Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Pending Coup In Canada
Topic Started: Dec 1 2008, 08:57 PM (1,007 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
STC
Dec 2 2008, 01:41 PM
As I see it, if the will of the people was to go for strong policies of, in this case, the Conservative party, they would have voted for that and given Harper a majority.

The Canadian people didn't do that. Instead, they voted for a minority Conservative government, giving them the leadership role in Parliament, but with limits to their power which requires them to soften their approach on some issues and work out compromises with the other parties.

Now, I can't comment on the specifics of Harper's budget but, if as is being argued here, that it made no concessions towards the will of the other parties, then it is Harper who has overriden the will of the people. He is governing as if he was given a majority mandate, when this is not the case.

Hence, the vote to bring down Harpers government is a reasonable response to what the other parties could view as an attempted abuse of power by Harper.

Now, all of that being said, I'd agree that the other parties don't possess a mandate to govern either. The logical conclusion of this should be another election, in the light of what has happened/is happening here.

Sorry to suggest you should be put through all this, my Canadian friends ;)
Usually there would be a new election.

A coalition asking to form a government is unusual - but not totally unprecendented. In Ontario we have had a provincial coaliton. However that was headed up by the party that had the most seats - the coalition was formed to make governing easier and assure votes would be passed. A coalition headed up by a lesser party is unprecendented and we will have to see if this power play works or if the Govener General will reject the idea and disolve parliament instead.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
The coalition could of course emerge from any election still in a position to govern, unless the people voted the Conservatives a majority. That seems a democratic way to do it. Its the thought of a coalition just seizing power without an election that seems a bit odd.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
We just had an election. This is the first legislation the new government has tried to pass. Maybe they should have gotten the coalition together a month ago and gone to the Govener General before Harper formed his government. I think that is what you are trying to say.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 04:12 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 02:44 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 01:30 PM
Dandandat - we are a representative democracy - just like the US.

Who are you to state what the will of the people here in Canada is? Did you consider that our will just might be that we want our parties to work together to do what is best for the country? Maybe that is why the Conservatives were unable to get the majority that they wanted in the last election.
I haven't stated what the will of the people is. I have accepted what your last election and the existence of your parties state.

If what you stated about Harper is true, that he "made no compromises to the opposition parties" yet his party still won the election than it is clear that the will of the people is not as you state for your "parties to work together". If that was so and what you say about Harper is true, than the people would have voted Harper and his party out of power. That is not what happened.

What happened was that the people decided that supporting their party of choice was more important than voting Harper and his part out of power.

The only conclusion can be that the supporters of these opposition parties felt their individual party beliefs where more important than voting Harper out of power. To now through those difference to the wind in order to through Harper and his party out of power is an act against the will of the supporters and the voters.
Maybe your lack of understanding is due to your two party system.

In the US it is clear who controls congress - one party will always have the "majority". Where there is more then two parties you are left with the party with the most seats being asked to form the government - however that party could very well have less then 50 percent of the seats and be unable to run things without the co-operation of the other parties. That is the situation we have now. You keep going on about the will of the people but the fact is that the majority of Canadians did NOT vote for the current ruling party. The "will of the people" is somewhat fractured. Harper could have chosen to recognize this and try to work with all the other parties like he did the last few years (which were also minority). Instead he chose to go ahead as if he had a majority. He gambled and apparently lost. The representatives of the majority of the people have decided that they do not have confidence in him and a non confidence motion will be voted on.

Most likely we will have a new election - but this coalition is an intriguing possibility.
I am well aware of your countries system and the situation.

What you keep glossing over is the fact that had the majority of the people wanted to put aside their differences to defeat Harpers government they would have done so. Instead they chose to support their party of choice based on the stated party's platform.

For those parties to now abandon those issues that make them different in order to defeat the Harper government is to defy the will of the people who voted a certain way in the last election that would not have brought about this new direction of movement.

The people could have accomplished what these party leaders are trying to accomplish now on their own, they chose not to, and now the party leaders are taking it upon themselves to accomplish a task not willed by the people.
Edited by Dandandat, Dec 2 2008, 04:34 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 04:24 PM
We just had an election. This is the first legislation the new government has tried to pass. Maybe they should have gotten the coalition together a month ago and gone to the Govener General before Harper formed his government. I think that is what you are trying to say.

Surely it would have been preferable for them to make their intention of a coalition before the election. I believe this is what happened in Australia with their previous government and is the case with the current German government.

Minuet I was going to reply quickly with the above, but this topic has sparked my interest. Since the Canadian system is based on the 'Westminster model' I've tried looking back over the record of Westminster Parliaments since 1722. I cannot find an example, with two possible exceptions, where there was a change like the one being proposed in Canada. There have been Parliaments with more than one Prime Minister from a single party, as with the current one, but whenever a government has fallen through loss of confidence or supply then there appears to have been a general election.

The two possible exception are not really the same. There was the change from a minority Labour to a National Government during the Great Depression in 1931 - though this government was lead by the same Prime Minister and submitted itself to a General Election within 2 months. There was also the change from the Conservative lead national government in 1940 to the broader Coalition government under Churchill - but again that was an exceptional circumstance.

To force a minority government to resign by a vote of confidence and then attempt to form a new coalition government to replace it, without a dissolution, does seem to be an unprecidented step.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 04:33 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 04:12 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 02:44 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 01:30 PM
Dandandat - we are a representative democracy - just like the US.

Who are you to state what the will of the people here in Canada is? Did you consider that our will just might be that we want our parties to work together to do what is best for the country? Maybe that is why the Conservatives were unable to get the majority that they wanted in the last election.
I haven't stated what the will of the people is. I have accepted what your last election and the existence of your parties state.

If what you stated about Harper is true, that he "made no compromises to the opposition parties" yet his party still won the election than it is clear that the will of the people is not as you state for your "parties to work together". If that was so and what you say about Harper is true, than the people would have voted Harper and his party out of power. That is not what happened.

What happened was that the people decided that supporting their party of choice was more important than voting Harper and his part out of power.

The only conclusion can be that the supporters of these opposition parties felt their individual party beliefs where more important than voting Harper out of power. To now through those difference to the wind in order to through Harper and his party out of power is an act against the will of the supporters and the voters.
Maybe your lack of understanding is due to your two party system.

In the US it is clear who controls congress - one party will always have the "majority". Where there is more then two parties you are left with the party with the most seats being asked to form the government - however that party could very well have less then 50 percent of the seats and be unable to run things without the co-operation of the other parties. That is the situation we have now. You keep going on about the will of the people but the fact is that the majority of Canadians did NOT vote for the current ruling party. The "will of the people" is somewhat fractured. Harper could have chosen to recognize this and try to work with all the other parties like he did the last few years (which were also minority). Instead he chose to go ahead as if he had a majority. He gambled and apparently lost. The representatives of the majority of the people have decided that they do not have confidence in him and a non confidence motion will be voted on.

Most likely we will have a new election - but this coalition is an intriguing possibility.
I am well aware of your countries system and the situation.

What you keep glossing over is the fact that had the majority of the people wanted to put aside their differences to defeat Harpers government they would have done so. Instead they chose to support their party of choice based on the stated party's platform.

For those parties to now abandon those issues that make them different in order to defeat the Harper government is to defy the will of the people who voted a certain way in the last election that would not have brought about this new direction of movement.

The people could have accomplished what these party leaders are trying to accomplish now on their own, they chose not to, and now the party leaders are taking it upon themselves to accomplish a task not willed by the people.
Dandandat, aren't you doing some glossing over yourself with respect to Harpers reported role in all of this?

Harper and his party weren't given a mandate to govern on their own. The Canadian people voted for coalition government.

Harper seems to have rode roughshod over the will of the Canadian people in trying to enact a policy at a time of crisis, without consultation or agreement from other parties. When your people have voted for coalition government, as in this case, then it is expected that you govern in this way. Harper does not seem to have done that.

Now you may think the response from the other parties is disproportionate, or undemocratic, or both. But its a response to undemocratic actions from Harper in the first instance. Hence, I simply don't understand why your focus is solely on the other parties.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
STC
Dec 2 2008, 05:36 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 04:33 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 04:12 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 02:44 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 01:30 PM
Dandandat - we are a representative democracy - just like the US.

Who are you to state what the will of the people here in Canada is? Did you consider that our will just might be that we want our parties to work together to do what is best for the country? Maybe that is why the Conservatives were unable to get the majority that they wanted in the last election.
I haven't stated what the will of the people is. I have accepted what your last election and the existence of your parties state.

If what you stated about Harper is true, that he "made no compromises to the opposition parties" yet his party still won the election than it is clear that the will of the people is not as you state for your "parties to work together". If that was so and what you say about Harper is true, than the people would have voted Harper and his party out of power. That is not what happened.

What happened was that the people decided that supporting their party of choice was more important than voting Harper and his part out of power.

The only conclusion can be that the supporters of these opposition parties felt their individual party beliefs where more important than voting Harper out of power. To now through those difference to the wind in order to through Harper and his party out of power is an act against the will of the supporters and the voters.
Maybe your lack of understanding is due to your two party system.

In the US it is clear who controls congress - one party will always have the "majority". Where there is more then two parties you are left with the party with the most seats being asked to form the government - however that party could very well have less then 50 percent of the seats and be unable to run things without the co-operation of the other parties. That is the situation we have now. You keep going on about the will of the people but the fact is that the majority of Canadians did NOT vote for the current ruling party. The "will of the people" is somewhat fractured. Harper could have chosen to recognize this and try to work with all the other parties like he did the last few years (which were also minority). Instead he chose to go ahead as if he had a majority. He gambled and apparently lost. The representatives of the majority of the people have decided that they do not have confidence in him and a non confidence motion will be voted on.

Most likely we will have a new election - but this coalition is an intriguing possibility.
I am well aware of your countries system and the situation.

What you keep glossing over is the fact that had the majority of the people wanted to put aside their differences to defeat Harpers government they would have done so. Instead they chose to support their party of choice based on the stated party's platform.

For those parties to now abandon those issues that make them different in order to defeat the Harper government is to defy the will of the people who voted a certain way in the last election that would not have brought about this new direction of movement.

The people could have accomplished what these party leaders are trying to accomplish now on their own, they chose not to, and now the party leaders are taking it upon themselves to accomplish a task not willed by the people.
Dandandat, aren't you doing some glossing over yourself with respect to Harpers reported role in all of this?

Harper and his party weren't given a mandate to govern on their own. The Canadian people voted for coalition government.

Harper seems to have rode roughshod over the will of the Canadian people in trying to enact a policy at a time of crisis, without consultation or agreement from other parties. When your people have voted for coalition government, as in this case, then it is expected that you govern in this way. Harper does not seem to have done that.

Now you may think the response from the other parties is disproportionate, or undemocratic, or both. But its a response to undemocratic actions from Harper in the first instance. Hence, I simply don't understand why your focus is solely on the other parties.
STC; you may be right about Harper's government. But I have not seen evidence to support the claim that Harper tried "to enact a policy at a time of crisis, without consultation or agreement from other parties". All I have seen is clams to that effect, and so I have not spoken too it.

But regales of any wrong doing by Harper's government; you don’t fix wrong doing with more wrong doing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat what you are glossing over is that the majority of Canadians did vote against Harper's government.

I know it's hard to understand how other governments work - I still get confused about American government. I find it strange that the members belong to a party, but are not compelled to vote along party lines. I also find it strange that your cabinet members are not elected members of government. But I try to just go with the flow. Rather then try to tell me what represents the will of the Canadian people maybe you should just try to understand that the majority did not vote for Harper and he made a collosal mistake by not trying to appease those that did not vote for him.

Even if the Governer General calls an election instead of allowing the coalition Harper has harmed his reputation by not compromising with the people that Canada did elect.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 06:28 PM
STC
Dec 2 2008, 05:36 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 04:33 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 04:12 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 02:44 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 01:30 PM
Dandandat - we are a representative democracy - just like the US.

Who are you to state what the will of the people here in Canada is? Did you consider that our will just might be that we want our parties to work together to do what is best for the country? Maybe that is why the Conservatives were unable to get the majority that they wanted in the last election.
I haven't stated what the will of the people is. I have accepted what your last election and the existence of your parties state.

If what you stated about Harper is true, that he "made no compromises to the opposition parties" yet his party still won the election than it is clear that the will of the people is not as you state for your "parties to work together". If that was so and what you say about Harper is true, than the people would have voted Harper and his party out of power. That is not what happened.

What happened was that the people decided that supporting their party of choice was more important than voting Harper and his part out of power.

The only conclusion can be that the supporters of these opposition parties felt their individual party beliefs where more important than voting Harper out of power. To now through those difference to the wind in order to through Harper and his party out of power is an act against the will of the supporters and the voters.
Maybe your lack of understanding is due to your two party system.

In the US it is clear who controls congress - one party will always have the "majority". Where there is more then two parties you are left with the party with the most seats being asked to form the government - however that party could very well have less then 50 percent of the seats and be unable to run things without the co-operation of the other parties. That is the situation we have now. You keep going on about the will of the people but the fact is that the majority of Canadians did NOT vote for the current ruling party. The "will of the people" is somewhat fractured. Harper could have chosen to recognize this and try to work with all the other parties like he did the last few years (which were also minority). Instead he chose to go ahead as if he had a majority. He gambled and apparently lost. The representatives of the majority of the people have decided that they do not have confidence in him and a non confidence motion will be voted on.

Most likely we will have a new election - but this coalition is an intriguing possibility.
I am well aware of your countries system and the situation.

What you keep glossing over is the fact that had the majority of the people wanted to put aside their differences to defeat Harpers government they would have done so. Instead they chose to support their party of choice based on the stated party's platform.

For those parties to now abandon those issues that make them different in order to defeat the Harper government is to defy the will of the people who voted a certain way in the last election that would not have brought about this new direction of movement.

The people could have accomplished what these party leaders are trying to accomplish now on their own, they chose not to, and now the party leaders are taking it upon themselves to accomplish a task not willed by the people.
Dandandat, aren't you doing some glossing over yourself with respect to Harpers reported role in all of this?

Harper and his party weren't given a mandate to govern on their own. The Canadian people voted for coalition government.

Harper seems to have rode roughshod over the will of the Canadian people in trying to enact a policy at a time of crisis, without consultation or agreement from other parties. When your people have voted for coalition government, as in this case, then it is expected that you govern in this way. Harper does not seem to have done that.

Now you may think the response from the other parties is disproportionate, or undemocratic, or both. But its a response to undemocratic actions from Harper in the first instance. Hence, I simply don't understand why your focus is solely on the other parties.
STC; you may be right about Harper's government. But I have not seen evidence to support the claim that Harper tried "to enact a policy at a time of crisis, without consultation or agreement from other parties". All I have seen is clams to that effect, and so I have not spoken too it.

But regales of any wrong doing by Harper's government; you don’t fix wrong doing with more wrong doing.
I am trying to explain how our system works but you don't seem to be listening. The facts have been laid out.

Harper is the Prime Minister because his party has the most seats. However he does not have a majority of seats.

Harper's government tabled legislation that the other parties did not like. Since those other parties control more then half the seats in Parliament they can defeat the legislation. When this happens they show that they do not have confidence in the current Prime Minister.

The opposition parties have the right to band together and request a change in the leadership of the house. They have chosen to request this with the leader of the Liberal party. They have no confidence in Harper, they do have confidence in Stephan Dion.

The Govener General makes the final decision whether to accept the coaliton or whether to disolve parliament and call a new election. This decision will not need to be made until after the official non confidence vote called for next monday.

This is how our government works. It is completely legal and it is the will of the people that it works this way. What else do you need to know?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


STC
Quote:
 
Harper and his party weren't given a mandate to govern on their own. The Canadian people voted for coalition government.



Not necessarily. The Harper Tories got more votes than the last time, and ended up 12 seats short of a majority. The Canadian people did not vote for a "coalition government", or a situation where the minority government is to necessarily "share" power with the other parties.

It's true that with a minority government you need the cooperation of the other parties to pass critical legislation, especially over a federal budget, but the recent Canadian election demonstrated that the public preferred the Tories. The combined seats of the Liberal and NDP party still fall short of the Tory total; only by forming a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois, can this coup work.

Outside of Quebec, nobody supports the Bloc. Nobody.

So in effect, except for Quebec, this coalition coup does not reflect the will of the electorate.

And at the very least, there's nothing "honourable" about this coalition power grab. It's not as if we're half way between elections and Canada is floundering badly due to the policies of the minority government.

Simply put, the three opposition parties have decided to grab power. Under our political system it's possible, it's even legal.

However, if this goes ahead, there is great liability. They may be presiding over an impending economic downturn in our economy that could lead to high unemployment, more deficit, and obviously, having to raise our taxes.

Just on another note, the political landscape of Canada has always been complicated due to the Quebec factor. The very notion that a seperatist party can elect MP's and sit in the House of Commons, especially when they make no secret of the fact that they care nothing about the "rest of Canada" is a bit of an affront to many Canadians.

Would Great Britain allow a seperatist "Wales" party to run federal candidates ? Hmmm.....

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Franko
Dec 2 2008, 08:45 PM
Would Great Britain allow a seperatist "Wales" party to run federal candidates ? Hmmm.....
My relatives in Caernarfon and Whitland would like that. They've been tolerating those "overbearing" English for generations!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
ds9074
Dec 2 2008, 03:24 PM
Now I wonder under the Canadian Constitution if Prime Minister Harper could ask the Queen to dismiss the Governor-General and replace them with someone who would grant the dissolution.
Good question, that is the exact situation that confronted the PM here in 1974.
He had the power to dismiss the GG (in the form of advice to the Queen which as you point out the Queen must follow the advice of the PM) before he dismissed the Govt. The GG made the first move and the govt lost the standoff.

I hate this talk of our head of govt asking a foreigner for permission for anything.. it will end soon.. within 6yrs I predict
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Franko
 
Would Great Britain allow a seperatist "Wales" party to run federal candidates ?

There is no federal level as such, but Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish seperatists run for election to Westminster and some are elected (currently 3 from Wales, 7 from Scotland, 8 from NI). So it may be more a matter of their relative success (18 seats out of 646) than whether they are allowed to run.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 07:09 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 06:28 PM
STC
Dec 2 2008, 05:36 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 04:33 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 04:12 PM
Dandandat
Dec 2 2008, 02:44 PM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 01:30 PM
Dandandat - we are a representative democracy - just like the US.

Who are you to state what the will of the people here in Canada is? Did you consider that our will just might be that we want our parties to work together to do what is best for the country? Maybe that is why the Conservatives were unable to get the majority that they wanted in the last election.
I haven't stated what the will of the people is. I have accepted what your last election and the existence of your parties state.

If what you stated about Harper is true, that he "made no compromises to the opposition parties" yet his party still won the election than it is clear that the will of the people is not as you state for your "parties to work together". If that was so and what you say about Harper is true, than the people would have voted Harper and his party out of power. That is not what happened.

What happened was that the people decided that supporting their party of choice was more important than voting Harper and his part out of power.

The only conclusion can be that the supporters of these opposition parties felt their individual party beliefs where more important than voting Harper out of power. To now through those difference to the wind in order to through Harper and his party out of power is an act against the will of the supporters and the voters.
Maybe your lack of understanding is due to your two party system.

In the US it is clear who controls congress - one party will always have the "majority". Where there is more then two parties you are left with the party with the most seats being asked to form the government - however that party could very well have less then 50 percent of the seats and be unable to run things without the co-operation of the other parties. That is the situation we have now. You keep going on about the will of the people but the fact is that the majority of Canadians did NOT vote for the current ruling party. The "will of the people" is somewhat fractured. Harper could have chosen to recognize this and try to work with all the other parties like he did the last few years (which were also minority). Instead he chose to go ahead as if he had a majority. He gambled and apparently lost. The representatives of the majority of the people have decided that they do not have confidence in him and a non confidence motion will be voted on.

Most likely we will have a new election - but this coalition is an intriguing possibility.
I am well aware of your countries system and the situation.

What you keep glossing over is the fact that had the majority of the people wanted to put aside their differences to defeat Harpers government they would have done so. Instead they chose to support their party of choice based on the stated party's platform.

For those parties to now abandon those issues that make them different in order to defeat the Harper government is to defy the will of the people who voted a certain way in the last election that would not have brought about this new direction of movement.

The people could have accomplished what these party leaders are trying to accomplish now on their own, they chose not to, and now the party leaders are taking it upon themselves to accomplish a task not willed by the people.
Dandandat, aren't you doing some glossing over yourself with respect to Harpers reported role in all of this?

Harper and his party weren't given a mandate to govern on their own. The Canadian people voted for coalition government.

Harper seems to have rode roughshod over the will of the Canadian people in trying to enact a policy at a time of crisis, without consultation or agreement from other parties. When your people have voted for coalition government, as in this case, then it is expected that you govern in this way. Harper does not seem to have done that.

Now you may think the response from the other parties is disproportionate, or undemocratic, or both. But its a response to undemocratic actions from Harper in the first instance. Hence, I simply don't understand why your focus is solely on the other parties.
STC; you may be right about Harper's government. But I have not seen evidence to support the claim that Harper tried "to enact a policy at a time of crisis, without consultation or agreement from other parties". All I have seen is clams to that effect, and so I have not spoken too it.

But regales of any wrong doing by Harper's government; you don’t fix wrong doing with more wrong doing.
I am trying to explain how our system works but you don't seem to be listening. The facts have been laid out.

Harper is the Prime Minister because his party has the most seats. However he does not have a majority of seats.

Harper's government tabled legislation that the other parties did not like. Since those other parties control more then half the seats in Parliament they can defeat the legislation. When this happens they show that they do not have confidence in the current Prime Minister.

The opposition parties have the right to band together and request a change in the leadership of the house. They have chosen to request this with the leader of the Liberal party. They have no confidence in Harper, they do have confidence in Stephan Dion.

The Govener General makes the final decision whether to accept the coaliton or whether to disolve parliament and call a new election. This decision will not need to be made until after the official non confidence vote called for next monday.

This is how our government works. It is completely legal and it is the will of the people that it works this way. What else do you need to know?
Being completely legal and doing the will of the people are two very different things. Just because the opposition "can" force the Harper government out, doesn’t mean that is what the people want. Had the people wanted to force Harper's government out they would have done so them selves.

The leaders of the parties are now taking it upon themselves to do what the people did not.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
ds9074
Dec 3 2008, 05:24 AM
Franko
 
Would Great Britain allow a seperatist "Wales" party to run federal candidates ?

There is no federal level as such, but Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish seperatists run for election to Westminster and some are elected (currently 3 from Wales, 7 from Scotland, 8 from NI). So it may be more a matter of their relative success (18 seats out of 646) than whether they are allowed to run.
As DS9074 has said, the answer is 'yes'.

Wales - Plaid Cymru
Scotland - SNP (Scottish National Party)
Northern Ireland - Sinn Fein (who, in the 1970's and 80's, were pretty much the official voice of the IRA) and the SDLP

In the context of your full post Franko, those, and parties such as the Ulster Unionists (who stand in NI for the GB & NI 'union') have held the balance of power at different times in our political history on key votes. They are democratically elected members of our parliament, they represent their electorates and whether they have agendas outside the mainstream or not is, IMO, neither here nor there, they have a right to vote as they wish and represent their electorate.
Edited by STC, Dec 3 2008, 11:50 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus