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

[Snipes]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Surprise surprise, Harper got his prorogue and suspended parliament. Should we have expected anything else from this crazy character. To summarize:

a) He brought down a minority Liberal government
b) He brought down his own minority government
c) He brought down his own minority government again for two months

Nothing says economic stability more than our P.M. shutting down parliament so he can have a 2 month holiday to try on sweaters from L.L. Bean. Unbeknownst to our argyle loving friend, Canadians have finally seen through his tired and drawn out charade. The emperor may wear clothes, but he can not hide his bullying, power hungry and childish skin. You have exposed yourself Mr. Prime Minister. Your only option is to to get down on one knee, kiss Iggy's ring and plead for mercy. If our next Canadian leader accepts, then maybe he'll let you run government for a year or two.

And in your new economic update, please make sure to include the elimination of all tax credited donations to political parties. After all, we don't want your campaign to be subsidized by tax payer's dollars. And while you're at it, how about denouncing the terrorists who firebombed signs and ransacked the offices of opposition mp's. I don't want my P.M. supporting terrorism in our own country. Enjoy your paid vacation. Remember, don't wear white pullovers after Labour Day, Sweaters.

Why is it a bad thing for a political party to have to earn its money through fundraising efforts instead of an automatic dole out from tax payers? How, if all parties have to do the same thing is this unfair?
Dion could of won the role of Forrest Gump ,but the casting crew didn't want a ###### with a speach impediment.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Also, fwiw, I have read from others that MacDonald prorogued the house during the Pacific Scandal when he was about to lose a no-confidence vote. So there might already be precedent. Haven't been able to verify the truth of that, however.

Huh, you appear to be correct about that. August, 1872. I guess everyone (myself included) who have been arguing that this is a dangerous precedent are wrong about that. Still very surprising that after MacDonald, it wasn't used as a tactic for postponing a confidence vote for about 135 years.

[Bobblehead]

The Queen IS above the the people's elected representative.

I agree with the "by tradition" argument, and it is just a guess but I think that is why the decision was made.

But the party with the most seats has NOT always formed the government. The GG does NOT always accept the Prime Minister's requests, as the whole Byng-King affair showed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Byng_Affair
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...=A1ARTA0004313
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cd.../scandals.html

[Bobblehead]

I think this just goes to show that the GG had many options open, and actually a few have happened before.


Edit: And this discussion just goes to show that people who think Canadian history is boring just don't know Canadian history.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

The Queen IS above the the people's elected representative.

I agree with the "by tradition" argument, and it is just a guess but I think that is why the decision was made.

But the party with the most seats has NOT always formed the government. The GG does NOT always accept the Prime Minister's requests, as the whole Byng-King affair showed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Byng_Affair
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...=A1ARTA0004313
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cd.../scandals.html

And after the King-Byng affair, King won a majority and drastically changed the powers the GG has reducing them greatly.

Since that time, the GG has never gone against the advice of the PM. Ever. The GG is not required to consult the leader of the opposition and see if they can form government before replying to the PMs request for dissolution. The GG is not actually required to consult with anyone other than the PM.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, she had only two choices with respect to this specific question, however.

Either agree with the PMs advice, or disagree with it.

old-fart is right that to disagree with the PM's advice would have been to put the Queen above the people's elected representative.

And disagreeing would have opened up one hell of a can of worms. By tradition, Harper would have been compelled to offer up his resignation on the spot if she went against his advice.

So what then? Does she reject his resignation, order a new election or call Dion and ask him if he can form a government?

All three of those choices would have created a firestorm across Canada.

She had other options, but prorogueing the house is ultimately the least controversial, and the one with the highest odds of getting government back on track.

Also, fwiw, I have read from others that MacDonald prorogued the house during the Pacific Scandal when he was about to lose a no-confidence vote. So there might already be precedent. Haven't been able to verify the truth of that, however.

Indeed he did.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by old-fart

And after the King-Byng affair, King won a majority and drastically changed the powers the GG has reducing them greatly.

Since that time, the GG has never gone against the advice of the PM. Ever. The GG is not required to consult the leader of the opposition and see if they can form government before replying to the PMs request for dissolution. The GG is not actually required to consult with anyone other than the PM.

As evidenced by her approving the prorogue on the advice of Harper, immediately yesterday morning, while completely ignoring the written requests from Dion and Layton to meet with them first.

That was my favourite part of yesterday's announcement.

[CaptainCrunch]

Still waiting for the apology I stated several pages ago that she had to listen to the advice of the Prime Minister, and she was not required to talk to the opposition, and I was roughly treated.

Oh my spleen.

[flamesfever]

The last week has been hell. However, there is almost always some good comes out of the bad:

1. The Conservatives may extend much more effort to produce the best budget possible for the Country, at a time when it's most needed.

2. It will probably be somewhat of a humbling experience for many politicians and hopefully will make them realize the importance of working together for the common good.

3. It may remove the apathy and heighten the interest in politics, particularly in the younger generations of Canadians. This may increase the people who are active in politics and translate into a higher percentage of people who vote.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given that we're already seeing dissention within Liberal ranks, I expect this coalition will live only so long as to get a couple Liberal proposed changes into the budget. At that point, Dion will claim victory because he got the government to listen to him, Harper will claim victory because the Conservatives will still be in power, and the NDP and Bloc can return to irrelevancy.

It was all pretty predictable from the beginning if you ask me

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Six weeks ago, Canadians overwhelmingly told Ottawa that they want a centre-right government in these times, not a left wing. The NDP and Bloc have absolutely no mandate from the people to dictate this nation's economy.

I don't think I agree with this statement. If anything, the last two elections have shown that Canadians have overwhelmingly not been able to make a decisive decision on anything. I do agree with the italicized statement though.

[Robbob]

With all this talk about proroguing and that MacDonald did it under similar circumstances, I find it very interesting that it wasn't reported in the massive coverage prior to the GG decision as a precedant. Everything I heard was that we were blazing a new trail in Canadian politics going somewhere where this country has never been.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ikaris

It was all pretty predictable from the beginning if you ask me



I don't think I agree with this statement. If anything, the last two elections have shown that Canadians have overwhelmingly not been able to make a decisive decision on anything. I do agree with the italicized statement though.

Hey if my Grandma had wheels she'd be a tractor.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Robbob

With all this talk about proroguing and that MacDonald did it under similar circumstances, I find it very interesting that it wasn't reported in the massive coverage prior to the GG decision as a precedant. Everything I heard was that we were blazing a new trail in Canadian politics going somewhere where this country has never been.

Yeah, I'm surprised by that too. Although the difference is that McDonald's government lasted for more than a year before the proroguing and had successfully passed confidence votes before. Requesting a proroguing this early is unprecedented. Just about every part of this story, taken alone, has some sort of precedent, but put it all together - the coalition, the signed statements, the proroguing - and it really is unique.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Six weeks ago, Canadians overwhelmingly told Ottawa that they want a centre-right government in these times, not a left wing.

Twenty some-odd percent of eligible voters is hardly 'overwhelmingly'.

What Canadians 'overwhelmingly' told Ottawa is that they wanted a centre-right party who needs to enter into dialogue and conversation with two centre-left and one regional party in order to get its legislation passed, holding the purse strings.

Now that Harper's been man-slapped by the opposition, hopefully we'll get what we voted for.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, I'm surprised by that too. Although the difference is that McDonald's government lasted for more than a year before the proroguing and had successfully passed confidence votes before. Requesting a proroguing this early is unprecedented. Just about every part of this story, taken alone, has some sort of precedent, but put it all together - the coalition, the signed statements, the proroguing - and it really is unique.

I guess the only things similiar is proroguing to dodge a non-confidence vote. The rest of the hijinx is just dirty politics if you ask me.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Robbob

With all this talk about proroguing and that MacDonald did it under similar circumstances, I find it very interesting that it wasn't reported in the massive coverage prior to the GG decision as a precedant. Everything I heard was that we were blazing a new trail in Canadian politics going somewhere where this country has never been.

Actually they are but it isn't on the banner articles. You need to dig a bit.

Lord Dufferin only reluctantly agreed. But he set a firm time limit on the suspension - 10 weeks. And when Parliament resumed, Sir John A. was censured and had to resign.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../politics/home

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by old-fart

And after the King-Byng affair, King won a majority and drastically changed the powers the GG has reducing them greatly.

Since that time, the GG has never gone against the advice of the PM. Ever. The GG is not required to consult the leader of the opposition and see if they can form government before replying to the PMs request for dissolution. The GG is not actually required to consult with anyone other than the PM.

I can find changes in the form of the Belfour Declaration of 1926 (which made the Governor General at representative of the Crown only, as opposed to the Crown and British Parliament) and 1931 Statute of Wellington which stated that no longer would British law automatically extend to the Commonwealth. But I can't see where any of the Governor Generals powers were curtailed.

Do you have the references handy, I'm curious about it now.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by driveway

Twenty some-odd percent of eligible voters is hardly 'overwhelmingly'.

People that are too lazy to vote are reduced to having their opinions decided by others. My statement remains true as stated.

[Dion]

http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/CBC4Dec2008.pdf

[redforever]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, I'm surprised by that too. Although the difference is that McDonald's government lasted for more than a year before the proroguing and had successfully passed confidence votes before. Requesting a proroguing this early is unprecedented. Just about every part of this story, taken alone, has some sort of precedent, but put it all together - the coalition, the signed statements, the proroguing - and it really is unique.

Well the opposition here had already consented and agreed with the Conservatives Speech to the Throne basically agreeing with the direction Parliament was going.

Then Harper spoke about party funding being scrapped and then all hell broke out, even when Harper backed down on that matter.