On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 The questions are jut as mind numbing. So you think a question about why the government wont consider increased oversight of a bill (C51) which threatens to impinge on our rights is mind numbing, and Calandras talking point over and over and over about an apparent an accusation that the NDP may have broken some rule about spending on a satellite office is not. Valid question, mind numbing talking point. Quote
Topaz Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 someone did a poll in Poilievre area and he's losing, could it be that were most of the fired Federal workers live??? Quote
Argus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Posted June 22, 2015 Assuming you're right, this is a clever strategy but also blatantly contemptuous of Parliament and democracy. So? Look, I have been a political junkie for a lot of years. I used to go down to the House to watch from the gallery and listen to the insults tossed back and forth between Trudeau and Diefenbaker. Question Period was always a game played by the opposition with the sole purpose of embarrassing the government. It's not there to get answers to questions. You can get those with a phone call or an email. Television has made it more important, though. Television lets the opposition score important points on the evening's sound bite TV broadcasts. With the advent of TV Question Period started becoming nothing more than a play for the cameras. And it's gotten worse as civility and respect between the parties has faded and sheer, raw partisanship has grown. You want to improve Question Period? Ditch the cameras. That'll help. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Posted June 22, 2015 I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Is it that the Opposition is to blame for asking questions during Question Period? Let me ask the honorable member a question. Given the known fact you are an obnoxious, deceitful weasel who molests kittens and hates everything which is Canadian, and are probably in league with the devil, not to mention that you rob from orphans and defraud the government while urinating on church sairs and throwing raw sewage into pristine rivers, can you tell me what time it is? What? You're offended? You don't want to tell me the time? You want to call me names instead? I don't get your attitude. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Posted June 22, 2015 Thats right. All they have are talking points.Mind numbing stupid boring BS talking points. And Calandra, Poilievre, Alexander, a host of others icluding Harper himself are all to happy to give us the wind up doll blab incessantly. Yes, which is so boring I virtually never see them on TV now unless I look at one of those political talk panels. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Posted June 22, 2015 So you think a question about why the government wont consider increased oversight of a bill (C51) which threatens to impinge on our rights is mind numbing, Uhm, yes, given this has already been talked about and rejected by the government on many occasions for months now. Do you have kids? If your kid asks for a pony every day for months do you continue to answer politely? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 Uhm, yes, given this has already been talked about and rejected by the government on many occasions for months now. Do you have kids? If your kid asks for a pony every day for months do you continue to answer politely? I would explain to my kid why we couldnt have a pony (such as because we live in the city) Harper doesn't explain anything, except for another repetitive meaningless talking point, because with his majority, he doesn't have to. Quote
Argus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) I would explain to my kid why we couldnt have a pony (such as because we live in the city) Harper doesn't explain anything, except for another repetitive meaningless talking point, because with his majority, he doesn't have to. What if your kid was thirty seven and shouldn't need an explanation? Edited June 22, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 What if your kid was thirty seven and shouldn't need an explanation? If my kid was 37 they can get their own pony. Quote
Argus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Posted June 22, 2015 If my kid was 37 they can get their own pony. I think you get the point. Asking that was not a serious question. It was just another reiteration of opposition talking points for the cameras. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 I think you get the point. Asking that was not a serious question. It was just another reiteration of opposition talking points for the cameras. The opposition, especially Mulcair, actually ask pertinent questions, the reiteration of talking points are what they get in response. Quote
Argus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Posted June 22, 2015 The opposition, especially Mulcair, actually ask pertinent questions, the reiteration of talking points are what they get in response. If your question is one which has been already dealt with multiple times for months then it's no longer a question. It's just playing to the cameras. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 If your question is one which has been already dealt with multiple times for months then it's no longer a question. It's just playing to the cameras. How was anything dealt with on C 51 for instance...They refused to let a number of experts into the committee meetings, time limited debate, and the rammed it through virtually unchanged. So of course sooner or later we will be into another expensive SCC case to clean the thing up. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 The questions aren't supposed to be answered. It's an opportunity for the opposition to create outrage. Let's just get rid of Question Period altogether then, hmm? The executive doesn't need to be accountable to parliament. Who cares what non-Conservative constituencies think anyway? Quote
Big Guy Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 To cybercoma - I suggest that you read "The Best Laid Plans" by Terry Fallis. It may cheer you up and put things into perspective. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Posted June 22, 2015 How was anything dealt with on C 51 for instance...They refused to let a number of experts into the committee meetings, time limited debate, and the rammed it through virtually unchanged. So of course sooner or later we will be into another expensive SCC case to clean the thing up. We're not arguing on C51. I happen to agree there should be more oversight, btw. We're discussing, though, whether it was a legitimate question or just strutting for the cameras. To my mind, it's just political posturing, similar to the Republicans voting to do away with Obamacare about 40 different times. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 We're not arguing on C51. I happen to agree there should be more oversight, btw. We're discussing, though, whether it was a legitimate question or just strutting for the cameras. To my mind, it's just political posturing, similar to the Republicans voting to do away with Obamacare about 40 different times. QP certainly has its theatrical component for sure, but lets leave it there and keep the political posturing out of proper debate and committee meetings when peoples rights are being toyed with. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2015 Report Posted June 22, 2015 To cybercoma - I suggest that you read "The Best Laid Plans" by Terry Fallis. It may cheer you up and put things into perspective. Hah. I've read it. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 To answer the topic thread question - they have to do very little. As the polls show, Justin Trudeau has performed at such a miserable level that their supporters are deserting the ship in droves - seemingly headed to the NDP. One thing is fairly certain - most of those voters are so disillusioned with Trudeau's underwhelming grasp of the issues - an utter inability to elucidate any cohesive thought - that most will not be voting Liberal while he is "Leader". That said, the spotlight has not yet shone on the policies of the NDP - the details that inevitably define them as a tax & spend, insular Federal Party. Where does that leave voters on election day? I'll let everyone speculate on that - but rumours of the death of HarperLand are indeed premature. An even larger majority is not out of the question. Quote Back to Basics
Big Guy Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 What has happened to our form of democracy when we have been mistakenly told that we are voting for a PM. We do not vote for a PM. We vote for the person in our district who is to represent us in Ottawa. I believe that our misguided approach to personality politics of leaders is a mistake and inaccurate. It also makes little sense. Those voters in Quebec during the last election were voting for Jack Layton and his charismatic personality. Jack's NDP party became the opposition and Jack then died. The party is still trying to find its philosophical and policy direction. What happens if you vote for Harper in the next election and he either quits or dies for some reason? Are you then voting for Kenny or MacKay or Baird or what? The same as the Liberals. Are you voting for Trudeau or the make up of his cabinet? If the Liberals are elected to power and something happens to Trudeau then who takes over? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Keepitsimple Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 What has happened to our form of democracy when we have been mistakenly told that we are voting for a PM. We do not vote for a PM. We vote for the person in our district who is to represent us in Ottawa. I believe that our misguided approach to personality politics of leaders is a mistake and inaccurate. It also makes little sense. Those voters in Quebec during the last election were voting for Jack Layton and his charismatic personality. Jack's NDP party became the opposition and Jack then died. The party is still trying to find its philosophical and policy direction. What happens if you vote for Harper in the next election and he either quits or dies for some reason? Are you then voting for Kenny or MacKay or Baird or what? The same as the Liberals. Are you voting for Trudeau or the make up of his cabinet? If the Liberals are elected to power and something happens to Trudeau then who takes over? Leadership is what it's all about or you'll have a rudderless ship. People are free to vote for their local MP and in many smaller communities across Canada, that's exactly what they do because candidates tend to be known within the community. In the big cities - not so much - unless they have some star-power. People look for leaders. Quote Back to Basics
Big Guy Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 To Keepitsimple - At one time when our system appeared to follow the spirit of parliamentary democracy, the party chose the leader and then the leader chose his cabinet. The people in cabinet were placed there because of their expertise in their portfolio and they were pretty free to suggest policy, bring it to caucus, get it approved and formulate legislation. This idea of "leadership" and "power" is a recent successful attempt by subsequent PM's to gather more and more power into the PMO. This goes across all political parties. I believe that the trend to concentration of power is not useful and makes the country prone to the whims of whoever sits in the PM's chair. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Keepitsimple Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 To Keepitsimple - At one time when our system appeared to follow the spirit of parliamentary democracy, the party chose the leader and then the leader chose his cabinet. The people in cabinet were placed there because of their expertise in their portfolio and they were pretty free to suggest policy, bring it to caucus, get it approved and formulate legislation. This idea of "leadership" and "power" is a recent successful attempt by subsequent PM's to gather more and more power into the PMO. This goes across all political parties. I believe that the trend to concentration of power is not useful and makes the country prone to the whims of whoever sits in the PM's chair. So you think that people never voted for John A. McDonald or Louis St. Laurent - they voted for the party of their choice and found out who the leader was after the election? Is that how you think it was done back in the olden days? Don't think so. The concentration of power in the PMO is a separate issue from the one that you first raised by saying people "have been mistakenly told that we are voting for a PM". You're being extremely naive if you think that people aren't interested in who the leader of the party is - because as I said - it's about leadership. People are not as stupid as you appear to think they are. As I said - some vote for the local candidate but many vote for the party - and that party is often embodied by the leadership, policies and values that are communicated by the leader - and they hope that person will be their Prime Minister. Quote Back to Basics
Big Guy Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 My friends and fellow pundits do not consider me as being naïve in any sense. They know me well so I will stay with their evaluation. I also do not think people are stupid. I believe that those who choose to vote for a particular individual, do so for whatever reason that they prioritize - that is one of the freedoms that we enjoy. You obviously feel that the leader is the most important priority for you. I do not think you are either naïve or think that people are stupid. You are only exercising a right. But what happens if you vote for Party A who you feel has a tremendous leader, the Party A wins, the leader dies or is incapacitated for some reason the party chooses a new leader and Prime Minister? Or the individual is caught in some kind of scandal that forces him/her to step down? Because the Americans vote directly for their leader they have a vice-president standing by and most Americans take that choice into consideration when voting. But you are probably correct, vote for Harper, have the Conservatives re-elected to another majority and Harper calls it quits. The party gathers and appoints someone who has cabinet experience etc. So our New Prime Minister for the next 4 years is ....... Julian Fantino! Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Keepitsimple Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) But what happens if you vote for Party A who you feel has a tremendous leader, the Party A wins, the leader dies or is incapacitated for some reason the party chooses a new leader and Prime Minister? Or the individual is caught in some kind of scandal that forces him/her to step down? Respectfully - something like that has not happened for over a century. Where are you trying to go with all this? What's the big deal? There was one case that came close to what you're exemplifying - where Brian Mulroney resigned in a planned manner, a leadership convention was held - Kim Campbell won - and was subsequently appointed PM by the Governor General - as outlined in the process below. So yes - if your scenario unfolded, that's what would happen. Succession Unlike the Vice-President of the United States, the deputy prime minister does not automatically assume the office of prime minister if the incumbent of the latter office dies or resigns. In the event of the sudden resignation or death of a prime minister, constitutional convention requires the governor general to consult the governing party and call on a member to form a government. No policy or convention precludes the deputy prime minister from being chosen as the new prime minister in such a scenario, but none assures it, either—the party caucus would be free to recommend any new leader of its choice to the governor general. Barring extraordinary circumstances, the governor general is expected to follow the wishes of the party, although officially he or she retains the authority to make the final decision. That being the case, no Prime Minister has died in office or resigned suddenly (except following his or her party's electoral defeat) since the 1890s, many decades before the office of Deputy Prime Minister was created. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Prime_Minister_of_Canada Edited June 23, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
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.