Democaracy at work

[Dan_Eisenhauer]

Well, the issue of a Coalition has been settled, at least for now, and we can all relax for a bit. However, I am dubious that this is over, and that we will be having these same discussions again 6 weeks from now. Respect for Harper, and confidence in his government in all likelihood will not improve during that time. The feelings in Ottawa are running too high.

My arguments have not been on behalf of one party or another, but on behalf of our democratic system. Our governments change from one party to another every few years, and the world continues. We all wake up the next morning and discover the sun is still there. To say our economy will tank, or jobs will be lost, etc. if a coalition takes over, is scare mongering and just false, IMO. The economy is tanking and jobs are being lost with the current government in power, and a coalition has nothing to do with those circumstances. Too many people are running around saying, "The sky is falling. The sky is falling."

IMHO, the GG made a mistake this morning in allowing prorogation because a precedent has been set for ANY PM to avoid a Confidence Vote by proroguing Parliament. That goes completely against the system that has been developed since the Magna Carta was signed. Our system allows for the defeat of a Government on a Vote of Confidence, and for either an alternative government to be formed, or a new election being called.

Having said that, no matter what the GG decided on this issue today, she would be criticized. She was in a no win situation.

However, what this whole mess points out is that Canada needs electoral and parliamentary reform. We need to take a serious look at Proportional Representation. PR is a system that works in other countries, New Zealand being one, if my memory is correct. We need fixed term elections, which Harper set in his previous government, but then renegged on because "Parliament is dysfunctional" (read he had opposition to his plans). An elected Senate should be looked at. Free votes are a necessity.

 

[ZanderRobertson]

Harper played his cards right. He was forced into this position by the coalition. Now he at least has a chance to table a budget before being brought down. He will likely include items in the budget that would make the NDP and Liberals appear even more foolish if they rejected it. This would turn public opinion against the coalition even more.

More importantly, Harper is giving the coalition a dose of their worst enemy, time. Is there anyone alive who thinks these 3 wouldn`t constitute the most disfunctional government in Canadian history? The longer they have to think about it, the more likely backbenchers and dissenters are to voice their opinions. The right of center liberals will come out of the woodwork, and the left of left NDP will come out as well. Dion is weak, cripplingly weak, and Duceppe and Layton have never been so close to power before. I think Canadians might lose what little appetite they have for this thing.

You may think the GG made a mistake, but wouldn`t it have been unprecedented in Canadian history for her not to have granted prorogation? It might have been a little presumptuous for a figurehead to take such initiative.

They`ll have their chance to overturn the government in January. In the mean time, everyone will have a chance to think about it. Do they have the stomach to stick it out? We`ll see.






QUOTE (Dan_Eisenhauer @ Dec 4 2008, 12:05 PM) Well, the issue of a Coalition has been settled, at least for now, and we can all relax for a bit. However, I am dubious that this is over, and that we will be having these same discussions again 6 weeks from now. Respect for Harper, and confidence in his government in all likelihood will not improve during that time. The feelings in Ottawa are running too high.

My arguments have not been on behalf of one party or another, but on behalf of our democratic system. Our governments change from one party to another every few years, and the world continues. We all wake up the next morning and discover the sun is still there. To say our economy will tank, or jobs will be lost, etc. if a coalition takes over, is scare mongering and just false, IMO. The economy is tanking and jobs are being lost with the current government in power, and a coalition has nothing to do with those circumstances. Too many people are running around saying, "The sky is falling. The sky is falling."

IMHO, the GG made a mistake this morning in allowing prorogation because a precedent has been set for ANY PM to avoid a Confidence Vote by proroguing Parliament. That goes completely against the system has been developed since the Magna Carta was signed. Our system allows for the defeat of a Government in a Vote of Confidence, and for either an alternative government to be installed, or a new election being called.

However, what this whole mess points out is that Canada needs electoral and parliamentary reform. We need to take a serious look at Proportional Representation. PR is a system that works in other countries, New Zealand being one, if my memory is correct. We need fixed term elections, which Harper set in his previous government, but then renegged on because "Parliament is dysfunctional" (read he had opposition to his plans). An elected Senate should be looked at. Free votes are a necessity.

 

[JohnS]

QUOTE (ZanderRobertson @ Dec 4 2008, 02:23 PM) Harper played his cards right. He was forced into this position by the coalition.

Is there anyone alive who thinks these 3 wouldn`t constitute the most disfunctional government in Canadian history?

You may think the GG made a mistake, but wouldn`t it have been unrecedented in Canadian history for her not to have granted prorogation? It might have been a little presumptuous for a figurehead to take such initiative.

You`re absolutely right, Zander. He was forced into attacking both his political detractors and opponents a week ago, by slapping them in the face with an ideological agenda when he should have been focussing on the economic problems.........rii--ight......

And yeah, I`m that person. I think Harper`s leadership constitutes the most dysfunctional government, seeing as how he brought this on himself, and elected representatives get called "traitor" under his leadership in the very House itself. Heck, a few months ago he said it was dysfunctional himself, and then he actively made it worse. Anything has got to be better than that.

And yes, it would have been unprecedented for her not to have granted prorogation. But she still had the right to do so, and, in my opinion, the obligation to do so. Otherwise, as Dan said, she has granted every future Prime Minister the precedent of suspending the House every time they have lost its confidence.

That is much more dangerous than any economic problems we`re now facing. I think everyone will admit that sooner or later, no matter who our leadership is, we`ll get past these economic problems. The tide will turn, the cycle will spin, and our economy will rebound. However, precedent is incredibly important in our legal system - just look how often King-Byng has been mentioned in the last week, and that was over 80 years ago.

Have a good one, all!

JohnS

 

[ZanderRobertson]

Our opinions don`t matter with the GG remember. She HAD to do it. Which precedent do you think would be worse, the one that saved us from a Dion led government, or the one you were asking a figurehead to do.

The Harper government, even though you hate it (and everyone thinks he messed up here, including me) could never be as dysfunctional as that `thing` Dion was to lead.

Try not to twist words here, remember it`s all about logical argumentation. He was forced to fend off a horrible idea (i.e, dysfunctional coalition) with whatever means necessary. Nobody is pretending he didn`t mess up with his original game of brinksmanship. That wasn`t the being forced I was talking about.

He got his stay, now the pretenders are forced to either work with him in making a budget, or reject the process and alienate themselves from Canadians. Harper played his cards right. Judging by some of the comments coming from the rank-and-file ALREADY, I think it`s quite likely they`ll implode.




QUOTE (JohnS @ Dec 4 2008, 02:13 PM) You`re absolutely right, Zander. He was forced into attacking both his political detractors and opponents a week ago, by slapping them in the face with an ideological agenda when he should have been focussing on the economic problems.........rii--ight......

And yeah, I`m that person. I think Harper`s leadership constitutes the most dysfunctional government, seeing as how he brought this on himself, and elected representatives get called "traitor" under his leadership in the very House itself. Heck, a few months ago he said it was dysfunctional himself, and then he actively made it worse. Anything has got to be better than that.

And yes, it would have been unprecedented for her not to have granted prorogation. But she still had the right to do so, and, in my opinion, the obligation to do so. Otherwise, as Dan said, she has granted every future Prime Minister the precedent of suspending the House every time they have lost its confidence.

That is much more dangerous than any economic problems we`re now facing. I think everyone will admit that sooner or later, no matter who our leadership is, we`ll get past these economic problems. The tide will turn, the cycle will spin, and our economy will rebound. However, precedent is incredibly important in our legal system - just look how often King-Byng has been mentioned in the last week, and that was over 80 years ago.

Have a good one, all!

JohnS

 

[mcgregok]

QUOTE (ZanderRobertson @ Dec 4 2008, 04:15 PM) Nobody is pretending he didn`t mess up with his original game of brinksmanship


Mr Harper has shown us that there is two parties to vote for, Conservitism or socialism. The battle is on. There budget was going to be presented no matter what. Harper is the front man but there is a whole cacus that messed up. Or did they? Maybe the secret agenda is to open up the constitution to get Quebec and Alberta a litle equality.

 

[wbullock]

The common theme I`m reading here is that everyone agrees that the ENTIRE SYSTEM is dysfunctional.

The point behind this is that, whomever is leading the country, needs to be STABLE in the current situation. I agree with Dan about the precedent set by Michaelle Jean, but at the same time, she had to do it for the good of the country`s economy.

If the world wasn`t in such an abysmal state economically, this wouldn`t be such a big deal, although it would still hurt our economy somewhat. I think that Don hit the nail on the head when he said that outside investors, looking at the stability of Canada and how safe their money would be in this storm of economic problems, would think otherwise about investing in Canada (if they`re not already...some damage has most likely been done already).

I voted Conservative, ie Harper. I`m not too happy with the agendas that he has put forward. I don`t like the idea of my country being lead by Dion and the NDP. That being said, I want the best for the country, which right now is stability.

In the lond run, there are only two choices for us...vote for one of three idiots, or a guy nobody can understand. Not too much of a choice. I don`t know how to fix this issue, if proportional representation is it as Dan suggests, or some other as yet unseen solution. I personally would like to see some strong leadership in Ottawa, not a bunch of school children, who were probably so bullied in grade school that they still have that small-man syndrome.

Thanks,

Bill

 

[JohnS]

QUOTE (wbullock @ Dec 5 2008, 06:37 PM) If the world wasn`t in such an abysmal state economically, this wouldn`t be such a big deal, although it would still hurt our economy somewhat. I think that Don hit the nail on the head when he said that outside investors, looking at the stability of Canada and how safe their money would be in this storm of economic problems, would think otherwise about investing in Canada (if they`re not already...some damage has most likely been done already).

I couldn`t make it to the meeting last night, so I couldn`t hear Don`s take on the international investor side of it, but this argument doesn`t totally hold true to me. I mean, sure, our political situation doesn`t seem as stable as it did 10 days ago, but we`re still doing the best of the G20 economically, I believe, our banking system is still the best, we still have tons of what the world needs.... I mean, the bloodiest part of our political instability is when a drunken Quebecois walks into a bar filled with intoxicated Albertans and says, "Vivre la Coalition Libre"!

So, because of that, the rest of the world is going to pack up their moneybags and go invest in Venezuela or the Middle East? I mean, they are looking so much more stable than we are......

Any thoughts, before I head out for the night?

Have a good one, all!

JohnS