Moonlight Graham Posted October 9, 2013 Report Posted October 9, 2013 Stephen Harper advised the Governor General to prorogue Parliament in 2004 in order to avoid a coalition of opposition parties from voting down the government and forcing an election, and in 2009 Harper advised the GG to prorogued again in order to "avoid ongoing investigations into the Afghan detainees affair". Recently, Dalton McGuinty advised the Lieutenant Governor to prorogue the Ontario legislature to avoid facing questions/investigation on the gas-plant scandal. All 3 attempts to prorogue were granted by the Governor General/Lieutenant Governor. Should these clearly political reasons to prorogue be allowed as much as they have? It is virtually always convention for the Crown to grant whatever is advised to them by the leader of the legislature, but should these be exceptions? What Harper did in 2004 is more controversial IMO, but simply proroguing to avoid accountability and questioning is just wrong IMO. I think the GG/Lieutenant Governors should have more leeway to feel free to reject prorogation if it's clearly not based on reasonable grounds. What do you think? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
eyeball Posted October 9, 2013 Report Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) If the GG was basing their permission to prorogue for the venal reasons you've cited then certainly these requests should have been turned down but if the reasons given by a PM appear reasonable on their face what is the GG to do? I'd love to see a GG call BS when it is BS but it looks like their hands are tied, for the sake of appearances ironically enough. Edited October 9, 2013 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted October 9, 2013 Report Posted October 9, 2013 Seriously though, what leeway does the Crown need? It can reject a request to prorogue the government all it wants, as far as I know. But if it goes against the Prime Minister, who is democratically the head of government by a majority of seats in the House, then we have a constitutional conundrum. Quote
TimG Posted October 10, 2013 Report Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Timeouts are used in sports all of the time - especially by teams that are losing. Prorogation is the parliamentary equivalent and I fail to see why people make an issue out of them. If a scandal really matters then delaying the coverage for 6 weeks or so will make no difference in the long run. The opposition will have plenty of opportunity to confront the government. If the delay actually makes a scandal go away then that is evidence that it was not an important issue in the first place. In 2004 the coalition fell apart by the time parliament came back and proved that the GG made the right call. These facts make it next to impossible for a GG to refuse a request for prorogation because refusing a request would be equivalent to taking sides in a partisan political fight. Edited October 10, 2013 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted October 10, 2013 Report Posted October 10, 2013 Prorogation is the parliamentary equivalent and I fail to see why people make an issue out of them. You don't understand why people would be more than a little upset that they can't hold the government accountable by asking them questions? Really? Quote
TimG Posted October 10, 2013 Report Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) You don't understand why people would be more than a little upset that they can't hold the government accountable by asking them questions? Really?I have not heard any convincing arguments that prorogation prevents people from holding the government accountable by asking them questions since prorogation is temporary. Parliament is really just political theater where the opposition seeks out opportunities to embarrass the government and when it finds them blows them completely out of proportion in order to enrage the public. For its part the government tries to downplay these issues. The truth is usually somewhere between the two extremes. IMO - if a scandal does not survive a prorogation then it was really a non-issue which the opposition wanted to exaggerate for political gain. Edited October 10, 2013 by TimG Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 10, 2013 Report Posted October 10, 2013 Timeouts are used in sports all of the time - especially by teams that are losing. Prorogation is the parliamentary equivalent and I fail to see why people make an issue out of them. If a scandal really matters then delaying the coverage for 6 weeks or so will make no difference in the long run. The opposition will have plenty of opportunity to confront the government. If the delay actually makes a scandal go away then that is evidence that it was not an important issue in the first place. In 2004 the coalition fell apart by the time parliament came back and proved that the GG made the right call. These facts make it next to impossible for a GG to refuse a request for prorogation because refusing a request would be equivalent to taking sides in a partisan political fight. Once again Tim, you're getting on everybody's nerves with your rational, objective look at things. Quote Back to Basics
cybercoma Posted October 10, 2013 Report Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) I have not heard any convincing arguments that prorogation prevents people from holding the government accountable by asking them questions since prorogation is temporary. Parliament is really just political theater where the opposition seeks out opportunities to embarrass the government and when it finds them blows them completely out of proportion in order to enrage the public. For its part the government tries to downplay these issues. The truth is usually somewhere between the two extremes. IMO - if a scandal does not survive a prorogation then it was really a non-issue which the opposition wanted to exaggerate for political gain. Sure. Why have the government sit at all, eh Tim? It's all just theatre. We wouldn't want to embarrass the government. Edited October 10, 2013 by cybercoma Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 10, 2013 Report Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Sure. Why have the government sit at all, eh Tim? It's all just theatre. We wouldn't want to embarrass the government. More to the point of proroguation - and the fact that if an issue can't survive for a month or two, then it probably wasn't serious enough to bring down the government: 1) Almost 70% of Canadians were against a coalition government led by Stephane Dion and supported by the Bloq. While technically legal, it was within a hair of being a coup-d'etat. Fortunately, Canadians were not fooled. 2) The Afghan Detainee "scandal" - a shameful act of political bluster and oportunism by the same culprits - played into a huge production by the CBC and The Star. Vilifying our military for supposedly not providing enough oversight to how Afghans treated Canadian captured Afghan Taliban terrorists. The UN found nothing to censor the Canadian military. 3) McGuinty - now there's something to talk about - but guess what....the media bought into McGuilty taking a "time out" to converse with the teachers. The guy simply ran away from the Billion$$ gas plant scandal, the Billion$$ eHealth scandal, the Billion$$ Ornge scandal, the many Billions to "buy labour peace" with the teachers union, and the many, many billions we will be paying for the Green Energy scam, These guys were/are the most incompetent, if not corrupt government in the history of Ontario - and we will be paying for their hubris for decades. Can you just imagine if McGuilty and Wynne were Conservative? But - like all of us - when you vote, you end up with the government you deserve. Just throw the bums out and never let them back. Edited October 10, 2013 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Moonlight Graham Posted October 10, 2013 Author Report Posted October 10, 2013 Timeouts are used in sports all of the time - especially by teams that are losing. Prorogation is the parliamentary equivalent and I fail to see why people make an issue out of them. If a scandal really matters then delaying the coverage for 6 weeks or so will make no difference in the long run. The opposition will have plenty of opportunity to confront the government. If the delay actually makes a scandal go away then that is evidence that it was not an important issue in the first place. People make an issue of it because the government is shutting down the legislature to avoid accountability. Shutting down Parliament simply to avoid being questioned or investigated on wrong-doing is wrong. If a scandal really matters then delaying the coverage for 6 weeks or so will make no difference in the long run.The opposition will have plenty of opportunity to confront the government. If it doesn't matter then why do governments do it? These facts make it next to impossible for a GG to refuse a request for prorogation because refusing a request would be equivalent to taking sides in a partisan political fight. In terms of the coalition scenario, yes, and I'd agree with you there. But in terms of avoiding questioning and investigation, like McGuinty and Harper, and wanting to see if a scandal will blow over a bit with time, that's just clearly wrong, it's not partisan to hold the government to account. Do you really think the government should have the power to shut down the legislature to avoiding questioning on issues that make them look bad? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
eyeball Posted October 10, 2013 Report Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Parliament is really just political theater where the opposition seeks out opportunities to embarrass the government and when it finds them blows them completely out of proportion in order to enrage the public. For its part the government tries to downplay these issues. The truth is usually somewhere between the two extremes. What two extremes? You've effectively portrayed the opposition's actions as extreme in your description of what Parliament is but the governments actions seem downright reserved in comparison - like wise patient elders amongst screaming children. You're not the least bit embarrassed by the fundamental sycophancy that shines through your comments are you? Edited October 10, 2013 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonlight Graham Posted October 10, 2013 Author Report Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) I have not heard any convincing arguments that prorogation prevents people from holding the government accountable by asking them questions since prorogation is temporary. Parliament is really just political theater where the opposition seeks out opportunities to embarrass the government and when it finds them blows them completely out of proportion in order to enrage the public. For its part the government tries to downplay these issues. The truth is usually somewhere between the two extremes. What you think of Parliament is inaccurate. It may be grandstanding much of the time, but it's the only place where the government in Canada is really held to account on a regular basis. Our government, especially Harper, control the media including who asks them questions and how many they have to answer etc., if at all. Our federal and provincial legislatures are the only place where our governments and leaders are forced to stand up and answer questions in front of a camera for all to see. Edited October 10, 2013 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
TimG Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 (edited) What you think of Parliament is inaccurate. It may be grandstanding much of the time, but it's the only place where the government in Canada is really held to account on a regular basis.Please explain why a 6 week delay prevents the opposition from 'holding the government to account'. The only reason the opposition gets upset about prorogation is because the opportunity for grandstanding is highest when news first comes out. If it was really about the 'holding government to account' then they would be able to work with the 6 week delay since government failures are not any less. Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG Quote
TimG Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 If it doesn't matter then why do governments do it?Governments do it because they are trying the manipulate the media - however, the opposition does not like it because the opposition wants to manipulate the media (IOW they are no better than the government). Given the fact that you have two sides playing media games the GG cannot really take sides and has no choice but follow tradition and accept the government's recommendations. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 Please explain why a 6 week delay prevents the opposition from 'holding the government to account'.Why not an 8 week delay or a 10 week delay or a 6 month delay? Pick a number that's convenient for you and explain why that's the cut off. Quote
TimG Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 (edited) Why not an 8 week delay or a 10 week delay or a 6 month delay? Pick a number that's convenient for you and explain why that's the cut off. In American college basketball, there are two systems of timeouts used. In games that are not broadcast, each team is allowed four 75-second and two 30-second timeouts per regulation game. In games which are broadcast on television, radio, or over the Internet, each team is granted one 60-second timeout and four 30-second timeouts per game in addition to the media timeouts each half.In a sporting match a 10 minute timeout is unreasonable - but that fact does not make 75 second timeout wrong. Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted October 11, 2013 Author Report Posted October 11, 2013 Governments do it because they are trying the manipulate the media Why are they, as you say, "manipulating the media"? What's the difference getting bad media coverage now or in 2 months time if a any real scandal will still be equally relevant in 2 months time, as you claim. Nope, governments do this sort of thing to avoid answering questions to scandals and hoping the scandals will blow over a little bit during that time. It also gives buys them time to get their stories (lies) together and cover their tracks. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 In a sporting match a 10 minute timeout is unreasonable - but that fact does not make 75 second timeout wrong.Your comparison of parliament to a game is sophomoric. I shouldn't have to point that out. Quote
dre Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 In a sporting match a 10 minute timeout is unreasonable - but that fact does not make 75 second timeout wrong. Having a timeout is fine I guess for a few days... But a better sports analogy for shutting down parliament would be kicking all the balls over the fence so that nobody can play anymore. How about they just dont get paid when parliament is shut down? That would at least discourage it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 (edited) How about they just dont get paid when parliament is shut down? That would at least discourage it.How do you know the GG is not already discouraging it? Do you really think the government would request a prorogation without checking the back channels to ensure it was going to be accepted? Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG Quote
TimG Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 (edited) Your comparison of parliament to a game is sophomoric. I shouldn't have to point that out.I think you are quite naive. Politics is a game where different teams compete with each other to establish false narratives that make them look good and the other guys look bad. Every few years the voters decide who's narrative they think is more credible and that team gets to drive the bus for awhile. Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG Quote
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 It's all a pack of lies. None of it matters. Yeah, yeah. Keep your cynicism to yourself. Quote
Bryan Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 governments do this sort of thing to avoid answering questions to scandals and hoping the scandals will blow over a little bit during that time. If a story can just "blow over" with a short time out, that alone is evidence that the time out was the right thing to do. If it's a real issue, it will still be front and centre whenever they come back. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted October 11, 2013 Author Report Posted October 11, 2013 I love how all 3 conservative Harper supporters in this thread, namely Tim, Bryan, and Keepitsimple, all agree with each other and have no problem with the proroguing "time outs". You guys are partisan hacks. It's scary that people can support clearly unjust actions just to "support the team". And McGuinty doing it recently amazingly didn't change anything! I made this thread thinking the debate would be on whether or not the GG/LG should have more conventional leeway to stop Harper and McGuinty's nonsense, I never imagined people wouldn't have any problems with the actual opportunist proroguing tactics. Never underestimate Team Harper. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
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.