Guilty: Harper Government Found in Contempt of Parliament

[blueblood]

And who is saying it is. Parliament works by majority rule, and the last time I checked no party had a majority. But if two or more parties can work together and get a majority of votes they rule. What's not to like?

Well then they can take that plan to the people in an election? Why won't they? I thought ethics, transparency, and accountability were the theme of the liberal campaign. It would be a little rich to hide that little fact from voters now would it?

[Harry]

Well then they can take that plan to the people in an election? Why won't they? I thought ethics, transparency, and accountability were the theme of the liberal campaign. It would be a little rich to hide that little fact from voters now would it?

Of course parties with the majority of seats should rule. That's a given. What's Harper's plan for his next minority? Continue to fight with the majority of MPs and cause another election?

[Wild Bill]

Can you explain how, if a party after four elections cannot get 40% of the electorate to vote for them, it is the will of the people that they govern?

Well, it's obviously the will of more people than those who supported the OTHER guys!

Remember, you can't automatically assume that those who didn't vote automatically were against the guys who won or even YOUR choice! In actual fact, if they don't choose to make a choice then they are irrelevant.

Even so, if we deal only with those who actually voted and we seem hopelessly split into minority factions, parties have to be very careful what they do. There are many legal and not so legal options but not all of them will be automatically accepted by all voters. Some run the risk of alienating a segment of voters forever!

Speaking just for myself, I expect that the party that took the most seats should always be in power. I understand that you can form a minority with two or more of the losers and saw it for myself when David Petersen and Bob Rae made their deal. I have no doubt it was a legal arrangement.

That being said, I personally don't care! Because of that action, I will NEVER vote for the Ontario Liberals or NDP as long as I live! Not unless the provincial Tories get caught in a pedophile ring or something. What they did offended me personally and that has permanently affected my voting preferences.

And before someone says I wouldn't have voted for them anyway, I DID vote for David Petersen!

Now the Liberals and the NDP can well afford to lose a vote from an old crankbag like myself but the big question is, how many other voters feel the same way? Any pool player knows that it's not enough just to sink a shot. A good player also worries about "leaving shape" on the ball, meaning that when the cue ball comes to rest it lies in either a good position for his next shot or a crummy position if his opponent will take the next turn. Politics works the same way. Voters DO have memories and it can take a LONG time to earn forgiveness!

We can argue about whether or not voters WOULD react negatively to a "coalition of losers" but it would be stupid to just assume that because it's legal it would be fine to just go ahead and do it, not expecting any future negative consequences.

What's planned for can be dealt with but what's ignored usually comes back and bites you! As I'm fond of saying, only an idiot would wave a rule book at a voter and expect it to make any difference.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well then they can take that plan to the people in an election? Why won't they? I thought ethics, transparency, and accountability were the theme of the liberal campaign. It would be a little rich to hide that little fact from voters now would it?

What is up for grabs is political control over this nation. Serious stakes, there is much to gain from an attempt at acquiring power. Put the partisan cant aside for a moment and simply consider that whoever gains power gains access to your pocket. We waste all of our time worrying who takes power and in the end there is no difference from one partisan faction to the next. Once an election is over, the platform is destroyed and promises are broken, the day to day operation of government takes precedent over the desires of the public.

We are controlled by our representatives, instead of us controlling them. In my view the entire lot of elected representatives should be fired outright and a new set of representatives brought in. We need to clean up our political system, and quickly.

[Oleg Bach]

The definition of fraud it to take something unlawfully that is of value...It seems that politicians fancey ultimate power as something of great value...Most of this power lust is ego centric...and material value usually consists of passing laws that benefit the high private sector...Then once a political person retires from the public area...they are usually rewarded a position as a member of a fancey law firm...who continues to live of the proceeds of the original fraud.

[Harry]

BubberMiley, on 30 March 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:

Can you explain how, if a party after four elections cannot get 40% of the electorate to vote for them, it is the will of the people that they govern?

Wild Bill, on 30 March 2011

Well, it's obviously the will of more people than those who supported the OTHER guys!

Math problems?

Edited March 30, 2011 by Harry

[g_bambino]

Well then they can take that plan to the people in an election? Why won't they?

If about a year or more has passed since the last election, then the writs are usually dropped when the House votes non-confidecne. Otherwise, the voters only just made their will be known. Why ask them again? And, with successive minorities, again, and again, and again?

[+]

Edited March 30, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

In my view the entire lot of elected representatives should be fired outright and a new set of representatives brought in.

That's called an election. We have them fairly frequently (more so lately than usual).

[blueblood]

If about a year or more has passed since the last election, then the writs are usually dropped when the House votes non-confidecne. Otherwise, the voters only just made their will be known. Why ask them again? And, with successive minorities, again, and again, and again?

[+]

Why didn't the libs/bloc/ndp float the coalition idea to the electorate in the 2008 election if they were going to drop the govt right away? Why won't the libs now?

The reason why this is such an issue is because the libs made accountability, trust, ethics the theme of their campaign. If they are going to do this, which the voters don't find trustworthy, accountable, ethical; their campaign theme has been shot full of holes.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's called an election. We have them fairly frequently (more so lately than usual).

Yeah, I like them too. Not often I get a chance to fire a politician.

[Harry]

Sad but true.

Canada watches its democracy erode

Edmund Burke noted that all that was necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing. Canadians are certainly good and worthy folks, but they suffer an excess of civil obedience, politeness and lack of civic rage that could be harnessed to combat political atrophy. At a time when Arabs risk life and limb for political freedoms, Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/canada-watches-its-democracy-erode/story-e6frg6ux-1226030310248

Edited March 30, 2011 by Harry

[Wild Bill]

Math problems?

Not really! My statement was in the context of more votes than EACH of the other parties received! Of course a couple of losers can add up to more than a winner.

Also, anybody who thinks that you can add up NDP, Liberal and BQ voters and they all think and feel the same way is dreaming in technicolour!

[Saipan]

What's Harper's plan for his next minority? Continue to fight with the majority of MPs and cause another election?

Same as any other minority.

[Saipan]

And those who don't like minority should vote majority

[Shwa]

Sad but true.

"Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy." ????

Pfff, what does some Ozzy know? Last election Canada had 58.8% voter turnout representing about 42% of the total population.

See? Some people are still interested.

But if they offered free coffee and donuts at the polling stations, turnout would be much higher. Elections Canada is aware of this. They are the ones suppressing democracy in Canada by their obstinate refusal to provide the free coffee and donuts. (and it isn't really "free" anyways. All we need to do is scale back some of those corporate tax cuts to pay for everything.)

We all want reform at Elections Canada! It's their fault!

Edited March 30, 2011 by Shwa

[Saipan]

But if they offered free coffee and donuts at the polling stations, turnout would be much higher.

And where would that "free" stuff come from?

This is like my Municipal morons, who say they don't spend our tax money for this or that, "it comes from the province"

[Shwa]

And where would that "free" stuff come from?

This is like my Municipal morons, who say they don't spend our tax money for this or that, "it comes from the province"

Already answered, go back and read.

[Harry]

"Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy." ????

Last election Canada had 58.8% voter turnout representing about 42% of the total population.

Which is the lowest voter turnout rate in a general election since Confederation.

[Saipan]

1) It's OUR tax money.

2) Doesn't create jobs.

[Harry]

Not really! My statement was in the context of more votes than EACH of the other parties received! Of course a couple of losers can add up to more than a winner.

Also, anybody who thinks that you can add up NDP, Liberal and BQ voters and they all think and feel the same way is dreaming in technicolour!

Majority rules. That is all that matters.

[Saipan]

Majority is two wolves and a sheep vote what will be for supper.

[g_bambino]

Why didn't the libs/bloc/ndp float the coalition idea to the electorate in the 2008 election if they were going to drop the govt right away? Why won't the libs now?

Who knows if a coalition can be formed before the election results are in?

[Wild Bill]

Majority rules. That is all that matters.

That is not a clear answer! What do you mean? A party that gets more seats than any other one party? Or a majority can consist of all the losers combined?

You can't take all the losers combined as a "will of the people" thing. Voters chose their one specific party that they wanted to win, by voting for that party's candidate in their riding. Nobody asked them about any second choice.

If you were to talk to some NDP voter and say "Well, the fact that you voted NDP must mean that you hate Harper so I will cheerfully include you with the Liberals so we can form a coalition government!" has no proof at all behind it. My own father often voted NDP but if you had taken his vote for granted to give to the Liberals you might have lost some teeth!

It is totally undemocratic to assume someone's support. If you want to have second choices on the ballot or some sort of runoff election afterwards that's one thing. To just take it for granted so you can use it to get rid of someone YOU don't like is another!

You're starting to sound a bit dictatorial here, Harry. You're scaring me!

[g_bambino]

What do you mean? A party that gets more seats than any other one party? Or a majority can consist of all the losers combined?

A majority of the House of Commons, however composed. You seem to have come to the mistaken conclusion that the Canadian prime minister is elected by some kind of presidential race for the popular vote. Party leaders may campaign that way, and that may be the way Harper's tried since 2008 to spin it away from his 2004 agreement with the Block and NDP, but it's not how the system works.

[+]

Edited March 30, 2011 by g_bambino

[Harry]

All these terms that are bandied about here, losers, hate, etc. It's time for some to get a life.

Is Harper a loser because over 62% of the vote was against him last election, which is basically what the polls are indicating today by-the-way?