ReeferMadness Posted October 15, 2015 Author Report Posted October 15, 2015 Tbf, the Empire did pretty well for almost another century. xp They couldn't know that at the time. They lost the US - which would have been a huge blow. And the Monarchy was already losing power. The point is that the rules were designed to keep Canada in the fold, to prevent what happened in the USA. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 15, 2015 Author Report Posted October 15, 2015 Um, I was talking about recalling Parliament after an election, not about prorogation. And I'm talking about a PM using prorogation as a tool to game the system by avoiding parliament. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 And that "limited duration" was long enough for Harper to lie to the people and swing public opinion. You do get that, don't you? Yes Harper lied and that is unforgivable. But the Coalition fell apart because it was built around Dion. So, our system is broken. Beyond repair. I disagree completely. You keep on saying "enjoy confidence". Harper didn't have the confidence in 2008 and he almost certainly won't have it based on the makeup of next week's parliament. The problem is that he's allowed to play games and avoid parliament. On this you are factually wrong. Harper still enjoyed confidence. At dissolution, he had the confidence of Parliament. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 And I'm talking about a PM using prorogation as a tool to game the system by avoiding parliament. Not a precedent. Sir John A MacDonald did the same thing to avoid censure and defeat over the Pacific Scandal. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 15, 2015 Author Report Posted October 15, 2015 And you know what, I'll even risk the wrath of bush_cheney and say that I think our system is superior to the American system, precisely because of the notion of confidence. The problem isn't with confidence - it's that the PM has way too many ways to game the system. The GG was originally intended to guard the power of the monarchy but the monarch has left the playing field to look after her corgis. Now the office is a toothless and mostly pointless position. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 The problem isn't with confidence - it's that the PM has way too many ways to game the system. The GG was originally intended to guard the power of the monarchy but the monarch has left the playing field to look after her corgis. Now the office is a toothless and mostly pointless position. Except it isn't toothless Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 15, 2015 Author Report Posted October 15, 2015 On this you are factually wrong. Harper still enjoyed confidence. At dissolution, he had the confidence of Parliament. You are factually wrong. The parliament "at dissolution" was not the parliament currently elected. The whole "I have confidence" until you prove I don't is a weakness. It allows an unscrupulous leader to game the system. Which is exactly what happened in 2008. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 15, 2015 Author Report Posted October 15, 2015 Except it isn't toothless Oh, yeah. He has "reserve powers". Except he can't actually use them because if he does, he's interfering with democracy. Circular argument. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 15, 2015 Author Report Posted October 15, 2015 Not a precedent. Sir John A MacDonald did the same thing to avoid censure and defeat over the Pacific Scandal. And because John A (another Conservative ) got away with gaming the system, unscrupulous leaders can get away with it forever. I can see how you think it's a great system. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Big Guy Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. It is most useful in court where a lawyer may use it to influence a judicial decision. This works best in a regular court case where the lawyer can cite a precedent decision by the Supreme Court. It is an example or guide and certainly not an edict. There is no obligation for people to follow it. 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.
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 If the voters elect a hung parliament, then there is going to be rigmarole. This is a feature of ALL multiparty parliamentary governments. In the absence of a majority, the parliament is going to have to figure out who governs, and in some countries, like Israel for instance, this can several days, and in Israel, the President doesn't even have the power of a referee, as Israel, like Japan and Sweden, does not give the head of state the powers to referee. Belgium took nearly a year after the 2010 election to sort out who would govern, so I don't think Canadians have much right to complain. I don't have confidence in the impartiality of the GG, a mere appointee. The rules should be clearer and the process more open. And the less I hear about foreign monarchs, the better. Quote ‘How small we make our worlds. Gather them in, tighten them up into little castles of fear.’
ToadBrother Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 Oh, yeah. He has "reserve powers". Except he can't actually use them because if he does, he's interfering with democracy. Circular argument. In the event of a government falling in a no confidence vote, the reserve powers can only be used by the Governor General. That is why they are called reserve powers. Quote
Evening Star Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 And the less I hear about foreign monarchs, the better. She is the Queen of Canada tbf. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) This is the British Cabinet Manual which clears up quite a few questions about the sequence of events after an election: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/toews-election-campaign-stop-raises-need-for-cabinet-rules-1.1171619 AFAIK we have not updated ours in some time: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/toews-election-campaign-stop-raises-need-for-cabinet-rules-1.1171619 There seems to have been a peculiar amount of secrecy about our old manual. Clearly, all this stuff about minority governments and Queen's Speeches should be laid out in black and white and made public: http://parliamentum.org/2011/10/18/the-manual-of-official-procedure-of-the-government-of-canada/ http://thumbnails.cbc.ca/maven_legacy/thumbnails/13/1009/thehouse_20151017_33105_uploaded.mp3 Edited October 17, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote ‘How small we make our worlds. Gather them in, tighten them up into little castles of fear.’
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) If the voters elect a hung parliament, then there is going to be rigmarole. This is a feature of ALL multiparty parliamentary governments. In the absence of a majority, the parliament is going to have to figure out who governs, and in some countries, like Israel for instance, this can several days, and in Israel, the President doesn't even have the power of a referee, as Israel, like Japan and Sweden, does not give the head of state the powers to referee.Belgium took nearly a year after the 2010 election to sort out who would govern, so I don't think Canadians have much right to complain. I don't object to delays caused by political bargaining. I do object to any uncertainty in the rules governing that bargaining. Edited October 17, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote ‘How small we make our worlds. Gather them in, tighten them up into little castles of fear.’
ToadBrother Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) I don't object to delays caused by political bargaining. I do object to any uncertainty on the rules governing that bargaining. My point is that there is never going to be that degree of certainty. While in this election it seems certain that the NDP will likely prop up a Liberal minority, imagine an election that produced a Parliament with parties which were all too antagonistic towards each other for a stable government to be formed. The head of state is going to have to be able to adapt as best as possible, because in a parliamentary democracy, the head of state's job is to assure that there is always a government. The 2010 Belgium election is the perfect example of what you might call a perfect constitutional storm, where the main parties were so opposed to each other that there was little hope of a stable government. The King of Belgium was forced to keep a caretaker government in place while painfully slow negotiations took place. How would you write rules for something like that? The essence of a parliamentary system is adaptability and fuzziness around the edges. Rules are more guidelines and particularly where there is little or no precedent, the referee may be in the unenviable position of having to modify the rules. Edited October 17, 2015 by ToadBrother Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) My point is that there is never going to be that degree of certainty. While in this election it seems certain that the NDP will likely prop up a Liberal minority, imagine an election that produced a Parliament with parties which were all too antagonistic towards each other for a stable government to be formed. The head of state is going to have to be able to adapt as best as possible, because in a parliamentary democracy, the head of state's job is to assure that there is always a government.The 2010 Belgium election is the perfect example of what you might call a perfect constitutional storm, where the main parties were so opposed to each other that there was little hope of a stable government. The King of Belgium was forced to keep a caretaker government in place while painfully slow negotiations took place. How would you write rules for something like that? The essence of a parliamentary system is adaptability and fuzziness around the edges. Rules are more guidelines and particularly where there is little or no precedent, the referee may be in the unenviable position of having to modify the rules.But surely we need a contemporary Cabinet Manual on the British model? A minority government should have no discretion on how long it chooses to delay a vote of confidence. http://thumbnails.cbc.ca/maven_legacy/thumbnails/13/1009/thehouse_20151017_33105_uploaded.mp3 Edited October 17, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote ‘How small we make our worlds. Gather them in, tighten them up into little castles of fear.’
ToadBrother Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 But surely we need a Cabinet Manual on the British model? http://thumbnails.cbc.ca/maven_legacy/thumbnails/13/1009/thehouse_20151017_33105_uploaded.mp3 I'm not saying we don't, but no manual is ever going to be able to handle the multiple situations that can arise in a hung parliament. If we do end up with a new voting system, I think it would be awfully good to produce better guidelines, to be sure. But also remember that Britain is a unitary state with at least technical Parliamentary supremacy. In other words, the British Parliament can do what it likes, and can change the constitution whenever it wants. The powers of the Queen and the Governor General are locked in in Canada, and any attempts to make the rules clearer risk altering those powers, at which point we're going to have to deal with Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and get all ten provinces to agree to the change. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) I'm not saying we don't, but no manual is ever going to be able to handle the multiple situations that can arise in a hung parliament.If we do end up with a new voting system, I think it would be awfully good to produce better guidelines, to be sure. But also remember that Britain is a unitary state with at least technical Parliamentary supremacy. In other words, the British Parliament can do what it likes, and can change the constitution whenever it wants. The powers of the Queen and the Governor General are locked in in Canada, and any attempts to make the rules clearer risk altering those powers, at which point we're going to have to deal with Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and get all ten provinces to agree to the change.Are you saying we do or we don't? To my mind the case is clear. It won't cover everything but we should move with the times in parliament as everywhere else.Adam Dodek made such a case today on The House: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse Edited October 17, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote ‘How small we make our worlds. Gather them in, tighten them up into little castles of fear.’
ToadBrother Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 Are you saying we do or we don't? To my mind the case is clear. I'm saying there's no problem with a manual, but if the manual goes so far as to actually attempt to alter the Governor General's powers, that manual would be unconstitutional without an amendment. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 I'm saying there's no problem with a manual, but if the manual goes so far as to actually attempt to alter the Governor General's powers, that manual would be unconstitutional without an amendment. The other problem with the manual is we seem to be unable to get it done. Quote ‘How small we make our worlds. Gather them in, tighten them up into little castles of fear.’
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.