jamaica.

[Shady]

I expect the same treatment as harper been given and this seems even more for power then anything. lol

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/2010wintergames/McGuinty+prorogues+legislature/2543050/story.html

So far its been pretty quiet. You can almost hear the crickets.

[ToadBrother]

I expect the same treatment as harper been given and this seems even more for power then anything. lol

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/2010wintergames/McGuinty+prorogues+legislature/2543050/story.html

Has McGuinty ever prorogued to escape a confidence motion? Yes or no will do.

[ToadBrother]

I expect the same treatment as harper been given and this seems even more for power then anything. lol

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/2010wintergames/McGuinty+prorogues+legislature/2543050/story.html

Has McGuinty ever prorogued to escape a confidence motion? Yes or no will do.

[PIK]

Has McGuinty ever prorogued to escape a confidence motion? Yes or no will do.

No not that I know of. Did harper do it so he could not be embaressed in the house before a couple of buy elections? Yes or no will do.

[Shady]

To those of you keeping score at home.

When Liberals prorogue = good.

When Consveratives prorogue = bad.

Even when a prorogue is used to prevent an unprecedented power sharing agreement with Quebec seperatists.

Pathetic.

[ToadBrother]

To those of you keeping score at home.

When Liberals prorogue = good.

When Consveratives prorogue = bad.

When prorogue is used to evade confidence motions or shut down committees, it's bad. The former has only been done by the Tories, the latter, sadly, by a number of governments.

Even when a prorogue is used to prevent an unprecedented power sharing agreement with Quebec seperatists.

Pathetic.

Your righteous indignation might even mean something if Harper hadn't been the first guy to float this particular idea. Since he did, claiming that somehow he was morally in the right is hypocritical, if not outright idiotic.

[segnosaur]

I said already that I'm not in favour of "executive" prorogations in principle, so this one is wrong and it just cost McGuinty's Liberals my vote.

You know, I'm not a Liberal supporter, but to be honest Proroguing should not be considered that big of a deal (when done by any party).

Anyways these kind of tactical plays in nothing but an abuse of Parliament and in a responsible Parliamentary democracy should be a thing of long past.

How exactly is it an "abuse" of parliament when its actually part of the Parliamentary process? Its like saying "making U-Turns is an abuse of driving", even though the law actually allows that to happen.

Its a tool that is part of our Parliamentary tradition, much like confidence motions, requests to dissolve parliament, and a host of other tactics that both the leading party and opposition have at their disposal. Its been used literally dozens of times, yet our democracy continues to function, usually without a peep from either the press or the electorate. (In fact, Harper's use of the tactic is the first time I can remember any significant complaint from the press or general population.)

Neither branch of power should be allowed to interfere with and ultimately, shut out the other...

You know, while it is true that porogation does limit the function of the opposition (not that they can't continue to raise their concerns with the public!), it also limits the ability of the government to implement its agenda. Heck, the month or 2 that the commons isn't sitting is time when Harper can't implement his evil, neo-con agenda of turning us all into zombie slaves for our bible-thumping overlords.

...it's a travesty and ridicule of democratic process still possible, of all democracies of the world, probably only here and in Jamaica.

Did a quick search... it appears that the U.K. also allows similar tactics. (The U.K. system seems to be a little different in the details, but looks like it is functionally equivalent.)

[segnosaur]

When prorogue is used to evade confidence motions or shut down committees, it's bad.

Ummmm... just out of curiosity...

If the government does seek to evade confidence motions by proroguing parliament, what is preventing the opposition from re-introducing the confidence motion when the session resumes, if they truly believe it is in the country's (or their own) best interest? Yes, it does lead to at least a little delay before the confidence motion, but proroguing only goes on for so long before Parliament has to resume (at least if the government wants to do anything of note).

[daniel]

I would have wagged my finger at Dalton and said "You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir — to say 'no' — and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."

But Dalton is a Liberal so what can we expect from him except to maintain the old attitudes of the Liberal Party.

[ToadBrother]

Ummmm... just out of curiosity...

If the government does seek to evade confidence motions by proroguing parliament, what is preventing the opposition from re-introducing the confidence motion when the session resumes, if they truly believe it is in the country's (or their own) best interest? Yes, it does lead to at least a little delay before the confidence motion, but proroguing only goes on for so long before Parliament has to resume (at least if the government wants to do anything of note).

Nothing prevents them. In fact, they don't have to reintroduce any motion, because it's a brand new session when Parliament returns, which means the Speech from the Throne, which goes to a confidence vote.

It's more to do with the spirit of the constitution, that a government only serves at the pleasure of Parliament, and that Parliament can, at its discretion withhold confidence. Using prorogation to evade a confidence may only delay the inevitable (though obviously that did not happen when Parliament returned in January 2009), but still, confidence is the one key check of Parliament on government, and I think using it to sneak around confidence motions is very bad form indeed.

[ToadBrother]

How exactly is it an "abuse" of parliament when its actually part of the Parliamentary process? Its like saying "making U-Turns is an abuse of driving", even though the law actually allows that to happen.

Prorogation is not simply a Parliamentary procedure, it is one of the Royal Prerogatives. One could argue that a PM would be abusing his unique position as the Crown's advisor. That's my argument, at least.

When Sir John A. Macdonald tried a similar stunt to avoid investigations into his dirty railroad dealings, in those days, Parliament was much more willing to take a PM to task, and when Parliament returned from being prorogued, he was cooked anyways.

[Shady]

Your righteous indignation might even mean something if Harper hadn't been the first guy to float this particular idea. Since he did, claiming that somehow he was morally in the right is hypocritical, if not outright idiotic.

Complete nonsense. Floating an idea, but never following through (possibly from the realization of how bad said idea was) is completely different than actually signing a power sharing agreement with said Quebec seperatists. It was an unprecidented situation, which called for an unprecidented reaction. How's that saying go? For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

The coalition cooked their goose by colluding with people who want to break up the country. That ain't Harper's fault. You reap what you sow.

[ToadBrother]

Complete nonsense. Floating an idea, but never following through (possibly from the realization of how bad said idea was) is completely different than actually signing a power sharing agreement with said Quebec seperatists. It was an unprecidented situation, which called for an unprecidented reaction. How's that saying go? For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

The coalition cooked their goose by colluding with people who want to break up the country. That ain't Harper's fault. You reap what you sow.

You haven't looked at either Harper's letter or at the Coalition's documents, have you? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Man, you Tory supporters really are drones.

You're so pathetic I almost feel sorry for you... almost.

Edited February 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shady]

You haven't looked at either Harper's letter or at the Coalition's documents, have you? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, I have indeed read Harper's letter and the coalition's documents. They've been posted on here many times.

Man, you Tory supporters really are drones.

Ah, name calling. The last bastion of a scoundrel. If anyone's acting like a drone, it's you. You continue to harp (pun intended) about the prorogue being used for the confidence vote, but you continue to ignore, probably on purpose, why it was used. Shame on you. Shame on you sir.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, I have indeed read Harper's letter and the coalition's documents. They've been posted on here many times.

Ah, name calling. The last bastion of a scoundrel. If anyone's acting like a drone, it's you. You continue to harp (pun intended) about the prorogue being used for the confidence vote, but you continue to ignore, probably on purpose, why it was used. Shame on you. Shame on you sir.

If you read both documents, you know that what was being proposed was close enough in practical terms of identical to make no difference. I'd go so far as to say that Harper's notion for toppling Martin pretty much inspired the Coalition.

And before you call me a drone again, Tory-talking-point-guy-#3, I'll remind you that I was never a supporter of the Coalition, mainly because it was clear even before Harper went to the GG to prorogue Parliament that a fairly substantial number of Liberal MPs were dead set against it, which suggested to me that this would be a fairly unstable affair that could break apart, forcing us to go to the polls anyways.

But, if it's okay for the Tories to broker coalition agreements with the PQ, then it surely must be okay for the Liberals and the NDP. If it isn't okay for the Liberals and the NDP, then Harper too was in the wrong. You can't have it both ways.

[PIK]

Yes or no toad?

[ToadBrother]

Yes or no toad?

Yes or no what?

[scorpio]

I would have wagged my finger at Dalton and said "You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir to say 'no' and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."

But Dalton is a Liberal so what can we expect from him except to maintain the old attitudes of the Liberal Party.

And the person who said that quote (Mulroney) did the very thing he accused Turner of (patrongage), to the tune of 55 senators.

Edited February 10, 2010 by scorpio

[nicky10013]

Yes, I have indeed read Harper's letter and the coalition's documents. They've been posted on here many times.

Ah, name calling. The last bastion of a scoundrel. If anyone's acting like a drone, it's you. You continue to harp (pun intended) about the prorogue being used for the confidence vote, but you continue to ignore, probably on purpose, why it was used. Shame on you. Shame on you sir.

You're an idiot. As far as I'm aware, McGuinty's agenda has been completed. That's what prorogation has been there for. When a government finishes the agenda it lays out for a throne speech.

For all the Conservatives on here crying crocodile tears, yes, there's been a difference in how the media has treated the Liberals and the Conservatives, but it hasn't been partisan, just how the institution has been used.

No Conservative here has been making rational, thought out arguments. More of, "Well, McGuinty did it and didn't get the same press so therefore there's obviously a conspiracy." It's not a conspiracy as much as it is an indictment of our educational system and how poorly educated you conservatives are about our political system. Next you'll be saying coalitions are illegal.

No rational argument can explain why there isn't a difference, because there is no rational explanation.

[PIK]

You're an idiot. As far as I'm aware, McGuinty's agenda has been completed. That's what prorogation has been there for. When a government finishes the agenda it lays out for a throne speech.

For all the Conservatives on here crying crocodile tears, yes, there's been a difference in how the media has treated the Liberals and the Conservatives, but it hasn't been partisan, just how the institution has been used.

No Conservative here has been making rational, thought out arguments. More of, "Well, McGuinty did it and didn't get the same press so therefore there's obviously a conspiracy." It's not a conspiracy as much as it is an indictment of our educational system and how poorly educated you conservatives are about our political system. Next you'll be saying coalitions are illegal.

No rational argument can explain why there isn't a difference, because there is no rational explanation.

Dalton did it to protect himself from the opposition before the buy eletions, and you are to much of liberal drone to know any better.

[Shakeyhands]

Dalton did it to protect himself from the opposition before the buy eletions, and you are to much of liberal drone to know any better.

Buy elections???? What exactly are they????

[Moonbox]

You haven't looked at either Harper's letter or at the Coalition's documents, have you? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Man, you Tory supporters really are drones.

You're so pathetic I almost feel sorry for you... almost.

Dude, it's not pathetic to bring up another side of the story. Basically everything you post on this forum is anti-Harper, regardless of what we're talking about. Talk about being a drone.

If you're going to criticize proroguation, do so with a fair perspective. There's a long history of unnecessarily prorogued governments. You've chosen to focus solely on those executed by a party you clearly dislike and seem to take fairly personal. Hmmm...

Harper proroguing last January was a delaying tactic that helped him call the opposition's bluff. Honestly, the coalition was a bad idea, especially at the onset of a recession. The Liberals would have cooked themselves and the time off helped THEM realize that.

[Moonbox]

You're an idiot.

LoL. I think you're failing to see the irony here. He calls you out for throwing childish, thoughtless insults around and you respond by calling him an idiot. Brilliant

As far as I'm aware, McGuinty's agenda has been completed. That's what prorogation has been there for. When a government finishes the agenda it lays out for a throne speech.

Right...nothing going on anymore. There's no possibility whatsoever that this has anything to do with the HST or bi-elections right? None at all?

For all the Conservatives on here crying crocodile tears, yes, there's been a difference in how the media has treated the Liberals and the Conservatives, but it hasn't been partisan, just how the institution has been used.

Oh my god *facepalm*. Politics is ALWAYS partisan. Realistically, there's never a reason to prorogue. We elect our officials to govern, not to go on vacation for months at a time. It wasn't right for Harper to do it, or McGuinty. You're calling opposing views partisan, and at the same time you're flat out dismissing the possibility that McGuinty prorogued for politically convenient reasons himself.

No Conservative here has been making rational, thought out arguments.

I've yet to see one from you on this board...like ever.

It's not a conspiracy as much as it is an indictment of our educational system and how poorly educated you conservatives are about our political system. Next you'll be saying coalitions are illegal.

HAHAHAHA. We raise the possibility that there is a significant media bias and double standard, and thus we are poorly educated. This is getting so good. Forgive me, but I'd love to know how far your education extends. Given the childish insults, the unfailing consistency of your partisanship on this board, and your wet-noodle grasp of logic, I'm suspecting your education was rather brief.

No rational argument can explain why there isn't a difference, because there is no rational explanation.

Such a solid, unassailable claim: "You can't argue against me because I'm right and therefore there's no good argument against me because I'm right."

For someone with such profound intellect and higher education, I'm saddened that you haven't been able to put it to good use. Maybe you're just a late bloomer?

Edited February 11, 2010 by Moonbox