g_bambino Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Any political party that works in Canada and sits outside the "house" until OUR National Anthem has been sung before they slither into the room should be kicked right out of CANADA! the bloc be damned! I don't think singing the national anthem need be a prerequisite for taking one's seat in the House of Commons. Forcing people to sing a patriotic song doesn't seem to achieve much at all, in fact. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Any political party that works in Canada and sits outside the "house" until OUR National Anthem has been sung before they slither into the room should be kicked right out of CANADA! the bloc be damned! Because, of course, disenfranchising a huge number of Quebec ridings will do so much good for Canadian unity. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 It's an odd question. The "fifth election in seven years" would mean an election before or during June of this year, implying Harper will lose the confidence of the House of Commons within weeks of it being summoned by the Governor General. If that happened, though, Johnston would very likely first look to Ignatieff to form a government before dropping the writs for yet another election. Only if, in that hypothetical, Ignatieff, or anyone else in the House, couldn't hold the confidence of that chamber would we be back at the polls in June. [+] It's so unlikely that within weeks of one election that the GG would call another election. The lower limit at the moment seems to be set at nine months (the UK 1974 elections and the 1979 Conservative government). Besides, if we are returned with largely the same House of Commons we have now, it seems distinctly unlikely that yet another election within a month or so would return a substantially different Parliament. Quote
Harry Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Any political party that works in Canada and sits outside the "house" until OUR National Anthem has been sung before they slither into the room should be kicked right out of CANADA! the bloc be damned! Well that is their intention, isn't it? Quote
jbg Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 I don't think singing the national anthem need be a prerequisite for taking one's seat in the House of Commons. Forcing people to sing a patriotic song doesn't seem to achieve much at all, in fact. Because, of course, disenfranchising a huge number of Quebec ridings will do so much good for Canadian unity. Isn't there something about the idea that a sitting MP takes an oath of loyalty to the Crown? What about that? Weren't certain things settled at the Plains of Abraham? Can one imagine any other colonial master besides the British enacting something like the Quebec Acts of 1774? Just some questions and food for thought. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Because, of course, disenfranchising a huge number of Quebec ridings will do so much good for Canadian unity. They've disenfranchised themselves. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Isn't there something about the idea that a sitting MP takes an oath of loyalty to the Crown? What about that? Weren't certain things settled at the Plains of Abraham? Can one imagine any other colonial master besides the British enacting something like the Quebec Acts of 1774? Just some questions and food for thought. Most generous terms in my view. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 They've disenfranchised themselves. To your mind. Constitutionally, they have done nothing wrong. That's what counts, not whether some ornery Anglo with something up his bum thinks they have a right to vote for the candidate they want. You have an odd view of democracy, my friend. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Isn't there something about the idea that a sitting MP takes an oath of loyalty to the Crown? What about that? My understanding was that they did take the Oath. Weren't certain things settled at the Plains of Abraham? Can one imagine any other colonial master besides the British enacting something like the Quebec Acts of 1774? Just some questions and food for thought. This has all been debated a thousand times. And to some point I can even understand your point of view, but constantly shouting "Fields of Abraham" and Quebecois probably is going to be about as effective as calling a portly fellow "fat". Quote
YEGmann Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) "It would really surprise me if the Liberals didn't get the most seats... The way I think the Liberals are eventually going to lose office... is they're going to fail to win a majority... And that's where I think someday you're going to face a minority Parliament with the Liberals maybe having the most seats. What will be the test then is whether there's any party in Opposition that's able to form a coalition or a working alliance with the others. And I think we have a political system that's gonna continue to have three or four different parties or five different parties and so I think parties that want to form government are eventually going to have to work together." Seems pretty clear-cut. The only item you can speculate about is an expression "to lose office". The Harper says all this stuff pretty uncertainly. Eventually may be understood widely. All his talk about coalition can include liberals as a part of the coalition. This too can be interpreted as losing monopoly on keeping the office. Here is no explicit call to deposit liberals from the office "even Liberals get the most seats" as a correspondent twisted Harper's words. Edited March 30, 2011 by YEGmann Quote
YEGmann Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Not Harper but national CPC campaign chair Guy Giorno repeatedly states that it would be problematic and "undemocratic" for the party with the second-most seats to govern with support from other parties if Parliament lost confidence in the party with a plurality of seats: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/powerplay#clip439858 Exactly my point No. 2. Not illegitimate but nondemocratic. Quote
YEGmann Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 So the difference is your assessment of who are the coalition partners. But you have no issue with the notion of coalition itself? Absolutely. [quote but are we really going to go down the road of arguing that Harper's stance is, now and then, always about principle? Seriously? I would like to answer "Yes". However it was and is not exclusively about principles. With all necessary cynicism and practicism in my view Stephen Harper does have principles. It is about that at a certain point principles should not be overstepped. Quote
Evening Star Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Exactly my point No. 2. Not illegitimate but nondemocratic. But it's not undemocratic! That is how Parliamentary democracy works! Quote
YEGmann Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 But it's not undemocratic! That is how Parliamentary democracy works! Since then a monarch's decision became a synonym for democracy? Again, it is completely legal, but democratic? I think hardly. Quote
Smallc Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) Since then a monarch's decision became a synonym for democracy? Excuse me, but, what are you talking about? Again, it is completely legal, but democratic? I think hardly. Yes, democratic. The people's representatives choose the people's government. It's rather simple and quite democratic. I tell you, people like you are almost enough to make me change my vote. Edited March 30, 2011 by Smallc Quote
capricorn Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 It's an odd question. The "fifth election in seven years" would mean an election before or during June of this year, implying Harper will lose the confidence of the House of Commons within weeks of it being summoned by the Governor General. If that happened, though, Johnston would very likely first look to Ignatieff to form a government before dropping the writs for yet another election. Only if, in that hypothetical, Ignatieff, or anyone else in the House, couldn't hold the confidence of that chamber would we be back at the polls in June. [+] 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. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
YEGmann Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Excuse me, but, what are you talking about? About the Governor General decision not to excersize democracy, i.e. allow a new election, but rather put in power a party with not the largest number of seats won during a democratic process of elections. The people's representatives choose the people's government. It's rather simple and quite democratic. I thought, in Canada, a party with the largest number of seats won in an election forms the government. Am I wrong? Quote
Smallc Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 About the Governor General decision not to excersize democracy, i.e. allow a new election, but rather put in power a party with not the largest number of seats won during a democratic process of elections. It's all about support. If more of the MPs that Canadians elected will support another party, and not much time has passed, then they must be given a chance to govern I thought, in Canada, a party with the largest number of seats won in an election forms the government. Am I wrong? The government can only govern with the will of the house, which is who they are answerable to between elections. Not every vote of non confidence must end in an election, especially one that happens not long after an election has just taken place. Quote
Smallc Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 What it comes down to, is this - if you have the support of the house, you govern. If you lose the support of the house soon after an election, then someone else has the opportunity to gain that support. If they gain that support, they govern, no matter how many seats they have. There's nothing undemocratic about it. Quote
YEGmann Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 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. I do not argue, I agree with you, however, there is a nuance, IMHO. GG will call in Ignatieff only if there will be a hope for a stable government. And if Liberals will have just a few seats, this may not happen. Ignatieff has to form a coalition in advance. As it was in 2008. The coalition appealed to the GG. I may be wrong on this. Just a thought. Quote
YEGmann Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 There's nothing undemocratic about it. The undemocratic is the process of implementation of what you said. Interference of a monarch. Governing party lost support - all go to a new election. This is a true democratic process. Quote
Evening Star Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) But we don't vote directly for a head of government in our system. We vote for local representatives who are supposed to be responsible. Any government that can achieve the support of the majority of those elected representatives has derived a democratic mandate. Maybe I could see where you were coming from if the party with a plurality had won a majority of the popular vote but that's not even close to being the case. Edited March 30, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
capricorn Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 I do not argue, I agree with you, however, there is a nuance, IMHO. GG will call in Ignatieff only if there will be a hope for a stable government. And if Liberals will have just a few seats, this may not happen. Ignatieff has to form a coalition in advance. As it was in 2008. The coalition appealed to the GG. 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? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
YEGmann Posted March 31, 2011 Report 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. Quote
Smallc Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 The undemocratic is the process of implementation of what you said. Interference of a monarch. Again, what are you talking about? The monarch doesn't interfere in any way except to do their job. They ensure that a government with the support of the house exists at all times. That is part of our democratic system. Democracy isn't only about voting, it's about a system that allows the people to have a voice in a government that's responsible. Voting over and over again with the same result isn't at all democratic. Quote
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.