So hey, Canadian political junkies, what's your take on Harper threatening to prorogue parliament again? Doesn't it seem a bit excessive?
Parliaments get prorogued on a pretty much annual basis - it happens before every new session and new speech from the throne.
It was highly unusual last year in that you had an opposition threatening a non confidence motion. But I don't see it being a big deal this year.
The only big deal is that Harper will not recall the MPs until the olympics are all over.
So, instead of recalling them for one week, he let everyone concentrate on what's important: Canada thrashing the US for the Gold Medal finale in hockey.
I can't remember the last 2 times a Canadian city had the Olympics. Obviously, for Montreal, they were already in recess, but for Calgary, anyone remember if the Parliament was active during the games?
Can't recall.
The Olympics are already playing havoc with us even in the Yukon. They're taking a number of police officers down to BC to act as security. And any members who have transferred from Yukon to BC are absolutely forbidden to leave BC for the entire month. I know the BC courts have completely shut down for the month of February (or at least the criminal courts have).
Quote from: Barrister on December 31, 2009, 02:07:05 PM
Can't recall.
The Olympics are already playing havoc with us even in the Yukon. They're taking a number of police officers down to BC to act as security. And any members who have transferred from Yukon to BC are absolutely forbidden to leave BC for the entire month. I know the BC courts have completely shut down for the month of February (or at least the criminal courts have).
They gonna let all the crooks out to do their bit to make the Olympics eventful? ;)
Quote from: Barrister on December 31, 2009, 01:48:55 PM
Parliaments get prorogued on a pretty much annual basis - it happens before every new session and new speech from the throne.
It was highly unusual last year in that you had an opposition threatening a non confidence motion. But I don't see it being a big deal this year.
So Parliament is prorogued once a year? And the only thing that makes it unusual this time around is moving it to the Olympics?
I thought Parliament recessed rather than getting prorouged. When it gets prorogued, doesn't it kill all the legislation that's currently making its way through the chamber? Whereas that doesn't happen in a recess?
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2009, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 31, 2009, 01:48:55 PM
Parliaments get prorogued on a pretty much annual basis - it happens before every new session and new speech from the throne.
It was highly unusual last year in that you had an opposition threatening a non confidence motion. But I don't see it being a big deal this year.
So Parliament is prorogued once a year? And the only thing that makes it unusual this time around is moving it to the Olympics?
I thought Parliament recessed rather than getting prorouged. When it gets prorogued, doesn't it kill all the legislation that's currently making its way through the chamber? Whereas that doesn't happen in a recess?
Parliament gets recessed several times per year. There are various breaks throughout (for things like summer break, easter, Thanksgiving, etc). It gets prorogued before every new session, which is usually once per year.
Yes, it does kill all legislation not passed. It can (and often is) re-introduced in the new session. A recess does not kill any pending legislation.
To be fair a prorugement of 2+ months is unusual, but to proruge Parliament in advance of a new speech from the throne is not.
Herr Harper does what he wants when he wants. He is the government. He is the Constitution. He is the Head of State. We all bow down to the genius that is Herr Harper. God Bless Herr Harper.
I dont really understand why this is an issue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2009, 04:40:40 PM
I dont really understand why this is an issue.
Because last year proroguing was a big political story, and now all the people who don't know any better assume that it's a big deal. I'm not picking on Jacob, since most Canadians don't really understand the fine mechanics of our system either.
The Liberals and their cronies will try and use it as much as they can, because nothing they have can really stick to Harper.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2009, 04:40:40 PM
I dont really understand why this is an issue.
Me neither, which is why I'm asking :)
I've come across some people who think it's a big deal, so I thought I'd get the more Conservative take on it. And that is, if I understand you all, that this is just a matter of course normal thing that happens every year and that's that?
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2009, 05:10:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2009, 04:40:40 PM
I dont really understand why this is an issue.
Me neither, which is why I'm asking :)
I've come across some people who think it's a big deal, so I thought I'd get the more Conservative take on it. And that is, if I understand you all, that this is just a matter of course normal thing that happens every year and that's that?
Parliament would be getting prorogued right now in any event. The only reason it's a story is that they're stretching it out until after the Olympics, as opposed to starting the new session, and then recessing for the Olympics.
IIRC Napoleonic armies would prorogue their artillery by unlimbering them behind a crest then manhandling them into firing position. I'm trying to see the connection between that and this parliamentary maneuver.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2009, 04:40:40 PM
I dont really understand why this is an issue.
Let's start here:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Stephen+Harper+benign+dictatorship/2394185/story.html
It seems Stephen Harper, our not-so-benign dictator, can't stand Canada's constitutional democracy. He is fed up with Parliament's restrictions on the almost unlimited power of his office and his executive.
Harper has, again, spoken with the Governor General and requested the prorogation of Parliament, this time until he is ready to bring down his government's budget in early March 2010.
It seems Harper is determined to attend the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver without having to face constant criticism from those pesky and "disloyal" opposition parties and Liberal senators. Best to put Parliament on ice.
After the budget, I am certain Harper will then pay the GG another visit requesting that Michaëlle Jean drop the writ for yet another election, the third election since he took office in 2006. And this from a prime minister who brought in a fixed-election-date law that he will then have broken twice.
In 1997 Stephen Harper and Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan published a long article titled "Our benign dictatorship" on a U.S. blog site called A Step to the Right. Harper, disillusioned with Preston Manning's weak leadership style and the Reform party's failure to gain traction with increasing numbers of conservative-minded Canadian voters, had resigned as an MP to take on the presidency of the National Citizens Coalition.
Harper and Flanagan, in their desperate search for a politically successful conservative party, lashed out at successive Liberal governments' seemingly endless benign dictatorship over Parliament and the Ottawa bureaucracy. Their contention was: "Although we like to think of ourselves as living in a mature democracy, we live, instead, in something little better than a benign dictatorship, not under a strict one-party rule, but under a one-party-plus system beset by the factionalism, regionalism and cronyism that accompany any such system. Our parliamentary government creates a concentrated power structure out of step with other aspects of society."
Irony of ironies, their critique can and should now be thrown back into their faces. Prime Minister Harper is challenging the constitutional powers of Parliament by systematically denying MPs access to uncensored papers and documents, as well as the MPs' rights to call any and all persons to testify before parliamentary committees.
It is becoming patently obvious Harper now presides over a minority government that can all-too-readily be characterized as a not-so-benign dictatorship. Harper successfully exploits the first-past-the-post electoral system -- which he and Flanagan denounced as immature -- and the ideological and political divisions within the opposition parties, to impose his unflinching will on his cabinet, caucus, and what he characterizes as an utterly dysfunctional House of Commons, one made so by the government itself. With his appointment of yet more Conservatives to the Senate, Harper will exercise full and unfettered power over Parliament, a power which he will readily use to cow the judicial branch of government with his so-called tough-on-crime legislation.
In late 2008, Harper bullied a weak and badly informed Governor General into granting him a prorogation. Several constitutional scholars have declared his reckless but highly effective request unconstitutional.
Now he's doing it again. Why? Harper wants to ensure that his appointment of Conservative senators goes into effect immediately. And, just as importantly, he wants to bring quick closure to the work of the parliamentary committee, supported by a growing public outcry, that is investigating his government's handling of the Afghan prisoners of war affair. Indeed, it is clear that Harper will engage opposition MPs, senators and Canadian citizens in a constitutional war over the prerogatives of Parliament, a war that he and his cabinet are determined to win at virtually any price to our constitutional democracy and its hallowed institutions.Harper has maligned several very senior and very competent bureaucrats who dared to question, criticize, or oppose his government's questionable policies. These include former Military Police Complaints Commission chairman Peter Tinsley, RCMP complaints commission chairman Paul Kennedy, former Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission president Linda Keen, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand, and former Immigration and Refugee Board chairman Jean-Guy Fleury, to name only the best known.
The most recent casualty in Harper's dirty war against his political enemies is evident in his government's blatant attempts to destroy of reputation of former diplomat Richard Colvin. Why? A courageous Mr. Colvin, much to his credit, revealed the full import of the Harper government's questionable policy pertaining to the treatment of Afghan prisoners of war taken by the Canadian Forces.
Following cabinet's directives, these PoWs were handed over unconditionally to the Afghan National Army and police without oversight and, some witnesses argue, with full knowledge that they would be brutally tortured. Now Harper rejects all reasonable requests for a formal inquiry and castigates his critics, including Canadian citizens who denounce his policy in this matter, as anti-Canadian Taliban sympathizers.
Harper's continued use of such bold, provocative and intimidating tactics proves that he is morally convinced that the end -- unfettered power for his Conservative party and government and the wholesale destruction of the centrist Liberal party -- justifies the means.
Canadians must encourage their parliamentarians to fight for their rights in order to ensure the preservation and health of Canada's constitutional democracy. Harper and his executive are not above the Constitution. The Canadian Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. The guarantors of our Constitution -- the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and Canadian citizens, have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. If the legislative branch is rendered powerless by Harper's executive branch, Canadians have no choice but to defend their Constitution by taking their struggle to the Supreme Court of Canada.
If the Supreme Court fails to defend the rights of Parliament and Canadians, then every Canadian has the responsibility to exercise his/her full sovereignty via the ballot box.
Michael D. Behiels is University Research Chair of Canadian Federalism and Constitutional Studies at the University of Ottawa.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Let me know if you want more.
Ah... so the prorogation is a ploy to hide evidence of malfeance from parliamentary committees? That does seem a bit dirty.
And to proroge (prorogue?) Parliament from now until March seems sort of long, doesn't it?
Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2009, 05:10:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2009, 04:40:40 PM
I dont really understand why this is an issue.
Me neither, which is why I'm asking :)
I've come across some people who think it's a big deal, so I thought I'd get the more Conservative take on it. And that is, if I understand you all, that this is just a matter of course normal thing that happens every year and that's that?
I ran into one of those just last night. I joked about it with her but it wasnt really the occasion to question her as to why she thought it was a big deal.
Wow Josephus,
Its hard to get past the rhetoric in that article. I assumed it could not have been written by an actual journalist. It sounded more like an angry blog so I looked. Sure enough.
QuoteMichael D. Behiels is University Research Chair of Canadian Federalism and Constitutional Studies at the University of Ottawa.
We only need a majority Conservative govt to hasten the days of liberation for Quebec! :secret:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 31, 2009, 08:22:52 PM
We only need a majrity Conservative govt to hasten the days of liberation for Quebec! :secret:
I agree. All Canadians can only be truly free under a Conservative government. :)
Quote from: Barrister on December 31, 2009, 08:24:11 PM
I agree. All Canadians can only be truly free under a Conservative government. :)
I've always been a partisan of 'la politique du pire" - otherwise people simply won't be shaken out of their habits.
G.
Quote from: Barrister on December 31, 2009, 01:48:55 PM
Parliaments get prorogued on a pretty much annual basis - it happens before every new session and new speech from the throne.
It was highly unusual last year in that you had an opposition threatening a non confidence motion. But I don't see it being a big deal this year.
Really? How come last year was the first time I ever heard of it being done. No coverage before? or because if it's done by a majority gov. it's not news? :unsure:
edit reading the thread more carefully. The only term I ever recall being used to describe a break in Parliament is a "recess". I'm pretty sure proroging is not as common as you say.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:08:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 31, 2009, 01:48:55 PM
Parliaments get prorogued on a pretty much annual basis - it happens before every new session and new speech from the throne.
It was highly unusual last year in that you had an opposition threatening a non confidence motion. But I don't see it being a big deal this year.
Really? How come last year was the first time I ever heard of it being done. No coverage before? or because if it's done by a majority gov. it's not news? :unsure:
edit reading the thread more carefully. The only term I ever recall being used to describe a break in Parliament is a "recess". I'm pretty sure proroging is not as common as you say.
Exactly. Not news most of the time, so it doesn't get covered.
I don't want to be too much of a Conservative homer - proroguing Parliament to avoid a no confidence vote was very unusual, perhaps even unique. But proroguing Parliament does happen about once a year.
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 01:18:17 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:08:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 31, 2009, 01:48:55 PM
Parliaments get prorogued on a pretty much annual basis - it happens before every new session and new speech from the throne.
It was highly unusual last year in that you had an opposition threatening a non confidence motion. But I don't see it being a big deal this year.
Really? How come last year was the first time I ever heard of it being done. No coverage before? or because if it's done by a majority gov. it's not news? :unsure:
edit reading the thread more carefully. The only term I ever recall being used to describe a break in Parliament is a "recess". I'm pretty sure proroging is not as common as you say.
Exactly. Not news most of the time, so it doesn't get covered.
I don't want to be too much of a Conservative homer - proroguing Parliament to avoid a no confidence vote was very unusual, perhaps even unique. But proroguing Parliament does happen about once a year.
Ok then but Do they not have spin control at the Con HQ? Doing this (again) when there is an issue of corruption in government happening (Afghanistan) is fishy to many who are non cons or on the fence. especially since they could have just recessed and not killed say their Crime bill. It makes me suspicious (because of this suspicious overkill of taking a break) of the real motivation.
See I thought for the last few months they were doing much better than they had been, the Cons. But now I see they are still the game players that I had thought they were last year. A break til March? I wish I made tens of thousands of dollars to not go to work for 3 or more months every year.
Polticians should be working at least Part Time at their actual jobs. just a thought.
To defend politicians of all political stripes - just because they aren't in Ottawa doesn't mean they're not working. There is a ton of work to be done in the local constituencies.
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 01:40:15 PM
To defend politicians of all political stripes - just because they aren't in Ottawa doesn't mean they're not working. There is a ton of work to be done in the local constituencies.
I'm aware of that. I was exagerating slightly..... Though in my riding all our MP gets to do is sit and agree with all the people complaining about the government. It's not like the Fed. NDP has any actual sway of clout no matter that they always win in a landslide here.
And that is a valid thing to do. Her constituents need someone to listen, and maybe be able to at least mention them in Parliament someday when it's convenient for the Conservatives to go back to Ottawa.
Personally though any vague grudging respect I'd built up for the Tories in their exposing Iggy as a tool, and keeping us in slightly better shape than most during the financial meltdown has completely evaporated.
But I'm not their base and never will be, so they don't care. This is my main point of contention against Politicians of all stripes. They only help their own. as far as I can see, at least. There hasn't been one government since I've been voting age that hasn't either disappointed me or just confirmed this cynicism.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:08:43 PM
Really? How come last year was the first time I ever heard of it being done. No coverage before? or because if it's done by a majority gov. it's not news? :unsure:
edit reading the thread more carefully. The only term I ever recall being used to describe a break in Parliament is a "recess". I'm pretty sure proroging is not as common as you say.
See, all you have to do is look at the session numbers. Every time there's a new number, it means the Parliament wasd prorogued. Every time there was a new Throne Speech, the Parliament had been prorogued before.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:24:48 PM
Ok then but Do they not have spin control at the Con HQ?
This will be a non issue in less then a week. For those who already hate the Cons it will always be seen as some ill done deed. The Conservatives dont care about those people. For everyone else it will be news that never really was news. No reason for the Conservatives to keep this story alive.
On a more interesting note, two members of the Alberta PC Caucus have left the party to join the Wildrose Alliance, a brand new party only a year old. The Alliance now has more MLAs than the NDP, and leads public opinion polls.
Could 39 years of PC rules in Alberta be coming to an end?
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 01:22:29 PM
On a more interesting note, two members of the Alberta PC Caucus have left the party to join the Wildrose Alliance, a brand new party only a year old. The Alliance now has more MLAs than the NDP, and leads public opinion polls.
Could 39 years of PC rules in Alberta be coming to an end?
Isn't Wild Rose a more gayly named Reform party?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 04, 2010, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 01:22:29 PM
On a more interesting note, two members of the Alberta PC Caucus have left the party to join the Wildrose Alliance, a brand new party only a year old. The Alliance now has more MLAs than the NDP, and leads public opinion polls.
Could 39 years of PC rules in Alberta be coming to an end?
Isn't Wild Rose a more gayly named Reform party?
I dunno.
Over the last 10+ years there have been a bunch of attempts to form a new right-wing party in Alberta. There was a Reform Party of Alberta, the relaunched Social Credit Party, the Alberta Party, Alberta Alliance, and several others I'm forgetting the names of.
Wildrose Alliance is I believe comprised of a lot of the same people who made up those other movements, many of whom doubtless had ties to Reform, but there's no formal or official ties.
I ran into an Albertan whiner the other day. Even more annoying than Quebec whiners.
As for the Wild Rose people, they're basically trying to be a conservative, anti-"political correctness" separatist party, right?
They're not separatist.
They may be "firewall" type people, but that's as far as it goes.
And besdies, you've known Neil for years. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 01:57:37 PM
They're not separatist.
They may be "firewall" type people, but that's as far as it goes.
I talked to someone who'd gone to a few of their meetings and he said there were several separatists among them. But I guess if it's not part of their platform, we shouldn't call them separatists.
As for Neil, he does many things but I can't recall him whining.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 02:03:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 01:57:37 PM
They're not separatist.
They may be "firewall" type people, but that's as far as it goes.
I talked to someone who'd gone to a few of their meetings and he said there were several separatists among them. But I guess if it's not part of their platform, we shouldn't call them separatists.
As for Neil, he does many things but I can't recall him whining.
I have no doubt that there are separatist members of the Alliance. New finge parties attract those types like moths to a flame. Separatism is not a part of their platform however (and why would it, separation attracts 1-2% support in Alberta).
And fair enough.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 04, 2010, 01:29:52 PM
Isn't Wild Rose a more gayly named Reform party?
Just the latest iteration of the "I'm more right then you are" crowd in Alberta.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 04, 2010, 02:19:38 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 04, 2010, 01:29:52 PM
Isn't Wild Rose a more gayly named Reform party?
Just the latest iteration of the "I'm more right then you are" crowd in Alberta.
The last numerous iterations haven't lead in the opinion polls however. Nor have they had 3 MLAs.
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 02:21:42 PM
The last numerous iterations haven't lead in the opinion polls however. Nor have they had 3 MLAs.
How far away are the next elections? Even the NPD here in BC leads in the polls between elections.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 04, 2010, 02:28:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 02:21:42 PM
The last numerous iterations haven't lead in the opinion polls however. Nor have they had 3 MLAs.
How far away are the next elections? Even the NPD here in BC leads in the polls between elections.
Oh, 3 years away.
I'm not saying that Stelmach is doomed. But this is different from the numerous other right-wing parties spawned in the past. I don't think any of them ever got above 10-15% in the polls.
What's their schtick? That Harper and Stelmach aren't true enough to rightist/ reformist principles? You figure there'll be real competition in the Alberta provincial scene anytime soon or will the Cons just edge a bit right and co-opt them?
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 03:29:35 PM
What's their schtick? That Harper and Stelmach aren't true enough to rightist/ reformist principles? You figure there'll be real competition in the Alberta provincial scene anytime soon or will the Cons just edge a bit right and co-opt them?
Apparently their schtick is a calculated ambiguity at this point. Seem rational enough to be credible, but give just enough appeal to the crazies so they'll donate / volunteer. Go after Stelmach for raising oil and gas royalties (apparently the oil patch is in a slump, and everyone at least knows someone who works in the patch). A general right wing patter of lower taxes / no deficits.
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 03:32:15 PMApparently their schtick is a calculated ambiguity at this point. Seem rational enough to be credible, but give just enough appeal to the crazies so they'll donate / volunteer. Go after Stelmach for raising oil and gas royalties (apparently the oil patch is in a slump, and everyone at least knows someone who works in the patch). A general right wing patter of lower taxes / no deficits.
I guess you're not in Alberta anymore so you don't have to decide if you're more Wild Rosy or whether you're a Con loyalist? But what's your take?
Neil, what about you?
I spoke with Paul Hinman, the Wild Rose member who was elected in a by-election in Calgary, when he was campaigning for that election. He was a well spoken conservative and I didn't see much difference between his party and the regular Alberta conservative party. Their party leader is also articulate and she seems to know what she is doing. The seperatist thing isn't on their charts at all, like BB said, a fringe element attaching themselves to a new party for the exposure.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 03:34:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 03:32:15 PMApparently their schtick is a calculated ambiguity at this point. Seem rational enough to be credible, but give just enough appeal to the crazies so they'll donate / volunteer. Go after Stelmach for raising oil and gas royalties (apparently the oil patch is in a slump, and everyone at least knows someone who works in the patch). A general right wing patter of lower taxes / no deficits.
I guess you're not in Alberta anymore so you don't have to decide if you're more Wild Rosy or whether you're a Con loyalist? But what's your take?
Neil, what about you?
I volunteered/was a member of the Manitoba PC Party 10 years ago, but other than that I've never been a PC guy. Never done squat for the Alberta PCs (whereas I have volunteered/donated for Reform/Alliance/Conservatives). So I have a definite soft spot for Wild Rose, but from afar I really can't say. I would need to go to meetings, meet candidates, that sort of thing.
Quote from: PRC on January 04, 2010, 08:53:56 PM
I spoke with Paul Hinman, the Wild Rose member who was elected in a by-election in Calgary, when he was campaigning for that election. He was a well spoken conservative and I didn't see much difference between his party and the regular Alberta conservative party. Their party leader is also articulate and she seems to know what she is doing. The seperatist thing isn't on their charts at all, like BB said, a fringe element attaching themselves to a new party for the exposure.
So if there's not much of a difference... what's the difference? :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 10:04:36 PM
Quote from: PRC on January 04, 2010, 08:53:56 PM
I spoke with Paul Hinman, the Wild Rose member who was elected in a by-election in Calgary, when he was campaigning for that election. He was a well spoken conservative and I didn't see much difference between his party and the regular Alberta conservative party. Their party leader is also articulate and she seems to know what she is doing. The seperatist thing isn't on their charts at all, like BB said, a fringe element attaching themselves to a new party for the exposure.
So if there's not much of a difference... what's the difference? :huh:
Sometimes just being a different name is enough. The Lougheed PCs weren't all that different from the Ernest Manning Social Credit Party (so much so that young turks Preston Manning and Joe Clark actually attempted to negotiate a merger - they failed). Lougheed still managed to demolish the SoCreds in the early 70s.
On a slightly different basis there isn't much difference between the BC Liberal Party and the old BC SoCred Party - yet one replaced the other.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 03:34:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 03:32:15 PMApparently their schtick is a calculated ambiguity at this point. Seem rational enough to be credible, but give just enough appeal to the crazies so they'll donate / volunteer. Go after Stelmach for raising oil and gas royalties (apparently the oil patch is in a slump, and everyone at least knows someone who works in the patch). A general right wing patter of lower taxes / no deficits.
I guess you're not in Alberta anymore so you don't have to decide if you're more Wild Rosy or whether you're a Con loyalist? But what's your take?
Neil, what about you?
At first, I had dismissed the party as a far-right haven for libertarian weirdos (Link Byfield et al). However, when they had the leadership election and Danielle Smith won, it seemed to signal that they were going to adopt centre-right policies that have been a hit with the Alberta electorate.
I would consider voting for them, although I haven't decided which party I would support yet. It'll be 2-3 years until the next election.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 10:04:36 PM
Quote from: PRC on January 04, 2010, 08:53:56 PM
I spoke with Paul Hinman, the Wild Rose member who was elected in a by-election in Calgary, when he was campaigning for that election. He was a well spoken conservative and I didn't see much difference between his party and the regular Alberta conservative party. Their party leader is also articulate and she seems to know what she is doing. The seperatist thing isn't on their charts at all, like BB said, a fringe element attaching themselves to a new party for the exposure.
So if there's not much of a difference... what's the difference? :huh:
Name change, different faces. Stelmach has failed to demonstrate any charisma, his cabinet is full of empty suits and the economic slowdown has hurt everybody other than Harper.
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 03:29:35 PM
What's their schtick? That Harper and Stelmach aren't true enough to rightist/ reformist principles? You figure there'll be real competition in the Alberta provincial scene anytime soon or will the Cons just edge a bit right and co-opt them?
Apparently their schtick is a calculated ambiguity at this point. Seem rational enough to be credible, but give just enough appeal to the crazies so they'll donate / volunteer. Go after Stelmach for raising oil and gas royalties (apparently the oil patch is in a slump, and everyone at least knows someone who works in the patch). A general right wing patter of lower taxes / no deficits.
Does the right in Canada actually keep their no deficit promises when in power or is it merely campaign rhetoric like in the US?
Quote from: Fate on January 04, 2010, 11:30:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 03:29:35 PM
What's their schtick? That Harper and Stelmach aren't true enough to rightist/ reformist principles? You figure there'll be real competition in the Alberta provincial scene anytime soon or will the Cons just edge a bit right and co-opt them?
Apparently their schtick is a calculated ambiguity at this point. Seem rational enough to be credible, but give just enough appeal to the crazies so they'll donate / volunteer. Go after Stelmach for raising oil and gas royalties (apparently the oil patch is in a slump, and everyone at least knows someone who works in the patch). A general right wing patter of lower taxes / no deficits.
Does the right in Canada actually keep their no deficit promises when in power or is it merely campaign rhetoric like in the US?
:ike:
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 04, 2010, 11:30:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 03:29:35 PM
What's their schtick? That Harper and Stelmach aren't true enough to rightist/ reformist principles? You figure there'll be real competition in the Alberta provincial scene anytime soon or will the Cons just edge a bit right and co-opt them?
Apparently their schtick is a calculated ambiguity at this point. Seem rational enough to be credible, but give just enough appeal to the crazies so they'll donate / volunteer. Go after Stelmach for raising oil and gas royalties (apparently the oil patch is in a slump, and everyone at least knows someone who works in the patch). A general right wing patter of lower taxes / no deficits.
Does the right in Canada actually keep their no deficit promises when in power or is it merely campaign rhetoric like in the US?
:ike:
I suppose the answer is obvious: it's merely campaign rhetoric. Balanced budgets cannot be obtained from a party that holds up tax cuts as a holy grail.
Quote from: Fate on January 04, 2010, 11:50:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 04, 2010, 11:30:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 03:29:35 PM
What's their schtick? That Harper and Stelmach aren't true enough to rightist/ reformist principles? You figure there'll be real competition in the Alberta provincial scene anytime soon or will the Cons just edge a bit right and co-opt them?
Apparently their schtick is a calculated ambiguity at this point. Seem rational enough to be credible, but give just enough appeal to the crazies so they'll donate / volunteer. Go after Stelmach for raising oil and gas royalties (apparently the oil patch is in a slump, and everyone at least knows someone who works in the patch). A general right wing patter of lower taxes / no deficits.
Does the right in Canada actually keep their no deficit promises when in power or is it merely campaign rhetoric like in the US?
:ike:
I suppose the answer is obvious: it's merely campaign rhetoric. Balanced budgets cannot be obtained from a party that holds up tax cuts as a holy grail.
:ike:
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 12:34:20 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 04, 2010, 11:50:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 04, 2010, 11:30:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2010, 03:29:35 PM
What's their schtick? That Harper and Stelmach aren't true enough to rightist/ reformist principles? You figure there'll be real competition in the Alberta provincial scene anytime soon or will the Cons just edge a bit right and co-opt them?
Apparently their schtick is a calculated ambiguity at this point. Seem rational enough to be credible, but give just enough appeal to the crazies so they'll donate / volunteer. Go after Stelmach for raising oil and gas royalties (apparently the oil patch is in a slump, and everyone at least knows someone who works in the patch). A general right wing patter of lower taxes / no deficits.
Does the right in Canada actually keep their no deficit promises when in power or is it merely campaign rhetoric like in the US?
:ike:
I suppose the answer is obvious: it's merely campaign rhetoric. Balanced budgets cannot be obtained from a party that holds up tax cuts as a holy grail.
:ike:
Your responses are as empty as a conservative governing philosophy. :showoff:
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2010, 10:55:34 PMName change, different faces. Stelmach has failed to demonstrate any charisma, his cabinet is full of empty suits and the economic slowdown has hurt everybody other than Harper.
So essentially it's a leadership challenge, but it's easier to organize from the outside than inside. Seems not entirely unreasonable.
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 10:27:48 PM
On a slightly different basis there isn't much difference between the BC Liberal Party and the old BC SoCred Party - yet one replaced the other.
There was a very big difference between the Socreds and the BC Liberals when the transition took place. However, the predominant history of politics in BC is that when the centre and right parties split the vote the NPD will win, as it did when the Liberals and Socreds split the vote. And so as happens historically in this province eventually the non NDP vote finds a home in one party.
The BC Liberals came from nowhere in the polls leading up to the election in which they formed the official opposition and the NDP formed government. At that time the BC Liberals were very much a party of Liberals who had strong affiliations with the Federal party.
It was a huge shock that any of the Liberal members won seats never mind that they formed the opposition. Most of their candidates had agreed to run for them because they knew there was no chance of winning (ie they didnt actually want to give up their day jobs). Two years later, Gordon Wilson was removed as party leader by Gordon Campbell in a leadership convention. Wilson then tried to form his own party and then jumped to the NDP a few years later (shows you just how right wing he was ;)). Under Campbell the BC Liberals began to attract some of the old Socred supporters and the convergence began ensuring that the Socreds would not be viable which then brought over the remaining Socred supporters.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2010, 04:49:56 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2010, 10:55:34 PMName change, different faces. Stelmach has failed to demonstrate any charisma, his cabinet is full of empty suits and the economic slowdown has hurt everybody other than Harper.
So essentially it's a leadership challenge, but it's easier to organize from the outside than inside. Seems not entirely unreasonable.
By and large that's correct. They sound a lot like a rank-and-file revolt of the PCs. Thus, they incorporate some things that I'm not quite comfortable with, such as MLA recall, school choice, referenda initiated by the populance (we've seen how well ballot initiatives work in California) and fixed election dates.
Gawd, Canadian politics is boring nowadays.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 05, 2010, 12:09:06 PM
Gawd, Canadian politics is boring nowadays.
Referring to how the only thing to talk about is whether proroguing Parliament is a big deal or not? If so, I agree. This is an ongoing criticism I have with Iggy. He is never going to gain in the polls if he doesnt create a policy alternative rather then just nipping at the heels of Harper. Sad to say but in that regard even Dion was better for the Liberals.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 01:00:52 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 05, 2010, 12:09:06 PM
Gawd, Canadian politics is boring nowadays.
Referring to how the only thing to talk about is whether proroguing Parliament is a big deal or not? If so, I agree. This is an ongoing criticism I have with Iggy. He is never going to gain in the polls if he doesnt create a policy alternative rather then just nipping at the heels of Harper. Sad to say but in that regard even Dion was better for the Liberals.
ya how come someone vaguely known for policy wonk, has none? Iggy is Canada's John Kerry? :bleeding:
I want a clean slate of politicians in Canada. There's no party that doesn't fill me with cynicism and depression. No leaders imho fit to govern.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 05, 2010, 01:08:38 PM
I want a clean slate of politicians in Canada. There's no party that doesn't fill me with cynicism and depression. No leaders imho fit to govern.
That, by the way, would be the worst thing possible. We had a taste of that in 1993 when all these unknown Reformers were elected. Pretty much every single one of them was a fresh face. And while there were some really great politicians, there were an awful lot of duds.
All of the parties have a lot of smart and talented people, either as ministers or in the back bench. "Throw all the bums out" is a purely emotional response.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 01:00:52 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 05, 2010, 12:09:06 PM
Gawd, Canadian politics is boring nowadays.
Referring to how the only thing to talk about is whether proroguing Parliament is a big deal or not?
Yes. Remember 2-3 years ago, we had subjects to debate & talk about. Look at us now. Wondering if going on Vacation is ok or not.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 05, 2010, 12:09:06 PM
Gawd, Canadian politics is boring nowadays.
I was gonna say.
I remember taking Canadian Politics at Universtiy. The only class I ever took that I only attended a handful of classes.
Quote from: Josephus on January 05, 2010, 01:19:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 05, 2010, 12:09:06 PM
Gawd, Canadian politics is boring nowadays.
I was gonna say.
I remember taking Canadian Politics at Universtiy. The only class I ever took that I only attended a handful of classes.
It all depends on when you go I guess. Issues such as the death penalty, abortion, free trade and the separation of Quebec (when the threat was real and not merely a slogan) were all being hotly debated when I was in University. It was a much more interesting time in Canadian politics.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 01:25:50 PM
Quote from: Josephus on January 05, 2010, 01:19:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 05, 2010, 12:09:06 PM
Gawd, Canadian politics is boring nowadays.
I was gonna say.
I remember taking Canadian Politics at Universtiy. The only class I ever took that I only attended a handful of classes.
It all depends on when you go I guess. Issues such as the death penalty, abortion, free trade and the separation of Quebec (when the threat was real and not merely a slogan) were all being hotly debated when I was in University. It was a much more interesting time in Canadian politics.
There are still plenty of interesting and lively policy issues to discuss. Separation / constitutional reform is still a live issue. Global warming / CO2 is a huge issue. Defeicits are back, and so is the question of how to deal with them (together with how to deal with the global economic slowdown). Healthcare is once again rising as an issue as we have run out of money. Criminal justice issues are always fun. Senate reform. Democratic reform.
The shame is that no party is really running on any very interesting ideas. Dion tried that, it backfired, and no one has wanted to try since.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 01:15:32 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 05, 2010, 01:08:38 PM
I want a clean slate of politicians in Canada. There's no party that doesn't fill me with cynicism and depression. No leaders imho fit to govern.
That, by the way, would be the worst thing possible. We had a taste of that in 1993 when all these unknown Reformers were elected. Pretty much every single one of them was a fresh face. And while there were some really great politicians, there were an awful lot of duds.
All of the parties have a lot of smart and talented people, either as ministers or in the back bench. "Throw all the bums out" is a purely emotional response.
I was as usual being imprecise there. A clean slate of leaders is what is needed. There are indeed some decent people in each party, but very few of them have leadership aspirations (or are ready to have such, maybe)
But that's just a pipe dream. Just like my other idea that all the parties should actually participate in governing, instead of just calling each other names and saying how horrible bla blah policy is without offering any real alternatives. I see all sides doing this last thing, including those supposedly governing. Taking a break all winter is not governing.
Everything that's been done in Canadian politics recently is all about screwing the little guy, so that he will keep not voting and letting the Harpers & Campbells of the country keep on winning and filling their friends' pockets.
The Globe cartoon was pretty good today. Can't find it online.
In one frame it showed that new building in Dubai. "the tallest building in the world."
In the other frame it showed Canda's parliament building. "the quietest building in the world."
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 01:15:32 PMAll of the parties have a lot of smart and talented people, either as ministers or in the back bench. "Throw all the bums out" is a purely emotional response.
Yeah, I have to concur with BB here.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 01:29:17 PM
There are still plenty of interesting and lively policy issues to discuss. Separation / constitutional reform is still a live issue. Global warming / CO2 is a huge issue. Defeicits are back, and so is the question of how to deal with them (together with how to deal with the global economic slowdown). Healthcare is once again rising as an issue as we have run out of money. Criminal justice issues are always fun. Senate reform. Democratic reform.
The shame is that no party is really running on any very interesting ideas. Dion tried that, it backfired, and no one has wanted to try since.
I agree those are all issues, but by and large those are all issues we mainly agree on. The disagreement is on the small details which, unless you are a huge policy wonk in that particular area is boring.
Take deficits. Pretty much everyone agrees that deficits in Canada are bad but that in hard times we have to endure them. The disagreement lies in whether more or less money should be spent on project A or project B. Boring.
Take Global Warming. Most people agree that we should limit CO2 emmissions. The big disagreement is how, how much and whether it makes any sense to do it if the Big polluters are not. Granted this is a bit more interesting but given the wide consensus that something should be done it is not like the fundamental debates we have had in the past.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 05, 2010, 01:31:06 PM
the Harpers & Campbells of the country keep on winning and filling their friends' pockets.
Interesting. Just how does one get his pockets filled by Harper? You might not like Harper but financial scandals are not something you can fairly tar him with.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 02:09:19 PM
I agree those are all issues, but by and large those are all issues we mainly agree on. The disagreement is on the small details which, unless you are a huge policy wonk in that particular area is boring.
Take deficits. Pretty much everyone agrees that deficits in Canada are bad but that in hard times we have to endure them. The disagreement lies in whether more or less money should be spent on project A or project B. Boring.
Take Global Warming. Most people agree that we should limit CO2 emmissions. The big disagreement is how, how much and whether it makes any sense to do it if the Big polluters are not. Granted this is a bit more interesting but given the wide consensus that something should be done it is not like the fundamental debates we have had in the past.
Deficits: not everyone agrees we need to live with them right now. Deficits were the issue that almost brought us the coalition. Harper's first plan was to 'keep our powder dry', not run a big deficit, and wait for the global recession to run its course (since this wasn't a "made in Canada" recession). I still think that first instinct was right. The opposition disagreed, (and eventually got there way) as the fiscal update then introduced a ton of stimulus spending (which I think was wrong).
Global warming. Huge disagreements over how to limit CO2 (carbon tax? cap and trade? incentives for green technology), and over how much to cut (see the whole Copenhagen debacle). PLus people debating whether we need to limit atmospheric CO2 at all.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 02:09:19 PM
I agree those are all issues, but by and large those are all issues we mainly agree on. The disagreement is on the small details which, unless you are a huge policy wonk in that particular area is boring.
Take deficits. Pretty much everyone agrees that deficits in Canada are bad but that in hard times we have to endure them. The disagreement lies in whether more or less money should be spent on project A or project B. Boring.
Take Global Warming. Most people agree that we should limit CO2 emmissions. The big disagreement is how, how much and whether it makes any sense to do it if the Big polluters are not. Granted this is a bit more interesting but given the wide consensus that something should be done it is not like the fundamental debates we have had in the past.
Deficits: not everyone agrees we need to live with them right now. Deficits were the issue that almost brought us the coalition. Harper's first plan was to 'keep our powder dry', not run a big deficit, and wait for the global recession to run its course (since this wasn't a "made in Canada" recession). I still think that first instinct was right. The opposition disagreed, (and eventually got there way) as the fiscal update then introduced a ton of stimulus spending (which I think was wrong).
Global warming. Huge disagreements over how to limit CO2 (carbon tax? cap and trade? incentives for green technology), and over how much to cut (see the whole Copenhagen debacle). PLus people debating whether we need to limit atmospheric CO2 at all.
The issues you have identified are debated on the fringe of the right wing and I dont find them exciting. Just crazy. The people debating whether there should be any CO2 reduction are crackpots. The issue is whether doing anything makes any sense if the Chinese, Indians and Americans dont also do it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 02:12:31 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 05, 2010, 01:31:06 PM
the Harpers & Campbells of the country keep on winning and filling their friends' pockets.
Interesting. Just how does one get his pockets filled by Harper? You might not like Harper but financial scandals are not something you can fairly tar him with.
Oh sorry. It's just torture that he's running away from until the news gets bored of that story. :somedumbemoticon:
One gets his pockets filled by Harper like anyone else: already be wealthy. It's not the wealthy who suffer from cuts to health, education, arts, it's the rest of us.
Yes that is the depth of my criticism of Harper. He hasn't done much other than not be the other leaders as far as I can see.
I feel he's just as class biased as I seem to be by standing on this point. I can't remember any leader ever making any of those crucial institutions stronger (education, health care, arts) None in my life time though.
To be honest I'm actually not even sure what it is that I hate so much about the guy. Maybe I'm a racist?
The arts aren't really a critical area on par with the other two. Health care is sort of a provincial area, and education definitely is. Maybe you should be more critical of the BC government.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2010, 07:27:50 AM
The arts aren't really a critical area on par with the other two. Health care is sort of a provincial area, and education definitely is. Maybe you should be more critical of the BC government.
I'm very critical of the BC governement. And as far as I'm concerned those three areas should be much better funded at all levels of government. You are right though on especially education and health care... those two things in my opinion trump all other things the government should be spending more on, not less. Fuck stupid wars we have no business in, and fuck corporate handouts.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 06, 2010, 12:20:15 PM
fuck corporate handouts.
Try that line with the workers in Ontario who still have a job because Canada participated in the GM bail out. Also, try that line with the forrestry workers here (currently unemployed) who wish they got the same kind of aid for their industry.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 01:29:17 PM
... Separation / constitutional reform is still a live issue. Global warming / CO2 is a huge issue. Defeicits are back, and so is the question of how to deal with them (together with how to deal with the global economic slowdown). Healthcare is once again rising as an issue as we have run out of money. Criminal justice issues are always fun. Senate reform. Democratic reform.
The shame is that no party is really running on any very interesting ideas. Dion tried that, it backfired, and no one has wanted to try since.
The last time the federal state had large deficits (the 90s) they shoveled it into lap of the member states; I wonder if the same tactic will be used this time around. Especially considering that Harper foolishly reduced the GST for electoral purposes.
G.
I want to talk about the useless war we are engaged in. We could use those resources to strengthen our position in the artic & atleast build 1 freaking icebreaker that can go upthere in the winter.
2011 can't come soon enough.
Quote from: Grallon on January 06, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 01:29:17 PM
... Separation / constitutional reform is still a live issue. Global warming / CO2 is a huge issue. Defeicits are back, and so is the question of how to deal with them (together with how to deal with the global economic slowdown). Healthcare is once again rising as an issue as we have run out of money. Criminal justice issues are always fun. Senate reform. Democratic reform.
The shame is that no party is really running on any very interesting ideas. Dion tried that, it backfired, and no one has wanted to try since.
The last time the federal state had large deficits (the 90s) they shoveled it into lap of the Provinces; I wonder if the same tactic will be used this time around. Especially considering that Harper foolishly reduced the GST for electoral purposes.
G.
Small change :P
To your point, I doubt it. The deficit is not structural like it was last time - so we are told.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 06, 2010, 12:39:30 PM
I want to talk about the useless war we are engaged in. We could use those resources to strengthen our position in the artic & atleast build 1 freaking icebreaker that can go upthere in the winter.
2011 can't come soon enough.
Again something on which you would probably get very little disagreement.
I'm sure around here, I'd get tons of it tho.
The bloq is probably against it & the Libs too?
What's the position of the Libs on that? Do they have one?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 06, 2010, 12:43:58 PM
What's the position of the Libs on that? Do they have one?
The Liberals have a position on something? :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2010, 12:41:38 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 06, 2010, 12:39:30 PM
I want to talk about the useless war we are engaged in. We could use those resources to strengthen our position in the artic & atleast build 1 freaking icebreaker that can go upthere in the winter.
2011 can't come soon enough.
Again something on which you would probably get very little disagreement.
What happens in 2011?
Our forces are suppose to leave Afghanistan.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 06, 2010, 01:27:25 PM
Our forces are suppose to leave Afghanistan.
Right. Thank God for that.
Why do you hate our troops GF?
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 02:16:28 PM
Why do you hate our troops GF?
Because Quebecers hate Amerikkka and their Evil Satan stooges.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 02:16:28 PM
Why do you hate our troops GF?
Where do you see hate for our troops? :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2010, 06:32:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 02:16:28 PM
Why do you hate our troops GF?
Where do you see hate for our troops? :huh:
Well he isn't supporting the mission, so clearly he hates our troops and Canada itself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 02:38:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2010, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 02:09:19 PM
I agree those are all issues, but by and large those are all issues we mainly agree on. The disagreement is on the small details which, unless you are a huge policy wonk in that particular area is boring.
Take deficits. Pretty much everyone agrees that deficits in Canada are bad but that in hard times we have to endure them. The disagreement lies in whether more or less money should be spent on project A or project B. Boring.
Take Global Warming. Most people agree that we should limit CO2 emmissions. The big disagreement is how, how much and whether it makes any sense to do it if the Big polluters are not. Granted this is a bit more interesting but given the wide consensus that something should be done it is not like the fundamental debates we have had in the past.
Deficits: not everyone agrees we need to live with them right now. Deficits were the issue that almost brought us the coalition. Harper's first plan was to 'keep our powder dry', not run a big deficit, and wait for the global recession to run its course (since this wasn't a "made in Canada" recession). I still think that first instinct was right. The opposition disagreed, (and eventually got there way) as the fiscal update then introduced a ton of stimulus spending (which I think was wrong).
Global warming. Huge disagreements over how to limit CO2 (carbon tax? cap and trade? incentives for green technology), and over how much to cut (see the whole Copenhagen debacle). PLus people debating whether we need to limit atmospheric CO2 at all.
The issues you have identified are debated on the fringe of the right wing and I dont find them exciting. Just crazy. The people debating whether there should be any CO2 reduction are crackpots. The issue is whether doing anything makes any sense if the Chinese, Indians and Americans dont also do it.
Those issues are debated by the fringe right wing in Canada? It's the core of America's right. :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 06:34:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2010, 06:32:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 02:16:28 PM
Why do you hate our troops GF?
Where do you see hate for our troops? :huh:
Well he isn't supporting the mission, so clearly he hates our troops and Canada itself.
No wonder so many criminals in the Yukon are not being found guilty.
;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2010, 06:32:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 02:16:28 PM
Why do you hate our troops GF?
Where do you see hate for our troops? :huh:
Indeed. It isn't so much hate for our troops as it is hate for our civilization.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 06:34:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2010, 06:32:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2010, 02:16:28 PM
Why do you hate our troops GF?
Where do you see hate for our troops? :huh:
Well he isn't supporting the mission, so clearly he hates our troops and Canada itself.
Fucking Anti-war lefties have fucked it up for all of us. :(:(
I love our troops but it's a waste of resources, human lifes too, to have them running around in Afghanistan.
Sure, you can pull the NATO argument but they are other Countries in that Alliance, countries with a bigger military that could do their part too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2010, 12:36:43 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 06, 2010, 12:20:15 PM
fuck corporate handouts.
Try that line with the workers in Ontario who still have a job because Canada participated in the GM bail out. Also, try that line with the forrestry workers here (currently unemployed) who wish they got the same kind of aid for their industry.
And they should have? What's more important to Canadian industry? I'm much more down with bailing out a sustainable industry like Forestry, than I am a world destroying industry like the auto industry. It's a fake industry keeping people employed sure, while making thousands of steel monstrosities that mostly will just sit in car lots until they are junked. Don't we have enough cars in the world already?
Fuck cars also. Those people should be re-trained to make the Bullet trains that should be being built to crisscross Canada reducing the need for air travel and reducing the time spent travelling between the various distant hubs of this nation. IMO
What is sad is that these industries (auto, forestry etc) are the only ways in some places for people to earn a living. There should be more kinds of industry in every locality, and they all should get some small assistance from Gov. Tax breaks etc, but bailouts? How is that a "Free Market" move? It isn't. It's the 21st century. There should be a more diverse economy than there is, but Big organizations like multi-nationals and Governments are still thinking in barely post Industrial idioms. get with the times I say.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 07, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
What is sad is that these industries (auto, forestry etc) are the only ways in some places for people to earn a living. There should be more kinds of industry in every locality, and they all should get some small assistance from Gov. Tax breaks etc, but bailouts? How is that a "Free Market" move? It isn't. It's the 21st century. There should be a more diverse economy than there is, but Big organizations like multi-nationals and Governments are still thinking in barely post Industrial idioms. get with the times I say.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2010, 03:05:55 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 07, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
What is sad is that these industries (auto, forestry etc) are the only ways in some places for people to earn a living. There should be more kinds of industry in every locality, and they all should get some small assistance from Gov. Tax breaks etc, but bailouts? How is that a "Free Market" move? It isn't. It's the 21st century. There should be a more diverse economy than there is, but Big organizations like multi-nationals and Governments are still thinking in barely post Industrial idioms. get with the times I say.
:bleeding:
Bhudda is an idealist BB - we need some of those too. :P
G.
Here is an article from the Economist on this subject.
Quote
Canada without Parliament
Halted in mid-debate
Jan 7th 2010 | OTTAWA
From The Economist print edition
Stephen Harper is counting on Canadians' complacency as he rewrites the rules of his country's politics to weaken legislative scrutiny
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15211862&source=hptextfeature
THE timing said everything. Stephen Harper, the prime minister, chose December 30th, the day five Canadians were killed in Afghanistan and when the public and the media were further distracted by the announcement of the country's all-important Olympic ice-hockey team, to let his spokesman reveal that Parliament would remain closed until March 3rd, instead of returning as usual, after its Christmas break, in the last week of January.
Mr Harper turned a customary recess into prorogation. This means that all committees in both houses are disbanded and government bills die, no matter how close they are to approval. The prime minister, who heads a Conservative minority government, clearly reckoned that giving legislators an extra winter break, during which they might visit the Winter Olympics (in Vancouver between February 12th and 28th), would not bother Canadians much.
He may have miscalculated. A gathering storm of media criticism has extended even to the Calgary Herald, the main newspaper in his political home city, which denounced him for "a cynical political play". There are plans for demonstrations on January 23rd, just before Parliament would have reconvened. "Parliamentary democracy is in danger," declared Peter Russell of the University of Toronto, who was one of 132 political scientists who signed a letter condemning the prorogation and calling for electoral reform.
Past Canadian prime ministers have normally asked the governor-general (who acts as Canada's head of state) to prorogue Parliament only after the government has completed most of its legislative business in order to start afresh with a new speech from the throne outlining new priorities. But nothing has been normal in Canadian politics since 2004, when more than two decades of majority government ended with voters electing a Liberal minority government. They then returned Conservative minority governments in 2006 and 2008.
Far from completing its work, Parliament was still considering important measures, including bills that are part of Mr Harper's crackdown on crime, as well as ratification of free-trade agreements with Colombia and Jordan. All must now be reintroduced. So why shut down Parliament? Breaking six days of silence, Mr Harper said this week that it was a "routine" move to allow the government to adjust its budget due on March 4th. His spokesman claimed that the 63-day gap between sessions was less than the average prorogation of 151 days since 1867. However, the average in the past three decades has been just 22 days.
Opposition leaders claimed Mr Harper's real reason was to end an embarrassing debate on the government's apparent complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees, and in particular to avoid complying with a parliamentary motion to hand over all documents relevant to those charges. They also claim that the prime minister wanted to name new senators and then reconstitute the Senate's committees to reflect the Conservatives' additional representation, something that could not be done if Parliament was merely adjourned.
Having prorogued Parliament last winter to dodge a confidence vote he seemed set to lose, Mr Harper has now established a precedent that many constitutionalists consider dangerous. No previous prime minister has prorogued the legislature "in order to avoid the kind of things that Harper apparently wants to avoid," says Ned Franks, a veteran political scientist and historian of Parliament. Although other prime ministers may have had ulterior motives, they were less blatant, he says.
The danger in allowing the prime minister to end discussion any time he chooses is that it makes Parliament accountable to him rather than the other way around. Some of Mr Harper's critics are also affronted by his high-handedness in not bothering to call on the governor-general personally to ask for prorogation, as tradition demands, but instead making his request by telephone. "That was gravely insulting to the governor-general and the country," says Mr Russell.
Whether Mr Harper gets away with his innovative use of prime ministerial powers depends largely on whether the protest spreads and can be sustained until Parliament reconvenes in March. Mr Harper is doubtless counting on the Winter Olympics to reinforce Canadians' familiar political complacency. But he has given the opposition, which is divided and fumbling, an opportunity. It is now up to it to show that Canada cannot afford a part-time Parliament that sits only at the prime minister's pleasure.
That was a good article. Love The Economist. Thanks for posting that, PRC.
Quote"Parliamentary democracy is in danger," declared Peter Russell of the University of Toronto
:o :ph34r: :tinfoil:
Okay, so that matches some of what I've heard elsewhere.
It's not just a routine action, it's fairly unprecedented and it seems cynical. Why prorogate parliament when a recess would do and is customary? Doesn't look too flattering.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 07, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
And they should have? What's more important to Canadian industry? I'm much more down with bailing out a sustainable industry like Forestry, than I am a world destroying industry like the auto industry. It's a fake industry keeping people employed sure, while making thousands of steel monstrosities that mostly will just sit in car lots until they are junked. Don't we have enough cars in the world already?
Fuck cars also. Those people should be re-trained to make the Bullet trains that should be being built to crisscross Canada reducing the need for air travel and reducing the time spent travelling between the various distant hubs of this nation. IMO
What is sad is that these industries (auto, forestry etc) are the only ways in some places for people to earn a living. There should be more kinds of industry in every locality, and they all should get some small assistance from Gov. Tax breaks etc, but bailouts? How is that a "Free Market" move? It isn't. It's the 21st century. There should be a more diverse economy than there is, but Big organizations like multi-nationals and Governments are still thinking in barely post Industrial idioms. get with the times I say.
:lol: Rant on you crazy diamond.
Forget it, Jake. It's Canada.
After reading the Economist article I've got a question: if he prorogued parliament last time to avoid a no confidence vote, what stopped the members from voting no confidence after parliament sat? I can see the torture thing maybe (short attention span and all that) but not the no confidence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2010, 05:46:09 AM
After reading the Economist article I've got a question: if he prorogued parliament last time to avoid a no confidence vote, what stopped the members from voting no confidence after parliament sat? I can see the torture thing maybe (short attention span and all that) but not the no confidence.
The Opposition's Coaliation fell apart. The Conservative played the "Libs want to govern with Separatists & Communists" hand very well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2010, 05:46:09 AM
After reading the Economist article I've got a question: if he prorogued parliament last time to avoid a no confidence vote, what stopped the members from voting no confidence after parliament sat? I can see the torture thing maybe (short attention span and all that) but not the no confidence.
That was Harper's plan. Harper's a good politician, I'll give him that. He gambled on the fact that during the time off, the Opposition will fracture due to internal issues and it did. Also the opposiiton didn't have as much popular support as it hoped for and even if they forced an election they realized they might very well lose and give Harper a majority.
What you two dont say is that the "coalition" was a cynical attempt by Dion to try to become Prime Minister before he was replaced which was not backed by the Liberal party and which Iggy quickly threw aside once he was crowned leader of the Libs without a vote.
The Economist article is disappointing. A hundred or so Political Science professors (all of whom who will have strong NDP or at the very least Liberal ties) write a protest letter. Now thats news. :rolleyes:
Fact of the matter is that majority governments use prorogation all the time - as the article implies but doesnt expressly say because that would beg the question why write about this at all. We shall see how big a deal this actually is on the 23rd. My guess is that the usual list of NDP folks that show up to all protests will be there, but not much else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 11:55:30 AM
The Economist article is disappointing. A hundred or so Political Science professors (all of whom who will have strong NDP or at the very least Liberal ties) write a protest letter. Now thats news. :rolleyes:
Is this news?
While pundits and Parliament watchers suspected Canadians would care little about the prorogation announced last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, two-thirds of respondents to an Ekos poll released yesterday said they knew about the move - and their margin of disapproval was two to one. The poll also suggests the issue has eroded the strong base of support for Mr. Harper's party, which had, in recent months, jumped into majority territory.Or did the poll only poll NDP Political scientists whilst they weren't rehearsing their Jan 23 protest.
Quote from: Josephus on January 08, 2010, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 11:55:30 AM
The Economist article is disappointing. A hundred or so Political Science professors (all of whom who will have strong NDP or at the very least Liberal ties) write a protest letter. Now thats news. :rolleyes:
Is this news?
While pundits and Parliament watchers suspected Canadians would care little about the prorogation announced last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, two-thirds of respondents to an Ekos poll released yesterday said they knew about the move - and their margin of disapproval was two to one. The poll also suggests the issue has eroded the strong base of support for Mr. Harper's party, which had, in recent months, jumped into majority territory.
Or did the poll only poll NDP Political scientists whilst they weren't rehearsing their Jan 23 protest.
Th poll polled people who had just heard news reports that said this was a bad thing to do. You really think the poll results are in any way surprising? My bet is that if you asked Canadians to explain in a sentence or two what prorogation is they couldnt do it.
As I said, we will see just how big the issue is in a week.
edit: if this does become an issue, then Harper will have miscalculated. But not as he is accused of doing. He will have miscalculated that the opposition was able to make this non issue into something to rally behind.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 11:55:30 AMFact of the matter is that majority governments use prorogation all the time -
For me, this is what I'm trying to get a grip on; it's the crux of the matter so to speak. How often is prorogation used? You say "all the time". Can you give me some other examples of prorogation being used beside Harper's last speech. And while I'm interested in seeing the general use of prorogation (because I still don't have a clear picture of how often it's used), the more significant part is how often has it been used in situations where the legislative agenda had not been pretty much completed?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 12:07:38 PMedit: if this does become an issue, then Harper will have miscalculated. But not as he is accused of doing. He will have miscalculated that the opposition was able to make this non issue into something to rally behind.
Well, I'm tending towards rallying because the opposition's version seems to have a bit more substance, to whit:
Prorogation kills all legislation before parliament and is thus only used when the agenda is complete; there is still a bunch of stuff before parliament and it's all getting killed; this prorogation lasts for a longer period than normal; this prorogation is used as an attempt to kill inquiry into potentially very serious issues, namely the use and official knowledge of torture.
So far, the counter argument to that has been:
Prorogation happens
all the time, it's no big deal. Besides, Canadians will be distracted and not care.
The first two parts of the counterargument still has the potential to be convincing, but it needs to be expanded. The last part is not an argument, it's a calculation.
Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2010, 11:18:45 PM
Okay, so that matches some of what I've heard elsewhere.
It's not just a routine action, it's fairly unprecedented and it seems cynical. Why prorogate parliament when a recess would do and is customary? Doesn't look too flattering.
This really is my issue. it seems like overkill. A recess would be the normal thing. And obviously many in the country and media find it strange and unsettling. I hope that Harper is overestimating Canadian complacency but I fear he isn't.
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2010, 01:00:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 12:07:38 PMedit: if this does become an issue, then Harper will have miscalculated. But not as he is accused of doing. He will have miscalculated that the opposition was able to make this non issue into something to rally behind.
Well, I'm tending towards rallying because the opposition's version seems to have a bit more substance, to whit:
Prorogation kills all legislation before parliament and is thus only used when the agenda is complete; there is still a bunch of stuff before parliament and it's all getting killed; this prorogation lasts for a longer period than normal; this prorogation is used as an attempt to kill inquiry into potentially very serious issues, namely the use and official knowledge of torture.
So far, the counter argument to that has been:
Prorogation happens all the time, it's no big deal. Besides, Canadians will be distracted and not care.
The first two parts of the counterargument still has the potential to be convincing, but it needs to be expanded. The last part is not an argument, it's a calculation.
ah Jacob, thank you for being more clear headed on this issue. I get all wrapped up in my annoyance and do not have your eloquence on it.
@ you Harper lovers - What Jacob says. :yes:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 08, 2010, 01:33:28 PM
This really is my issue. it seems like overkill. A recess would be the normal thing. And obviously many in the country and media find it strange and unsettling. I hope that Harper is overestimating Canadian complacency but I fear he isn't.
Bah, if he had called a recess they would have complained as bitterly.
Really tell me one concrete thing this actually changes other then the fact that we get a throne speach. When Parliament resumes there will be the same calls for an inquiry into the Afghan detention issue and the bills that the government wish to proceed with will be introduced.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 01:37:12 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 08, 2010, 01:33:28 PM
This really is my issue. it seems like overkill. A recess would be the normal thing. And obviously many in the country and media find it strange and unsettling. I hope that Harper is overestimating Canadian complacency but I fear he isn't.
Bah, if he had called a recess they would have complained as bitterly.
Really tell me one concrete thing this actually changes other then the fact that we get a throne speach. When Parliament resumes there will be the same calls for an inquiry into the Afghan detention issue and the bills that the government wish to proceed with will be introduced.
Maybe. But why can't we do it now? The only reason I can see is that Harper doesn't feel like it? The Olympics? :bleeding:
They don't want to do it now because they likely have found out that there was some incompetence on their part... letting torture happen or at least doing nothing about it at the time.
Time does make things seem less important, with the amount of Newsy stuff thrown at people every day. The break, whatever they want to call it is a stalling tactic, that I hope backfires. But odds are it won't far more people have blind faith in government than don't apparently.
:(
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 08, 2010, 01:42:11 PM
Maybe. But why can't we do it now? The only reason I can see is that Harper doesn't feel like it? The Olympics? :bleeding:
Wait a minute, you are the guy saying he should have recessed instead of prorogued.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 01:37:12 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 08, 2010, 01:33:28 PM
This really is my issue. it seems like overkill. A recess would be the normal thing. And obviously many in the country and media find it strange and unsettling. I hope that Harper is overestimating Canadian complacency but I fear he isn't.
Bah, if he had called a recess they would have complained as bitterly.
Really tell me one concrete thing this actually changes other then the fact that we get a throne speach. When Parliament resumes there will be the same calls for an inquiry into the Afghan detention issue and the bills that the government wish to proceed with will be introduced.
Because Harper was gambling on the usual Canadian complacency, apathy and forgetfulness. I have a feeling that this time it's backfiring on him. The only good thing going for him, (and maybe that's what he's gambling on) is that the opposition doesn't have a strong enough leader, one who could capitalize on this issue.
Iggy should be at the forefront right now, holding press conferences, getting interviewed. Instead....God knows where he is.
Look, you can spin this any way you want to; but the fact that it's not just left-wing Canadian papers that are "harping" (get it--harping) on this issue, shows that there is something unusual afoot.
Quote from: Josephus on January 08, 2010, 01:59:06 PM
Look, you can spin this any way you want to; but the fact that it's not just left-wing Canadian papers that are "harping" (get it--harping) on this issue, shows that there is something unusual afoot.
Yeah, the media needs a story to sell. This is the only one going politically.
Looks like Iggy is paying attention to me:
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says Canadians want their elected MPs to get back to work and that's what Liberals members will be doing when they return to Ottawa later this month, despite the fact Parliament has been shut down until March.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced on Dec. 30 that he would prorogue Parliament until the Olympic Games had concluded. That guaranteed opposition parties would not be able to confront the Conservatives in the House of Commons for more than two months, and it sent all pending government legislation down the drain -- including bills on pension and Employment Insurance reform.
It was the second time in just over a year that Harper shut down Parliament, something Ignatieff said was the latest example of Harper going "too far."
"Every time this guy's in a hole, he tries to shut down institutions that control his power. That's what's bothering Canadians and that's what we're listening to," Ignatieff told reporters on Friday morning.
Ignatieff said he had heard a consistent message from Canadians in recent months, which he intends to follow.
"Do your darn job. Lower the volume. Do what you are elected to do," he said.
Ignatieff said he will send his troops -- including both senators and sitting MPs -- back to work on Jan. 25 to undertake a series of roundtables and pre-budget consultations on issues including jobs creation, unemployment, veterans' issues and the environment.
"We're not just showing up for a photo op, we're showing up to go to work. That's the point," Ignatieff said.
He said party members will also work with "other parliamentarians" to look at the issue of treatment of Afghan detainees, a thorny issue the government has been pressed about for weeks.
The Liberal leader said he will not push for an election despite what he called the "crazy way" the Tories have of running a democracy.
The Liberals' plan to head to work is the latest public embarassment Harper has endured over his controversial decision to prorogue Parliament.
Earlier this week, Britain's Economist magazine said the move smacked of "naked self interest." The influential publication had previously endorsed Harper in the Canadian previous two elections.
The prime minister's dressing-down by the Economist followed a public poll that suggested more than half of Canadians opposed the prorogation.
"I think this is getting to be an issue that's gotten out of control for the government and the Prime Minister's Office," CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife, told CTV News Channel.
Harper has made a number of media appearances in recent days "to try to justify his decision for closing down Parliament," said Fife.
If the Liberals -- and perhaps other opposition parties -- return to work over the next two months, it will leave the Conservative government on the defensive, Fife said.
With files from The Canadian Press
Quote"I think this is getting to be an issue that's gotten out of control for the government and the Prime Minister's Office," CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife, told CTV News Channel.
Harper has made a number of media appearances in recent days "to try to justify his decision for closing down Parliament," said Fife.
If the Liberals -- and perhaps other opposition parties -- return to work over the next two months, it will leave the Conservative government on the defensive, Fife said.
So one media guy tells another media guy that this might be a story.... :hmm:
I'm of two minds on this - I can't see any good reason to shut Parliament down, but I equally can't see any particular strong political self-interest served. Shutting down discussion of Afgan detainees doesn't strike me as an issue anywhere near the gravity to the government to require such a self-defense move.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 02:52:19 PM
So one media guy tells another media guy that this might be a story.... :hmm:
Yeah, CC. This is all one big media conspiracy to sell newspapers.
I am convinced NOT ONE single CAnadian newspaper sold an extra copy cause of this. If they wanted to boost sales they'd have a front page story about Lady GaGa or something. Proroguing does not sell newspapers.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 03:10:30 PM
I'm of two minds on this - I can't see any good reason to shut Parliament down, but I equally can't see any particular strong political self-interest served. Shutting down discussion of Afgan detainees doesn't strike me as an issue anywhere near the gravity to the government to require such a self-defense move.
I think the fact that there is evidence that the government was aware that prisoners transferred from CAnadian detention to Afghani forces were being tortured, and that they not only denied it but castigated the whistle blower has some pretty dense gravity.
I could be wrong though.
Quote from: Josephus on January 08, 2010, 03:36:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 03:10:30 PM
I'm of two minds on this - I can't see any good reason to shut Parliament down, but I equally can't see any particular strong political self-interest served. Shutting down discussion of Afgan detainees doesn't strike me as an issue anywhere near the gravity to the government to require such a self-defense move.
I think the fact that there is evidence that the government was aware that prisoners transferred from CAnadian detention to Afghani forces were being tortured, and that they not only denied it but castigated the whistle blower has some pretty dense gravity.
I could be wrong though.
It's a scandal, sure.
Unless there is some really damming info out there, it simply isn't the sort of issue likely to (say) bring down the government. Nor will prorogation cease any mention of it.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 03:41:12 PM
It's a scandal, sure.
Unless there is some really damming info out there, it simply isn't the sort of issue likely to (say) bring down the government. Nor will prorogation cease any mention of it.
And by really damning, it would have to be Harper personally torturing some Afghan women and children.
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 03:45:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 03:41:12 PM
It's a scandal, sure.
Unless there is some really damming info out there, it simply isn't the sort of issue likely to (say) bring down the government. Nor will prorogation cease any mention of it.
And by really damning, it would have to be Harper personally torturing some Afghan women and children.
Or worse, making 'em wear that damn sweater of his. :D
Quote from: Josephus on January 08, 2010, 03:36:30 PM
I think the fact that there is evidence that the government was aware that prisoners transferred from CAnadian detention to Afghani forces were being tortured, and that they not only denied it but castigated the whistle blower has some pretty dense gravity.
I could be wrong though.
According to the "whistle blower" he says he told people that prisoners might be totured. His main beef appears to be that he was not, in his opinion, taken seriously enough. Not that the Canadian government knowing turned over captives for torture.
Am I missing something here.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 04:11:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 03:45:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 03:41:12 PM
It's a scandal, sure.
Unless there is some really damming info out there, it simply isn't the sort of issue likely to (say) bring down the government. Nor will prorogation cease any mention of it.
And by really damning, it would have to be Harper personally torturing some Afghan women and children.
Or worse, making 'em wear that damn sweater of his. :D
Well you know, that sweater did go missing. No explanation has been given for its disappearance. You might be on to something.
Quote from: Josephus on January 08, 2010, 03:33:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 02:52:19 PM
So one media guy tells another media guy that this might be a story.... :hmm:
Yeah, CC. This is all one big media conspiracy to sell newspapers.
I am convinced NOT ONE single CAnadian newspaper sold an extra copy cause of this. If they wanted to boost sales they'd have a front page story about Lady GaGa or something. Proroguing does not sell newspapers.
Fist of all, I didnt say there was a conspiracy. You are the one who made the point that there was something to this because people were talking about it. I have simply made the point that political journalists, who are not paid to take about Lady GaGa, simply have nothing else to write about.
Quote from: Neil on January 08, 2010, 03:45:24 PM
And by really damning, it would have to be Harper personally torturing some Afghan women and children.
Wouldn't put it past him. :D
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 03:10:30 PM
I'm of two minds on this - I can't see any good reason to shut Parliament down, but I equally can't see any particular strong political self-interest served. Shutting down discussion of Afgan detainees doesn't strike me as an issue anywhere near the gravity to the government to require such a self-defense move.
Doesn't that make you suspicious?
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2010, 04:37:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 03:10:30 PM
I'm of two minds on this - I can't see any good reason to shut Parliament down, but I equally can't see any particular strong political self-interest served. Shutting down discussion of Afgan detainees doesn't strike me as an issue anywhere near the gravity to the government to require such a self-defense move.
Doesn't that make you suspicious?
Well, sure, I assume Harper has some reason for prorogation. None of those advanced by the opposition strike me as particularly convincing, though.
For example, assume some truly horrible set of facts linking the government to Bad Behaviour(tm) are out there, just waiting to be uncovered. Does prorogation stop them from comming to light? Or stop the damage to government when and if it does?
Last year, prorogation was used tactically, to disrupt a key vote. What key vote is at stake right now?
Malthus. You're right in that the Afghani thing is not a goverment dropping issue. But Harper hates criticism above all else and the idea of returning to Parliament and having to defend the whole Afghani thing and its implications was not something he was looking forward to.
He's placing the gamble on last year's strategy that by the time Parliament resumes, in what is almost spring, the Opposition would know that to bring up this issue is something that is long forgotten by Canadians and they'd be accused of dredging up something long and forgotten. Also, quite possibly, it's giving him time to dig up something positive on the issue.
Prorogation=Procrastination.
In our real lives, its' something like going up to your boss an hour before you go on holiday and he's like.."Hmm...let's talk about it when you get back"...of course by then you've mellowed out and no one brings it up ever again.
I suspect that Buddha nailed it when he said the reason was to take Parliament out of session while the eyes of the world were on us during the Olympics. Frankly I think that is a good thing. I would hate for some foreign journalist to actually pay attention to what passes as debate in our House.
The eyes of the world? Nah...winter olympics is mostly just a curiousity in the rest of the world. So a few Swedish luge journalists will be up here...they won't be near Ottawa.
Although...when the Olympics were in CAlgary, I was at universtiy at the time, in Toronto, and a German tourist did ask me if the subway went to Calgary.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 04:42:54 PMWell, sure, I assume Harper has some reason for prorogation. None of those advanced by the opposition strike me as particularly convincing, though.
For example, assume some truly horrible set of facts linking the government to Bad Behaviour(tm) are out there, just waiting to be uncovered. Does prorogation stop them from comming to light? Or stop the damage to government when and if it does?
Last year, prorogation was used tactically, to disrupt a key vote. What key vote is at stake right now?
I'm not sure. That's why I'm not railing. It doesn't make sense to me. I can be convinced it's okay, or that it's not okay. I'm leaning towards "not okay" in the absence of really compelling evidence in either direction; but there's less in favour of "it's okay". I don't think willy-nilly prorogations are a good thing. If there's a reason for it, okay. If there's a shady reason for it, not so okay but at least I want to understand it.
If it's just to reconsistute the committees with more conservatives and appointed senators that makes sense, but is fairly shady. It's not terminally so, but it's not exactly nice either. If it's something worse, like torture, then it's pretty shifty. Andtrying to bury the torture investigations because "people won't care in a few months when we spring the next big thing we're working on" makes some sense, but it's far from appealing.
Quote from: Josephus on January 08, 2010, 05:54:57 PM
The eyes of the world?
If we cant even agree that the Olympics are an international event that focuses attention on Vancouver/Whistler and Canada more then usual (you know the meaning of "eyes of the world") then I am afraid there is not much to discuss between us since their appears to be a reluctance on our part to treat words as having their ordinary meaning.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 08, 2010, 01:56:39 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 08, 2010, 01:42:11 PM
Maybe. But why can't we do it now? The only reason I can see is that Harper doesn't feel like it? The Olympics? :bleeding:
Wait a minute, you are the guy saying he should have recessed instead of prorogued.
I'm not saying he should have done either, but I would prefer a recess if you "have to" have a recess. Don't kill all the stuff happening now. It makes all the suspicious types like me nervous.
It's a bad PR move.
What stuff happening now will get killed? And what does it mean when something gets killed?
When a bill is killed, it means there will have no time to debate it during the session. So the bill "dies". In french we say "un projet de loi mort au feuilleton".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2010, 04:38:43 AM
What stuff happening now will get killed? And what does it mean when something gets killed?
Anything that dies on the Order Paper when Parliament is prorogued can simply be reintroduced when the new sitting of Parliament resumes.
another thought for those suspicious types Buddha. If they actually kept Parliament open during the olympics they would be accused of trying to force through legislation while the attention of the nation was diverted by the olympics - just as they were accused of announcing the prorogation when the hockey team was announced. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2010, 04:38:43 AM
What stuff happening now will get killed? And what does it mean when something gets killed?
Here's a list someone posted in another forum of things that's getting killed. I don't know if it's accurate, but on the face of it it looks legitimate:
Quotehere's a list of the bills (government-tabled bills) that die on the paper because of this:
1) C-6 – An Act respecting the safety of consumer products Passed 3rd reading in the House of Commons
2) C-8 – An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves Debated at 2nd reading
3) C-13 – An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004 Debated at 2nd reading
4) C-15 – An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts Passed 3rd reading
5) C-19 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions) Debated at 2nd reading
6) C-20 – An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident Reported back from Committee with amendments
7) C-23 – An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia Debated at 2nd reading
8) C-26 — An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime) Passed 3rd reading
9) C-27 — An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act Passed 3rd reading
10) C-30 – An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts Debated at 2nd reading
11) C-31 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act Referred to Legislative Committee
12) C-34 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts Reported back from Committee with amendments
13) C-35 – An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act Debated at 2nd reading
14) C-36 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code Passed 3rd reading
15) C-37 – An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts Read 2nd time; referred to Committee
16) C-40 – An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act 1st reading
17) C-42 — An Act to amend the Criminal Code Read 2nd time; referred to Committee
18) C-43 — An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code Read 2nd time; referred to Committee
19) C-44 — An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act Debated at 2nd reading
20) C-45 — An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 1st reading
21) C-46 — An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act Read 2nd time; referred to Committee
22) C-47 — An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations Read 2nd time; referred to Committee
23) C-52 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud) Read 2nd time; referred to Committee
24) C-53 – An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts 1st reading
25) C-54 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act 1st reading
26) C-55 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code 1st reading
27) C-57 – An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Debated at 2nd reading
28) C-58 – An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service Read 2nd time; referred to Committee
29) C-59 – An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act 1st reading
30) C-60 – An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America 1st reading
31) C-61 – An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations 1st reading
32) C-63 – An Act to amend the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and another Act in consequence thereof 1st reading
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 09, 2010, 10:06:42 AMAnything that dies on the Order Paper when Parliament is prorogued can simply be reintroduced when the new sitting of Parliament resumes.
Of course, it has to make it through all the committees and readings from square one. It's not just a done deal.
Quoteanother thought for those suspicious types Buddha. If they actually kept Parliament open during the olympics they would be accused of trying to force through legislation while the attention of the nation was diverted by the olympics - just as they were accused of announcing the prorogation when the hockey team was announced. :rolleyes:
But why not a recess, as is customary? That's the real question.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2010, 10:03:18 PM
But why not a recess, as is customary? That's the real question.
Why don't you fucks have a real system, with defined terms and recesses, is a better question.
Quote from: ulmont on January 09, 2010, 10:06:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2010, 10:03:18 PM
But why not a recess, as is customary? That's the real question.
Why don't you fucks have a real system, with defined terms and recesses, is a better question.
Because we're a civilized people, and thus have a civilized system.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2010, 10:01:40 PM
Here's a list someone posted in another forum of things that's getting killed. I don't know if it's accurate, but on the face of it it looks legitimate:
Quote<snip>
Reads a little like the list of legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois Senate.
Quote from: ulmont on January 09, 2010, 10:06:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2010, 10:03:18 PM
But why not a recess, as is customary? That's the real question.
Why don't you fucks have a real system, with defined terms and recesses, is a better question.
Pfffft. We don't even have a defined election time period. Well, actually, we do. Herr Harper enacted legislation for just that...but then went ahead and called an election before one was due.
What Harper wants, Harper gets, God help us all.
It's funny watching the left cry and try and tell people that Harper is a Nazi. It reminds me of how much less than me they are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2010, 10:48:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2010, 10:01:40 PM
Here's a list someone posted in another forum of things that's getting killed. I don't know if it's accurate, but on the face of it it looks legitimate:
Quote<snip>
Reads a little like the list of legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois Senate.
And all the Bills at the top of the list had passed 3rd reading, so they only needed a final vote and Royal Assent to become law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2010, 10:48:16 PMReads a little like the list of legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois Senate.
Lists of legislation often read like lists of legislation, yeah. Would you prefer if it was translated into faux outrage?
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2010, 02:35:43 PM
Lists of legislation often read like lists of legislation, yeah. Would you prefer if it was translated into faux outrage?
I don't know what you mean.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 09, 2010, 10:06:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2010, 04:38:43 AM
What stuff happening now will get killed? And what does it mean when something gets killed?
Anything that dies on the Order Paper when Parliament is prorogued can simply be reintroduced when the new sitting of Parliament resumes.
another thought for those suspicious types Buddha. If they actually kept Parliament open during the olympics they would be accused of trying to force through legislation while the attention of the nation was diverted by the olympics - just as they were accused of announcing the prorogation when the hockey team was announced. :rolleyes:
not by me. They should be doing their jobs. I don't get any time off during the Olympics, in fact I'm told constantly how it's going to hamper me whilst I'm trying to traverse my own city (slower transit, dumbass over security, free speech zones etc et, al.) The Olympics is doing shit for me except annoy me almost as much as the crap going on or not going on in either my Provincial or National Capitol. :shrug: whatever though.
It'll be over soon, on all fronts it seems. Olympics we will be rid of in a couple of months and maybe a spring election, which I expect Harper to win handily, because of that complacency he's said he's counting on. Instead of talking about policy he simply mentioned that one great Canadian Magic Word: "JOBS". Canadians across the country, especially in heavy pogey use areas such as the east coast are always bowing down to the promise of Jobs. That's why we infest your urban areas in the Central and Western lands. Jobs.
Every Canadian's main concern really is Jobs. It's hardwired. So yeah. He's saying all the right things for the lowest common denominator. Which is not me. I can only stand back and hope for the odd crumb.
About 3500 people show up to protest Harper's burning of the reichstag proroguation of parliament, and there were also protests across the country and--in London, England, just in case.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/01/23/prorogue-protests.html
Rallies are underway in towns and cities across Canada Saturday, as protesters gather to speak out against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to suspend Parliament until March 3.
More than 60 rallies are planned across Canada, with protests also slated for London, England, and several U.S. cities.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff addressed the crowd on Parliament Hill Saturday afternoon, commending protesters for their campaign to send MPs back to work.
"This is a demonstration that shows that Canadians understand their democracy, care for their democracy, and if necessary will fight for their democracy," Ignatieff said. "This demonstration does not belong to the politicians of any party, it belongs to the Canadian people."
MPs were supposed to return to work Jan. 25 after a holiday break, but Harper said he moved to delay the resumption of Parliament in order to focus on strategies for Canada's economy.
Ignatieff said Liberal MPs will be back at work Monday, despite the prorogation, to hold public meetings.
Layton calls for law limiting power to prorogue
NDP leader Jack Layton also addressed the crowd in Ottawa, using the rally to reiterate his call for the introduction of a new law that would limit the prime minister's power to prorogue Parliament.
Layton also called on the prime minister to recall parliament and send MPs back to work.
"I get the impression that you'd like your representatives to be at work on your behalf starting tomorrow," Layton told the cheering crowd. "Sorry ... Monday — we're jumping the gun."
RCMP in Ottawa estimated that roughly 3,500 people had gathered on Parliament Hill shortly after the protest began at 1 p.m. ET.
In Toronto, more than 7,000 people gathered at Yonge-Dundas Square to protest against the suspension of Parliament. Some people took the protest out onto the street, chanting and waving placards as they marched down Yonge Street.
Several hundred people attended the anti-prorogation rally in Halifax Saturday.
"We can't use prorogation to run from our problems. Canada knows that that can't happen and we're making sure that they all know that too," said Brendan Sommerhalder, one of the organizers of the Halifax rally.
The anti-prorogation movement gained momentum after a Facebook group was created condemning Harper's decision to suspend the parliamentary session. More than 200,000 people have joined the site and rally organizers used the social networking medium to help organize Saturday's protests.
It's all well and good for Layton to say how bad prorogation is: He'll never be part of a government, and thus will never have any responsibility or power. It's sort of like how the NDP of the 70s and 80s used to call for Canada to join the Warsaw Pact.
At any rate, it's fun watching the feebleminded get all worked up.
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2010, 04:19:05 PM
At any rate, it's fun watching the feebleminded get all worked up.
I haven't seen him yet. What's Harper getting all worked up over?