|
Pending Coup In Canada
|
|
Topic Started: Dec 1 2008, 08:57 PM (1,005 Views)
|
|
Ngagh
|
Dec 4 2008, 06:07 PM
Post #46
|
Huh?
- Posts:
- 2,089
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #89
- Joined:
- December 27, 2003
|
- 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. DS, since your government is also based on the Westminster system, I'm surprised you don't know this. The people do not elect a party to office. They elected representatives.
Even if the people voted based on the Party, the people voted for the party to form the new government. Either way, this process is democratic.
- Quote:
-
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.
All parties have the right to create coalitions. There is no mention of barring parties from doing so with the Constitution Act, 1867. This is because the coalitions are representatives working together.
Usually, a non confidence motion is won by the opposition a election is held. But, the constitution makes it clear that the point of a government is good governance. Because the Conservatives were not able to pass legislation in this session after an election because of the loss of confidence, the task falls to whomever can get the confidence of the House.
- Quote:
-
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.
See above. I too would prefer an election.
- Quote:
-
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 is happening is well within the rules of the Westminster system.
- Quote:
-
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.
Proroguing of the Commons has set an even worse precedent. The ruling government can now suspend a parliamentary session for every confidence motion it feels it will loose. That is not good governance, which may be unconstituional.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Dec 4 2008, 07:23 PM
Post #47
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Ngagh
-
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.
So your government makes decisions for you? That blows my mind, I would never wish to live under a government that makes decisions for me. That is the antitheses of democracy.
If what your say here is true, that in Canada your government makes your decisions for you than I would have to concede that I am wrong. The will of the people is not important under your system the will of the governing body seems to be paramount.
Harper is correct than to say that coalition does is anti democratic; but if that is how you enjoy your government up north more power to you
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Dec 4 2008, 07:33 PM
Post #48
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
DS, since your government is also based on the Westminster system, I'm surprised you don't know this. The people do not elect a party to office. They elected representatives.
Ngagh I don't think any of the western countries elect a party of office. People elect representatives to represent them. The people know, in part, how the representative will represent based on the representative's party affiliation, because party affiliation is a pledge to uphold the party platform.
It is not unreasonable that those who voted for New Democrat representative did so because they do not agree with the platform of the Liberal representative. This is why two parties exist in the first place instead of just one.
|
|
|
| |
|
STC
|
Dec 4 2008, 07:46 PM
Post #49
|
Commodore
- Posts:
- 4,421
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #1,245
- Joined:
- April 16, 2007
|
- Dandandat
- Dec 4 2008, 07:23 PM
- Ngagh
-
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.
So your government makes decisions for you? That blows my mind, I would never wish to live under a government that makes decisions for me. That is the antitheses of democracy. If what your say here is true, that in Canada your government makes your decisions for you than I would have to concede that I am wrong. The will of the people is not important under your system the will of the governing body seems to be paramount. Harper is correct than to say that coalition does is anti democratic; but if that is how you enjoy your government up north more power to you The governing body is elected by the people. Hence, it is answerable to the people. Hence, the will of the people is, and always is, paramount.
This is representative democracy Dan and, with the greatest respect, I'm surprised why you're not grasping this. I understand it is different from what you are used to and I am certainly not saying that one is better than the other but, when one understands how the system works, it is perfectly democratic and accountable, as I'm sure is the U.S. system in its own way.
I'm also puzzled why you still seem to avoid the issue, when you have been challenged, of Harper going beyond what limited mandate he was given - this seems to be to be the core issue yet the discussion here seems to be of the reaction?
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Dec 4 2008, 08:28 PM
Post #50
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- STC
- Dec 4 2008, 07:46 PM
The governing body is elected by the people. Hence, it is answerable to the people. Hence, the will of the people is, and always is, paramount.
This is representative democracy Dan and, with the greatest respect, I'm surprised why you're not grasping this. I understand it is different from what you are used to and I am certainly not saying that one is better than the other but, when one understands how the system works, it is perfectly democratic and accountable, as I'm sure is the U.S. system in its own way
I am not the only one who is not "grasping" this my friend; it would seem enough people aren't "grasping" this that it has become an issue of importance.
Perhaps it is not a matter of "grasping" at all; perhaps instead there is legitimacy to the protest.
If you wish however to discount all those who disagree with you as not being able to "grasp" what your trying to convene; that is of course your choice.
- Quote:
-
I'm also puzzled why you still seem to avoid the issue, when you have been challenged, of Harper going beyond what limited mandate he was given - this seems to be to be the core issue yet the discussion here seems to be of the reaction? 
I have not avoided it at all. I quite clearly said I see no evidence presented in this thread that Harper was beyond what limited mandate he was given. Further more I also stated that even if Harper has done some wrong doing, further wrong doing is not the answer.
The core issue here is the one presented by Franko in the thread he started and the one we are now engaged in. That issue was not "has Harper gone beyond what limited mandate he was given?" - the issue is "Pending Coup In Canada" and that is the issue we are discussing.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Dec 4 2008, 09:03 PM
Post #51
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Dec 4 2008, 07:23 PM
- Ngagh
-
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.
So your government makes decisions for you? That blows my mind, I would never wish to live under a government that makes decisions for me. That is the antitheses of democracy. If what your say here is true, that in Canada your government makes your decisions for you than I would have to concede that I am wrong. The will of the people is not important under your system the will of the governing body seems to be paramount. Harper is correct than to say that coalition does is anti democratic; but if that is how you enjoy your government up north more power to you This is an unbelievable comment from someone who lives in a representative democracy. Especially one that appoints cabinent members rather then electing them.
It's amazing to me that you don't understand the basics of what "representative" means in both of our countries.
Edited by Minuet, Dec 4 2008, 09:06 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Dec 4 2008, 09:08 PM
Post #52
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
If you wish however to discount all those who disagree with you as not being able to "grasp" what your trying to convene; that is of course your choice.
It's more polite then discounting people as "childish"
Maybe you should quit with the insults while you are behind.
|
|
|
| |
|
Franko
|
Dec 5 2008, 02:03 AM
Post #53
|
Shower Moderator
- Posts:
- 7,303
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #299
- Joined:
- January 9, 2005
|
Anyway......................... a nice thorough and tacit examination of the situation, Ngagh. Thank you.
As for the subjective and objective aspects of this situation, I suppose one could hash that out according to their own interpretations. And yes, the term "coup" was rhetorical, but somewhat fitting in spirit to my interpretations of "motive" on the part of the other parties.
Meanwhile......
- Quote:
-
Harper wins suspension of ParliamentOTTAWA (Reuters) – Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a rare suspension of Parliament on Thursday, managing to avoid being ousted by opposition parties angry over the minority Conservative government's economic plans and an attempt to cut off party financing. Governor General Michaelle Jean -- the representative of Queen Elizabeth, Canada's head of state -- agreed to Harper's request to shut down Parliament until Jan 26. Parliament was reconvened just weeks ago after the October 14 election. Harper's request for suspension was unprecedented. No prime minister had asked for Parliament to be suspended to avoid a confidence vote in the House of Commons. Such a vote had been set for Monday and the Conservatives almost certainly would have lost it, and faced the possibility of being replaced by a coalition of opposition parties. After a two-hour meeting with the governor general, Harper reaffirmed his promise to present a budget on Jan 27 and called on the opposition to work with the government over the next few weeks to tackle the effects of the global financial crisis. "Today's decision will give us an opportunity -- and I'm talking about all the parties -- to focus on the economy and to work together," he told reporters. The opposition Liberals, New Democrats and the separatist Bloc Quebecois -- all to the left of the Conservatives -- had signed a deal to defeat the Conservatives and put forward a Liberal-New Democrat coalition to form a new government. The Bloc, which wants to take French-speaking Quebec out of Canada, pledged to back the coalition's budgets and general policy direction. The governor general's role in government, as representative of the Crown, is largely ceremonial, though she has the final word on constitutional matters. Should the government be defeated in a confidence vote, she would decide whether to call a new election or allow the opposition to form a coalition government. MORE...... (source)
As to the question of whether Harper exceeded his "mandate", that's open to debate. The opposition that can bring down a minority government can always use that argument, especially over budgets or other measures dealing with economics.
I believe that the right thing has been done here. Let the Tories produce thier budget later on in January, allowing the other parties to give their input, and come up with certain degrees of compromise. Then let the other parties explain to the people their rationale for bringing down the government.
|
|
|
| |
|
ds9074
|
Dec 5 2008, 02:17 AM
Post #54
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,449
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- August 27, 2003
|
- Ngagh
-
ds9074Dec 4 2008, 08:03 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. DS, since your government is also based on the Westminster system, I'm surprised you don't know this. The people do not elect a party to office. They elected representatives.
True in the strictest sense but as I mentioned earlier those representatives were not elected in a vacuum. They stood under a party banner, with the support of a particular party and endorsed the policies of a particular party. The electorate therefore have a legitimate expectation that they will adhere to that party platform and would have sought, had they had sufficient support, to provide confidence and supply to a government of their party.
They are now proposing to provide confidence and supply to a government not of their own parties but of a different nature, a coalition government, and they have no popular mandate for that policy as it was not put before the people. If their intention to do this had been known the people may (or may not) have voted for different representatives. The decision on whether to allow this coalition government should therefore, IMO, be turned over to the people.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Dec 5 2008, 08:43 AM
Post #55
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Dec 4 2008, 09:08 PM
- Quote:
-
If you wish however to discount all those who disagree with you as not being able to "grasp" what your trying to convene; that is of course your choice.
It's more polite then discounting people as "childish" Maybe you should quit with the insults while you are behind. Moderator Comment:
Minuet,
Earlier in this thread, you stated:
- Minuet
-
Wichita - I did not tell anyone that they could not participate.
I very clearly told them that I would not engage them in discussion.
The current post is one of two successive posts that you quoted the very person you stated you would not engage in conversation further earlier in this same thread.
Consider this your warning that this quoted post and the one that precedes it:
- Minuet
-
This is an unbelievable comment from someone who lives in a representative democracy. Especially one that appoints cabinent members rather then electing them.
It's amazing to me that you don't understand the basics of what "representative" means in both of our countries.
... are unacceptable.
You can ignore the person in question - as you stated that you intended to do - or you can directly respond to the issue presented, but, if you continue to criticize the "person" instead of the "issue" - as you have in these last two posts, a warning will be forthcoming.
Edited by Wichita, Dec 5 2008, 08:44 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Ngagh
|
Dec 6 2008, 11:06 AM
Post #56
|
Huh?
- Posts:
- 2,089
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #89
- Joined:
- December 27, 2003
|
- ds9074
- Dec 5 2008, 02:17 AM
True in the strictest sense but as I mentioned earlier those representatives were not elected in a vacuum. They stood under a party banner, with the support of a particular party and endorsed the policies of a particular party. The electorate therefore have a legitimate expectation that they will adhere to that party platform and would have sought, had they had sufficient support, to provide confidence and supply to a government of their party.
They are now proposing to provide confidence and supply to a government not of their own parties but of a different nature, a coalition government, and they have no popular mandate for that policy as it was not put before the people. If their intention to do this had been known the people may (or may not) have voted for different representatives. The decision on whether to allow this coalition government should therefore, IMO, be turned over to the people. I wholly agree with your sentiment. But to call what is happening a coup, illegal or unconstitutional is absurd.
|
|
|
| |
|
ds9074
|
Dec 6 2008, 12:31 PM
Post #57
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,449
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- August 27, 2003
|
- Ngagh
- Dec 6 2008, 11:06 AM
- ds9074
- Dec 5 2008, 02:17 AM
True in the strictest sense but as I mentioned earlier those representatives were not elected in a vacuum. They stood under a party banner, with the support of a particular party and endorsed the policies of a particular party. The electorate therefore have a legitimate expectation that they will adhere to that party platform and would have sought, had they had sufficient support, to provide confidence and supply to a government of their party.
They are now proposing to provide confidence and supply to a government not of their own parties but of a different nature, a coalition government, and they have no popular mandate for that policy as it was not put before the people. If their intention to do this had been known the people may (or may not) have voted for different representatives. The decision on whether to allow this coalition government should therefore, IMO, be turned over to the people.
I wholly agree with your sentiment. But to call what is happening a coup, illegal or unconstitutional is absurd. To call it a coup or illegal I agree would be excessive but it could be considered unconstitutional and certainly undemocratic without a pledge to call an immediate general election.
Edited by ds9074, Dec 6 2008, 12:32 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Franko
|
Dec 6 2008, 08:38 PM
Post #58
|
Shower Moderator
- Posts:
- 7,303
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #299
- Joined:
- January 9, 2005
|
Well, that didn't take long. The magnificent coalition is already in "disarray".
- Quote:
-
Canadian opposition leader faces pressure to quitTORONTO (Reuters) – The leader of Canada's main opposition party faced a growing chorus of calls on Saturday to step aside immediately just two days after he looked poised to take power in the country as head of a center-left coalition. Members of Stephane Dion's Liberal Party and editorials called for his quick ouster after Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a rare suspension of Parliament, allowing his Conservative government to avoid being defeated in a confidence vote. Concerns about Dion's ability to keep leading the Liberals -- and the multiparty coalition formed to defeat the Harper government over its response to the economic crisis -- intensified as Canadians gathered at raucous rallies across the country Saturday in support of both sides in the battle. The most prominent call for a speedy exit came from former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley, who said Dion had become an obstacle who had bound the party to the coalition with the left-wing New Democratic Party with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, which wants to take Quebec out of Canada. "I believe the first step for my party is to replace Stephane Dion as leader with someone whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal Party, rather than leading a coalition with the NDP," Manley wrote in an op-ed column in the Globe and Mail newspaper. Dion, 53, had agreed to step aside after the party's dismal showing in the October 14 election, which saw Harper's Conservatives returned with a stronger minority. But he said he would remain leader until a new one is chosen in early May. DEMAND FOR STIMULUS PLAN Last week, when they announced the formation of the coalition to defeat Harper, the opposition leaders said Dion, who sometimes struggles in English, would become prime minister after winning a vote in the House of Commons. The opposition parties were angry that a government economic update contained no major stimulus to boost the economy and head off job losses. The were also outraged that Harper said he would cut public funding for their parties. That measure has since been rescinded. After Governor General Michaelle Jean -- the acting head of state -- agreed on Thursday to Harper's request to shut down Parliament until January 26, questions arose over the coalition's ability to remain intact until then. Much has been made of Dion's taped response to Harper's televised address to the nation on Wednesday. It arrived late at the major networks, in the wrong format for broadcast and in similar quality to a home video. Polls have shown increased support for Harper in the past week, as he tried to hammer home the message that the Liberals signed a "deal with the devil," meaning the separatist Bloc.More (source)
Right now, polls show over two thirds of Canadians are against this sleazy coup, and polls also show they would prefer an election to settle it. The polls also show a sweeping Tory majority if there is another election called.
Give it up, bozos. It's over.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Dec 8 2008, 09:32 AM
Post #59
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Dec 4 2008, 09:03 PM
- Dandandat
- Dec 4 2008, 07:23 PM
- Ngagh
-
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.
So your government makes decisions for you? That blows my mind, I would never wish to live under a government that makes decisions for me. That is the antitheses of democracy. If what your say here is true, that in Canada your government makes your decisions for you than I would have to concede that I am wrong. The will of the people is not important under your system the will of the governing body seems to be paramount. Harper is correct than to say that coalition does is anti democratic; but if that is how you enjoy your government up north more power to you
This is an unbelievable comment from someone who lives in a representative democracy. Especially one that appoints cabinent members rather then electing them. It's amazing to me that you don't understand the basics of what "representative" means in both of our countries. "Representative government" means that my government cares out my will on my behalf. They do not make decisions for me as Ngagh suggested.
On matters of little importance, like what to name that memorial highway; government couldn’t not function with out playing fast and loss with interpreting my will.
On matters as important as the make-up of the government itself, my government is ethically bound to painstakingly interpret my will and cary it out; not simply make decisions for me.
When my will and that of the rest of my countries citizenry was made clear through active choice not more than a few months ago, it would not be difficult for my government to ascertain our will, making it completely inappropriate for them to make a decision for me/us.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Dec 8 2008, 09:49 AM
Post #60
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Dec 4 2008, 09:08 PM
- Quote:
-
If you wish however to discount all those who disagree with you as not being able to "grasp" what your trying to convene; that is of course your choice.
It's more polite then discounting people as "childish" Maybe you should quit with the insults while you are behind. Its more polite to discount all those who disagree with you as not being able to "grasp" what your trying to convene; than it is to point out to some one that they are being childish for being jingoistic in their attempt to bar/discount others from the conversation simply because the do not conform to what Minuet deems an appropriate ethnic/societal back ground needed to discuses a topic?
It would be like me telling Whitestar that he could not possibly understand the conversation being had in the "Union" thread because he does not have the proper business education. But that would be extremely childish of me, it would also be rude and condescending. I there for argue the merits of Whitestars logical arguments, and because of that it has added to the conversation not detracted from it.
You on the other hand continue to discount people from conversations, because of things like they are not Canadians, or because they aren't Jewish, you even once told me I couldn’t have an accurate opinion about wal-mart because I didn’t work their like you do.
In fact its quite comical as you are the loudest protester when people try to tell non US citizens that they couldn’t/don't understand a US based conversation being had. Yet here you are doing the exact same thing.
|
|
|
| |