When dalton prorogues

ToadBrother · February 11, 2010

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.

I don't think governments should be afforded the capacity to avoid confidence motions. Confidence motions is the chief check on a Government's power. Harper used it to run from the consequences of his own arrogance and stupidity. I was no fan of the Coalition, but, as I must constantly repeat, none of us vote for governments, we vote for Parliament, and Parliament is higher on the totem pole than government.

And I don't give a crap about McGuinty. I don't live in Ontario. Let Ontario solve its problems, and I'll worry about my province and about the Feds.

Shady · February 11, 2010

I don't think governments should be afforded the capacity to avoid confidence motions.

I think a government should absolutely be afforded the capacity to keep Quebec seperatists out of federal power. If that means using a constitutionally provided option to do so, so be it.

And I don't give a crap about McGuinty.

Of course you don't. Because then you'd have to apply your standard consistently. :lol:

ToadBrother · February 11, 2010

I think a government should absolutely be afforded the capacity to keep Quebec seperatists out of federal power. If that means using a constitutionally provided option to do so, so be it.

So why was Harper so eager to have them wielding federal power before?

And besides, they already wield a large amount of power, seeing as we're in a minority situation. I mean, by your logic, perhaps we should have a one day sitting every year, lest the evil separatists influence the government.

Of course you don't. Because then you'd have to apply your standard consistently.

It's pretty damned dishonest to cut out all of what I said and then quote one single thing. For the record, there are a few Canadians that don't live in ONtario. And perhaps you can cite where McGuinty ever prorogued Parliament to evade a confidence motion?

PIK · February 11, 2010

I don't think governments should be afforded the capacity to avoid confidence motions. Confidence motions is the chief check on a Government's power. Harper used it to run from the consequences of his own arrogance and stupidity. I was no fan of the Coalition, but, as I must constantly repeat, none of us vote for governments, we vote for Parliament, and Parliament is higher on the totem pole than government.

And I don't give a crap about McGuinty. I don't live in Ontario. Let Ontario solve its problems, and I'll worry about my province and about the Feds.

So do you live in BC because they are also prorogue. Everybody does it.It is not just harper, so quit your crying.

ToadBrother · February 11, 2010

So do you live in BC because they are also prorogue. Everybody does it.It is not just harper, so quit your crying.

Can you please show me a citation where a BC government ever prorogued to escape a confidence motion?

I don't know whether you think I'm a moron or not, but this is rather like saying "Everyone speeds, so it's okay to go 250mph". Prorogation is a regular feature of Westminster parliaments when a session is completed. Using it to avoid falling is not a regular occurrence. My research suggests that the 2008 prorogation is the first time in modern Westminster parliamentary history that a government has ever used it to escape certain defeat.

But go to it. Provide one other single citation to any time that a government in our system has ever prorogued to avoid defeat.

Moonbox · February 11, 2010

I don't think governments should be afforded the capacity to avoid confidence motions. Confidence motions is the chief check on a Government's power. Harper used it to run from the consequences of his own arrogance and stupidity. I was no fan of the Coalition, but, as I must constantly repeat, none of us vote for governments, we vote for Parliament, and Parliament is higher on the totem pole than government.

He didn't avoid the confidence motion. He delayed. That's ALL he did. He gave the opposition time to sober up and for the Canadian public to digest how they felt about it. It turned out they didn't even want to table a confidence motion. Ho hum.

And I don't give a crap about McGuinty. I don't live in Ontario. Let Ontario solve its problems, and I'll worry about my province and about the Feds.

That's nice, but that's what the title of the thread implies that we're talking about.

ToadBrother · February 11, 2010

He didn't avoid the confidence motion. He delayed. That's ALL he did. He gave the opposition time to sober up and for the Canadian public to digest how they felt about it. It turned out they didn't even want to table a confidence motion. Ho hum.

Of course he avoided the motion. That his gambit was right and the Coalition fell apart is rather besides the point. Do you think, in the normal course of events, that a PM should be able to prorogue to avoid a potential failure to maintain the confidence of the House?

That's nice, but that's what the title of the thread implies that we're talking about.

No, it implies that the 2008 prorogation was a typical event, which it wasn't. All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide me with one single citation to a similar prorogation event in the entire history of the Westminster system.

Shady · February 11, 2010

and the Coalition fell apart

Yes, and why did it fall apart? Because it was unpopular. And to whom was it unpopular? The Canadian people. Ah, sweet democracy at work. :lol:

Moonbox · February 11, 2010

It's pretty damned dishonest to cut out all of what I said and then quote one single thing. For the record, there are a few Canadians that don't live in ONtario. And perhaps you can cite where McGuinty ever prorogued Parliament to evade a confidence motion?

Unfortunately for you Toadbrother, not everyone holds your standards for when proroguing is acceptable. You've chosen a confidence motion as the standard for when proroguing should not be allowed, and that seems to stem from a partisan dislike for the Tories rather than based on any reasonable argument.

Democracy and the workings of government were not usurped and upended. All proroguing does is delay. Harper doesn't have the ability to stop a confidence motion and if Parliament wanted him out he'd be removed. Your indignation and seemingly personal issues with the CPC don't change that.

Proroguing, IMO, is a contemptable abuse of power, and virtually every one of its uses have been for personal/political gain. Bob Rae did it 3 times in one term. Chretien did it 4 times. Go back and you have a long list of Canadian politicians who have flipped us all the bird and gone on vacation for variously convenient reasons.

Trying to tell us that Harper's use of this power was PARTICULARLY sinister and should be set apart from the rest simply because it allowed him to DELAY a confidence vote for a short time is pretty flimsy ground to stand on. Nothing was stopping the coalition from forming after parliament resumed last year other than public opinion, which I'd say is probably a better reason than any for it to have not happened.

Yes, and why did it fall apart? Because it was unpopular. And to whom was it unpopular? The Canadian people. Ah, sweet democracy at work.

LoL. My thoughts exactly.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Moonbox

ToadBrother · February 11, 2010

Yes, and why did it fall apart? Because it was unpopular. And to whom was it unpopular? The Canadian people. Ah, sweet democracy at work.

From what I can tell, the only reason it really fell apart is because a lot of Liberal MPs were furious that Dion was still in charge. Their contempt for the Bloc and the NDP seemed to be the second biggest reason.

ToadBrother · February 11, 2010

Unfortunately for you Toadbrother, not everyone holds your standards for when proroguing is acceptable. You've chosen a confidence motion as the standard for when proroguing should not be allowed, and that seems to stem from a partisan dislike for the Tories rather than based on any reasonable argument.

It would be so simple if I was just a raging partisan. I will repeat; I am not a Liberal or NDP supporter. I did not support the Coalition (mainly because I thought it was the political version of Frankenstein's Monster).

Democracy and the workings of government were not usurped and upended. All proroguing does is delay.

It does considerably more than that. And that's rather besides the point. Parliament is the boss at the end of the day, not the government. It is an abuse of the government's power to advise the GG to use that power simply to survive when it has clearly lost the confidence of the House.

Harper doesn't have the ability to stop a confidence motion and if Parliament wanted him out he'd be removed. Your indignation and seemingly personal issues with the CPC don't change that.

It has nothing to do with any feelings for the CPC. I was no more in support of Martin's tactics to stay alive, though at least he kept to parliamentary procedures.

Proroguing, IMO, is a contemptable abuse of power, and virtually every one of its uses have been for personal/political gain. Bob Rae did it 3 times in one term. Chretien did it 4 times. Go back and you have a long list of Canadian politicians who have flipped us all the bird and gone on vacation for variously convenient reasons.

Trying to tell us that Harper's use of this power was PARTICULARLY sinister and should be set apart from the rest simply because it allowed him to DELAY a confidence vote for a short time is pretty flimsy ground to stand on. Nothing was stopping the coalition from forming after parliament resumed last year other than public opinion, which I'd say is probably a better reason than any for it to have not happened.

So you can't find an incident where a government used it to escape a test of confidence either, eh? You could just simply say so.

Moonbox · February 11, 2010

It would be so simple if I was just a raging partisan. I will repeat; I am not a Liberal or NDP supporter. I did not support the Coalition (mainly because I thought it was the political version of Frankenstein's Monster).

Everyone leans a certain way. I've been posting here awhile and reading your posts for awhile gives every indication that you've got beef with the CPC. I don't care who you support.

It does considerably more than that. And that's rather besides the point. Parliament is the boss at the end of the day, not the government. It is an abuse of the government's power to advise the GG to use that power simply to survive when it has clearly lost the confidence of the House.

Parliament is the boss, sure, but only within the framework we've given the system to operate. We have a party-based system with a prime-minister and that's a fact and pretty pointless to argue. YOU say what Harper did was an abuse of power but you haven't been able to given us a compelling argument as to why. The GG didn't think so and that MIGHT have had something to do with the results of a VERY recent election and the onset of a serious recession. As it turns out, the Canadian public CLEARLY agreed with her.

I don't know about you, but stalling an EXTREMELY big decision in parliament and letting things settle down for the public to mull over and make their feelings heard doesn't sound like an abuse of power to me. The truly telling part of this is how even the opposition and coalition agreed.

Your argument seems to be for some incomprehensibly silly reason that it was a usurpation of democracy for Harper to use an established tool of government to stall something that the majority of Canadians CLEARLY didn't want. Let the will of the People NOT be heard right????

So you can't find an incident where a government used it to escape a test of confidence either, eh? You could just simply say so.

I didn't bother because I didn't care and you haven't convinced anyone why it matters. Like I said, your arbitrary standards for when it is and isn't okay to prorogue are as meaningless as they are unjustified by your arguments.

From what I can tell, the only reason it really fell apart is because a lot of Liberal MPs were furious that Dion was still in charge. Their contempt for the Bloc and the NDP seemed to be the second biggest reason.

Use your brain. That's a pretty dumb conclusion. It fell apart because it was a dumb idea and Ignatieff, a good number of Liberals (Bob Rae not included) as well as the majority of Canadians wanted nothing to do with it. Sharing power with the Bloc and NDP was obviously the problem, since that's what everyone didn't like and that's what the coalition was all about LOL.

If it was simply a matter of Dion then there's been ample opportunity since to give it another go. Sadly for you, there's been no takers, again for obvious reasons.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Moonbox

Moonbox · February 11, 2010

delete please double post

Edited February 11, 2010 by Moonbox

g_bambino · February 11, 2010

the majority of Canadians CLEARLY didn't want. Let the will of the People NOT be heard right????

And what was the evidence of the will of the People? Their voice as expressed through parliament actually demmonstrated that the majority of Canadians "CLEARLY" didn't want a Conservative government led by Harper.

PIK · February 11, 2010

And what was the evidence of the will of the People? Their voice as expressed through parliament actually demmonstrated that the majority of Canadians "CLEARLY" didn't want a Conservative government led by Harper.

Funny thing he still is PM. But has pm ever held a majority of votes?

g_bambino · February 11, 2010

Funny thing he still is PM.

Yes, because parliament maintains its confidence in him. But, what of it? Moonbox was speaking about The People, who actually cast more votes, collectively, for the parties that ended up in oppostion than for the party that formed the government.

[correct]

Edited February 11, 2010 by g_bambino

Moonbox · February 11, 2010

And what was the evidence of the will of the People? Their voice as expressed through parliament actually demmonstrated that the majority of Canadians "CLEARLY" didn't want a Conservative government led by Harper.

The polls at the time showed most were strongly against the coalition, regardless of whether they liked Stephen Harper, which is completely irrelevant.

If they didn't want Stephen Harper as PM, they should have voted accordingly. The system is the way it is, and it works better than most. The solution, therefore, is for those people to vote smarter and whine less.

g_bambino · February 11, 2010

The polls at the time showed most were strongly against the coalition, regardless of whether they liked Stephen Harper, which is completely irrelevant.

Polls are such dodgy things, though, and mean nothing in the selection of a government.

If they didn't want Stephen Harper as PM, they should have voted accordingly. The system is the way it is, and it works better than most. The solution, therefore, is for those people to vote smarter and whine less.

Those that didn't want Harper as PM clearly did vote accordingly. I agree our system is fine - indeed, better than most - and that's why I take offence to people who toy with the truth of it, including anyone (like Harper) who says the coalition was a coup d'etat against the democratically expressed wishes of Canadians. The opposition was well within its bounds to do what it was planning, despite the idiocy of the plan.

[+]

Edited February 11, 2010 by g_bambino

Moonbox · February 11, 2010

Those that didn't want Harper as PM clearly did vote accordingly. I agree our system is fine - indeed, better than most - and that's why I take offence to people who toy with the truth of it, including anyone (like Harper) who says the coalition was a coup d'etat against the democratically expressed wishes of Canadians. The opposition was well within its bounds to do what it was planning, despite the idiocy of the plan.

Well I guess we agree then?

Either way, I'll leave it to the politicians to interpret the polls, and the opposition at the time clearly didn't like what was cookin'

ToadBrother · February 12, 2010

Everyone leans a certain way. I've been posting here awhile and reading your posts for awhile gives every indication that you've got beef with the CPC. I don't care who you support.

I dislike Harper (and my local MP). I'd probably vote Tory tomorrow if both Harper and the religious fanatic who the Tory riding association foisted on my riding were gone.

Parliament is the boss, sure, but only within the framework we've given the system to operate. We have a party-based system with a prime-minister and that's a fact and pretty pointless to argue. YOU say what Harper did was an abuse of power but you haven't been able to given us a compelling argument as to why. The GG didn't think so and that MIGHT have had something to do with the results of a VERY recent election and the onset of a serious recession. As it turns out, the Canadian public CLEARLY agreed with her.

The GG had little choice. Harper was still head of the government.

I don't know about you, but stalling an EXTREMELY big decision in parliament and letting things settle down for the public to mull over and make their feelings heard doesn't sound like an abuse of power to me. The truly telling part of this is how even the opposition and coalition agreed.

The coalition was already beginning to fragment by the time Harper went to Rideau Hall.

Your argument seems to be for some incomprehensibly silly reason that it was a usurpation of democracy for Harper to use an established tool of government to stall something that the majority of Canadians CLEARLY didn't want. Let the will of the People NOT be heard right????

Our system is as much based on precedent as it is on constitutional documents. I think it's a horrible precedent for a government to avoid a confidence motion by prorogation. As much as I loathed the idea of a cabal of Liberals, NDPers and BQ members entering some unholy alliance, I'd prefer that to a dangerous precedent of allowing a government that has clearly lost confidence hanging on by shutting down Parliament.

I didn't bother because I didn't care and you haven't convinced anyone why it matters. Like I said, your arbitrary standards for when it is and isn't okay to prorogue are as meaningless as they are unjustified by your arguments.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Harper abused his unique constitutional position to keep his government alive. Yes, the outcome was good, but I don't advocate philosophies that begin with "the ends justify the means". What if a genuinely terrible government were to prorogue parliament and use its constitutional power to stop it from sitting for one day less a year. That's constitutional, after all, but I doubt too many folks would be saying "Well, the government's within its right."

Use your brain. That's a pretty dumb conclusion. It fell apart because it was a dumb idea and Ignatieff, a good number of Liberals (Bob Rae not included) as well as the majority of Canadians wanted nothing to do with it. Sharing power with the Bloc and NDP was obviously the problem, since that's what everyone didn't like and that's what the coalition was all about LOL.

If it was simply a matter of Dion then there's been ample opportunity since to give it another go. Sadly for you, there's been no takers, again for obvious reasons.

The first murmurs of trouble in the Liberal ranks, even before Harper asked the GG to prorogue Parliament, were a number of Liberal MPs "privately" expressing their displeasure with Stephan Dion remaining leader despite having clearly lost the confidence of the caucus and the party. It would appear that for some Liberals there was someone they hated worse than the NDP or the Bloc, and that was Dion.

As to Iggy, well he made it pretty clear early on in the whole process that he was no fan of the coalition. He couched his language, obviously, but his ambitions are to be Prime Minister of a majority Liberal government, not to basically crucify his still young Parliamentary career for a brief stint as PM of a Coalition party.

Edited February 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

Moonbox · February 12, 2010

I dislike Harper (and my local MP). I'd probably vote Tory tomorrow if both Harper and the religious fanatic who the Tory riding association foisted on my riding were gone.

Well there's your bias then.

The GG had little choice. Harper was still head of the government.

Totally false. If she felt that the coalition could have formed a working government she could have allowed it. We both know that wasn't the case.

Our system is as much based on precedent as it is on constitutional documents. I think it's a horrible precedent for a government to avoid a confidence motion by prorogation. As much as I loathed the idea of a cabal of Liberals, NDPers and BQ members entering some unholy alliance, I'd prefer that to a dangerous precedent of allowing a government that has clearly lost confidence hanging on by shutting down Parliament.

The government hadn't lost confidence. If it had then they would have been voted out at the resumption of parliament. The GG wouldn't have allowed Harper to prorogue if it was clear that the government would just collapse after the fact. She chose what she felt was the better option.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Harper abused his unique constitutional position to keep his government alive. Yes, the outcome was good, but I don't advocate philosophies that begin with "the ends justify the means". What if a genuinely terrible government were to prorogue parliament and use its constitutional power to stop it from sitting for one day less a year. That's constitutional, after all, but I doubt too many folks would be saying "Well, the government's within its right."

Your argument is based PURELY on the fact that you don't like Harper. If in your make believe situation we had a truly terrible minority government that was hell-bent on Canada's destruction, the Governor General would not allow them to prorogue. There. Problem solved.

There's nothing unconstitutional about what he did. That's you being butt-hurt and not liking it. Nothing else. No dangerous precedent has been set. All that happened last January was an idiotic idea was brought to the table by Dion that mostly just the Bloc and NDP wanted anything to do with. The Governor General agreed that it was a stupid idea. Canada agreed it was a stupid idea. This is a perfect example of the system WORKING. Your scenarios of doom are based on the assumption that the GG, the Senate and the House would all be drooling while everything unfolded.

It wouldn't. Your argument isn't making sense and it appears to be because you REALLY don't like Harper. I don't like him either. We can have a Harper hate party. Let's hope someone better comes along to replace him yes? (Not Ignatieff though)

It would appear that for some Liberals there was someone they hated worse than the NDP or the Bloc, and that was Dion.

You're missing something here. The coalition was Dion and Bob Rae's baby. They came up with the idea. It's completely irrelevant that the Liberals weren't happy about it. Most of Parliament and Canada wasn't either. The GG prevented an idiot from taking over government with an NDP, Bloc and Liberal cabinet. It would have been the biggest mess in Canadian political history.

As to Iggy, well he made it pretty clear early on in the whole process that he was no fan of the coalition. He couched his language, obviously, but his ambitions are to be Prime Minister of a majority Liberal government, not to basically crucify his still young Parliamentary career for a brief stint as PM of a Coalition party.

I think Ignatieff will take what he can get right now. He was prepared to bring down the government in the fall over EI reform remember? The polls weren't showing him anywhere near majority territory then. It was only when he realized that he was polling around Dion's numbers because of the issue that he backed down.

g_bambino · February 12, 2010

Totally false. If she felt that the coalition could have formed a working government she could have allowed it.

Actually, it's your claim that's totally false. She could only have considered the coalition's offer after Harper had lost the confidence of the House, not before; not without causing a constitutional crisis herself by denying her Prime Minister's advice.

ToadBrother · February 12, 2010

Actually, it's your claim that's totally false. She could only have considered the coalition's offer after Harper had lost the confidence of the House, not before; not without causing a constitutional crisis herself by denying her Prime Minister's advice.

Indeed. Once again I'm being lectured on constitutionality by someone who doesn't understand the system.

Moonbox · February 12, 2010

Actually, it's your claim that's totally false. She could only have considered the coalition's offer after Harper had lost the confidence of the House, not before; not without causing a constitutional crisis herself by denying her Prime Minister's advice.

Don't be stupid. She was already considering it well before the confidence motion was going to be tabled. If you and I were considering it, you can be damn sure the GG was too. Being an intelligent and thoughtful person, she considered her 'potential' options in advance. One was to allow Harper to prorogue and let the opposition wake the f up. If not, option 2 was to refuse and allow the non-confidence to go through. Next she either had to refuse their offer to form a coalition or accept it. Neither of those two were good options by pretty much any standards save the NDP's and Bloc's.

Indeed. Once again I'm being lectured on constitutionality by someone who doesn't understand the system.

Can you see my eyes rolling? :rolleyes:

Some people don't seem to be able to argue within the framework of rational human behaviour, such as the above.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Moonbox

g_bambino · February 12, 2010

Don't be stupid.

Thanks for the advice; but, I really wasn't my intent to be. Hence,

Being an intelligent and thoughtful person, she considered her 'potential' options in advance. One was to allow Harper to prorogue and let the opposition wake the f up. If not, option 2 was to refuse and allow the non-confidence to go through. Next she either had to refuse their offer to form a coalition or accept it.

She may well have considered these potential options in advance. However, until HM's Loyal Opposition voted non-confidence in the government, the two choices you outlined actually translate into: 1) follow her prime minister's advice, or 2) create a constitutional crisis by breaking 300 years of precedent and step into political affairs by rejecting her Prime Ministers advice while he still had the confidence of the lower chamber.

Granted, the situation of a prime minister advising the prorogation of parliament to avoid a potential confidence motion had never before occurred in the history of responsible government, and so there was clearly some hesitation (about two hours worth), given that the viceroy was operating without precedent. But, other reasoning aside, Jean could not have dismissed Harper's instruction unless said instruction threatened the stability and operation of government, which it clearly didn't.