Afghan translator tells it all

[ToadBrother]

The PM is no king even though Parliament allows him to act like one.

The PM effectively monopolizes the power of the Crown, so in a very real way he represents the executive power of the government. And I'll agree this happens so long as Parliament allows it, but Parliament (even if for the self-serving purposes of the Opposition) is fighting back, and unless my understanding of the constitution dating back to the exile of James II and the end of absolutism is completely out, Parliament will win.

[wyly]

The only thing that I can see that is keeping the Tories afloat right now is the weakness of the Opposition, and in particular of Iggy, who seems quite incapable of the kind of tactical thinking necessary to improve Liberal fortunes.

the opposition is probably on the right course...all the separate issues will take their toll on the government. The detainee cover-up/lies, prorogation, influence pedaling, now a potential abortion issue, the government is doing itself in the opposition only has to react and bring it to the publics attention.

[Topaz]

That is the scary truth facing all Canadians...I also don't care if some Taliban thug gets cuffed around by his own.What is scary is that we have a Prime Minister who feels he's above the law,as it relates to Parliament.H eclearly has some sort of contempt,not only of Parliament,but maybe democracy itself...I wonder how many have woke up to that fact,or still blindly buy the "We Support the Troops" sloganeering and false patriotism Harper and his aparatchiks bellow forth?

It just wasn't Taliban, it was also Afghans. The very people we are over there supposely to "free" from abuse. I hate to say this but its appearing as Canada has its own Iraqi abuse. The only way to clear all of this up and get back our respect is a hearing but the Tories don't want one, why?? What are they trying to hide and what did THEY do wrong? Will they stop hiding behind our military? as far as I'm concerned the Tories are guilty of cover-up until they do have a hearing and clear this up!

[Wilber]

The PM effectively monopolizes the power of the Crown, so in a very real way he represents the executive power of the government. And I'll agree this happens so long as Parliament allows it, but Parliament (even if for the self-serving purposes of the Opposition) is fighting back, and unless my understanding of the constitution dating back to the exile of James II and the end of absolutism is completely out, Parliament will win.

No it won't, it will do nothing or just allow someone else to exercise the same powers. Our system has concentrated so much power in the party leaders that no one can even run for Parliament without the leaders approval, regardless of the wishes of the constituents. No king had that power.

[ToadBrother]

No it won't, it will do nothing or just allow someone else to exercise the same powers. Our system has concentrated so much power in the party leaders that no one can even run for Parliament without the leaders approval, regardless of the wishes of the constituents. No king had that power.

If the Speaker rules against the Government (which most of the money is on right now), it will re-establish the notion of Parliament's supremacy over the Crown. Now that won't mean much when we return to majority governments, but it will mean that the effective power of the Prime Minister during minorities will be weakened.

[Wilber]

If the Speaker rules against the Government (which most of the money is on right now), it will re-establish the notion of Parliament's supremacy over the Crown. Now that won't mean much when we return to majority governments, but it will mean that the effective power of the Prime Minister during minorities will be weakened.

Wow, it will weaken the powers of a minority PM. How scary. We'll see.

[wyly]

No it won't, it will do nothing or just allow someone else to exercise the same powers. Our system has concentrated so much power in the party leaders that no one can even run for Parliament without the leaders approval, regardless of the wishes of the constituents. No king had that power.

it's definitely not good...PMO is becoming so powerful if we had a majority government the we might as not even bother with elections for the other MP seats...the speaker needs to rule against the goverenment to keep the PMO in check...

[Wilber]

it's definitely not good...PMO is becoming so powerful if we had a majority government the we might as not even bother with elections for the other MP seats...the speaker needs to rule against the goverenment to keep the PMO in check...

It was Trudeau who said backbench MP's were nobodies fifty yards off Parliament Hill. Seems they are content with being nobodies on the Hill as well.

[wyly]

It was Trudeau who said backbench MP's were nobodies fifty yards off Parliament Hill. Seems they are content with being nobodies on the Hill as well.

not something I could do were I an MP, under the present system any party I was a member of would oust me within a week, keeping my mouth shut is not something I do well, following orders from a supreme leader impossible...every vote should be a free vote...

[Wilber]

Parliament does have to function so there has to be enough consensus for legislation to pass. However, if a government can't convince enough of its own members without the threat of expulsion from caucus, perhaps there is something wrong with its legislation.

[ToadBrother]

Wow, it will weaken the powers of a minority PM. How scary. We'll see.

I'll settle for that at the moment.

[myata]

Seems they are content with being nobodies on the Hill as well.

I wonder if the fault could be attributed to regular MPs really. Other than being "nobodies" in their own caucus, they have exactly one choice: to go other to the "twin" and become a "nobody" there.

[ToadBrother]

I wonder if the fault could be attributed to regular MPs really. Other than being "nobodies" in their own caucus, they have exactly one choice: to go other to the "twin" and become a "nobody" there.

Party solidarity doesn't have to be as all-encompassing in the Westminster system as it is here. There have been two major uprisings among government MP's in Britain under the Labour Party in the last decade, the last being an unpopular tax proposal that saw a revolt among Labour MPs that forced Gordon Brown to back down. Probably the most famous example in the UK was the Tory revolt that saw Thatcher ousted. For a sitting Prime Minister in Canada to be thrown out by a caucus revolt is almost unthinkable in Canada.

The difference isn't constitutional, as the UK system is sufficiently close to ours. It's cultural, both at the political level and at the level of the electorate. What we need to do is to find a way to change the culture that has infected our system, where MPs just fall in lock step behind strong leaders and powerful party organizations wield enormous amounts of influence at the riding association level. I've heard enough stories of threats of sign funds and the like being withheld if candidates didn't tow the line to tell me that the parties wield far too much control. In fact, I'm terrified of moving to an electoral system like that of Germany or Israel precisely because these systems deliver even more control to parties.

It's the culture that's the problem, and you can't constitutionally alter the way the electorate behaves to MPs, or whether MPs will be overawed by the Party apparatchik. Obviously at least some other Westminster Parliaments, while having strong parties, don't basically treat party leaders like dictators.

[Born Free]

Well, as it was said in Parliament today, when is Harper going to prorogue Parliament and call an election to stop a government inquiry into this. We all know when things get too hot and too close for Harper he runs to the GG and that would be the biggest cover-up of all. You know, a lot of this happened on O'Connor's watch and he kept saying the Red Cross were monitoring the prisoners. Wrong! How did he ever retire as a Brigade- General??

..... not to mention that lying bastard Hillier...

[Born Free]

Yeah I could definitely see it being a problem, if the other party (the liberals) could paint themselves as somehow better or different in this regard. But of course any such claim on their part would be laughable. As it is, I think Canadians that care about "transparency" have long since resigned themselves to the reality that they aren't gonna get it from any of our parties. As such, I think the dominant reaction to this issue will be one of apathy. The only thing people in Canada are really gonna get worked up about is if you try to make them pay more tax or try to cut some social spending.

This isnt about the Liberals any more. They were caught in the headlights long ago and now Harper's turn and his eyes are big as saucers by now...

Edited April 16, 2010 by Born Free

[wyly]

..... not to mention that lying bastard Hillier...

no wonder Harper prorogued, every day we learn more it's becoming more and more obvious everyone knew, from the lowest translators to the Generals and the Government, they've been lying to us all along...

[ToadBrother]

This isnt about the Liberals any more. They were caught in the headlights and now Harper's eyes are big as saucers by now...

It should be about the Liberals as well. No one can reasonably say that any wrongdoing on our part (if there was any wrongdoing) magically started only when the Tories formed the government. The chief thing driving the Liberals is that any nasty stuff is going to do more damage to the current government than the previous one.

[Born Free]

Yes, I've previously noted with amusement your habit of instant total credulity whenever anyone says anything which fits with your preconcieved prejudices. The words of this man, who you've never heard of and know nothing about, have now assumed the same level of acceptance in your mind as the bible does for a devout Christian.

Most of the rest of us have our doubts.

The preponderance of evidence is mounting and all the Harper thugs can say is... "the witness isnt credible".

The Harper thugs credibility becomes less than zero when they avoid taking it on its face value, agree its a serious issue and then openly investigate the evidence.

[wyly]

It should be about the Liberals as well. No one can reasonably say that any wrongdoing on our part (if there was any wrongdoing) magically started only when the Tories formed the government. The chief thing driving the Liberals is that any nasty stuff is going to do more damage to the current government than the previous one.

but they were warned by Colvin and others and turned a blind eye to what was going on, they could've done something but did not, they could have said "look at this crap the liberals are responsible for, we'll put a stop to it"and taken credit for stopping it...instead they did nothing, they covered it up and they lied to us...

[Jack Weber]

It should be about the Liberals as well. No one can reasonably say that any wrongdoing on our part (if there was any wrongdoing) magically started only when the Tories formed the government. The chief thing driving the Liberals is that any nasty stuff is going to do more damage to the current government than the previous one.

Agreed!!!

It's not like the Liberals are adding anything to this,other than the usual "Gotcha!" politics.I have'nt heared them come up with anything that says they would do anything differently if the shoe was on the other foot.

[Born Free]

It should be about the Liberals as well. No one can reasonably say that any wrongdoing on our part (if there was any wrongdoing) magically started only when the Tories formed the government.

Only an inquiry will bring that out. I'm betting Harper will be forced to resign once those wheels start turning...Mackay's hands are filthy dirty along with a few senior officers...

[wyly]

Only an inquiry will bring that out. I'm betting Harper will be forced to resign once those wheels start turning...Mackay's hands are filthy dirty along with a few senior officers...

as the evidence builds what is the possibility of someone being charged with a war crime? that would be embarrassing for the entire country...

[ToadBrother]

The preponderance of evidence is mounting and all the Harper thugs can say is... "the witness isnt credible".

The Harper thugs credibility becomes less than zero when they avoid taking it on its face value, agree its a serious issue and then openly investigate the evidence.

My problem with this particular theory is that these sorts of scandals (if we call it that) can often attract attention-seekers, people with axes to grind and so forth. The Tories certainly are bringing all of this on themselves, but I'm not inclined to immediately believe every harrowing tale simply because it matches certain peoples preconceptions of what must have happened.

[Born Free]

Agreed!!!

It's not like the Liberals are adding anything to this,other than the usual "Gotcha!" politics.I have'nt heared them come up with anything that says they would do anything differently if the shoe was on the other foot.

Perhaps you dont mind it if your hero PM is ethically challenged....many of us do. Again, you might wish it so but it aint about those freekin' Liberals this time. Its about the freekin' Harper thugs who could have done somthing to deal with thge problem but preferred to literally lie to Parliament. That isnt a good thing!!!

[wyly]

My problem with this particular theory is that these sorts of scandals (if we call it that) can often attract attention-seekers, people with axes to grind and so forth. The Tories certainly are bringing all of this on themselves, but I'm not inclined to immediately believe every harrowing tale simply because it matches certain peoples preconceptions of what must have happened.

true, recall the faked evidence for gulf war one and two...but there is substance to these accusation...