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 (1,006 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Dec 3 2008, 10:21 AM
Minuet
Dec 2 2008, 06:55 PM
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.
Minuet; I know you like to use the "I'm XYZ and your not so you can't possibly understand" argument a lot. It seems to be your default argument every time you get involved with a discussion that involves you directly. But it really is childish and intellectuality lazy. In the future you may wish to refrain from accusations that people can't understand issues that involve you directly because it does not involve them directly. Instead you ought to just stick to logical arguments and leave the personal stuff aside. It will make for a stronger argument on your part and will not make you come off as petty.


While the majority of Canadians did vote against Harper's government; they did so in a way that would keep his government in power. They did so because they felt the issues presented by their particular supported party where more important to vote for than to vote Harpers government out of power.

Had the majority of Canadians felt that voting out Harper's government was more important than their individual issues of interest; they would have voted the stronger of the opposition party into power.

They did not do this. The chose to vote for their party of interest because that party's platform was more important to them than voting out Harper's government.

Now; because the party leaders of the opposition party don’t like that outcome; they have decided to abandon the things that make them different, the things that got them the votes in the first place, in order to oust the Harper government.

The people of Candia didn’t vote for this; they voted for the party that best represented them on issues they hold dear, with less regard to how it would effect the Harper government. That was their will; that is what is being abandoned.


Further more it is not unreasonable to assume that a block of voters voted for an opposition party knowing full well that Harper would retain the government, in the pursuit of having both the Harper government in power with a caveat of having representation on a particular issue they help as important by knew the Harper government would not.


Your argument is that the majority people of Canada want the opposition parties to join in this fashion to topple the Harper government simply because they did not vote for the Harper Government. The latter does not beget the former; it’s a possibility, but is not an exclusive logical path. You have presented no evidence that suggests that majority of the country wants the opposition parties join in this manner.

The last election however backs up my argument complete. The people had a chance to oust the Harper Government and did not do so. Now the opposition leaders are taking it upon them selves to do what the people did not do. In the process they are abandoning the issues that separate them, the issues that garnished them the votes they did win.

This is a clear example of a government working against the will of the people.

DS9 is correct to suggest that had the leaders of the opposition party wanted to, and felt that their supporters wanted too, form a coalition to defeat the Harper Government, they would have and should have done so going into the election, not after the election.
I have only one thing to say to you.

I am sick and tired of you calling people "childish" when your so called logic does not sway them to your point of view.

I made my point about the differences in our cultures quite nicely and without being insulting.

If you cannot have a logic based argument without being insulting then go to hell because I no longer wish to engage you in this discussion.

Edited by Minuet, Dec 3 2008, 04:05 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Moderator Comment:

I came into this thread with the intent of responding to a "report a post".

Unfortunately, the person who made the report declined to wait unitl the next time someone was online who could respond to the post and took matters into her own hands.

Minuet, I will not respond to the matter that you requested in the manner that you requested because of this comment:

Minuet
 
If you cannot have a logic based argument without being insulting then go to hell because I no longer wish to engage you in this discussion.


You don't get to tell people whether or not they get to participate in discussions or not. If you don't wish to discuss an issue with a particular individual, then the simple response is for YOU to exit the conversation.











Edited by Wichita, Dec 3 2008, 04:27 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Wichita - I did not tell anyone that they could not participate.

I very clearly told them that I would not engage them in discussion. I said nothing about them continuing to discuss with others. I have no idea how you got that message from what I wrote because the words to support that interpretation simply are not there.

So I would ask you to reread what I wrote and make your response based on what I actually said. The report was based on a personal insult. I made no such insults here. I simply told someone where to go because I was fed up.

Thank you.

Edit - also for clarification - I made the post before I made the report. I thought about the words after I had already replied and decided that I should report them. So it was a bit late to take back the post at that time.
Edited by Minuet, Dec 3 2008, 05:08 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
I would like to apologize to Dandandat for accidentally deleting his post when I deleted the "report" about the post. He was kind enough to forward the post in it's entirety and I wanted to return it to the thread as it belongs. Again, my apologies for having made this mistake. It was not a deliberate action on my part.


Dandandat
 
Minuet; I know you like to use the "I'm XYZ and your not so you can't possibly understand" argument a lot. It seems to be your default argument every time you get involved with a discussion that involves you directly. But it really is childish and intellectuality lazy. In the future you may wish to refrain from accusations that people can't understand issues that involve you directly because it does not involve them directly. Instead you ought to just stick to logical arguments and leave the personal stuff aside. It will make for a stronger argument on your part and will not make you come off as petty.


While the majority of Canadians did vote against Harper's government; they did so in a way that would keep his government in power. They did so because they felt the issues presented by their particular supported party where more important to vote for than to vote Harpers government out of power.

Had the majority of Canadians felt that voting out Harper's government was more important than their individual issues of interest; they would have voted the stronger of the opposition party into power.

They did not do this. The chose to vote for their party of interest because that party's platform was more important to them than voting out Harper's government.

Now; because the party leaders of the opposition party don’t like that outcome; they have decided to abandon the things that make them different, the things that got them the votes in the first place, in order to oust the Harper government.

The people of Candia didn’t vote for this; they voted for the party that best represented them on issues they hold dear, with less regard to how it would effect the Harper government. That was their will; that is what is being abandoned.


Further more it is not unreasonable to assume that a block of voters voted for an opposition party knowing full well that Harper would retain the government, in the pursuit of having both the Harper government in power with a caveat of having representation on a particular issue they help as important by knew the Harper government would not.


Your argument is that the majority people of Canada want the opposition parties to join in this fashion to topple the Harper government simply because they did not vote for the Harper Government. The latter does not beget the former; it’s a possibility, but is not an exclusive logical path. You have presented no evidence that suggests that majority of the country wants the opposition parties join in this manner.

The last election however backs up my argument complete. The people had a chance to oust the Harper Government and did not do so. Now the opposition leaders are taking it upon them selves to do what the people did not do. In the process they are abandoning the issues that separate them, the issues that garnished them the votes they did win.

This is a clear example of a government working against the will of the people.

DS9 is correct to suggest that had the leaders of the opposition party wanted to, and felt that their supporters wanted too, form a coalition to defeat the Harper Government, they would have and should have done so going into the election, not after the election.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^ It was also quoted in my post
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Ngagh
Member Avatar
Huh?
Franko,
I am surprised you would use the term "pending coup" in the context of what is happening right now.
A coup d’état, often simply called a coup, is the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part — usually small — of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government. Franko, this is not a coup, but I suspect you know that.

I keep hearing many misconceptions from people and the media regarding this situation. I wish to clear up as many of these misconceptions as possible. I’m Canadian, have a strong interest in politics and have taken many Canadian political classes in university. With this said, I am by no means an expert, as such, I will do my best to explain this situation. If I need to be corrected or I forgot something, please do not hesitate to make a reply.

Let's get some basics down:

  • Canadians elect members of parliament (Not party members, or the party leader) to the House of Commons (A confidence chamber, if you will)
  • The Governor-General will then look to the House to see which party can form a government with the confidence of the House.
  • Because of strict party discipline, the party which holds the majority of the seats within the Commons will have the confidence of the house. As such, the GG (Governor-General who is the representative of the Queen of Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, etc) will ask the party to form the government executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet).
  • When a party does not have a majority of seats in the House, it is considered a minority government.
    A minority government may only pass legislation if they have the support of the majority of the Commons, thus reinforcing the confidence of the government. This is done via a vote. When a majority of MPs vote against the government on certain measures (non-confidence votes), it is deemed that the Government does not have the confidence of the House and so cannot govern. The Prime Minister at that point will ask the Governor-General to call an election.

  • However, there have been times when the Governor-General has not followed the advice of the PM(King-Byng Affair)
  • The Governor-General has the right to appoint another party without election if they have the confidence of the House, such as a coalition, and has happened in the past.

    Funnily enough, Harper himself tried to create coalition and gain power this way when Paul Martin had a minority government.

  • As to whether this is undemocratic or not, as in if it may be a coup d'etat:
    I believe it most certainly is NOT undemocratic in the context of the Canadian parliamentary system. Remember, the people elect a member of parliament (NOT THE PM – very important and frequently forgotten). The same MPs would still remain in government, and so people’s votes/voices in government are not lost.



Now, I have yet to read all the responses to this thread, so perhaps this issue has been addressed, but allow me to clarify this properly. This is in no way a coup.

It is not just illegal but impossible for the Conservatives to govern if they have lost the confidence of the house. The only thing that Harper can do is prorogue the parliament. The last time this was tried, someone lost his head. I think I need to ask King Charles what happened.

Sometimes I wonder if Stephen Harper has Karl Rove on speed dial the way he has his base frothing at the mouth. Note the keywords "separatist", "undemocratic", "socialist" spewing forth in every comment and press release.

What gets me the most is the word, "undemocratic". The proposed coalition has a much larger percentage of the popular vote as well as a much larger seat count than do the Conservatives. If Canadian democracy isn't about the popular vote, and it isn't about seats in the House, then according to Harper it must mean solely him in control.

Perhaps he thinks that vilifying the Bloc as evil, treasonous, dirty separatists will do the trick, and Canadians will lose support for the coalition. I think Harper is doing irreparable damage to this nation. He's pissing off all the Quebecois who gainfully voted for the Conservatives and providing fuel to the real separatists-English Canada does not respect or care about French Canada.

It is interesting to note that the only thing that is really unprecedented in this situation would be to prorogue government for the purpose of avoiding a confidence vote. That itself is unconstitutional, as it would go against the principle of responsible government because the government cannot be held accountable.

For all those interested Constitution Act, 1867

Edited for format and brevity
Edited by Ngagh, Dec 4 2008, 08:12 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
When has a coaltion previously taken power by a no confidence vote in the existing government and then not submitted itself to an immediate general election?
Edited by ds9074, Dec 4 2008, 04:35 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Ngagh
Member Avatar
Huh?
^In any Parliamentary system or Canada specifically? In Canada, the closest situation that I can remember is the King-Byng affair, where a coalition government created a government directly after an election. They subsequently lost confidence of the Common due to scandal. The GG then allowed the party with the most votes to Govern. That parliament was soon brought down by a non confidence motion as well.

Clicky click

It's a very interesting read.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
One other note of interest - I understand that when Harper tried to form a coalition to usurp the Liberals he courted the very same Bloc Quebecois that he is now villifying
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Ngagh
Dec 4 2008, 08:18 AM
^In any Parliamentary system or Canada specifically? In Canada, the closest situation that I can remember is the King-Byng affair, where a coalition government created a government directly after an election. They subsequently lost confidence of the Common due to scandal. The GG then allowed the party with the most votes to Govern. That parliament was soon brought down by a non confidence motion as well.

Clicky click

It's a very interesting read.
Interesting thanks. As I mentioned further up the thread I do not believe anything like this has happened at Westminster going back as far as 1722. From what I can see when the government has changed party it has either been the result of or has resulted in a dissolution and General Election.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Ngagh
Dec 3 2008, 11:46 PM
What gets me the most is the word, "undemocratic". The proposed coalition has a much larger percentage of the popular vote as well as a much larger seat count than do the Conservatives. If Canadian democracy isn't about the popular vote, and it isn't about seats in the House, then according to Harper it must mean solely him in control.
What you are missing is that when the democracy spoke in the last election, their was no such thing as the proposed coalition. You can not assume that those who voted for particular party members to represent them in government wanted the three opposition parties to create a coalition. There for you can not possible conclude that the coalition has a much larger percentage of the popular vote. The coalition in fact has no percentage of the popular vote because it did not exist at the time of the last election.

Had the coalition existed at the time of the last election it is possible that they may very well have lost seats giving Harper the full majority.

If what Franko says about the Bloc is true in even a degree of measure, it makes it even more likely that people would have switched their votes over being unhappy with the idea of being in a coalition with them.

All you know for sure is that the people of Canada had the opportunity to remove Harper's government and they did not do so, they in fact gave them more power. Now the opposition leaders are taking it upon themselves to do what the people chose not to do. That is undemocratic.

Your speculation that the coalition would have gained more seats is just that speculation. You can not possibly know if the majority of the Canadian people would have backed a coalition of the opposition. It is entirely possible that given the differences between the opposition parties that at least some supporters would not have approved of banding together. Because of this you can not possibly say the coalition has more of the popular vote.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I would broadly agree with that. The Conservatives were the single most popular party and their popularity increased at the election just held. People voting for other parties voted for them presumably without the intention of them forming a coalition government. They therefore have no mandate for such a coalition government.

What they do have is the power and right to bring down by confidence vote a minority government which while the most popular single party failed to secure an overall majority. They should then, if they wish to form a coalition administration, support a dissolution of Parliament.

Such a dissolution would give Canadian voters a clear choice. Either they could return the Conservatives with a majority and they continue in government or the coalition would have a majority and they would form a government. Not being Canadian I have no particular preference as to the choice made.

The above is what I personally believe would be the best outcome, it is what I would hope would occur in the UK in such a situation and it is what I believe Westminster system precedent would normally require. If an election doesnt occur I will be concerned as it could be used at a later date to try to justify such a move here in Britain and I would not be happy with that.

What I would suggest is that the proposed tactic of proroguing Parliament seems a bad one. It is by nature a short term measure, the government will fall through lack of supply if it tries to extend the measure. Maybe there are reasons why he is trying that tactic, but if I were him I would think it better to actually bring forward a motion of confidence in the Government myself then when that is defeated request an immediate dissolution. If the Governor-General will not grant the dissolution then he has the nuclear option of directly advising the Queen to dissolve the Canadian Parliament, a request she could not deny as she must act of the advice of her Ministers.
Edited by ds9074, Dec 4 2008, 03:13 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
ds9074
Dec 4 2008, 03:03 PM
^^^
I would broadly agree with that. The Conservatives were the single most popular party and their popularity increased at the election just held. People voting for other parties voted for them presumably without the intention of them forming a coalition government. They therefore have no mandate for such a coalition government.

What they do have is the power and right to bring down by confidence vote a minority government which while the most popular single party failed to secure an overall majority. They should then, if they wish to form a coalition administration, support a dissolution of Parliament.

Such a dissolution would give Canadian voters a clear choice. Either they could return the Conservatives with a majority and they continue in government or the coalition would have a majority and they would form a government. Not being Canadian I have no particular preference as to the choice made.

The above is what I personally believe would be the best outcome, it is what I would hope would occur in the UK in such a situation and it is what I believe Westminster system precedent would normally require. If an election doesnt occur I will be concerned as it could be used at a later date to try to justify such a move here in Britain and I would not be happy with that.

What I would suggest is that the proposed tactic of proroguing Parliament seems a bad one. It is by nature a short term measure, the government will fall through lack of supply if it tries to extend the measure. Maybe there are reasons why he is trying that tactic, but if I were him I would think it better to actually bring forward a motion of confidence in the Government myself then when that is defeated request an immediate dissolution. If the Governor-General will not grant the dissolution then he has the nuclear option of directly advising the Queen to dissolve the Canadian Parliament, a request she could not deny as she must act of the advice of her Ministers.
It is hypocritical of Stephen Harper to try to prorouge the vote when he himself attempted a similar coup years ago.

To those who find what is happening "undemocratic" I would respond that we do have a monarchy and we have always gone through the formality. It is likely that an election will be called, but not calling an election would not be "undemocratic" as the governing coalition would control enough seats to represent a larger portion of Canadians then the current ruling party.

Ngagh was correct to point out that Harper was not voted in by the Canadian public. He ran in a single riding like the rest of our members of parliament. Our system differs vastly from the US. In fact I find thier system of picking the inner cabinet that advises the President to be undemocratic because that cabinet is not elected by anyone. At least our cabinet comes from the elected ranks of parliament.
Edited by Minuet, Dec 4 2008, 04:31 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Ngagh
Member Avatar
Huh?
Dandandat
Dec 4 2008, 02:42 PM
What you are missing is that when the democracy spoke in the last election, their was no such thing as the proposed coalition. You can not assume that those who voted for particular party members to represent them in government wanted the three opposition parties to create a coalition. There for you can not possible conclude that the coalition has a much larger percentage of the popular vote. The coalition in fact has no percentage of the popular vote because it did not exist at the time of the last election.
You are misinterpreting what I wrote. The people do not elect a party or its leader to power. The people elect representative to make decisions for them in the House of Commons. I was not dealing with hypotheticals, the coalition with in individual members make up a majority share of the vote in Canada, they were also elected to more seats in the house of Commons.
Quote:
 

Had the coalition existed at the time of the last election it is possible that they may very well have lost seats giving Harper the full majority.
You are dealing with hypotheticals. The situation now is that the Harper government has lost the confidence of the house.

Quote:
 
If what Franko says about the Bloc is true in even a degree of measure, it makes it even more likely that people would have switched their votes over being unhappy with the idea of being in a coalition with them.
Again, you are dealing with hypotheticals. The situation now is that the Harper government has lost the confidence of the house.

Quote:
 
All you know for sure is that the people of Canada had the opportunity to remove Harper's government and they did not do so, they in fact gave them more power. Now the opposition leaders are taking it upon themselves to do what the people chose not to do. That is undemocratic.

The people of Canada do not elect a Prime Minister. They do not elect the leaders of their parties unless they are eligible to vote in the leaders riding. The people vote for a representative who in turn pick their leader. They choose on whatever basis they like. They choose because they believe that they will be best represented by this person. The representatives, because of strict party solidarity, choose a leader that is of their own party. As the moment, the representatives of the people have decided that they would be lead by Dion. To allow for legislation of pass, they proposed a coalition, allow them to retain the confidence of the house.

Quote:
 
Your speculation that the coalition would have gained more seats is just that speculation. You can not possibly know if the majority of the Canadian people would have backed a coalition of the opposition. It is entirely possible that given the differences between the opposition parties that at least some supporters would not have approved of banding together. Because of this you can not possibly say the coalition has more of the popular vote.
I did not speculate on who would win more seats if another election were to be held today and the coalition were running against the Conservative Party. I stated that at the moment, the coalition was elected with a majority of the share of vote and they were also elected to a majority of the seats within the House of Commons, that would give them the confidence of the House.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Coming from a country which does have a system like Canada I still think that for the proposed coalition to take power without then calling an election would be undemocratic.

Yes individual MPs are what were elected. Yet presumably none of those MPs was elected with a mandate to give support to a coalition government. That was not something which was put before the people before the election was held. They were elected with a mandate to support a government only of their own party, the parties on whose platform, policies and manifestos they presumably stood.

In order to gain a popular mandate for a coalition government those MPs need to go back to their voters and ask their permission to support such a government. The voters can then choose to back them or back the Conservatives.
Edited by ds9074, Dec 4 2008, 06:05 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus