Should Stephen Harper resign?

[eyeball]

Maybe one of those in the PMO would be a good place to start.

I honestly think the PMO might be amongst one of the the only places we need to monitor. I subscribe to the trickle down theory as it applies to the flow of decency and integrity. I even bet wealth would start to flow in the direction that's often advertised if we could pop the cork on power.

[On Guard for Thee]

I honestly think the PMO might be amongst one of the the only places we need to monitor. I subscribe to the trickle down theory as it applies to the flow of decency and integrity. I even bet wealth would start to flow in the direction that's often advertised if we could pop the cork on power.

Ill drink to that

[jacee]

He might but don't forget the other parties who don't seem to be supporting it.

Link?

IMO it would be a coup of sorts if the caucus decided after a couple of years they really didn't like their leader so lets get a petition together. This type of action should require more than a 15% petition, and more than a 50% +1 vote, the bar is too low.

I'm more interested in removing the power of the PM to veto riding nominations. That P.Trudeau perversion of democracy is what gave Chretien and Harper the means to threaten MP's into always voting the way he wants in the House. Remove that, and the absolute power of the PM is returned to the intended balance - ie, MP's can vote with their conscience on behalf of their constituents, as the system was designed.

Over time, the checks and balances in our system have been eroded to centralize all power in the PMO. That's not the way it's supposed to be.

Edited December 1, 2013 by jacee

[scribblet]

It's not a coup at all. That's how our system works. The Prime Minister needs to have and maintain the support of Parliament to stay on as Prime Minister. The party leaders need to maintain the support of their democratically elected MPs to remain in their position. There is no "coup of sorts" about it.

I disagree, it would be an internal coup. I'm not totally against the right, I just want a higher bar, say 25% for the petition and 2/3 majority for the vote.

I don't agree with taking away the right of the membership to vote for the party leader at their leadership convention. Giving that right to the caucus only would take away from the rights of the membership. It was one of the items voted down at the last convention. He should've taken that into consideration when trying to take those rights away, a tactical error on his part.

Edited December 1, 2013 by scribblet

[g_bambino]

I don't agree with taking away the right of the membership to vote, that is more democratic then only the caucus voting for him.

Who proposed taking away the party membership's "right" to vote? The proposal is to end the warped situation wherein during any majority parliament, the group to which the prime minister is responsible shifts from the House of Commons to his political party's membership. Do you really think that, when it comes to the question of whether or not to allow an individual to continue as prime minister, the vote of some tiny fraction of the voting population is more democratic than the vote of the representatives of the entire voting population?

[ReeferMadness]

I think that one of the biggest problems with the political system in Canada is that many Canadians don't understand it.

roughly half of Canadians believed that our prime minister is both directly elected and our head of state

How can you have a decent representative democracy when people don't understand how the representation works? The answer is you can't and we don't.

I hate to say it but we'd be better off with a U.S. style political system (minus the unlimited money, of course). That way, when Canadians learn how politics work (by watching American movies, talk shows and late night comics) they would be learning something about Canadian politics too. And the next time some huckster of a politician tried to tell them that the opposition was trying to invoke a coup d'etat, they might not be so gullible.

[ReeferMadness]

Back to the original theme of this thread, Harper might soon be finding some new reasons to resign - they found Benjamin Perrin's emails!

The federal government says it is handing over to police a recently discovered cache of emails belonging to Benjamin Perrin, former counsel for the Prime Minister’s Office and a central figure in the Senate spending scandal.

“On Nov. 29, 2013, we found that Mr. Perrin’s emails had in fact been retained due to a litigation hold in an unrelated matter.”

Mr Perrin faces his own problems relating to his alleged dealings in the senate scandal. He (like Harper) claims to have had no knowledge of the sordid affair; but his name appears in the RCMP documents.

Here's the thing. If Perrin was aware of an illegal deal and failed to counsel Harper against it, he could be in trouble with the Bar.

[g_bambino]

I hate to say it but we'd be better off with a U.S. style political system (minus the unlimited money, of course). That way, when Canadians learn how politics work (by watching American movies, talk shows and late night comics) they would be learning something about Canadian politics too.

Bleh! How about just better education? It doesn't seem to confound people living in other Westminster parliamentary democracies all that much.

And the next time some huckster of a politician tried to tell them that the opposition was trying to invoke a coup d'etat, they might not be so gullible.

You eliminate the possibility of that by adopting what you say above. It's next to impossible to replace a president mid-term.

[scribblet]

Who proposed taking away the party membership's "right" to vote? The proposal is to end the warped situation wherein during any majority parliament, the group to which the prime minister is responsible shifts from the House of Commons to his political party's membership. Do you really think that, when it comes to the question of whether or not to allow an individual to continue as prime minister, the vote of some tiny fraction of the voting population is more democratic than the vote of the representatives of the entire voting population?

If the caucus is given the right to remove a leader (by secret ballot) who has been duly elected by the membership at their leadership convention then they are removing the rights of the membership. The membership voted against changing the rules at the last convention.

The MPs of a particular party don't represent the entire voter population, they only represent one group/riding. A group which would consist of a variety of opinions so an MP only actually represents a portion of his constituents. Which portion should he represent, I would say the one with which he agrees with, so really, he ends up voting for his own opinion/beliefs.

The only true democratic method is for allowing us to vote for a PM, but then we would have to be a Republic I suppose.

This would come into effect after the next election and would apply to all parties, as this says, the NDP may not be on board. Private member bills are usually free votes, I doubt it will pass.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/30/michael-chong-stephen-harper_n_4364964.html

Edited December 2, 2013 by scribblet

[eyeball]

I think that one of the biggest problems with the political system in Canada is that many Canadians don't understand it.

How can you have a decent representative democracy when people don't understand how the representation works? The answer is you can't and we don't.

I hate to say it but we'd be better off with a U.S. style political system (minus the unlimited money, of course). That way, when Canadians learn how politics work (by watching American movies, talk shows and late night comics) they would be learning something about Canadian politics too. And the next time some huckster of a politician tried to tell them that the opposition was trying to invoke a coup d'etat, they might not be so gullible.

Blaming the victims probably isn't going to help anymore than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So much of everything these liars in power do is a great big confidential secret and what they say in public is so much mealy mouthed bullshit that it's no wonder no one knows what the hell is going on let alone cares anymore.

If you want Canadians to better understand the form and the function of their governance and participate in it then show it to them in action at every level. Roll the goddamn cameras. It's the 21st century now not the horse and buggy days for which this contraption called our government was designed.

[Smallc]

If the caucus is given the right to remove a leader (by secret ballot) who has been duly elected by the membership at their leadership convention then they are removing the rights of the membership.

And what about the rights of the MPs and the rights of those they represent? Yes, the way things are configured now does allow things to get done easier, but it's far less easy to hold a majority PM or really any party leader to account than it is in other Westminster democracies.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

The MPs of a particular party don't represent the entire voter population, they only represent one group/riding.

They represent all of the ridings where the party won. Stephen Harper was only elected by the voters in Calgary and as leader of the party, he doesn't even need a seat to be Prime Minister (although by tradition they usually run in the first by-election when they don't). Hell, the Conservative Party itself doesn't even represent the entire voter population and they have a majority government. They represent about 25% of the voting population and received about 40% of the vote. Yet, they control greater than 50% of the seats in the House. So let's not pretend all of a sudden that we're a champion for representation that's proportional here.

[scribblet]

I think I'll wait for the specifics of the bill, but I still don't like the idea of Caucus overriding the voting of the membership which would result in an internal coup. Especially since the membership recently voted against it. Chong should have taken that into consideration although he has been working on it for years. It could be open to abuse especially with the low (IMO) requirements. 15% for the petition is too low and a majority should be a large majority.

Just my opinion, different strokes for different folks.

[cybercoma]

How do you think the riding association would like it if their MP threw out the leader of the party, against the wishes of the riding association's membership? Chances are that MP is going to lose the nomination in the next election. This is why Argus's point about rigging the nominations is so important and needs to be addressed for this to work.

Edited December 2, 2013 by cybercoma

[scribblet]

The CPC adopted a weighted voting process in 2005 for the leadership voting but I would like to see the old one member, one vote system . Party membership and such a voting system gives voice to the leadership issue and adds integrity to the party. The election process for the party leader should be decided by the party and not by parliamentary legislation IMO. If a leader/PM should die in office or steps aside for whatever reason, then I wouldn't have a problem with the caucus appointing someone until the next election and a leadership convention.

The candidate nomination process is a different issue where issue of time frames, signing up members from out of riding etc. does need to be addressed.

[g_bambino]

If the caucus is given the right to remove a leader... who has been duly elected by the membership at their leadership convention then they are removing the rights of the membership...

The MPs of a particular party don't represent the entire voter population, they only represent one group/riding.

I didn't say the MPs of a particular party, I said MPs, who collectively represent the voting population. Parliament is supposed to be supreme; the prime minister is supposed to be accountable to the House of Commons--that's all MPs, not just the ones in opposition. That is how responsible government is meant to work. However, as it is, because the prime minister is almost always the leader of a political party and leaders of political parties are chosen by party members and remain party leader until they resign or die, the MPs of the prime minister's party are left meaningless (Trudeau Sr. recognised that decades ago) and that renders parliament meaningless in terms of determining government. A prime minister with a majority in parliament is nearly immovable; he cows his MPs into servitude and there aren't enough opposition MPs to ever achieve a winning vote of non-confidence. All that just to suit party memberships? What made party memberships supreme over parliament?

The only true democratic method is for allowing us to vote for a PM, but then we would have to be a Republic I suppose

We wouldn't necessarily have to be a republic; there are republican imitations of the Westminster parliamentary system. But, that's a side issue. More to the point: There is no true democratic method. Democracy is not an absolute. Considering the benefits and/or drawbacks of directly electing the prime minister depends upon whether or not that would happen in the current parliamentary system or a scenario wherein the prime minister replaces the monarch as a presidential head of state. But, I see no bonus in either.

[ed.: +]

Edited December 2, 2013 by g_bambino

[jacee]

Back to the original theme of this thread, Harper might soon be finding some new reasons to resign - they found Benjamin Perrin's emails!

Mr Perrin faces his own problems relating to his alleged dealings in the senate scandal. He (like Harper) claims to have had no knowledge of the sordid affair; but his name appears in the RCMP documents.

Here's the thing. If Perrin was aware of an illegal deal and failed to counsel Harper against it, he could be in trouble with the Bar.

It will be interesting to find out what's in Perrin's emails.

emails-belonging-to-ex-pmo-lawyer-a-central-figure-in-duffy-scandal-not-deleted-federal-government-tells-rcmp

The Privy Council Office released a letter to the RCMP on Sunday saying it had been mistaken when it originally told investigators that Perrins emails were deleted when he left the job in March, in keeping with standard procedure.

...

In May, Perrin denied that he was ever consulted about, or participated in, Wrights decision to cover Duffys expenses, and said he never communicated with Harper about it.

We'll see if Perrin lied in May, when he may have been under the impression that relevant emails (evidence) had been deleted.

However, PMO staff affidavits have implicated Perrin:

/ex-pmo-counsel-benjamin-perrin-may-face-b-c-law-society-investigation

A sworn RCMP affidavit includes correspondence between staffers in the Prime Ministers Office and Conservative senators about the Deloitte audit. An email trail suggests Perrin and Conservative Party lawyer Arthur Hamilton were involved in the deal that would see Duffys expenses eventually covered by Harpers then-chief of staff Nigel Wright.

So either Perrin is in trouble for failing in his legal responsibility to inform the PM,

or he did inform Harper and Harper is in trouble for lying by saying he didn't know about the deal.

.

Who's going to take the fall ... Perrin or Harper?

.

[cybercoma]

We wouldn't necessarily have to be a republic; there are republican imitations of the Westminster parliamentary system. But, that's a side issue. More to the point: There is no true democratic method. Democracy is not an absolute. Considering the benefits and/or drawbacks of directly electing the prime minister depends upon whether or not that would happen in the current parliamentary system or a scenario wherein the prime minister replaces the monarch as a presidential head of state. But, I see no bonus in either.

[ed.: +]

Furthermore, an elected Prime Minister in the current position would completely undermine the supremacy of parliament.

[eyeball]

What made party memberships supreme over parliament?.

[ed.: +]

My first guess would be...money.

[ReeferMadness]

Bleh! How about just better education? It doesn't seem to confound people living in other Westminster parliamentary democracies all that much.

I can't speak for other Westminster parliamentary democracies. In ours, most people are confused about how it works despite learning about it in grade school and there being ample information on the web and elsewhere. Are you proposing to educate people at gunpoint?

You eliminate the possibility of that by adopting what you say above. It's next to impossible to replace a president mid-term.

You assume that my goal is to replace the leader midterm. My goal is to fix our democracy so we're not tempted to replace the leader midterm.

[ReeferMadness]

Blaming the victims probably isn't going to help anymore than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So much of everything these liars in power do is a great big confidential secret and what they say in public is so much mealy mouthed bullshit that it's no wonder no one knows what the hell is going on let alone cares anymore.

Individually, we may be victims but collectively, we victimize ourselves through our ignorance and apathy. A country gets the government it deservies

[g_bambino]

I can't speak for other Westminster parliamentary democracies. In ours, most people are confused about how it works despite learning about it in grade school and there being ample information on the web and elsewhere. Are you proposing to educate people at gunpoint?

Do you see anywhere I proposed anything even close to education at gunpoint? Just improve the civics curriculum; one day in grade school isn't enough and you know that.

You assume that my goal is to replace the leader midterm. My goal is to fix our democracy so we're not tempted to replace the leader midterm.

I made no such assumption. You assume being stuck with a leader for a set amount of time is a fix of our democracy.

[Hudson Jones]

Mercer makes a point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=750WMkyWeuA

[eyeball]

Damn good point Mercer makes too.

So do Canadians need a better understanding of civics to inform them why their democracy is sick as a dog or so we'll know how to put the dog down? Is there a point to this exercise, is there a test at the end?

[Topaz]

Harper is going to have more problems when MP Chong private member bill comes up for voting next spring. Apparently, he has about 23-24 Tory MP's and growing with him and if Harper wanted to kick them out he couldn't because the party would fall under their majority.