Who else enjoys the opposition making an ass of themselves?

[Icebound]

Are you trying to tell me you vote for your local MP based on his character without any consideration given to the party he represents or the Prime Minister that will be elected? Really?

You can vote for your local MP based on whatever criteria that you personally deem fit.

But that does not alter the fact that when he gets into the House of Commons, a majority of his colleagues must have confidence in the government and prime minister of the day. And if a majority of them do not, then somebody else can stand up and say "I CAN get such a confidence from the elected members".... and if he does, he can try to govern.

You guys keep trying to make the point that "Canadians Elected Harper to Govern".

Canadians did no such thing. They elected a BUNCH of members to parliament from a number of different parties. The Leader of the party with the most members was the most likely to get the confidence of the house, obviously, so he became Prime Minister.

Part of "retaining confidence" means implementing policies that others can support. Failing to do so lost the confidence of the majority, and hence you are no longer prime minister. Straight-forward.

Icebound also said:
Whether this particular coalition is a "good idea" or not, is not relevant.

Which is why this country is so screwed unless somebody starts thinking it is relevant. Fortunately for us the GG did.

This country is not as screwed as you make it out.

This country will be a lot more screwed if we hide from democratic votes, and give up democratic tradition for despotic efficiency

Democracy is all about compromise, and rights of minorities, and everybody getting a voice. All of that creates bedlam, but this is how democracy works.

Democracy is NOT about destroying your opposition, suppressing dissenting views, twisting or hiding the truth.

There seems to be a lot of sympathy for despotic efficiency in these threads... you do not have to go too far into the recent past to see how "efficient" government worked for the people of the USSR, for certain segments of the European population, and for some other parts of the world.

Actually, perhaps Harper is a kindler, gentler soul than I personally believe. I am extremely surprised that he would not let the coalition govern. Had it tried, everybody seems to be in agreement that it would have quickly self-destructed. The ensuing election should have been a landslide.

Or are we actually afraid that the majority of Canadians will come around to support the "coalition"????


...

[Dust Devil]

Democracy is NOT about destroying your opposition, suppressing dissenting views, twisting or hiding the truth.

Nor is it about ignoring the will of the people which has been clearly demonstrated in the past week. The will of the people trumps everything.

[Icebound]

But you have to know that if your particular local MP is a backbencher, then they are only there to provide a vote in favour of the government's agenda and deal with minor little local issues. They have no influence at all over the government

Actually, the Conservatives promised in the Campaign of 2006 to allow free votes. (At least Preston Manning says so in his book "Rebalanced and Revitalized: A Canada Strong and Free".

I wonder how many of those they have had.

In any case, back-benchers serve on committees which are often critical in ensuring that legislation is "sound", so I would hardly call them of "no influence".



...

...

[Icebound]

Democracy is NOT about destroying your opposition, suppressing dissenting views, twisting or hiding the truth.

Nor is it about ignoring the will of the people which has been clearly demonstrated in the past week. The will of the people trumps everything.

The "will of the people" is not expressed in call-ins to talk shows, rants on AvCanada Forums, or even gatherings of thousands in the streets.

The only "will of the people" which counts in a democracy....

....is that of the secret vote at the ballot box, not public displays by vested interests.

The "will of the people" was expressed just 8 weeks ago by election of 308 more or less intelligent "leaders in their communities". The will of the people elected fewer than 155 from any one party. The leader of the largest group had the confidence of the majority of those 308 individuals, however, so he could govern.

But now, it sounds like at least 155 of them no longer have confidence in him.

Too bad, so sad.. The "will of the people" elected something like 164 members not of Harper's faith. Gee, if Harper can't maintain the confidence of at least 155 members of the House, then maybe these 164 can.

THAT is the "will of the people".

When the next election comes around, the people can express their "will" once more, and it might be different next time... but until such time comes, the "will of the people" is expressed in the 308 individuals currently in the house.






...

[costermonger]

Dion's expected to step down by the Liberal caucus meeting on Wednesday, all signs point to Ignatieff as the replacement.

It's gonna be an interesting 7 weeks.

[Rockie]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

[Guido]

Too bad, so sad.. The "will of the people" elected something like 164 members not of Harper's faith. Gee, if Harper can't maintain the confidence of at least 155 members of the House, then maybe these 164 can.

THAT is the "will of the people".

Hear hear!

This is what the average Canadian just doesn't understand about parliamentary government...

[2R]

Too bad, so sad.. The "will of the people" elected something like 164 members not of Harper's faith. Gee, if Harper can't maintain the confidence of at least 155 members of the House, then maybe these 164 can.

THAT is the "will of the people".

Hear hear!

This is what the average Canadian just doesn't understand about parliamentary government...

Your average Canadian could not find a polling station if they put one at the end of their driveway ,nevermind understand how to put an x on a piece of paper

[costermonger]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

It's interesting that you'll moan, stamp & whimper to no end about the 'undemocratic' actions of Dion & Layton, but suspending parliament to prevent a vote that would cost Harper his job - that's just fine. In fact, even though the government was about to get voted down on the floor of the House of Commons, that's Dion & Layton's fault too!

I just think it's strange that all the voices likening the coalition's proposal to a banana republic power grab have been either silent or supportive of the idea that it's OK for a PM to use his power with the explicit purpose of maintaining his power.

[Rockie]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

It's interesting that you'll moan, stamp & whimper to no end about the 'undemocratic' actions of Dion & Layton, but suspending parliament to prevent a vote that would cost Harper his job - that's just fine. In fact, even though the government was about to get voted down on the floor of the House of Commons, that's Dion & Layton's fault too!

I just think it's strange that all the voices likening the coalition's proposal to a banana republic power grab have been either silent or supportive of the idea that it's OK for a PM to use his power with the explicit purpose of maintaining his power.

You and Icebound are barking up the wrong tree because my first choice would have been another election. You are not the only people who understand what it means when a minority government loses the confidence of the house, which Harper clearly deserved to do and in fact did. What we differ on is how it is settled. You think it's OK to translate that loss of confidence into support for siezing power, even though you know full well that NO ONE outside Quebec would support the Bloc forming the deciding vote.

What Harper did was just as legal as what Layton/Dion/Duceppe wanted to do. Furthermore, it had the support of the Governor General who appears smarter and more concerned with the well being of the country than all the rest of them put together. If you are so outraged about democracy being circumvented, where is your outrage at Dion and Layton? Why don't you support another election which is the ultimate expression of democracy? Could it be because you know the coalition and its individual leaders would be destroyed?

In January Harper will bring in another budget, and the opposition will have yet another chance to express their non-confidence. Only next time it will likely result in an election which is a very good thing in my opinion. How do you feel about that?

[Dust Devil]

The only "will of the people" which counts in a democracy....

....is that of the secret vote at the ballot box, not public displays by vested interests.

Wow I'm surprised we agree on this. That is why I and many in this country have been saying that we need an election. The government should not be allowed to change without an election. I understand that in this country that the government can change without an election however 14 year olds can also legaly have sex with adults in this country (not sure if that is still the case. I think the Conservatives were trying to change that) It doesn't make it right.

[Dust Devil]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

It's interesting that you'll moan, stamp & whimper to no end about the 'undemocratic' actions of Dion & Layton, but suspending parliament to prevent a vote that would cost Harper his job - that's just fine. In fact, even though the government was about to get voted down on the floor of the House of Commons, that's Dion & Layton's fault too!

I just think it's strange that all the voices likening the coalition's proposal to a banana republic power grab have been either silent or supportive of the idea that it's OK for a PM to use his power with the explicit purpose of maintaining his power.

What power does the PM have with Parlaiment suspended? Everything is basically on hold. The govenrment is unable to spend any new money until a budget is drafted. Let everyone cool down.

[Dust Devil]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

It's interesting that you'll moan, stamp & whimper to no end about the 'undemocratic' actions of Dion & Layton, but suspending parliament to prevent a vote that would cost Harper his job - that's just fine. In fact, even though the government was about to get voted down on the floor of the House of Commons, that's Dion & Layton's fault too!

I just think it's strange that all the voices likening the coalition's proposal to a banana republic power grab have been either silent or supportive of the idea that it's OK for a PM to use his power with the explicit purpose of maintaining his power.

You and Icebound are barking up the wrong tree because my first choice would have been another election. You are not the only people who understand what it means when a minority government loses the confidence of the house, which Harper clearly deserved to do and in fact did. What we differ on is how it is settled. You think it's OK to translate that loss of confidence into support for siezing power, even though you know full well that NO ONE outside Quebec would support the Bloc forming the deciding vote.

What Harper did was just as legal as what Layton/Dion/Duceppe wanted to do. Furthermore, it had the support of the Governor General who appears smarter and more concerned with the well being of the country than all the rest of them put together. If you are so outraged about democracy being circumvented, where is your outrage at Dion and Layton? Why don't you support another election which is the ultimate expression of democracy? Could it be because you know the coalition and its individual leaders would be destroyed?

In January Harper will bring in another budget, and the opposition will have yet another chance to express their non-confidence. Only next time it will likely result in an election which is a very good thing in my opinion. How do you feel about that?

I should have read your post before I posted but you pretty much sumed up what I was thinking

[Rockie]

There are two basic reasons why Canadians are so vehemently opposed to the coalition whether it is constitutionally legal or not. One is the sheer incompetence of Dion and Layton to run the country. Canadians know this, and showed it in the last election if anyone was paying attention.

The second of course is having the Bloc as the deciding vote in the coalition. Quebec has 75 seats in the House of Commons and they elected separatists to 65% of them. Imagine if the rest of Canada elected 65%, or 151 of their 233 MP's from a party that only exists for the same reason the PQ does...removing Quebec from Canada. How would Quebec react to that? Not very well je pense.

Quebecers would take it as the grave insult that it is and rightfully leave the country because they are not wanted, but the rest of Canada tolerates it from Quebec in the interest of national peace. However that doesn't extend to the Bloc forming their government and it never will.

[Four1oh]

Why is everyone so focused on the Bloc being the reason to be against the coalition? The NDP is a far better reason why we don't want the coalition. The Bloc wouldn't destroy canada with the Libs acting as lion tamer, but the NDP sure as hell would.

[Rockie]

I said there were two reasons with Layton and Dion being one of them. But you're right, they should each be counted separately so there are three reasons.

[Siddley Hawker]

I disagree with the coalition because I want to see what the Bloc's price of support is. Anybody who thinks the Bloc support of Dion and Layton came without strings is deluding themselves.

[costermonger]

You and Icebound are barking up the wrong tree because my first choice would have been another election. You are not the only people who understand what it means when a minority government loses the confidence of the house, which Harper clearly deserved to do and in fact did. What we differ on is how it is settled. You think it's OK to translate that loss of confidence into support for siezing power, even though you know full well that NO ONE outside Quebec would support the Bloc forming the deciding vote.

Don't look now, but the Bloc's deciding vote is what allowed Harper to force the election in which he became the Minister. Seeing as they have a significant portion of seats in the HoC, they're going to be the deciding vote once in a while. If Harper can come up with something to put in the budget to buy their support in January, you can damn well bet they'll be the deciding vote - but I'm sure it's okay, so long as it's in favour of the Conservatives, right?

What Harper did was just as legal as what Layton/Dion/Duceppe wanted to do. Furthermore, it had the support of the Governor General who appears smarter and more concerned with the well being of the country than all the rest of them put together. If you are so outraged about democracy being circumvented, where is your outrage at Dion and Layton? Why don't you support another election which is the ultimate expression of democracy? Could it be because you know the coalition and its individual leaders would be destroyed?

In January Harper will bring in another budget, and the opposition will have yet another chance to express their non-confidence. Only next time it will likely result in an election which is a very good thing in my opinion. How do you feel about that?

I think what Harper did was within his power as PM. Simple as that. Whether he should or shouldn't have the power to act as he did, well, that's another argument, and it wouldn't make sense to argue against Harper's actions as though it was his fault I don't find the power of prorogation agreeable.

I'm simply amused by the way you (and many others) will defend everything he does and attack everything the other guys do, when they're all guilty of manipulating the system to their advantage.

What power does the PM have with Parlaiment suspended? Everything is basically on hold. The govenrment is unable to spend any new money until a budget is drafted. Let everyone cool down.

My main issue with prorogation is that it can apparently last up to a full year. This two month break is, as you say, a cool down period and they were going to break for Christmas anyway - but I don't like the idea that it's even possible for any PM to ask for a year's reprive from a confidence motion.

Again, my problem is less with what Harper did, and more with the argument that Harper's clinging to power by preventing the vote is somehow more in the spirit of democracy than what the coalition planned to do. There are aspects of prorogation I don't like, but that's hardly Stephen Harper's fault.

[Rockie]

You haven't been reading my posts very carefully if you think I defend or support everything Harper does. And I'm OK with the Bloc combining with other opposition parties to defeat the government, I'm just very much not OK with them forming part of the government. BIG BIG difference.

And actually my fear right now is that Harper will roll over and put in anything Layton/Dion/Duceppe want in order to get the next budget passed. I would much rather have another election.

Try going back and actually reading my posts.

[Driving Rain]

costermonger

If Harper can come up with something to put in the budget to buy their support in January, you can damn well bet they'll be the deciding vote - but I'm sure it's okay, so long as it's in favour of the Conservatives, right?

Well yes and no. If I was a betting man I'd still bet they'd vote down the budget because their support for a coalition budget could yield them even greater favours.
Harper really blew it big time with all the stupid "Separatist" rhetoric.
Harper is a man who is as divisive as the Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe. He's not really someone who should lead this country.