Re: Democracy at work or something like it

Weigh in with your vote, if we’re lucky the GG will start trolling the forum for some constitutional advice… :smiley:

I think Harper should resign. He seems to have forgten that he only has a minority government.

Have you forgotten that there was an election AND THEY LOST!!!What a way to run a country(banana republic)and we were worried about the senate being un-democratic…how is it that a figure head that has a token position gets to say who or what our government is going to be.What a freaken joke!!

I think that many people are making more of this fuss than it warrants.  Most democracies in the world are based on a form of proportional representation, and often see the shifting sands of coalition governments.  The sky does not fall.  In this case, the mp’s are completely within their rights and responsibilities to act collectively.  Harper is to blame, of course, because they were unwilling to work together until now, and it is his actions that have galvanized them. 

I am interested in the role of the media here.  The Canwest editors seem clearly in the tank for Harper, while the CBC seems to be entertaining more diversity, or at least more diversely entertaining.  There is a piece on The Tyee today from Michael Byers, for an alternative view and analysis of the constitutional elements.  If Harper gets a month to play, watch and compare the media coverage.

As for the Governor-General…a difficult decision to make.  Any of the options have perils.  However, I think the biggest factor is that there is clearly a loss of confidence in Harper by the House.  Without their confidence, he cannot, and should not, govern.  That’s our version of democracy, and it has, for the most part, served us well.

I’ll repost this link, because I think it sums up one reason some people are angry:  they just don’t understand our parliamentary system.  (link to Macleans)

I think Teacher and Mig have raised some excellent points, what do people expect the opposition to do? Do the people expect the opposition to vote for the budget even though it runs contrary (and is detrimental) to the rest or the parties? This is precisely how our system of parliament is supposed to work.

The GG is going to be asked to prorogue Parliament. She gets to answer yes or no.
Harper has lost support of Parliament. He won’t admit it. If he did, he’d be telling her so and she’d have the choice to offer the coalition the gov’t or call an election. Coalition is the precedent when confidence is lost so quickly. If the Libs&NDP had a working agreement back when, Joe Clark would have had it done to him.

Stop telling us a coalition that represents 62% of voters in not democratic and the Conservative party with 37% is.
Stop bawling that using the Bloc is treason when they have been approached and used by the Conservative party for support often, as they are the Spawn of Tory.
Stop telling us the GG shouldn’t have the right to decide because the Queen’s the next one up the food chain and we’re done with her.

Elizabeth May was once again the voice of reason. This is no big deal, happens all over all the time. It just hasn’t happened here for a long while.

It’s not a budget, it was a financial statement, the budget isn’t scheduled until January…

small point but for the sake of argument we should make note of it…

Hell: rejoice! Nathan deserves to be tapped for one of those Cabinet seats. $30 billion to boost the economy might mean our riding gets more than the usual chicken-change. The NDP will have a real say in the allotting of that spending.
We got 3 times our money’s worth for our vote! :smiley:

I don’t see a problem there at all!

No I think its a very valid point. And if anything it proves the opostion can scheme and plot just as well as Harper. But the budget is a true make or break moment that cant be ignored.

At this rate the Tories won’t even be able to try and push their budget, Havoc.

The funding to the parties is one of many red herrings that the Cons are floating as is the “Separatist” boogeyman.

If you take time to understand Parliametary procedures and realize the basic tenet is based on “Majoritarian Principles”, Harpers problem becomes very clear, he has lost the confidence Parliament and equally the numbers of votes to pass any legislation.

No amount of obfuscating and finger pointing will change that.

Harper is getting a well deserved spanking, he should take his lumps and shut up.


What budget?That is NOT till January!Get your facts straight.

Maybe I should slow it down for you then…there is a wide range of stuff happening between now and then some of it may actually cause the government to fall. But once the budget it tabled in January Harper must gain votes from at least some of the opposition MP’s or the government will suffer a vote of non confidence. Perhaps you can tell me again which facts I have wrong?

This is the post people are reacting to, Havoc.

The budget is in January, but no–no one expects the opposition to vote for a budget that they don’t think is in the best interest of the country. The issue, however, is that they won’t even let the budget see the light of day, as they were attempting to preempt it.

They were reacting to the introduced “mini-budget” that had been presented to Parliament.  When asked to vote on the “mini-budget” they would vote against it.

Read ALL the news, not just the Torie releases.
The motion to be tabled Monday was a Motion of Non-Confidence in the Gov’t. If it passed, Haroer was fucked. There’s no need to vote down the Budget, this prorogue is just a play to come back and table one and pretend the Budget was to blame, not the stated intent to kneecap all political opposition by stealing their funding.

Think about it. That’s exactly what went down, the first bloody thing Harper did was attempt to stifle all opposition with that funding cut.
Then he shuts down Parliament, so it will look like there’s no confidence in the Budget, not him.
All the while telling us that a coalition representing a clear majority isn’t democratic.
And making it clear that he will never work with socialists or separatists, so you better give him a clear majority or else.
And if you do, he’ll cut their funding for sure and there will be no opposition for a long time!

And we thought Bush was a dink!

This preamble or what ever you want to call it is still about the January budget.  Just because the opposition is trying to do something about it now does not change that fact it’s about the opposition parties’ loss of faith in the government’s ability in financial matters. The point I was trying to make is what ever the GG does now (to prorogue parliament as the case may be) there is a very real shit or get off the potmoment when the budget gets tabled. If the GG decided to let the coalition form a government, or call an election, it would still be because of what they thought was going to be in the budget.

For those saying the coalition is undemocratic:

A coalition government includes members of different political parties and normally appears during crises such as war or political breakdown. The fluidity of party lines, the predominance of patronage, and the novelty of responsible government led to several experimental coalition arrangements in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Canada in the 1840s and 1850s. The best known were in 1854 and 1864 (the GREAT COALITION) in the Province of Canada. The former, which united moderate Reformers and Conservatives, was the base for the post-Confederation CONSERVATIVE PARTY. The latter joined CLEAR GRIT Liberals, Conservatives and PARTI BLEU to bring about CONFEDERATION, although it had been dissolved by the 1872 election.
The strengthening of party affiliation and the development of the apparatus of a party system since Confederation have made coalitions more difficult to negotiate. At the national level, the only coalition has been Sir Robert BORDEN’S 1917 UNION GOVERNMENT. Faced with strong opposition to conscription and with other major difficulties during WWI, Borden sought to broaden his wartime political base by bringing several conscriptionist Liberals and other public figures into his government. In the December 1917 general election, this government won a decisive victory over Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberals. The Union coalition did not long survive its triumph: the end of the war brought many Liberals back to their old affiliation, while other Unionists supported the new PROGRESSIVE PARTY.

With Borden’s resignation in 1920, even the pretense of coalition disappeared. The Union government illustrated the dangers of coalition: after 1917, French Canadians associated coalitions with conscription. Indeed, during WWII, proposals for coalitions or a “National Government” came from those who also called for a stronger war effort and conscription. Since WWII there have been few proposals for federal coalition governments.

At the provincial level coalitions have occurred in western Canada. Manitoba Liberals and Progressives combined in 1931, and in 1940 all the province’s parties joined a nonpartisan administration formed to meet wartime demands. In BC a wartime coalition between the Liberals and Conservatives held off the challenge of the CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH FEDERATION. The coalition probably benefited the CCF; it certainly damaged the Liberals and Conservatives, soon supplanted by SOCIAL CREDIT. No coalition has been as successful as the “Great Coalition.” Politicians have become so wary of the long-term results of coalitions that they are now most reluctant to introduce them.

Add the 1985 Ontario example, which mirrors the current situation.  Conservatives win a minority, Liberals and NDP form a coalition and take power.

It’s a normal part of the parliamentary system.  Same with crossing the floor, replacing a leader who then becomes a prime minister, etc.  These would all be considered ‘undemocratic’ by people who think they’re voting for a prime minister instead of an MP.

Yes, it’s probably not the best system (especially the first past the post aspect of the voting).  So let’s change it to some sort of proportional representation and come to the conclusion that most of the civilized world has come to:  government by consensus is better than government by absolute majority mandate.