Layton's Home Care For Seniors plan

bloodyminded · April 7, 2011

My goodness, imagine having to get a majority of MPs to agree to your plans. How did such a concept ever intrude upon our Parliamentary system?

blueblood · April 7, 2011

Then I guess Harper better bloody well put a budget together that pleases enough Opposition MPs to stay in government. It was what the GG made him do in January 2009.

My goodness, imagine having to get a majority of MPs to agree to your plans. How did such a concept ever intrude upon our Parliamentary system?

Harper can't prorogue until Parliament it has sat. It's not even an option. If he can't produce a budget that the rest of Parliament will agree to, he's done for. He's been down this road before, so he ought to know the rules of the game by now.

I know the prorogue option is off the table. I wanted to hear it from you.

Now we're at the problem with where we're at based upon your post. The opposition the last time around didn't read harper's budget and voted it down immediately. What's to stop them from doing the same if harper wins another minority? If you had a good shot at being the pm would you pass the budget? I wouldn't!

I don't know about you but I take the economy very seriously and so do many canadians. What the gong show is proposing is not good for the economy, and with the current parliamentary environment, the gong show gets in if a minority govt gets elected.

ToadBrother · April 7, 2011

I know the prorogue option is off the table. I wanted to hear it from you.

Well golly, I've only said it like about six or seven times since the election was called.

Now we're at the problem with where we're at based upon your post. The opposition the last time around didn't read harper's budget and voted it down immediately. What's to stop them from doing the same if harper wins another minority? If you had a good shot at being the pm would you pass the budget? I wouldn't!

Nothing's to stop them. Nothing's to stop Harper from taking the 26 or 27 days between May 2 and the inevitable Throne Speech to go to the Opposition and formulate a budget they can swallow. He did it in January 2009.

I don't know about you but I take the economy very seriously and so do many canadians. What the gong show is proposing is not good for the economy, and with the current parliamentary environment, the gong show gets in if a minority govt gets elected.

I take democracy very seriously too, and the Tories pissed all over it. Tell me why I should vote for a party that despises our constitutional arrangement, that invents out of thin air concepts like executive privilege, who intentionally creates by its treatment of Parliament a situation in which there is little choice but no confidence.

So now, after what looks like with each new poll the return of a minority Tory government, it's time for Harper to ponder the possibility that he is not a president, our system does not afford the Prime Minister or Cabinet the special rights that Tory ministers seem to believe is their right. He'll have to cut a deal, maybe even tempt the NDP into some sort of, gosh, let's not say it, a coalition of some kind, or heck, even with the Liberals.

Or he can put the crappy election budget that Flaherty cooked up back before the House and lose power. Harper knows the recipe, the question is whether he can or will follow it.

Edited April 7, 2011 by ToadBrother

blueblood · April 7, 2011

Well golly, I've only said it like about six or seven times since the election was called.

Nothing's to stop them. Nothing's to stop Harper from taking the 26 or 27 days between May 2 and the inevitable Throne Speech to go to the Opposition and formulate a budget they can swallow. He did it in January 2009.

I take democracy very seriously too, and the Tories pissed all over it. Tell me why I should vote for a party that despises our constitutional arrangement, that invents out of thin air concepts like executive privilege, who intentionally creates by its treatment of Parliament a situation in which there is little choice but no confidence.

So now, after what looks like with each new poll the return of a minority Tory government, it's time for Harper to ponder the possibility that he is not a president, our system does not afford the Prime Minister or Cabinet the special rights that Tory ministers seem to believe is their right. He'll have to cut a deal, maybe even tempt the NDP into some sort of, gosh, let's not say it, a coalition of some kind, or heck, even with the Liberals.

Or he can put the crappy election budget that Flaherty cooked up back before the House and lose power. Harper knows the recipe, the question is whether he can or will follow it.

Your metrics for pissing on democracy are different than mine. Unless harper does something outrageous, the little shenanigans going on in parliament don't bother a lot of canadians. You have to remember the kind of opposition we have here, and unfortunately for you a large amt of canadians are giving harper a pass.

I don't think you personally should vote tory. In your metrics, the tories are not playing nice in the westminster parliamentary system. If that's a bigger issue to you than the economy, don't vote tory.

The main ballot question imo is: is the economy more important than westminster nitpicking? Canadians will decide that on election day.

ToadBrother · April 7, 2011

Your metrics for pissing on democracy are different than mine. Unless harper does something outrageous,

Attempting to assert a right that has not been held by the Government since 1689 is minor?

the little shenanigans going on in parliament don't bother a lot of canadians. You have to remember the kind of opposition we have here, and unfortunately for you a large amt of canadians are giving harper a pass.

Not a large enough amount. The trends showing them moving back into the high 30s.

I think you'd better get ready for more of the, how do you put, "gong show".

I don't think you personally should vote tory. In your metrics, the tories are not playing nice in the westminster parliamentary system. If that's a bigger issue to you than the economy, don't vote tory.

It's not that they're not playing nice. It's that they had no right to withhold anything from Parliament. That's not "not playing nice", that's a violation of a core constitutional precept. Parliament doesn't have to justify itself to Ministers of the Crown. They have to justify themselves to Parliament.

The main ballot question imo is: is the economy more important than westminster nitpicking? Canadians will decide that on election day.

And it looks like over 60% of Canadians will be saying "We don't think a Tory majority can manage the economy well." My feeling exactly. I don't think they can.

Edited April 7, 2011 by ToadBrother

Oleg Bach · April 7, 2011

Layton is going to need some home care sooner than later - Just like the NDP - create a need only when they personally need it.

blueblood · April 7, 2011

Attempting to assert a right that has not been held by the Government since 1689 is minor?

Not a large enough amount. The trends showing them moving back into the high 30s.

I think you'd better get ready for more of the, how do you put, "gong show".

It's not that they're not playing nice. It's that they had no right to withhold anything from Parliament. That's not "not playing nice", that's a violation of a core constitutional precept. Parliament doesn't have to justify itself to Ministers of the Crown. They have to justify themselves to Parliament.

And it looks like over 60% of Canadians will be saying "We don't think a Tory majority can manage the economy well." My feeling exactly. I don't think they can.

You are 100% right about the rules, that's how it is. However, I and enough canadians to award the tories the most seats of any party in the house (so far) are seeing a completely irresponsible opposition more concerned with obtaining power than running the country. Had the opposition acted in a way that is more responsible (note that is subjective), I would in fact be outraged with you!!

As for managing the economy, the tory policy of slashing corporate taxes that they bullied graham/dion into voting for have resulted in canada leading the g7 in the economy. Thank goodness for the economy graham/dion was opposition leader at that time and not ignatieff. Had the opposition been "strong" then (by strong I mean irresponsible) as it is now, our economy would not be in as good as shape as it is now.

ToadBrother · April 7, 2011

You are 100% right about the rules, that's how it is. However, I and enough canadians to award the tories the most seats of any party in the house (so far) are seeing a completely irresponsible opposition more concerned with obtaining power than running the country. Had the opposition acted in a way that is more responsible (note that is subjective), I would in fact be outraged with you!!

And what would "acting responsible" be? Giving a free pass on cost estimates? Just what would have been a responsible action to a government that said "Oh, those are cabinet confidences, we can't tell you"?

As for managing the economy, the tory policy of slashing corporate taxes that they bullied graham/dion into voting for have resulted in canada leading the g7 in the economy. Thank goodness for the economy graham/dion was opposition leader at that time and not ignatieff. Had the opposition been "strong" then (by strong I mean irresponsible) as it is now, our economy would not be in as good as shape as it is now.

I think it's debatable that corporate tax cuts alone are responsible for this. Probably the most singularly important aspect are banking rules bequeathed to the Tory government by previous governments.

blueblood · April 7, 2011

And what would "acting responsible" be? Giving a free pass on cost estimates? Just what would have been a responsible action to a government that said "Oh, those are cabinet confidences, we can't tell you"?

I think it's debatable that corporate tax cuts alone are responsible for this. Probably the most singularly important aspect are banking rules bequeathed to the Tory government by previous governments.

Acting responsible would be not opposing every little thing with vitriol just for the sake of opposing and trying to greedily get power just because the tories have it. For example passing the accountability act, the quebec nation in a nation, apology to first nations about residential schools, harper supporting the liberals on the afghan mission. That kind of responsible. Unfortunately we have the opposition in the middle of a financial crisis wanting to cause all sorts if instability and force all kinds of bad policy that does not work and only makes things worse. Had all this been going on when it wasn't a financial crisis, it wouldn't be so bad.

ToadBrother · April 7, 2011

Acting responsible would be not opposing every little thing with vitriol just for the sake of opposing and trying to greedily get power just because the tories have it. For example passing the accountability act, the quebec nation in a nation, apology to first nations about residential schools, harper supporting the liberals on the afghan mission. That kind of responsible. Unfortunately we have the opposition in the middle of a financial crisis wanting to cause all sorts if instability and force all kinds of bad policy that does not work and only makes things worse. Had all this been going on when it wasn't a financial crisis, it wouldn't be so bad.

You didn't really answer my question. If the government was not forthcoming on information and claiming cabinet confidences even where the Parliamentary law clerk was saying "None of that applies to Parliament or Parliamentary committees" what would you, as an Opposition party, do?

I think it's a pretty straightforward question, so I don't think it's that hard to answer.

blueblood · April 7, 2011

You didn't really answer my question. If the government was not forthcoming on information and claiming cabinet confidences even where the Parliamentary law clerk was saying "None of that applies to Parliament or Parliamentary committees" what would you, as an Opposition party, do?

I think it's a pretty straightforward question, so I don't think it's that hard to answer.

Depends on circumstances. If we're in the middle of a war or economic turmoil, I'd want the war to end and the turmoil to be fixed first, then start with the nitpicking. A pretty responsible way of going about things.

Would you risk economic ruin or national security in a war situation for the sake of parliamentary privelege? I answered yours, your turn.

ToadBrother · April 7, 2011

Depends on circumstances. If we're in the middle of a war or economic turmoil, I'd want the war to end and the turmoil to be fixed first, then start with the nitpicking. A pretty responsible way of going about things.

Would you risk economic ruin or national security in a war situation for the sake of parliamentary privelege? I answered yours, your turn.

Asking for cost estimates is hardly going to cause economic ruin, and if national security is an issue, why there's always meeting in camera. Hard to justify full reporting on crime bill costs as "national security".

What you're really saying is "I'd just give 'em a free pass." I expected that. Maybe soon enough we'll see if you feel the same if the shoe's on the other foot.

Edited April 7, 2011 by ToadBrother

Bryan · April 8, 2011

If the government was not forthcoming on information and claiming cabinet confidences even where the Parliamentary law clerk was saying "None of that applies to Parliament or Parliamentary committees" what would you, as an Opposition party, do?

I think it's a pretty straightforward question, so I don't think it's that hard to answer.

Given the circumstances, the Government did the right thing. There are certain things you are not going to give to the opposition, regardless of the composition of the parliament. You can bleat "parliament is supreme" all you want, you're still not getting information that the government deems is not for public consumption.

You are getting far too hung up on tradition, and not taking into account the reality of governing with a minority and a united opposition playing non stop gotcha games. To keep going back to the traditions and ceremony is not taking the current circumstances seriously. Executive privilege may not be written into our system, but a minority government that is taking governing seriously is going to try to assert it where ever it can anyway.

Smallc · April 8, 2011

You are getting far too hung up on tradition,

It isn't just tradition. The idea that parliament is in charge is an essential component of our system. Again, talk like the above makes me regret my current support of the Conservatives.

Bryan · April 8, 2011

The idea that parliament is in charge is an essential component of our system.

Traditionally. In an era where 50-60 seats in Quebec are permanently out of play, things have to change.

Smallc · April 8, 2011

Traditionally. In an era where 50-60 seats in Quebec are permanently out of play, things have to change.

No, they don't. The Bloc is as much a part of Parliament as anyone else. The entire idea of parliamentary government, especially in the Westminster model, revolves around the idea that the government and the executive must be held accountable to the people's representatives. It doesn't matter how many seats are "out of play" in Quebec (the number isn't anywhere near 60, and an inspiring leader could change that).

Bryan · April 8, 2011

No, they don't. The Bloc is as much a part of Parliament as anyone else. The entire idea of parliamentary government, especially in the Westminster model, revolves around the idea that the government and the executive must be held accountable to the people's representatives. It doesn't matter how many seats are "out of play" in Quebec (the number isn't anywhere near 60, and an inspiring leader could change that).

In theory, you would be right. In practice, the guy who tossed all that aside has maintained the longest serving minority government in our history.

It's the basic difference between left and right. Lefties main purpose is to change things from how they are to how they feel things should be. Their argument is with reality. Righties look at reality and find a way to work within it. Harper found a way to govern with a united opposition constantly trying to take him out. That's not the way lefties wish it were, so obviously they hate that. Sucks to be them.

Smallc · April 8, 2011

In theory, you would be right. In practice, the guy who tossed all that aside has maintained the longest serving minority government in our history.

That's quite revisionist. This is also the guy who faces the weakest opposition in Canadian history....and that's why he's still here. There's nothing spectacular about Harper. The things he has done, with a stronger opposition, would have got him out of office quite quickly.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Smallc

Bryan · April 8, 2011

That's quite revisionist. This is also the guy who faces the weakest opposition in Canadian history....and that's why he's still here. There's nothing spectacular about Harper. The things he has done, with a stronger opposition, would have got him out of office quite quickly.

Nothing spectacular aside from being the best PM this country has had in at least 40 years.

Smallc · April 8, 2011

Nothing spectacular aside from being the best PM this country has had in at least 40 years.

In your opinion of course. The best PM this country has ever had wasn't even given a chance...in my opinion, of course.

Evening Star · April 8, 2011

Hm, what do you mean by that? Are you talking about Clark?

ToadBrother · April 8, 2011

Nothing spectacular aside from being the best PM this country has had in at least 40 years.

I just don't get this bizarre hero worship. I guess because I see politicians for what they are, and not as partisan demigods, having someone say something like this doesn't really compute with me.

Jack Weber · April 8, 2011

I just don't get this bizarre hero worship. I guess because I see politicians for what they are, and not as partisan demigods, having someone say something like this doesn't really compute with me.

You,of course like myself,would'nt dare think to give our money to these fools...

The poster you're quoting feels otherwise...

This is very insightful...

ToadBrother · April 8, 2011

Given the circumstances, the Government did the right thing. There are certain things you are not going to give to the opposition, regardless of the composition of the parliament. You can bleat "parliament is supreme" all you want, you're still not getting information that the government deems is not for public consumption.

Parliament has substantial powers to do just that. It can, if it so pleases, go to the Speaker once rulings are in place, and instruct him that Government is not forthcoming on documents ordered, and the Sergeant-At-Arms will be dispatched to seize those documents. LIkely, in such a situation, any Minister or staff that attempt to block this will end up in jail.

We live in a nation of law, my friend, and you're notion that the government is above it is ridiculous.

You are getting far too hung up on tradition, and not taking into account the reality of governing with a minority and a united opposition playing non stop gotcha games. To keep going back to the traditions and ceremony is not taking the current circumstances seriously. Executive privilege may not be written into our system, but a minority government that is taking governing seriously is going to try to assert it where ever it can anyway.

There's no tradition to this at all. The Rights and Privileges of Parliament are guaranteed in the BNA Act, 1867.

Executive privilege is a lie. It has not existed since the time of Charles I.

And anyone who says constitutional rights can be dispensed with by a government is someone who has absolutely no appreciation for democracy. I pity you.

Edited April 8, 2011 by ToadBrother

Jack Weber · April 8, 2011

Parliament has substantial powers to do just that. It can, if it so pleases, go to the Speaker once rulings are in place, and instruct him that Government is not forthcoming on documents ordered, and the Sergeant-At-Arms will be dispatched to seize those documents. LIkely, in such a situation, any Minister or staff that attempt to block this will end up in jail.

We live in a nation of law, my friend, and you're notion that the government is above it is ridiculous.

There's no tradition to this at all. The Rights and Privileges of Parliament are guaranteed in the BNA Act, 1867.

Executive privilege is a lie. It has not existed since the time of Charles I.

Ya' gotta love how democracy is a bit of a nuisance for these folks.

And history has no relevance...