Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I think for the GG, the Block is just a party. If the GG will be sure that the new government will last for some time, he/she may approve the request to reassign the government. The government isn't being reassigned. The government will have lost confidence, which means a new government must be found that can command the confidence of the house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I agree with the nuance you present YEGmann. Consider this. What if there is a minority and the Bloc comes in second with the most seats? What then? What then? That doesn't mean that the Bloc will be able to command the confidence of the house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 What then? That doesn't mean that the Bloc will be able to command the confidence of the house. It's amazing how some people simply don't understand the issue of "confidence",is'nt it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 It's amazing how some people simply don't understand the issue of "confidence",is'nt it? Honestly, people like that are the reason I have a hard time voting Conservative. I think that the government is competent, but if this is what they and their supporters think..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Honestly, people like that are the reason I have a hard time voting Conservative. I think that the government is competent, but if this is what they and their supporters think..... It does show how ill-informed people can be moved by irrational fear... Or partisans,who are equally ill-informed,essentially lie to get their desired result... There is no way in the hot place that any federalist party would vote for anything involving the Bloc and confidence in the House of Commons... Edited March 31, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Exactly my point No. 2. Not illegitimate but nondemocratic. And how, pray tell, is it nondemocratic? People don't elect governments, they elect MPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I agree with the nuance you present YEGmann. Consider this. What if there is a minority and the Bloc comes in second with the most seats? What then? The GG is not bound by seat counts. This is probably the biggest misconception out there. Conceivably the GG would view a Bloc government as dangerously destabilizing and would either ask the third-largest party, or call an election. The GG's prime responsibility is to produce a stable, responsible government, and I think a rather good argument could be made that a Bloc government would not be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Good points bambino, as usual. Harper knows full well that if he wins another minority his government would fall rather quickly when the new Parliament convenes. Whenever that happens, as you say the GG would immediately look to Ignatieff as an alternate government. As I see it, Ignatieff would oblige and who could blame him. In that context, it makes imminent sense that Harper ask the electorate to give him a majority and he is quite right when he says a coalition is in the cards if said majority eludes him. Whether Ignatieff denies it doesn't make one iota of difference. Bottom line, initially it wouldn't be Ignatieff's call. Both leaders are somewhat at a loss as to how to put this reality before the voters and still remain credible and level headed in their eyes. That's because both leaders, in their own particular way, have put a lot of effort into discrediting coalitions, despite the fact that both seem to have started from the same place. For Harper, the discrediting came when he realized in December 2008 that he was within a hair's breadth of losing the government, and part of the assault was to make all sorts of ludicrous and false claims about coalition governments. Iggy followed quickly with a Liberal caucus about to tear itself to pieces (or, by some accounts, already in the process of tearing itself to pieces) over the coalition plan, and while he was willing to leave the threat hanging there, he clearly knew that there was a severe risk of a breach in the Liberal caucus if he actually pursued it, so it quickly fell away, particularly after Harper started to show signs of wanting to co-operate with him (which, we now know, was imposed on Harper by the Governor General). It strikes me that both leaders could potentially be hoisted by their own petards over their own flirtations and changes of view on coalitions. Edited March 31, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 The monarch doesn't interfere in any way except to do their job. Well said! (Just instead of "their" there should be "his/her"). I thought that "Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives". When a monarch is doing his/her job, I think, is not a democracy. Preventing your further questions, I confirm we do live in a democratic country, however our democracy is not unlimited, we live in a constitutional monarchy. And now we are dicussing the rare case where the Queen through the GG is to excersize Her right over the will of citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 People don't elect governments, they elect MPs. Then, who gives us our government? People? Of course not. Then what is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 When a monarch is doing his/her job, I think, is not a democracy. The key word there is think. The reality is that there are no countries more democratic and responsible than constitutional monarchies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Then, who gives us our government? No one gives us government. The GG appoints the government that the MPs we elect form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 No one gives us government. The GG appoints the government that the MPs we elect form. Stop, stop! You have to choose for yourself, it cannot be "no one" and "the GG" simultaneously. It should be somebody. If you really meant the GG, I completely agree. It is the GG, not people. But why, in this case, ask about what is undemocratic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Stop, stop! You have to choose for yourself, it cannot be "no one" and "the GG" simultaneously. It should be somebody. I'm not sure you understand. You asked who gave us government. I said no one gave us anything, we choose the people who will form the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Well said! (Just instead of "their" there should be "his/her"). I thought that "Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives". When a monarch is doing his/her job, I think, is not a democracy. Preventing your further questions, I confirm we do live in a democratic country, however our democracy is not unlimited, we live in a constitutional monarchy. And now we are dicussing the rare case where the Queen through the GG is to excersize Her right over the will of citizens. What the Queen and her Viceroys do is functionally no different than an elected head of state in a similar parliamentary republic. Except on very rare occasions in a Parliamentary republic, the head of state (monarch or elected) is supposed to remain above politics, to use the prerogatives (or executive powers or whatever they're called) on the advice the government of the day (which is chosen by the parliament). The only time, in either a constitutional monarchy or a parliamentary republic, that there is direct involvement is during a constitutional crisis of some kind, or when a government has lost confidence. In general these are pretty damned rare, as tradition and precedent usually determine what will happen in such events. Constitutional crises, as such, are extraordinarily rare, at least at the federal government level, there have been only a handful in the Commonwealth realms in the last century which required the Sovereign or a Governor General to invoke the reserve powers without the advice of their ministers. So I'm not sure why you feel this is all so undemocratic. If Canada were to become a republic, in all likelihood it would still retain the basic form of government we have now, with a president instead of Queen, who would still have the reserve powers for situations where the constitution and precedent do not give a clear solution. Here's a useful thought experiment. Let's say, improbable as it may seem, that the Tories fell on the Throne Speech next month and the Bloc had the second largest number of seats. Let's further say (and I have every reason to believe the GG wouldn't let it happen to begin with) that the Bloc formed the government after the Tory collapse. Let's say the Bloc started doing things clearly designed to split Canada up, attempting Orders-in-council for referendums, working in cahoots with a PQ government in Quebec to all sorts of things that I have a hard time imagining, but whatever. The GG holds some vast powers, almost never used, at least without the advice of a Government, but which could be invoked. The GG has the right to dismiss a government when he or she sees fit. This hasn't been used in the Realms since 1834, when William IV dismissed Lord Melbourne's ministry, but still, the power remains in the hands of the Queen and Her Governor Generals. The GG could then either ask someone else to form a government, or call new elections. What's more, if the Governor General would not do this, the Queen herself has the ultimate authority to dismiss not only the Government but the Governor General, and I find it likely that in the improbable series of events I've described, I'm quite certain that the Queen would directly intervene. The whole reason for these reserve powers, and indeed the reason for the Monarchy as opposed to an elected president, is the general theory that a monarch, not beholden to any political party or any faction inside or outside Parliament, is in the best position to invoke, at the moment of crisis, these powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Governor Generals You mean, Governors General.... Had to poke some kind of hole in your (as usual) brilliant summary of Canada's governing system. Edited March 31, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 My understanding was that they did take the Oath.You are right, TB. The Bloc MPs take the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, as do all the MNAs in Quebec City. It's required by Canada's constitution.Several pequistes have whispered the oath almost inaudibly and another added at the end that he pledged also allegiance to the King of France. Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) You are right, TB. The Bloc MPs take the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, as do all the MNAs in Quebec City. It's required by Canada's constitution. Several pequistes have whispered the oath almost inaudibly and another added at the end that he pledged also allegiance to the King of France. Link Ah, sweet petulance. Edited March 31, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 ... The whole reason for these reserve powers, and indeed the reason for the Monarchy as opposed to an elected president, is the general theory that a monarch, not beholden to any political party or any faction inside or outside Parliament, is in the best position to invoke, at the moment of crisis, these powers. Absolutely agree. That's what I say. Either people decide (this would be a democracy in action) or the Queen intervenes, which is a rudiment of a monarchy and the process automatically becomes nondemocratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Absolutely agree. That's what I say. Either people decide (this would be a democracy in action) or the Queen intervenes, which is a rudiment of a monarchy and the process automatically becomes nondemocratic. No, that isn't the case. The Crown is part (a big part) of our particular form of democratic system. The stability of the Crown is very important to the function of our governing system. As has already been said, democracy isn't simply about voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Absolutely agree. That's what I say. Either people decide (this would be a democracy in action) or the Queen intervenes, which is a rudiment of a monarchy and the process automatically becomes nondemocratic. In the case of a constitutional crisis, the people aren't going to decide anyways. Do you think in a parliamentary republic that the people decide what happens in such a situation? The President does, and it is just as rarely invoked as it is in a constitutional monarchy,. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 In the case of a constitutional crisis, the people aren't going to decide anyways. Do you think in a parliamentary republic that the people decide what happens in such a situation? The President does, and it is just as rarely invoked as it is in a constitutional monarchy,. A president is elected, he is a representative of citizens and ultimately represents them. That is why his decision is a democratic procedure. A monarch, alas, is not elected by citizens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) A president is elected, he is a representative of citizens and ultimately represents them. That is why his decision is a democratic procedure. A monarch, alas, is not elected by citizens... Ah, I see, I'm arguing with another version of myata here. Tell you what, can you cite any use of the reserve powers from the last 150 years in the Realms that you feel defied the will of "the people"? Edited March 31, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Tell you what, can you cite any use of the reserve powers from the last 150 years in the Realms that you feel defied the will of "the people"? Your question has no relation to a definion of democracy or democratic process. Whatever is my response it does not change the definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 A monarch, alas, is not elected by citizens... No, but a monarch reins with the consent of the people. Outside of a constitutional crisis, the monarch only acts on the advice of the government that is selected by the people's representatives. The citizens serve the monarch, and in turn the citizens serve the monarch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.