Coalition Deal To Topple Minority Tory Govt- [Update Parliament Prorogued until Jan]

[ikaris]

Let me preface my next statement by saying that I'm glad Harper prorogued parliament to allow for some time for a cooling off period.

How is this action democratic? For all the people railing off against the coalition saying that it is "undemocratic," isn't this the most egregious offense of them all? To close down parliament because you're about to fail a confidence vote? I wonder how people would respond to this if this was a Liberal government that just prorogued parliament.

EDIT: Just thought I should add some levity. "In Soviet Russia we close parliament before parliament closes you!"

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

Harper made a huge political blunder by acting like he has a majority government. You don't go around saying that you intend to remove funding for political parties when your in a minority government. That just made the Liberals and NDP hungry to overthrow Harper. Didn't he realize that those parties were already behind financially? What Harper should have done is work to develop a consensus with the Liberals for a couple years. Then, he might have been able to win over enough support for a majority in a 2010 election.

Yes, but if it would have worked, the move may have caused the Liberals (and perhaps the NDP) into bankruptcy - forcing them to dissolve!

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Let me preface my next statement by saying that I'm glad Harper prorogued parliament to allow for some time for a cooling off period.

How is this action democratic? For all the people railing off against the coalition saying that it is "undemocratic," isn't this the most egregious offense of them all? To close down parliament because you're about to fail a confidence vote? I wonder how people would respond to this if this was a Liberal government that just prorogued parliament.

Because this coalition is formed on the basis of heated emotions and would not allow enough time for the Conservative government to ACTUALLY prove that the House doesn't have confidence.

We JUST had an election, and there is really no way to deny that this was an attempted power grab. Now we have a situation where the CPC can table a detailed budget, in a timely manner, and hopefully try to work with the Liberal MP's to come up with something that works for Canada. Another election, a coalition government supported by the Bloc, and partisan hissy fits in the House are not what Canada needs.

What I find absolutely infuriating is Jack Layton's insistence that Harper should have delivered a detailed plan on what to do for the economy, and that he and Dion could do better. How do they know that? There is zero basis for truth in that statement, and for the betterment of Canada these three parties need to work TOGETHER. Put aside you're petty cry-baby antics in the House and do some real work.

Canadian's should be upset at ALL of them right now.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Let me preface my next statement by saying that I'm glad Harper prorogued parliament to allow for some time for a cooling off period.

How is this action democratic? For all the people railing off against the coalition saying that it is "undemocratic," isn't this the most egregious offense of them all? To close down parliament because you're about to fail a confidence vote? I wonder how people would respond to this if this was a Liberal government that just prorogued parliament.

Can we use the liberal 'but it's in the constitution' response, as was used to excuse the liberal attempte to overturn the last election decision?

He used a tactic fully allowed under the constitution to give members of parliment to go back to their ridings and find out what the people they represent want. What's undemocratic about that?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Let me preface my next statement by saying that I'm glad Harper prorogued parliament to allow for some time for a cooling off period.

How is this action democratic? For all the people railing off against the coalition saying that it is "undemocratic," isn't this the most egregious offense of them all? To close down parliament because you're about to fail a confidence vote? I wonder how people would respond to this if this was a Liberal government that just prorogued parliament.

You're right.

However, I would contend that the prorogue/cooling period over Christmas is the most democratic action available at this point in time. This situation has accented the real darkside of Canada's pseudo liberal-democratic system and how powerless the electorate really is. No recall, no public primaries, limited referenda, no say in power exchanges. There is far too much power, checks and balances that are outside of elected officials. Including unchecked powers in the PMO.

We can agree that the coalition's ascension would not be democratic, as people did not elect the coalition, and may have voted the way did on the grounds that they would never coalesce.

We can also agree that a vicious campaign during the holiday season is the last thing the Canadian voter wants.

Lastly, we can also agree that the GG not deferring to the PM would open up its own massive hornet's nest, not only in Canada, but in Australia, Scotland, New Zealand, etc. about the interference and relevance of the Monarchy. More political instability.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Let me preface my next statement by saying that I'm glad Harper prorogued parliament to allow for some time for a cooling off period.

How is this action democratic? For all the people railing off against the coalition saying that it is "undemocratic," isn't this the most egregious offense of them all? To close down parliament because you're about to fail a confidence vote? I wonder how people would respond to this if this was a Liberal government that just prorogued parliament.

EDIT: Just thought I should add some levity. "In Soviet Russia we close parliament before parliament closes you!"

The most democratic action would be to dissolve the house and go to an immediate election. The Coalition taking power in terms of pure democracy would be the least democratic as the people wouldn't have had the opportunity to vote for this form of government.

Harper used the consititution and the house rules, its not any less democratic then the prospect of a coalition taking power if your going by the rules that are being used.

[ikaris]

^^ Agreed. What would also be democratic is if Harper could go to parliament and ask for a vote to prorogue the government (I think someone suggested that here?)

[Bobblehead]

I'm just curious about what people think about the "value" of the Governor General, after what has just occurred.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm just curious about what people think about the "value" of the Governor General, after what has just occurred.

Ya, it seems pretty odd that an appointed individual yields so much power in this situation.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm just curious about what people think about the "value" of the Governor General, after what has just occurred.

Totally worthless. But I thought that before this crisis.

The Queen has made it clear she doesn't want her representatives acting contrary to the PM. Which is probably the correct move. PMs are publicly accountable, GGs and HMTQ are not... at least, not unless they were abolished.

They are essentially a rubber stamp, and a redundant one at that.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

^^ Agreed. What would also be democratic is if Harper could go to parliament and ask for a vote to prorogue the government (I think someone suggested that here?)

True, but it would have to be a free vote. Otherwise it really wouldn't have any effect.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Jade

True, but it would have to be a free vote. Otherwise it really wouldn't have any effect.

Yes of course, maybe some sort of silent vote lol.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm just curious about what people think about the "value" of the Governor General, after what has just occurred.

Glorified 'yes' man? Really, that's all she does. People ask her to do something, and she automatically says yes. Not really useful in any way.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Yes of course, maybe some sort of silent vote lol.

Give everyone a white rock to prorogue, and a black rock not to, and everyone drops one into the pail. Although they would then have to confiscate the unused rocks so these idiots didn't start throwing them at each other.

[CaptainCrunch]

But she's just totally hot.

If I was the PM, I would be bringing down the goverment daily just so I could go hang out at her house.

Admit it, the actual meeting was only 8 minutes, then they hung out. Steve in his sweater, her in a tattered old comfortable bathrobe playing guitar hero on her government paid for XBOX for the other 2 hours.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Jade

Give everyone a white rock to prorogue, and a black rock not to, and everyone drops one into the pail. Although they would then have to confiscate the unused rocks so these idiots didn't start throwing them at each other.

I was going to say, awesome, your going to give these guys weapons? How about giving them 1 black bullet and 1 red bullet to vote with. Unfortunatley you'd end up with a tied vote because everyone would probably vote twice.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Harper used the consititution and the house rules, its not any less democratic then the prospect of a coalition taking power if your going by the rules that are being used.

I have no problem with both doing what ever is in the rules. These are politicians people can we blame them? Sometimes I feel like people here forget that they are a different species from the rest of us.

[malcolmk14]

Her power is not discretionary. She acts on the advice of the PM. What would've been shocking and unprecedented would be if she were to deny his request for a prorogue

[CaptainCrunch]

Man, I'm gonna run out of thanks soon. I might have to resort to a kick to the nuts picture.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm just curious about what people think about the "value" of the Governor General, after what has just occurred.

I used to think it was a silly position. Now I see the value in the position.

It seemed clear to me that the coalition was not what most Canadians wanted. I'm sure she received a number of emails on the subject.

But let's say the PM was in fact waaaaay off base. Like he wanted to legalize slavery or something. Had the coalition been formed to oppose it, she likely would have accepted their terms.

And to me that's her role- to usually do as the PM wishes; and that comes from the Queen herself. But in a position like that I like that there is another non-partison (sp?) person in her place.