Failure is spelt N-D-P.

Jack was granted a golden opportunity to bury his true opponents, the Liberals, an opportunity handed to him on a silver platter by Harper (the elimination of party subsidies), and he was too stupid to take it.

*
kate says... unless there was something in it for the losers at the top."

you mean... like matching, gold-plated, taxpayer-funded "life partner"
pensions?

oops... did i say that out loud?

*

You beat me to it, neo. They hit the daily double alright.

I listened to Adler's letter today. I was struck by the suggestion that a big majority of voters in Layton's constituency voted against him. To think Layton's been using that idea to harass the Harper government, and some Canadians actually bought into it. That letter hit the nail on the head.

Failure has never deterred those on the left. They still have one bastion and that is the universities and they need to be routed there too.

The public wouldn't buy into it if the media wasn't doing everything in its power to legitimize NDP. Mansbridge of the CBC referring to the coalition as being "fun for the media" - that's what really grates on me!

"48 year record of uninterrupted failure..."

- neglects to mention in particular 2 dark spots:

> Propping up Pee-air's minority from 1972-1974,

and

> J.S. Woodsworth voting against Canadian involvement in WW2.

- and one "bright spot" > spitting the left-wing in 1988 so Mulroney could bring in the FTA and NAFTA.

I generally like Adler's smackdown of Professor Mustache but does he honestly think comrade Obama is to the right of Jack? O had the most left leaning voting record of any Senator during the last three years and his background and friends are not exactly the types who will be on the next National Review cruise.

For a party calling itself "New" and "Democratic", its policies are in fact decidedly anachronistic and undemocratic. If I'm not mistaken the NDP is still uncomfortable with the the concept of one-member-one-vote.

Back in the 60's when Canada was negotiating the auto-pact with the U.S. then leader of the CCF/NDP David Lewis went on and on ad nauseam about the evils of the deal and how Canada was selling out to the U.S. According to Lewis nothing good could come from a deal that allowed Canada to build U.S. vehicles within it's own borders. Wrapped up in that agreement was some U.S. manifest destiny clause that he couldn't quite point to but he knew it was there. Right. The NDP has produced leader after leader incapable of understanding the country and how it works. Jack Layton is in possession of an immense
lack of economic knowledge. It's really quite startling to think that Canadians would trust him with their vote. He has however secured a sinecure in the House of Commons courtesy of the taxpayers of this country. How undeserved.

Another one hit out of the ballpark by Adler.

I also think Obama is a bit farther to the left than most people think. But still miles to the right of our Jack, who is indeed in a league of his own when it comes to leftiness.

The Democrat's in the U.S. are still way to the right of the Ndp. Not many Dems would take kindly to be called socialist's I think.

"Failure has never deterred those on the left. They still have one bastion and that is the universities and they need to be routed there too.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at February 3, 2009 12:06 AM"

Plus, the public school system for indoctrinating kids. The teachers' unions keep throwing their weight around, trying to expand their mandate.

"I generally like Adler's smackdown of Professor Mustache but does he honestly think comrade Obama is to the right of Jack? O had the most left leaning voting record of any Senator during the last three years and his background and friends are not exactly the types who will be on the next National Review cruise."

I don't agree with that part, either; however, Obama did send missiles into Pakistan's territory and he's FOR the war in Afghanistan.

Reading this editorial/open-letter honestly gave me a feeling of well-up pride in my belly. It put to words, far more eloquently that I ever could, my feelings on the left in this country, and Jack Layton's NDP in particular.

Thank you Chuck, and God bless.

Ahem. Should have read welled-up.

"48 years of uninterrupted failure" is bang on. And just how dismal that failure is was demonstrated by the Reform Party when they were denied Official Opposition status by a decision of the Speaker in 1993. They had begun with one seat in Parliament won in a 1989 by-election by Deb Gray.

I am still laughing at that guy here who called Jack the "video professor". If you've seen the commercial - it's perfect!

Jack's soundbite on tonight's CTV national news: instead of fighting US protectionism, we should jump on the protectionist bandwagon!

Just put the mike down and back away from the economy, Jack. Real slow now....

How stupid does an NDP supporter have to be?

Well, most of them work for the CBC...

Colin, "Reading this editorial/open-letter honestly gave me a feeling of well-up pride in my belly. It put to words, far more eloquently that I ever could, my feelings on the left in this country, and Jack Layton's NDP in particular.

Thank you Chuck, and God bless."

I second that! (I'm from B.C., too)

Lets not forget that POS Layton was on the side of our enemy-the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
You know,just like today,where he's on the side of our enemy the Taliban.

Lets not forget that POS Layton was on the side of our enemy-the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
You know,just like today,where he's on the side of our enemy the Taliban.
Posted by: Mr.g at February 3, 2009 2:13 AM

Lefties are always on the wrong side of the moral calculus, as I see it. Whether it's Iraq, the cold war, the Taliban, Israel, etc.

Honestly, I think it's a classifiable mental disorder.

I'm glad Chuck brought up, with great emphasis, Jack's inability to be proud of his own country, and its accomplishments, both domestic and abroad.

"""""I'm glad Chuck brought up, with great emphasis, Jack's inability to be proud of his own country, and its accomplishments, both domestic and abroad.""""

to be proud of one's country is to be on the side of sucess, jack is a losser who represents lossers

Well said Mr. Adler! I like your pertinent comment Kate!

Kate why don't you tell eljacko how you really feel?lol

"while you are really competitive only in the poverty pockets."

Not true, average home value in NDP ridings is probably higher than CPC ridings. NDP voters tend to be unionized and old; separately, they tend to be lesbian and immigrant, and with "employment equity" even the most unemployable bull dyke or immigrant has a guaranteed high paying union job.

I see what he's doing, substituting the word "poor" for "Indian", conveniently turning a race issue into a safer, more politically correct class struggle, and it stinks.

The quoted passage massively misunderstands several fundamental and measurable aspects of Canadian politics. Not surprising, since my fellow citizens' focus is now exclusively on the USA, nobody really gives a spit about Hotel Canada.

Stupid? NDP supporters are overpaid, unaccountable, and can't get fired; how is this stupid?

How much coin has Adler grossed over the past 25 years? Would he have been able to keep his job had he been an non-ethnic? Why is he misleading his listeners?

Let us not forget that Jack Layton and the NDP are less popular with Canadians than G.W. Bush is with Americans! When you consider that Taliban Jack gets uninterupted positive media coverage from the CBC and that G.W. Bush got-and continues to get-uninterupted negative media coverage from the entire MSM south of the border, well that is quite the accomplishment Jack. I didn't think anyone could be so incredibly unpopular, but you proved me wrong.

GYM.....the loser,Jack,is living quite nicely,for a loser.The real losers are the rest of us Canucks who have to put with Jack,and the commie b%^tards called the NDP.
Can we have a referundum to vote BOTH Frogland,and Morontario out of the ROC?

Dippers need to change their moniker to something more meaningful. "New" Democratic Party is far off the mark.

Mature New Democrats - That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one...

If brains were water, Taliban Jack would be a desert.

Speaking of water, Whacko Jacko would be out of his depth in a small puddle.

A few years ago, my husband was having his shoes shined at the Toronto airport when Jack sat in the chair next to him to have his shoes shined too. My husband proceeded to say hello, but was ignored. My husband was wearing a suit so I guess Jack knew he was not a NDPer and would probably get an earful of logic. Best to ignore those who may not agree with you, rather than TRYING to defend your views. Maybe if there had been a kitchen table close by....

"Jack's soundbite on tonight's CTV national news: instead of fighting US protectionism, we should jump on the protectionist bandwagon!"

He's just parroting what union bosses on both sides of the border are saying. And Jacko does wut da bosses tell him ta do.

He is so out of his league.

Did somebody just invent a new name for Jack Layton .....

"POVERTY POCKETS"

I love it , must remember it ......

What an interesting idea. Is it possible to get data on what the average income is in the various ridings? Thanks for an intriguing thread.

"unless there was something in it for the losers at the top." Irony?

It's the socialist pyramid. The system is stable as the form of government is a pyramid. The congregation is unconscious; their spirits deadened; competition is outlawed, etc.

Think 85-year old Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Castro the Zombie in Cuba, etc.

In Canada, PMartinJr lasted 2 years at the top. The POTUS can only serve 2 consecutive 4-year terms. Thank goodness for that. Imagine 20 years of Jimmah Carter; 25 years of Jeancula Chretien.

Even though Taliban Jack is a bumbling jackassed failure, he survives as leader.

"I was struck by the suggestion that a big majority of voters in Layton's constituency voted against him."

It's not a suggestion, it's a fact. Layton lost 45-55% in his own riding, but it gets worse.

NDP - 37 seats, 7 (19%) by majority
LPC - 77 seats, 17 (22%) by majority
BQ - 49 seats, 13 (27%) by majority

By contrast, the CPC won 143 seats, 79 (55%) by majority.

Only in Canada could a collection of politicians, of whom a majority did not win a majority, complain that the winning party did not win a majority and still be taken seriously. Pity.

What a load of inane bluster. You call unduly benefitting from a deeply flawed electoral system that disproportionately rewards big parties or parties with large concentrations of like minded idiots (Alberta the obvious example) as being "efficient" and "competitive".

The Conservatives received about 5 times the number of votes cast for the Green Party. Roughly 1 million votes for Greens translates into 0 seats. 5 million votes for Cons translates into 143 seats. In Alberta less than a million votes translates into 27 Conservative seats. Single member plurality is outdated and a very poor reflection of the will of the electorate. It's days are numbered. It's simply a matter of time before some form of PR comes in, and anyone with a shred of intelligence and a respect for democracy would only help expedite that. Andrew Coyne, one of the few Conservatives whose cerebral synapses fire from time to time, hasn't any difficulty seeing how flawed our existing electoral system is. (under PR all the real conservatives and libertarians currently disenfranchised by Harper's Conliberalism would actually have a voice in the House of Commons representing their interests)

BTW: There was nothing undemocratic about the coalition; however, prorogation of parliament to avoid a vote of non-confidence from a man who once believed that government should function only if it has the confidence of the house, that's another story. Members were duly elected and would be judged by the Canadian electorate on the wisdom of their choices while representing their respective ridings. The coalition failed because it was replaced by a more familiar coalition: the Conservative Liberal coalition in which the Liberals effectively prop up an illegitimate Harper majority (incidentally the Official Opposition possibly being "the" cornerstone of democracy, simply abdicated by Liberals).

Adler's a disingenuous buffoon. Although I see that plays well around here.

Settled in to read 36 comments and we're down to 9.

NDP = No Damn Principles

Bill Stewart ; can't tell if you are Jack Layton himself or just an acolyte. BTW how did that job as democracy consultant for Robert Mugabe pan out? Where might you reside, reason for asking is the hatred displayed for Alberta, is it in Canada anywhere or Never-Neverland with your husband, Peter Pan?

I heard the broadcast when Mr. Adler read this letter. It reads well but he reads it better. When you hear his voice and know his story it is much more powerful.

a must read . . . a couple of socialists see the light.

Laydown is gonna be pissed.

3w.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1246092

Jack and Mulcair thought they had another way into power, which is why they avoided the obvious path that Harper laid bare.

Jack and Mulcair thought the GG had no choice, that Dion could either be a marionette or be replaced by Jack down the road. One suspects they were smoking some heavy stuff while they came up with that plan.

Jack's play should have been to find a way to support the cutting of subsidies and forced the Liberal Party to fall to him.

The Layton resignation clock has started. So Harper will have bested yet another opponent. Who says the last election didnt change anything.

Enough with the pile-on-Jack people. The NDP is a key component of the left wing vote split.

Jack, as Lenin would say, is a "useful idiot". But not in the way Lenin meant.

The degree to which Jack holds the citizenry in contempt is evidenced by his willingness to form a coalition with a party dedicated to taking PQ out of the federation. He must have honestly believed that Canadians would not resist.

Splitting the left: putting smug, hypocritical, power-hungry, lying thieves to one side, and hypocritical, self-serving, opportunistic sleezebags to the other.

Funny, a lot of inane ramblings nothing substantial.
uuess:I don't hate Alberta (Jasper, Lake Louise, Edmonton all fine places). I hate Conservative ideology (I hold no grudge against conservative voters who just don't know any better, although I enjoy seeing them all riled up with their knickers in a twist). Anyways, relax, it was just a jab. You could make the same argument with Quebec regarding our first past the post system (just that I'd be a lot more hesitant to use the word idiot).

Bart: You could argue that there's not much to split, but as far as the Left wing vote, there's only one party occupying that wing of the political spectrum. Maybe I could explain in a way many of the commenters around here could actually understand:
Stevie and Mikey sitting in a tree:
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love,
then comes marriage,
then comes the baby in the golden carriage!

BTW, anyone care to defend our electoral system or Harper's prorogation of a parliament that didn't have confidence in the government who called for the suspension of parliament. Without the confidence of the house the government acts illegitimately and undemocratically. That he ran from a vote that would have confirmed that, doesn't alter that fact.

Bill - Big difference from any other non confidence vote is that we JUST had an election, and the motives for non confidence were extremely suspect.

Let us not forget (from Wikipedia):

Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing cooperative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income. Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy.

Bill Stewwart ; Why are you a-feared to call Quebecois idiots? Are you scared of the ensuing poutine fiasco? That this political system is slanted in favor of all "have not" jurisdictions is not in dispute and is not a failing of the first past the post system. eg; one MP in Alberta per 125 thousand population, one MP in Quebec per less than 100 thousand population, one MP in PEI per 40 thousand population and one MP in Manitoba per 70 thousand population that is the failing of this electoral system, not first past the post. That is all we need is to have proportional representation by the otherworldly socialists of Toronto to represent real Canadians, yes the ones that shovel after a blizzard instead of calling in the army.

Anne, please! The timing nor the motives behind the non-confidence hasn't any bearing on responsible government. There was a time when even Harper knew the difference between the presidential and parliamentary systems. There was a time when Harper adhered to the notion of responsible and representative government. In case you've not seen or repressed too deeply the memory. Here's a passage signed onto by Harper, and Layton, and even that dastardly "separatist" (actually he's a sovereigntist, big difference) Duceppe:
"As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated."

You just stay on your soapbox Bill. I'm sure we will eventually come around to your way of thinking. The NDP has really grown since it was founded hasn't it.
Jack Keeps telling us how Harper hasn't got the confidence of Parliament. But the bigger reality is Jack hasn't got the confidence of the people.
Now run along and support a few York assistants and screw the thousands of students.

His political leanings aside, Jack Layton strikes me as a smarmy glad-hander. How he got to where he is, I find nothing short of miraculous. Then again, as Charles Adler mentions and the polls demonstrate, he's really not got that much of a following. It isn't likely to change.

So I'm not at all riled or upset, just surprised. Oh, and, very grateful to NDP supporters for not recognizing a dud when they see one.

BTW, anyone care to defend our electoral system or Harper's prorogation of a parliament that didn't have confidence in the government who called for the suspension of parliament.
*************************************************
Bill, perhaps you would comment on how you can support a leftist system. Leftists always use the inherent openess of democracy in an attempt to illiminate it.
If you can find a leftist system that has ever led to additional rights for it's people, I'll stand corrected.

Let us not forget that Harper was calling for an election in that quote. The coalition of the lefties wanted to govern.

Soveriegntist/separist is a distinction only in the quebec mind. A vote for either is independence. The lies a soveriegntist/separist salesman tell to try to close the deal make no difference in reality.

Last post, sorry Kate for overstaying my welcome.

bestman: Classic example of disingenuousness. With nothing substantive to contribute you resort to a personal attack, and one that is old, and by now widely considered baseless. They voluntarily paid market rent for their place. The very next sentence in your quote attack is:
"In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow." What's the problem?

uuess: Stewwart, if that's not an accidental typo, I owe you props. You're one clever insulting machine. I'm not afraid to call Quebecers idiots because I like and respect them. Montreal is a fantastic city, home of the storied franchise known as les habs. Quebec's gastronomy is better, Quebec women more sensual, beautiful, and intelligent. And the men, don't get me started :) Quebec has the best intellectuals in this country, and the best film makers in this country. Rivaled only by Toronto. Seriously, you'd fix our electoral system with a little gerrymandering. The fact that one's vote is represented in legislature only if one votes for the winner isn't a problem for you, especially when so many ridings are won with far less than the majority of votes? And that was a Conservative mayor that called in the army to Toronto, I was happy to dig myself out! Peace... I'll go play somewhere else now. Wake me if someone posts something intelligent ;-)

Bill,
Ha, good one. Rivaled only by toronto.

I am sure that the pur laine inbreeding makes them more intelligent. Much like pure breed dogs.

At least we can always count on the lefties for humor.

Bill - please? In this particular instance it quickly became evident that the majority of the people had not lost confidence in the NEWLY elected government. And it is after all the will of the people that counts, isn't it? What do you think would have happened if another election had been called instead????? As my daughter said: "I thought I just voted, guess that one didn't count?", who BTW is in law school and a conservative - what's this world coming to?

If you're from Toronto, you're smarter than those from the regions.

Correct, Bill?

Layton and the NDP are clowns.

Bill Stewart

For those with (AcD) Acronym Disability:

PR: Proportional Representation; DR: Disproportionate Representation

PR=DR

Your views on PR are ridiculous and stupid. You're analogy to Alberta is ignorant. You fail to recognize that Alberta is a REGION, and they are entitled to have their views as a REGION represented. We don't vote as a collective, we vote as individuals; therefore, the people in a particular riding decide who represents that region. In the real world you can't have 2.5 children, you can have 2 or 3. Similarly, you can't have 10% of an MP's seat, you have it or you don't.You completely ignore this fact! You would prefer that a small minority have DISPROPORTINATE sway in their riding because of larger concentrations of like minded lefttards thousands of miles away.

I was watching Top Gun yesterday and the instructor said " There is no second place, there is only first place". You wouldn't like Top Gun Bill, in your eyes, declaring a winner is "outdated". In Bill's perfect world the Top Gun reward would be proportionately divided amongst all the competitors based on their performance; but, the performances would have to be weighted based on specific disadvantages certain "protected" competitors may have. This means even though you won, you might not win. This a good morale boost for the losers, but unfortunately they ALL lose in the end because they didn't reward the best person for the most important job. This is what you truly don't understand, you don't understand the value of excellence and the positive effect and affect on others an excellent person has. Your philosophy is one of self-loathing and playa hating, you don't see the beauty of excellence and you don't admire, nor are inspired by excellence. Instead of feeling inspiration, a socialist feels inadequacy when in the presence of excellence.

Leftards and their inability to gather grass roots support is the true motivator for PR/DR. Fortunately the concentration of lefttards in any given populations is small, this is Darwinism at work acting protect the gene pool.

Taliban Jack. You know what the wife always says when Jack shows up on TV, honey you have to stop spitting at the TV screen.

The really scarry thing is that with the direction Canadian politics is going, the "failure" NDP has the potential of holding the balance of power in an upcoming election. At that point, failure or not, they get a prime spot at the public trough. With the advent of a strong regional party like the Bloc in Quebec, he regional pressures we are seeing with the Danny Williams Bloc in NFLD showing the power of regional politics there, and the West likewise having many regional based issues in common, it seems like we are in for more years of minority government ahead. That means that someday, if the election math is right, NDP may gain influence beyond its number of elected members. A very scary thought......

I can picture Taliban Jack reading this intently, and then snapping back into his self absorbed world and being very concerned that a camera might have caught him when he wasn't clenching his jaw and framed with his goofy staring at the horizon Stalin poster pose.
This little commie is a joke and a scar on our political system; cut government spending starting with guaranteed tax dollars for votes.

Thanks Bill Stewart for the dear leader/ commie/ homo/ can con film/ french/ Habs trough sucker special interest take.

Bill keeps talking about "democracy" because (like all good Bolsheviks) he knows that in a raw democracy, as opposed to a representative republic, there is a back door for the mob to seize power which is all these NDP mini-fascists want....POWER.

If the "Big Bang" was preceded by the "singularity" then lucky jack's intelligence was the void which surrounded it and the immensity of the void in space was dwarfed only by the size of his ego.

Wary Wary, Jack you are quite contrary, but how does your garden grow? (JACK says) With silver smells and cocky shills and no tar sands in the back row!! Paradise

Bill, couple of points: if the Quebecois are so brilliant when do they begin to pay their share of Canada's equalization moneys? Or as silk-stocking socialists is this beneath them to worry about common things like paying your way?

Mel Lastman was not a Conservative. There are no recognized party affiliation in city politics in Toronto though unofficialy Miller and his cronies are aligned with the NDP.

Anne: With all due respect, our parliamentary system is based on responsible and representative government. Canadians do not directly elect a PM. We elect a parliament. Strictly speaking it is the parliament that elects the executive. It is responsible government based on confidence of the house that safeguards the authority and legitimacy of parliament. I quoted the above letter signed by Harper, from a time when he liked parliamentary democracy, to emphasize that parliament may be dissolved ANY time it has lost the confidence of the house, and that the GG should consider all options before exercising constitutional authority. Obviously with a parliament that had sat for only 11 days or so, calling another election would have been done only as a last resort. A more reasonable option would have been to ask parliament if any combination of duly elected parties holds the confidence of the house and can command support of the majority of the house. Click here for more.

Indiana Homez: you obviously have no clue as to how PR could co-exist with Single Member Plurality to produce a legislature that more adequately reflects the will of the voters. Look up MMP, for example. But do you really think that not winning a riding by at least 50% of the vote entitles one to feel like a winner and true representative of the interests of that riding. I'm glad you take your life lessons from Hollywood jingoistic crap, but democracy is not a game. It is about best representing the will of the people and serving the common good. First Past the Post has some merits (namely local representation), but PR is far better, especially when combined with SMP (i.e. MMP). You don't believe that a party that received close to a million votes (7%) of popular vote should be represented in parliament? Similarly do you agree that a party with a mere 10% of popular vote should get 50 seats? Stop watching crap and hurling insults and get informed.

It is so gratifying to witness Jack Layton being administered a verbal spanking and sent to his room with a firm suggestion to please smarten up.

Even a prolonged lecture from Bill Stewart, drivelmeister, cannot rain on this parade. Stewart, however, does provide an example as to why the NDP receive even the few votes that they do.

Much to Layton's chagrin, Adler tells it exactly like it is with a large dose of intestinal fortitude which most in the MSM seem to be drastically lacking.

Will Layton learn anything from this? Not likely. Although even someone as obtuse as Layton has to realize that any chance to sit at the cabinet table is completely nonexistent. However, his preferred spot at the public trough will be assured and, thanks to the tax dollars of "ordinary Canadians", he will be spared the indignity of having to work for a living.

Jack blew it !! Should have supported the Political Party subsidy cuts. Would have hamstrung the Libs far more than the NDP. Would have had the Leftist vote more to himself. The Latte Lib Crowd had a close call.

Indiana:

If your point is that proportional representation only rewards the lunatic fringe, I agree with you.

Any nutbar can form a party, then hope to join up with other nutbars in another party to form some sort of apparition that does not accurately reflect the will of the largest proportion of voters.

The British, from whom we've inherited the most stable parliamentary system known to humanity, have the longest-running parliamentary democracy in the world.

History has shown first-past-the-post works.

A coalition led by a man who would quickly push aside Dion to take over the prime ministers' chair with 17.5% of the popular vote demonstrates clearly the dangers in a proportional representation system.

Canadian voters are much smarter that the smarmy Toronto crowd, and their representative Bill Stewart, give them credit for.

The power grab late last year has made many complacent people more aware of the power-hungry Jackasses (literally and figuratively) that purport to know how to spend our money better than we do.

I think Indiana homez, in a moment of uncharacteristic sapience, just made an argument for the coalition.

"this is Darwinism at work acting protect the gene pool." ???

I think humanity, to some extent, has insulated itself from natural selection…lucky for you.

Doug: Actually I keep redirecting our attention to parliamentary democracy. We are not a republic and the uninformed opinions around here regarding what our Canadian tradition defines as "democracy" are shocking. People around here often claim to be patriotic and true Canadians but so few actually understand first principles like responsible and representative government.

Vive le Quebec libre :-)

set you free: Typical canard about PR used by those who know nothing about it. PR systems set up thresholds for qualifying for representation in a legislature. That number is usually between 2- 5% of the popular vote. Last October, none of the fringe parties (e.g. the soft landing for nutcases known as the Christian Heritage Party) even came close to 1% of the popular vote). So the idea that dangerous fringe parties will run the asylum is completely baseless. Yes, PR would likely lead to coalition governments (which could be stable or unstable but usually less acrimonious & adversarial than the H of C these days). Plus, the current system is likely to keep producing minority governments anyway. Please inform yourselves before spouting off. PR isn't perfect, but it's worth a look. Click here!

Thanks, it's been good times around here today....

Bring in proportional representation and we'll end up with a situation like Israel's: The government having to cater to small groups of fanatics and crackpots in order to maintain a coalition. No thank you!

After the second bill stewart entry I started to scroll past, isn't that what you do with trolls?

joebalini:

It seems to me that Indiana is stating the obvious ... that the NDP is headed for extinction.

BTW, anyone care to defend our electoral system or Harper's prorogation of a parliament that didn't have confidence in the government who called for the suspension of parliament.

Bill, perhaps you would comment on how you can support a leftist system. Leftists always use the inherent openness of democracy in an attempt to illiminate it.
If you can find a leftist system that has ever led to additional rights for it's people, I'll stand corrected.
*********************************************

BUT BILL, I must have missed your oh so educated retort on my simple question. What system are you holding up as a reasonable alternative, and where in the world is it currently successful?

Indiana..PR= Elizabeth May = pension. Send me the money and I will bi##h at myself. I'll tell myself I'm wrong, I'll sip raindrops to avoid upsetting the balance of nature. Just send me the money.

doowleb:

People's Democratic Republic of North Korea.

People's Democratic Republic of Cuba.

People's Democratic Republic of Venezuela.

People's Democratic Repubic of ...

I may be wrong, but it seems to me those are the types of Democratic Republics (Canada is not a republic, doncha know?) Bill seems to favour.

"Plus, the current system is likely to keep producing minority governments anyway. Please inform yourselves before spouting off. PR isn't perfect, but it's worth a look."
Bwahahahahahaha.Yeah Bill.Take your commie butt over to Europia,and see how that's working out.Don't take a car though.The "friendly Muzzies" in France,GB,Belgium,etc,might carbaque for you.Twit.

doowleb: Although I would describe myself as a democratic socialist (a discussion for another day!), I was only here correcting shockingly misinformed opinions (notably Adler himself) about our existing parliamentary system, and suggesting that if confronted with the possibility of improving our existing democratic system, we should consider it. In my view, in Andrew Coyne's view, MMP would be a marked improvement on a deeply flawed electoral system. Whether we end up with stable working coalition governments or not depends on entirely on us. Folk around here constantly rail against Quebec and the BQ, but they command such a powerful voice in parliament precisely because our electoral system grants them such disproportionate representation. MMP would mitigate against this and it would give a voice for those who deserve a voice, such as the Green Party.

Bill,

What I find obnoxious about you (aside from the leftardism) is that you moan that Harper using our constitution's rules is bad but Layton and the Separatists using the constitution's rules is just fine.

I'd say attempting to take power in a legal but democratically invalid way is far worse than not letting it happen.

Paul Martin was the one to ignore the will of the house. At least until he bribed stronach and cadman. He lost no less than 5 confidence votes and just pretended they didn't count (and of course the media trotted out the same lying weasels who pretend their PhD's in "constitutional law" was the reason for endlessly excusing whatever their party does and endlessly bashing whatever conservatives do.) Harper lost no confidence votes as they weren't held. He didn't lose the confidence of the house because he avoided the question. Proroguing parliament happens all the time. A 3-way coalition has never happened in the Westminster system in either the UK or Canada. Especially because the second and third parties didn't even have more seats than the conservatives did alone.

Legal and democratic are two separate concepts. You seem to think that "what you want" and democratic are the same thing.

My, my. Mr. Stewart, you seemed to have stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest. Interjections of common sense and sound observations tend to do that around here.
The angry right fringe fully realizes that implementation of their angry right agenda
would be impossible in a truly democratic system where every vote counts. Thus the vociferous opposition to any
deviation from first past the post in which
their dear leader can garner 100% of the power
with 40% of the vote.
As for Adler, he has become an embarrassment to right wing open mouth yahoos everywhere in his new role as Steve Harper's toady.
Deriding an NDP safe seat as one in which a monkey could win while calling, for instance, an Alberta riding in which a sack of monkey shit could win under conservative blue, efficient. Pathetic.

Bill
MMP was soundly defeated 62 percent to 38 percent in Ontario in a referendum. Remember?
I don't care what Andrew Coyne thinks. He is a single individual and does not speak for me. The majority of Ontario voters said No to MMP. Why? Because they want all Members to be elected, not just some, while the balance are hacks being rewarded by their respective parties. You know, like the senate. Like Craig Oliver, many are ignoring the fact that Harper wanted to reform the senate but got no support from the opposition. Quebec troublemakers would object.

By the way, Harper was wrong calling Duceppe's people separatists. Actually he should have called them separatist blackmailers.

philboy

More dimwit leftard sophistry.

The liberals won my riding. Does that mean my vote didn't get counted? Should I cry about "stolen elections" or do only retard lefties such as yourself get to do that?

Ask Italy how their PR has worked for them. PR gives the lunatic fringe too much power.

What would you say about a coalition which was made up of the CPC, Alberta separatists, the Ayn Rand party, the "it's all about war for oil" party and some anti-immigrant party (have I left out any leftard bogeymen?)

I bet you'd be less happy with PR then. Try to reverse your scenarios to see if they'd still be acceptable in reverse. If not, you most likely are advocating something which isn't just. Note also that any system put in place to manipulate the system in your favour can be used to manipulate it against you just as easily.

I've got a question or two for Bill Stewart and, in fact, for anyone who voted in the last federal election. Did you vote for a coalition of two or more parties? I know I didn't. Was there anywhere on the ballot you marked the words "Liberal/DNP/Bloc Coalition beside any candidate's name?

What coalition supporters have to understand is that had that band of bandits taken the reins of power a very serious split in our country would more assuredly have taken place. The split would have occurred at the Ontario/Manitoba boarder where, east of there, by far the party with the greatest number of seats in parliament is the CPC.

That split would have severely disenfranchised the West. Our votes would have counted only for the purpose of sending our MP to parliament. We would have had no voice in government. PMSH saved Canada from the three stooges show and thank god he did. None of those idiots had any clue as the serious ramifications of their attempted coup. None of these goofballs has a good concept of what Canada is in all of its regions. What does Dion or Duceppe know about the West except that we have the tar sands? Jack Layton knows even less.

So Bill Stewart - when you look at the GG proroguing Parliament - you should put your petty partisan politics aside and thank the good lady. She obviously is wiser than you give her credit for.

The liberals won my riding. Does that mean my vote didn't get counted?
Yes.
What would you say about a coalition which was made up of the CPC, Alberta separatists, the Ayn Rand party....
I would say that if that was what the majority of Canadians voted for, then so be it. What is important is that every vote would count.
I trust democracy. Why don't rightards like you, warwick?

The only reason Philboy and his pal Mr. Bill are here is because there's no one to talk with on lefty sites. Nobody goes there. Those sites are as popular as Layton's is with the voters.

Google: "tyranny of the majority"

Did you vote for a coalition of two or more parties?

I voted for who I wanted to represent my riding. That is all anyone gets to vote for, sideshow.

Philboy.
You still don't get it. Canadians did not vote for a coalition.
You lefties are in love with the word coalition. That's because you can never manage to do anything on your own. You always need outside help.
By the way is Jack still in love with Iggy?

philboy

I look forward to your "Obama stole the election" line cause some yanks didn't vote for him. I can't wait.

I suffered all of those years of liberal rule without once suggesting they weren't legitimately elected (at least until Martin lost 5 confidence votes and still refused to leave.)

PR means gridlock. It's unworkable. The only people who support it are people who will benefit which means fringe parties who lack public support.

Our system isn't undemocratic. Its a system which requires BROADBASED support in order to take power rather than giving lunatics power far beyond what their vote warrants. It means that to govern, you have to have permission from the largest number of people.

"Yes, PR would likely lead to coalition governments (which could be stable or unstable but usually less acrimonious & adversarial than the H of C these days)."

Bill, I know in your mind you think you are an intellect who has come to SDA in an effort to educate the ignorant masses. Let me assure you that you are delusional. People are well aware of the how parliament works and how Jack and Stephane could have legally formed a governing coalition with the support of the Bloc. But they didn't. They tried and failed. Get over it, move on with your life and for the sake of your beloved left wing political party quit inferring that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or uneducated. You will never win people over by calling them stupid.
Now have a nice day! :^)

Make that "West of there" Remember Bob... Review is your friend>

jutthinkin: as far as I know France does not have PR (it has run off system that is kind of the opposite to PR), most of GB also is not PR, thanks for coming out though. I see that you've never met an opportunity to make an ass of yourself you didn't like.

warwick: The first intelligible, if not bordering on intelligent, comment. I agree that legal/traditional and democratic principles are different. At least we seem to agree that Harper only prorogued parliament to save his own skin. Clearly house business wasn't all resolved, and the House would have risen but a week later. Harper thus asked to prorogue solely to avoid a vote of non-confidence. This the same man who had previously understood that the legitimacy and authority of government rests on having the confidence from parliament. The cowardly choice to prorogue parliament, while legal/ procedural, was undemocratic (he knew he didn't have command of the House) and, let's add another layer, unethical (Canadians needed leadership and he chose rather to save his own career). Moreover, to make Senate appointments when your government is under a cloud of non-confidence, in my view both undemocratic and unethical (although the GG share blame since she could have granted Harper a prorogation that curtailed the powers of government since the confidence of the house was clearly in doubt.

The coalition, I have argued, was legal, democratic, and even ethical (although the latter is debatable). Each member of parliament was duly elected, including the "separatists" (with whom Harper previously "consulted"). BQ members enjoy no more and no less the rights of any other Canadian. In "consultation" a coalition was struck, and had the GG following a vote of non-confidence asked if opposition parties could gain command and confidence of the house, that would have been "legally" and democratically justifiable since having a new election after parliament has sat for only 13 days makes no sense. As far as Canadians having their say. They certainly would have their voice heard loud and clear in the next election. If they agreed with the coalition, they would re-elect candidates or they could turf them if they thought their elected representatives had acted imprudently.

You contradict yourself, warwick. Giving steve harper 100% of the power with a 40% plurality of the vote IS giving lunatics power far beyond what their vote warrants.
You've never once questioned the legitimacy of all those liberal governments? So what? That means absolutely nothing.
Obama who?

The coalition and their supporters are making the argument that since Harper and the CPC didn't get a majority of the votes, the parties that did get the majority should have power.

However, those three parties are made up of a majority of MPs who won election, not by majorities, but by first past the post. Funny how they're more than happy to accept those results for themselves but not the CPC. There's a word for that - hypocrites.

The numbers again:
NDP - 37 seats, 7 (19%) by majority
LPC - 77 seats, 17 (22%) by majority
BQ - 49 seats, 13 (27%) by majority

Or put another way:
NDP - 81% won through first past the post
LPC - 78% won through fptp
BQ - 63% won through fptp

Finally, there's only one way to make every vote count - a one-party system. Even the dullest person has to see that that's no solution.

philboy

40% of a vote in a 5 party election. That's a pretty strong endorcement which is larger than one of Chretien's majorities.

In very few occations has anyone received over 50% of the vote. I think it's 3 times since confederation and usually with only 3 parties. So with 5 parties, 40% is as good as you can expect.

With stupid strutting arrogance like this it's no wonder Canadians fought and killed the socialists.

That's a pretty strong endorsement which is larger than one of Chretien's majorities.
Again, more than Chretien, so what?

40% of a vote in a 5 party election.

Which should warrant 40% of the seats and 40% of the power. Not 50% plus 1 of the seats and 100% of the power.

Bill,

A follows B. If you think A is wrong, you diminish the culpability of using B to prevent A. The prorogue was B. Attempting to overturn a very clear election was A. Confidence was a mere excuse - or didn't you hear about Layton's bragging about the timing of his plot?

As for the senate, Harper had the right to appoint those senators long before confidence was an issue. Ditto with the SC judge. In fact, he had that right from before the election so he was perfectly in the moral as well as legal right to do so when he did. I would say it was dumb not to do it before the election.

You use of "unethical" and "undemocratic" are a bit hypocritical when you support the coalition. It seems the labels are used as nothing more than a proxy for your own wishes.

The polls taken after the coalition idea belies the claim that the coalition was democratic in any way shape or form. If 60 some-odd percent were against the coalition, this obviously includes a good portion of the people who voted for the NDP, Libs and Bloc. In other words, their own voters objected to the behaviour of those they elected. The same voters agreed with Harper's move to prevent their take-over. The rest is splitting hairs.

"100% of the power"

If they had 100% of the power, they could have told Layton, Duceppe, Dion and then Iggy to pound sand. They could have brought in a budget based on economics, not politics. They could have shut down the $1.75 per vote which, it must be remembered, is what started all of this.

Kathryn
You're a much faster typist than I am. I was just about to say the same thing.
100 percent of the power. What an idiotic thing to say.

Then again with 18 0r 19 percent of the vote, Philboy thinks Layton can whisper into a few ears so he can have 100 percent of the power. That's NDP logic.

Bill Stewwart, your revision of parlimenary democracy history in an attempt to give credence to your inane arguement for proportional representaion is beyond reason. To ask that one vote in one part of the country be valued the same as one vote in another part of the country is not a "little gerrymandering" but rather fair play in action. In federal elections citizens DO vote for Prime Minister, for they know who the party leaders are and also know that the party with the most seats will place their party leader in the big chair as First Minister of the Land. Saying that technically parliament elects the Prime Minister does not make it so. If you think for an instant that even the seperatist GG could have given power to the coalition of the Swilling you are not paying attention. There is NO precident for an action of that sort. Lizzy May being in parliment without winning a seat would cause revolution among good Castor canadensises everywhere. Your delutional ramblings along with those of your sidekick, pillboy, must be the life of all Kinsella's gatherings, well until the Chinese food arrives.

IMO, I don't think the current system is a problem, EXCEPT there should be a caveat that if you are presenting yourself as a party in a federal election, you must run candidates in at least 50% of the ridings.

I am Canadian first, and I would hate to see a situation where regional parties are only looking at their corner of the country, not what's best for all. We already have Premiers doing that!

Bill

I deleted the insults before I hit post, what do you speak of?

Bill, your 1 million voters do have a voice, just not in the HofC. It is the 1 million voters responsibility to persuade others to vote for the candidate they support. If they can not do this, then too bad.
-------------------------------------------------

Five honkey's don't go to a bar in Brooklyn and demand Garth Brooks be added to the play list. Even if they represent a measurable % of the population at the bar, the DJ doesn't change the vibe just to satisfy a few maroons who like crappy music.

Sure a more progressive and inclusive DJ might appease the straw-chewers, but it hurts the bar over-all because the majority of people leave the dance floor. It is at this time the owner fires the DJ and swears to himself "I'll never hire a progressive again".

The moral of the story is those crackers will not hear their music at that bar in Brooklyn, and rightfully so. If they want to hear the music they like, they will have to move to Kentucky.

get it?

The proposed coalition was the most serious attack against our democratic system in our entire history.

Our system operates by the electorate directly voting for an MP aligned with a specific political party. The political party with the most MPs gets to legally form the government. Any other method of forming our government must FIRST be approved by the electorate.

The Coalition rejected this step. Instead, they decided, AFTER the election, that they would all 'coalesce' together and insist that they ought to form the government. But the electorate was unaware of this scheme; the electorate, when they went to the polls, did not vote For The NDP AND The Liberals AND the Bloc.

Instead, they voted for an NDP OR a Liberal OR a Bloc. They voted for one and REJECTED the others.

Therefore, the Coalition's claim that 64% of the electorate 'voted for them' because, err, they voted Against Harper is incorrect. The voter who voted NDP did not vote AGAINST the CPC. He voted for the NDP. Period.
After all, one could equally say that 90% of the electorate voted AGAINST the Bloc. And over 74% voted against the Liberals..and more against the NDP. So, this specious, tortuous attempt to try to show that Canadians were UNITED in a vote against Harper..and FOR the Coalition is invalid.

Not one single Canadian voted for the Coalition. Not one.
It was put together by Layton, Dion and Duceppe right after the election (and not because of the November update)..as a means of gaining power. Illegitimate power.
Not one single Canadian voted for the Coalition. Not one.

Furthermore, this Coalition was even more undemocratic in that it set itself up, not only outside of the electoral Will, but, immune to the electorate. It used the Bloc, a political party closed to over 80% of the Canadian electorate, as the KEY to its power. The Bloc, even without seeing the budgets of this Coalition, signed an agreement to support them.

That is a violation of their duty to the taxpayer as MPs. To approve a budget without even knowing what was in it? But that's what the Bloc did - with the approval of the NDP and Liberals. This was to prevent this Coalition from going to the electorate. How's that for democracy?

Again - this Coalition was the most blatant assault on our democratic system in our history.

As for proportional representation, it's a mess of backroom politics. You see, you vote for a party, and the party selects its MPs. That means that they are accountable to the backroom boys of the Party. Not directly to the electorate. An undemocratic mess, filled with backroom deals and hidden agendas.

I'd like to see Sheila Copps put her seat up for grabs. I'm just not sure there's enough hands to cover it.

Warwick: I have to stop procrastinating, but before I give the last word to you. By "democratic" I simply mean in accordance with responsible and representative government that is that basis of our parliamentary democracy. If by clear election you mean clear as mud (no majority was reached in parliament) then I agree. "A" was not undemocratic (in fact it was upholding a foundational principle of democracy: Confidence). The election was not being overturned. Each member was duly and procedurally elected, and each was representing his/ her riding as best as he/she saw fit. Should every action undertaken by a democratically elected representative be subjected to the popularity test? I mean since many MP's are elected with less than 40% of the vote, I would think 60% of the people could disagree with them at any one time on a particular course of action. Constituents will ultimately judge their elected representatives.

Now debating what is "ethical" I agree poses some difficulties. I actually miswrote in my previous comment. I think that the coalition could be defended on procedural, democratic, and ethical grounds (coalition believed it was truly acting in the best interests of the country, Harper is a danger to Canadians etc.). Personally, however, I reject the coalition precisely on ethical grounds. My problem is specifically with people who claim the coalition wrong because it was unconstitutional or democratic. I wasn't. However, I think one can legitimately be ethically against the coalition. But my issue wasn't the separatists, it was the Liberals. The only possible area of overlap between Liberals and NDP is on issues of "progressive politics". In my view, since the Liberals weren't even willing to put PR on the table, (and other reasons too) I would never have entered into a coalition with them. I would have entered into a coalition only if I had assurances that we would renew and reinvigorate democracy in this country. That never materialized.

Trent: I respectfully disagree. Adler was way out of line and to challenge him and in the process people who defend his bluster, I don't think is patronizing. In fact, letting it go unchallenged, having stumbled upon it, would have been "unethical". Peace, out. Good week to all. I've way overstayed my visit. You won't hear from me for a long time.

You won't hear from me for a long time.

Posted by: Bill Stewart at February 3, 2009 5:29 PM

Amen. Have fun pretending to be relevant in Toronto, a city that does NOT reflect the values of the wise average Canadian.

I wouldn't likely vote for the NDP, but I'd challenge they're hardly a failure of a party. Many of the ideas championed by the NDP have been usurped by other political parties (e.g. the Libs mostly) and put into action. They are a credible force in Canadian political history whether you agree with their ideological orientation or not. To suggest otherwise is to illustrate ignorance.

Whenever a left-wing idea, like proportional representation or seizing the private homes in order to house the homeless (NDP 1970, part of the Waffle ,look it up) and the idea inevitably fails they immediately start saying "you don't understand", because they can 't accept that anyone would ever possibly reject their ideas unless they are stupid and/or uneducated. The lefties then take up the gargantuan task of educating the ignorant masses.
Lefties drive themselves insane repeating the same arguments over and over again because we just don't get it.
But we do get it, we understand every single idea they dream up; we just simply disagree. Nothing more, nothing less. And in a democracy, regardless of what type, when the majority of people disagree with your ideas, your ideas are rejected. That is democracy in it's simplest form. Learn to live with it.

Bill Stewart: what an unwelcome, self-important hypocrite.

Like a Hollywood has-been, he showed up, made his own hoop-la, and then more than one grand exit:

1) “Peace... I'll go play somewhere else now. Wake me if someone posts something intelligent ;-)
“Posted by: Bill Stewart at February 3, 2009 12:17 PM”

2) “Thanks, it's been good times around here today....
“Posted by: Bill Stewart at February 3, 2009 2:24 PM”

3) “Peace, out. Good week to all. I've way overstayed my visit. You won't hear from me for a long time. [Where have we heard that before?]
“Posted by: Bill Stewart at February 3, 2009 5:29 PM”

Good riddance, sir. You have, indeed, overstayed your welcome, but . . .

Please respond to ET’s post @ 5:10.

The majority of people disagree with the angry right fringe, trent. Learn to live with it.

Bill;
Since you have not answered the question I must assume there is no system that beats democracy.

s There doesn't seem to be any successful examples of the type of system you advocate.
Therefor I must question your judgement.
People of sound judgement don't rally to the side of failure.

Since debating people of poor judgement is pointless, I leave you to your opinions. Any further comment from me might lead others to question my judgement.

Ah yes the coalition acting in the best interests of Canadians....You mean the best interests of the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP and the Blockheads...No one is operating in the best interests of the country. Politicians are only interested in one thing and one thing only and it most definetly NOT the best interests of the citizens of this country. POWER...

The coalition was most certainly not democratic or ethical but the exact opposite. As for 'constitutional', there've been a number of people who assert that it was constitutional. When I've asked for the relevant section in the Constitution - silence. Why? Because the Constitutions says NOTHING about coalitions or electoral mode.

Therefore, the electoral mode of a country becomes based on common law, i.e., on normative modes of operation. The normative mode in our parliamentary system is that MPs are aligned with political parties. The party with the most elected MPs gets to form the government. Not a coalition but a single party government. That is our norm and to change it would require the permission of the electorate.

And this has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with any requirement for a numerical majority. Our government is decided by 'the most seats' of ONE political party. Period.

It is absolutely incorrect as Bill Stewart claims, that we only elect a 'parliament' (i.e., without any attention to party seat standings) and that this gang of MPs themselves 'elect' the government. Untrue. No parliament of MPs has ever elected the government.

Furthermore, if Stewart's scenario is allowed validity, then, no party need bother to try for an electoral win. No, what could readily happen instead, is that the LOSERS would agree, beforehand, to reject the Winning Party, and coalesce themselves, and insist that THEY be declared the Government. This would effectively move us out of democracy and into governance via unaccountable backroom deals by the parties that received the least seats.

Oh, and they would make steady use of the Bloc, a political party out of the electoral accountability of over 80% of the population, to ensure that their government didn't receive first approval by the electorate (by winning the election) and was immune to the electorate until they 'wished' to release power. Quite the democracy.

As for Proportional Representation, it's nonsense in a country as large as Canada. As was pointed out above, Canada is divided into REGIONS. These aren't ecologically or economically similar. They are diverse in their weather, economy, populations etc. Moving to PR, where the voting is for a national political party which then selects its MPs would mean that the regional accountability, that obligation to represent the local needs of that particular unique region..would be lost.

The contact that MPs have with their local ridings, the direct and unique needs of that riding is vital to a democracy, and in a country that is as geographically vast and diverse as Canada - it is necessary.

Was the Coalition unethical? Of course it was. It disregarded the electoral WILL of the people, which was expressed in voting for ONE winning party. No Canadian, not one, voted for a coalition. And by the way, those countries that do operate with coalitions - the electorate knows that this is the norm, and it is the WINNING party that gets to form the coalition. Not the LOSING party.

It was also unethical because it had no intention of asking the electorate's permission for this coalition. And, because it used the Bloc to prevent any further electoral accountability for 18 months.

Was it undemocratic? Yes, because the electoral will of Canadians operates within an infrastructure where the SINGLE party with the most MPs - gets to form the government. Denying the electorate this RIGHT, was a deeply undemocratic action by the Coalition. A vicious attack on our democracy.

Was it constitutional? The Constitution has nothing to say about our normative modes of election.

Rubbish - that the coaliton 'believed it was acting in the best interests of the country'. What a joke that statement is. These guys acted only in THEIR interests - getting cabinet positions they'd never get any other way; becoming PM (Dion); oh..and billions in bribe money to the Bloc. It was an abuse of parliament and of our democracy and they ought to have resigned in shame.

"The majority of people disagree with the angry right fringe"

We may be angry and we may be right of centre, however, as much as you'd like to believe it, we're hardly a fringe.

"The majority of people disagree with the angry right fringe"

Actually, given Layton's numbers, the vast majority disagree with the creepy left socialist fringe.

But then, facts and thinking aren't your strong points are they?

lookout - "Good riddance, sir. You have, indeed, overstayed your welcome"

You beat me to the punch as I was just about to comment on Mr. Stewart's numerous exits. I don't seem to recollect anyone giving a curtain call.

More than one flamboyant exit becomes tiresome and brings something called credibility into question.

I think calling Jack bin Layton and the NDP lefties is way off base. They should be called what they really are...facists! There intolerance for any ideology other then their own, make it up as you go ideology, is an example of their facist mind set. A raw rump of intolerant, petulant children, sucking on the blood of the most vulnerable people in Canadian society, pretending to care. NDPers are the biggest frauds in Canadian society since the dark days of Trudeaumaniac, dressing in their costumes of Salvation Army clothing while pulling down over 100 thousand bucks a year, plus a gold plated pension plan. What a bunch of shameless fraud artists.

Addendum to my earlier challenge to Mr. Stewart: please respond to ET’s post @ 7:05 as well.

(Wouldn't it be interesting if BS--as in Bill Stewart--has really decided to p*ss off just now?)

ET, any chance at all of you running for mayor of Toronto? I know you are a busy lady but as Miller is out of town so much attending to carbon trading it obviously would only take a few short minutes of your day to accomplish far more than the little he does.

actually whats with Layton these days, his staccato rhetoric has gone into overdrive.

he is jumping around like he has had a drug overdose at a vancouver injection site.

I keep expecting him to explode.
twitchy eyes. odd speech patterns ,

maybe he finally realized that he rolled the dice with the separatist coalition and came up NDPsnake eyes.

Burn.In.Hell Mr. Bin Layton

Yup...that about sums it up.

Memo: To all zookeepers

Remember to LOCK ALL the gates at the zoo before leaving and unplug all the computers.
Further escapes of the trolls will not be tolerated.

Laydown is simply: a steaming three coiler.
Being pensionable is his only goal.

And just a touch of Village People.....

My only fault with the editorial is minor. Do you notice how London (UK), New York, Los Angeles and Paris boosters NEVER refer to their cities as "World Class". Why? Because they don't need to do so. Steve Wynn, a major hotelier/resort operator from Las Vegas said in an interview that EVERY resort bills itself as World Class.
If you need to point out that your company/hotel/restaurant/city etc. is "World Class",it isn't.

Har!

LMAO ..... 131 comments on a post about Jack Layton.

Awesome...... Adler has redeemed himself (for now) by nailing that phony little parasite but good.

Thanks Chuck!

Oh yeah! Almost missed the posts by that arrogant, lecturing, lefticle sycophant BS.

As if anyone needs the blessing or instruction of such fools or cares to have it.

Schmuck!

Good for another gut buster :)

I know it's kicking a dead horse but the often repeated lie of the Prime Minister proroging parliament to save his butt is just that, it's a lie.

He did it to save Canada!! Putting the assembled group of nutters in charge of the country with agreements between them to never vote themselves out of power was bordering on treason and a situation that could have turned ugly beyond belief.

Thank you Stephen Harper!!

I was thinking. What does JL do after the NDP? He isn't a lawyer, got a PhD in Poli Sci. I believe. Don't think the unions need him. I know Toronto doesn't need him but like the Leafs they are cursed. Africa is taken. I wouldn't buy a used car from him. Nope he is going to circle the bowl a long time.

Wow. You kind folk just keep roping me in. Not to mention that the clear heavyweights around here, Warwick and ET, have joined the fray. Assume order's been restored since papa ET's returned to the roost. But, let's please keep the low blows to a minimum:-) You know how I feel about Liberals. Associating me in any way with that miscreant Kinsella is uncalled for. However, a bit of a rejoinder since I was asked to:

"The proposed coalition was the most serious attack against our democratic system in our entire history". Sure have it your way, just don't call it "undemocratic" within our tradition of responsible government. In fact, it might have been the most democratic attack on the most undemocratic PM in history.

"The political party with the most MPs gets to legally form the government. Any other method of forming our government must FIRST be approved by the electorate." This is ridiculous. Whether majority, minority, or coalition, legitimacy rests solely on commanding support of the House. This is the only reason we can legitimately recognize minority governments. Having the most seats, only gives you first crack at forming government. When a government is brought down, especially after sitting for all of 13 days, the GG has various options. If a combination of parties can command support of the House, could they not be given a chance to govern without going to the electorate?

"Instead, they voted for an NDP OR a Liberal OR a Bloc. They voted for one and REJECTED the others." This is not my understanding. During an election, I cast my vote for the candidate in my riding who would best represent my interests in parliament. For me it is a complex decision not based exclusively or even substantially on party affiliation. I consider ideology, policy, leader, strategy, candidate's qualities, candidate's past performance etc. My riding has a large number of swing progressive voters that could just as easily vote NDP or Liberal, almost entirely dependent on the candidate. Besides ideology these days is quite unpredictable. Harper shockingly governs like a Liberal.

"Furthermore, if Stewart's scenario is allowed validity, then, no party need bother to try for an electoral win. No, what could readily happen instead, is that the LOSERS would agree, beforehand, to reject the Winning Party, and coalesce themselves, and insist that THEY be declared the Government." Canadians do not directly elect a PM. They elect MP's. A government is formed when, and only as long as, a party or a coalition enjoy the confidence of parliament. What you're forgetting is that it took extraordinary events to "coalesce" the opposition parties. Typically the NDP and Liberals could never co-exist. Concern over inaction on the economy coupled with extraordinarily arrogant and smug PM who thought kicking the opposition parties when they were down was a good idea. You forget also, this was directed at one party and one PM. This wasn't purely about holding the reins of power. It was about taking the reins of power from a dangerous, arrogant, untrustworthy government that couldn't command the support of the House. Without winning a majority of seats, legitimacy rests on confidence. If the Conservatives don't like it, they should have worked harder to win the necessary seats to win a majority.

"Moving to PR, where the voting is for a national political party which then selects its MPs would mean that the regional accountability, that obligation to represent the local needs of that particular unique region..would be lost." Completely ludicrous. A system like MMP would maintain the existing Single Member Plurality structure but add a layer of top up seats based on proportionality. Local and regional representation wouldn't be affected at all. BTW MMP failed miserably in Ontario mostly because McGuinty only wanted to pay lip service to democracy not renew democracy, especially not one that would cut into the Liberals' stranglehold on power. It also failed because people kept repeating the same uninformed canards as are being repeated here. There may be good reasons to reject MMP, but none have been expressed here.

"Was it constitutional? The Constitution has nothing to say about our normative modes of election." Agreed, you're right.

I personally agree with you that the coalition was unethical. Of course, for different reasons.

As far as ignoring the will of the electorate, I repeat "The election was not being overturned. Each member was duly and procedurally elected, and each was representing his/ her riding as best as he/she saw fit. Should every action undertaken by a democratically elected representative be subjected to the popularity test? I mean since many MP's are elected with less than 40% of the vote, I would think 60% of the people could disagree with them at any one time on a particular course of action. Constituents will ultimately judge their elected representatives." Should we have a general election every time an MP crosses the floor? Every time an MP deviates from his/her ideological moorings? Every time he/ she gets a hair cut I didn't bargain for? MP's are elected to represent us as best they can. If they choose to "consult" one another and form a coalition, they'll have to live with that choice. One of the reasons I didn't agree with the coalition was that it could open up the door to a future absorption of the NDP by the Liberals should the coalition work.

p.s. PR is not a left wing conspiracy, as has been suggested. It's in my view an improvement on democracy (some suggest that voter participation improves; gender, ethnic representation may also be improved).

p.ss. doowleb: I agree completely that no system beats democracy, just that we must continually work to improve democracy. Second, I caution against the supposedly self-evident assumption that democracy is reducible to liberal democracy. Democracy is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. even though we tend to conflate democracy and capitalism, that doesn't necessarily have to be so. Or maybe it does. I'm at least willing to debate it. Something tells me you're not! Cheers...

Bill Stewart, cheers on the coalition; legitimate in his mind. He's entitled to his delusion.

Just try it for real, and see what Canadians think.

From the comments I read, at various blogs, media etc., in the period over Christmas, I think he and the junta, would have been VERY much surprised at the country's reaction.

"The majority of people disagree with the angry right fringe, trent. Learn to live with it."
Posted by: philboy at February 3, 2009 6:26 PM
-----------------

"Angry right fringe", good one.

If you poke reasonable people in the eye enough, they'll get a bit angry, I agree (that's normal). But "fringe"?

Ya gotta wonder what myopia means sometimes.

Very simply put: Both Jack and Olivia are as dumb as a bag of hammers between them. If it weren't for our cloying narcissism and the fact that we've gutted our education system, these two poseurs would never have been elected let alone have attached themselves to the public teat for as long as they have.

The NDP: NOT. FRINGE. ENOUGH.

Bill Stewart and Philboy,

Just get the NDP to win a majority of seats in Parliament and then you can bring in PR. But, then again if the NDP could win a majority of seats, you wouldn't be crying about PR, now would you?

I think the first thing the NDP should be doing is trying to get their approval rating above that of George W. Bush's, then maybe we would take you seriously.

bill stewart - your counter arguments aren't arguments. They are empty semantics. To counter the conclusion, after a list of evidence, that 'germs cause disease', you can't simply assert that 'germs don't cause disease'. You have to provide some evidence for your opinion. Your assertion that the coalition was a democratic action is unsubstantiated.

No, legitimacy does not 'rest with the House' but with the people. Your mode of governance moves us out of democracy and into an oligarchy. And an unelected governance as well.

The reason that a 'combination of parties' can't form our government is because it is not in our normative tradition. To develop such a normative standard, you must first have the approval of the electorate that they acknowledge and approve of such a mode of govoernance. That is responsible, while to leave such decisions solely up to the MPs is irresponsible.

Furthermore, such a mode could lead to a situation where NO minority government would be 'allowed' to stand, for the Opposition parties would simply band together; defeat it; and insist without an election, that they be defined as the government. This action would move governance out of the hands of the people into backroom political deals. Another term for that is corruption.

Your description of how you, one individual, vote, is not the norm. Most people vote for the Party; they don't get to know the individual that well, beyond the rhetoric. Furthermore, you totally missed the point - which was that people didn't vote for a coalition. They did not vote for NDP AND Liberal AND Bloc. But for only one candidate in ONE political affiliation. Not one Canadian voted for a coalition.

You didn't answer my concern about what could happen if your coalition idea is allowed to exist - which would be a post-election defeat of the government with an un-elected coalition insisting on taking power. That is an undemocratic action. Coalitions in other countries are formed via the election with the WINNING party forming the coalition.

The rest of your paragraph is sheer personal opinion on your part and of course, I disagree with it.
But it didn't take extraordinary events to coalesce the opposition. It took simple greed.

As for PR, I maintain my point. No MP should function without being directly accountable to the electorate. No MP should be selected by party decisions. No, don't denigrate the people in Ontario who voted against PR. You cannot claim that IF McGuinty had ....THEN, the electorate would have approved PR. The electorate is quite capable of rejecting PR on its own lack of merit.

Your point about the electorate not selecting the PM is irrelevant; they do so indirectly via their vote for a party.

Most certainly the coalition was overturning the election. You cannot drop the party filiation of MPs with a flick of your keyboard. The FACTS are different. Each MP is affiliated with one and only one political party. The party with the most MPs in an election gets to form the government. The party with the second most MPs gets to form the Official Opposition. Simple. And dropping party affiliation is a serious matter, as can be seen by the uproar of 'floor crossings'.

For a group of MPs to then, on their own, drop their party filiation, and form a 'new party' so to speak, unelected as such, is unacceptable UNLESS with the full prior knowledge of and approval of the electorate. To change from a governance by party to one of all MPs selecting their own style of government i.e,. dropping party filiation and forming groups of MPs as government...is not in our normative standards. Therefore, the coalition was a blatant attack on our democratic rights as a people. We didn't vote for such a system.

Again, our government system, based as it is on normative standards rather than written law - and these normative standards are as inviolate as that written law - does not permit a post-election coalition of 'losers' if I may use the term, to claim the Right To Govern.

Yes, capitalism and democracy 'go together'. The reason is that both operate by giving political and economic power to a middle class.

ET, you're unbelievable. A few words and then I'll cry uncle and make you happy.

I tried to explain as best as I can what I believe responsible and representative government to mean and simply asserted that within our great tradition, the coaltion was acting democratically. Why do you think Harper brought in a Liberal budget? Because he knew there was a very real possibility of the coalition assuming government. If confidence (commanding majority support)in parliament is not the basis of responsible and representative government what is the source of authority in parliament?

"The reason that a 'combination of parties' can't form our government is because it is not in our normative tradition." There are precedents for coalition governments in Canadian history. Referring to "normative tradition" as the basis of our democracy makes it sound like only what is typical is done. But the extraordinary also happens and in those cases precedents are set. Coalition governments are NOT unprecedented in Canada, nor in parliamentary democracies. So yes "a combination of parties" has governed Canada!

"No MP should function without being directly accountable to the electorate. No MP should be selected by party decisions." At least you grudgingly backtracked (not that you'd be so low as to be coniliatory to a socialist)on your ridiculous assertion that PR necessarily eliminates regional representation. Candidates under our current electoral system are hand picked and appointed by party decisions all the time. Yes hand picked candidates must still be elected to become an MP, but list candidates under PR still cannot be said to be purely appointed since the party would be accountable to the members for the list of candidates it submitted. As far as Ontario, I think an interesting question of democracy is what does it mean to reject the virtually unanimous proposition of a citizens' jury?

p.s. was Athenian democracy underwritten by capitalist economies. There is no necessary relation between capitalism and democracy. They may work well together, they may not, but the relation is not self-evident (which incidentally seems to be your favoured mode of reasoning).

Anyways, you win, you're the better debater. you're the better man/ woman.

bill stewart - your supposition that Harper's budget was based on his concern that the Coalition would take power, is totally unsubstantiated. My own different view is that Harper's budget was geared to the Canadian people who are 'centralist' by heritage in that they are not strongly 'left' or 'right'. It was/is an election budget and was not geared against an unelected coalition but against an election.

Equally, you haven't provided any points that support your view that the coalition was a democratic action - against my specific points that showed that was undemocratic.

The basis for authority in government is not the WILL of the MPs but the RULE of the electorate. This Rule by the electorate means that government must always rest within the choices of the electorate. Since our mode of government is by 'party with the most elected MPs' - until that is changed, then this Rule stands. MPs don't have the right to change this Rule.

Your statement that coalitions occur in parliamentary governments is irrelevant. Equally, it is unacceptable in Canada unless and until the electorate accepts it as a normative rule.

The FACT is that it is not the Rule in Canada. Post-electoral coalitions, or more accurately, agreements between the SINGLE party government and opposition parties on single issues, such as conscription, are not the same as the NDP-Liberal-Bloc strategy of trying to become the government without an election.

Your link provides no data and a weak argumentation.

No, I didn't backtrack, grudgingly or otherwise that PR nullifies regional representation. I maintain my point that it nullifies regional representation because it nullifies ALL representation. The MPs are chosen by the party not the people. Our current system has the MP directly accountable to the total riding electorate no matter what their party affiliation is.

A citizen's jury is not the will of the people but only of that jury. It is undemocratic in such a serious issue as the nature of choosing one's government that one should hand over one's right to think and make decisions to a small group without accountability. The decision on PR had to be made by all the electorate, not a 'jury'.

Again, you haven't provided any reasons for your rejection of my assertion that capitalism and democracy are necessarily related. My grounding was that both require a middle class. You provide no reasons. Equally, you don't provide any proof for your claim that my mode of reasoning relies on 'self-evidence'.

You don't seem to understand that there are different types of democratic structure (check out Aristotle's Politics). The Athenian state was a market and trading economy and as such, capitalist. I maintain that democracy and capitalism are closely entwined, since both operate within a middle, or free, class.

As for 'winning', and 'great debater' - that is nonsense. The debate ought to be based on facts and logic. The problem with your posts is that you don't provide facts to substantiate your opinions.

Equally, the King-Byng situation developed because King lost the election but refused to resign to the victor. That hasn't happened again; and was an unacceptable then as it would be now.

Stewart, nice try, oh, you're better than me so being a great guy I'll give in. What a condescending maroon! ET answered every one of your points and clearly refuted them with facts and reason.

No government in Canadian history ever formed a coalition of losing parties and overthrew the elected government. Any coalition in Canada's distant past was an agreement among all parties on a offering from the ruling elected one to reach various decisions, such as conscription in WW1.

What these current LOSERS tried to do was unprecedented and wrong. Lose the confidence of the House, give me a break, this was a pure attempt of power grab for those the Canadian voters clearly rejected as single parties. What kind of a government would we have if any minority elected party is overthrown, post election, total chaos and our democracy would cease to exist? You know this but in some aloof elitism advocate it just because it might have given POWER to your fellow socialists.

you haven't provided any points that support your view that the coalition was a democratic action - against my specific points that showed that was undemocratic.
The basis for authority in government is not the WILL of the MPs but the RULE of the electorate.

ET, they specific points that bolster your arguments
are unsubstantiated opinions that you have pulled out of your arse.
What in the hell is the WILL of the people, the RULE of the electorate except the product of your deluded fantasies.
Get it through your thick scull. We don't elect governments. We elect MP's. Governments that do form must enjoy the confidence of the House. After a vote of non-confidence, one of the options open to the Governor General is to allow an opposition COALITION to form government if that COALITION has a reasonable possibility of enjoying confidence. That reality may get your's and Adler's knickers in a twist but, c'est la vie.

philboy - could you provide me with the constitutional basis or the normative rule basis that says that "one of the options open to the GG is to allow an opposition coalition to form the government".

Thanks in advance. Kindly remember that IF this were true, then, the regular means of gaining governmental power would be for the opposition parties to defeat the winning government's budgets and then, insist that they be recognized as the government.

Since we, unfortunately, have gotten ourselves into the mess of having FIVE parties in our parliament - and the unethical situation of the Bloc's existence..., this would be a yearly event. Each time, moreover, that new government would be unelected. So much for democracy.

Oh, and again, you are quite incorrect. We do not elect MPs; we elect MPs affiliated with a particular political party. Kindly do not forget to include this important attribute of an MP. Therefore, the MPs do not operate freely and individually but within the strictures of their party - and the party leader. Our normative rules are that we, the people, elect our government by virtue of electing ONE party with the most MPs. Simple.

"Our normative rules are that we, the people, elect our government by virtue of electing ONE party with the most MPs. Simple."

Indeed. But it follows that that government must have the confidence of the house. If it does not have that confidence, it falls to the GG to decide how to proceed from a number of options including allowing a coalition to form goverment. Simple.
The Bloc's existence is as ethical and legitimate as any other party. Recall that Reform in it's beginning never ran candidates east of Manitoba.
What gives the Bloc power beyond it's popular vote is first past the post.
What exacerbates regional tensions and diminishes broad, nationwide support of ALL of the other parties is first past the post.

ET, your ignorance of our form of government is astonishing!
First, there is no stated qualification to be PM. In fact, the office of PM does not need to be occupied for government to operate. Not a single Act administered by the government refers to the PM, only to "the Minister". Indeed, the money appropriation to run the PM's office and the Privy Council is requested from Parliament not by the PM but by another cabinet minster.
Members of Cabinet need only be of the age of majority, i.e. they can legally sign contracts. There have been several cabinet ministers were neither members of the Senate or Commons, the last one being Pierre Pettigrew who was appointed as a Cabinet minister in Chretian's government before he was a member of the House.
If the GG appointed you as PM and me as Minister of Defence and Kate as Heritage Minister it will be legal. The GG could not appoint a PM and run the government herself with a bevy of cabinet minsters.
We will not, however, likely have the support of the House of Commons and Senate. This will make it very difficult for us to pass any legislation. That in and of itself is not a problem until April 1 when our ministerial authority to approve spending from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) lapses. Without that authority we cannot pay any salaries (including our own!) or any other expenditure of money and governing grinds to a halt. No dollars, no doing.
The current electoral process elects individuals as Members of the House of Commons (MP). Yes, most MPs have a party affiliation (there were two independents elected in the last election) but the individual MP may change party affiliation without requiring anyone's approval i.e. they may cross the floor. David Emerson did it, Garth Turner did it, several Canadian Alliance MP's did it under Stockwell Day's tenure and indeed the original BQ MPs had crossed the floor from PC and Liberal benches after the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

philboy - the confidence of the House does not mean that the GG has the ultimate authority to decide what to do. Our constitution may give the monarch/GG such rights but our normative laws do not. The GG does not have the option of setting up a coalition of the opposition (failed)parties without the Will of the people. We are a democracy not an oligarchy.

If he/she were to do so, there would be a revolt like no other - and the outburst of outrage against the Coalition was a gentle reminder of that.

No, the Bloc's existence is not ethical or legitimate. I refer not merely to its mandate of separation from Canada, nor to its hypocrisy in taking salaries, benefits and lifelong pensions from these taxpayers, but to its isolation to one province, Quebec. No, the Reform is NOT comparable, not merely because its mandate was to JOIN with Canada but because it rapidly expanded its electoral slate to move out of one province. The Bloc confines itself to one province and that is totally unethical. It means that 80% of the electorate is unable to hold its MPs to accountability. And then, for the NDP-Liberals coalition to set this isolate Bloc up as the key means of maintaining power in government - that's outrageous. If that's your version of ethical democracy, so be it.

The Bloc has no right to sit in a federal legislature. As for your first past the post, that's not the only attribute of our electoral system. You are ignoring direct accountability, something that PR lacks.

norm matthew - I'd suggest that it is you who are ignorant of our government's rules of operation.

What you are ignoring is the codes of legislative operation, the rules of operation of our government, rules that have been developed by both custom and Motions within parliament as codes of operation over many years - and these are not found in the Constitution. But they are codes of operation, nevertheless, and provide rules that we cannot reject or ignore.

Your reference only to the Constitution ignores that this docusment was not set up to define the the normative standards of operation or rules of procedure of a parliament, which requires a PM, which requires political parties, which requires a leader of a party, and so on.

Equally, your reference to the GG appointing an unelected person as a PM or minister or whatever utterly ignores these codes of normative rules of procedure and operation.

Again, 98% of MPs have party affiliation. Our parliamentary system operates within political parties. Our codes are that the political party with the most seats gets to form the government with the leader as PM. That's a fact. The second party gets to form the Official Opposition. Unaffiliated MPs have no role in government. Another fact.
Your reference to floor crossings is irrelevant; the individual moves to another party and this is not common or unnoticed by the electorate.

Therefore, I suggest that you remember that the Constitution is essentially silent about our parliamentary system and the codes that have developed, even though not in the Constitution, are legislated within the parliament (and therefore legal) or by normative standards (equally legal).

ET, what in the name of all that is sacred is "The Will of the People." As I said, you're pulling this crap out of your arse, or, as Norm so eloquently put it, "your ignorance is astonishing"

I see that many of you feel that the name "NEW*** DEMOCRATIC*** PARTY" is a bit of an oxymoron.

I agree, but ...

"OLD BRAIN-DEAD LYING HYPOCRITE ANTI-GROWTH ANTI-DEVELOPMENT PRO CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION THUGOCRACY APPEASEMENT PARTY" just doesn't have that same ring to it.

Mind you - that's just me.

My, philboy, you certainly don't know much about political theories.

The 'will of the people' - is the theory that legitimacy of governance rests on the consent of the 'governed'. This theory, also known as popular sovereignty or consent of the governed, as expressed by such as John Locke, asserted that 'the people' retain their rights/powers over the rules by which they live i.e., their sovereignty. For Locke, sovereignty rests with the people.

The theory of the will of the people means that sovereign control over 'how they live' rests with the people. They may carry out this will via a representative government, whose members are subject to election and recall; via referendums, and so on.

You might try reading Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume, for their various analyses of this Will of the People. An early form of this is the Magna Carta, 1215, which removed the singular Sovereign Will of the King and subjected it to the Rule of Law. And law is made by the people, and the 'consent of the governed'.

The most famous example of this is the American Declaration of Independnece, whose first and second paragraphs refers to this will as 'the consent of the governed'.

This theory of power resting in the will of the people is the basis of democracy. OK? Have you learned something today?

Then explain how the Will of the People is expressed in the context of the current situation, where, it seems, your interpretation of The Will of the People is whatever your dear leader Steve Harper determines it to be.

My gawd, ET, is that what it boils down to, for you and Adler and Kate, Heil Harper?

philboy - the Will of the People, aka popular sovereignty or Consent of the Governed is expressed in the October 14/08 election which saw the Conservatives returned to power with increased seats, and the Liberals with a reduction of seats as the Official Opposition.

That's the Will of the People. The election.

No, you still don't seem to understand. How can you claim that the will of the people is determined by Harper? I've just explained how it rests in the people, all the people, and is expressed in elections, referendums.

It can't be determined by Harper. Or Dion-Layton-Duceppe. Therefore your remark about 'heil hitler' is childish.

Why do you resort to ad hominem? Why not simply google the terms? Or read up on Locke's social contract?

"attacking the NDP while hastily trying to adopt many of their policies in order to save the economy?"

Now, that line is a direct quote from the Jack Layton playbook.

"LMAO ..... 131 comments on a post about Jack Layton."

Regular people comment because it's just so satisfying to see this lamprey get a well-deserved smackdown. Lefties comment because it's just so traumatic to see their hero savaged in such a manner.

ET

I am not referring to the constitution acts at all. You are confusing parliamentary conventions with legal status. GGs do not appoint many non elected persons to Cabinet (in reality the Privy Council) because they will be ineffective and the GG's PM does not need ineffective ministers. This does not stop it from happening witness several Senators appointed to Cabinet and as previously mentioned Pierre Pettigrew who was neither a Senator or MP when first appointed to Cabinet.
Crossing the floor is not common but neither is it uncommon. When the Hon. David Emerson was elected by Vancouver Kingsway in 2006 with a Liberal affiliation and then promptly joined the Conservatives, many Vancouver Kingsway voters went ballistic but legally they could do nothing about it.
Not only do independent MP's have no role in government but back benchers have no role. They may be members of the party which have formed a government but they are not members of the government, Cabinet members and civil servants are the government; MP's are legislators who pass legislation which the Government administrators.
Parties are means of nominating and electing MPs. All major Canadian parties require the party leader to sign off on a party's nominated candidate. This is where the party exercises its control over elected members; make waves and you won't get the party leader's sign off come next election. Independents have trouble raising funds and recruiting troops for campaigns. Without troops or treausry it is very difficult to take on the established political machines.

norm matthew - you are confusing the issues.

First, the Constitution says almost nothing about parliamentary process but the Parliament of Canada Act is specific and these 'conventions' have legal status.

Your comment that the GG does not appoint 'many' (please clarify) non-elected to Cabinet because they will be 'ineffective' is a petitio principii (circular) statment and invalid. Why would they be 'ineffective'?

Furthermore, the GG's appointment action is symbolic; the real power to appoint rests with the PM who selects people as members of cabinet.
And, the Senate members, although unelected, are valid members of the Legislature.

Again, your statement that 'crossing the floor is not common nor is it uncommon' is yet another invalid argument. Something either IS or IS NOT.

The role of backbenchers is to support the government in its whipped votes and to represent the unique needs of their regional/local constituents. Your claim that they therefore have no role in government is not one that I accept.

The civil service is NOT the government but is the bureaucracy of the government.

Your other comments - I'm not sure what your point is. I was reacting to your original comments that the GG could appoint anyone to Cabinet and it would be legal and so on...and my point was that our Parliament of Canada Act as well as normative standards would preclude such an action. The Parliament of Canada Act refers to the Prime Minister, to the leader of the opposition and so on and your claims that our governance does not require a PM etc - have no basis in fact.

Dave:"Stewart, nice try, oh, you're better than me so being a great guy I'll give in. What a condescending maroon!"
Please look up sarcasm. I was not being magnanimous, not that I'm above it, I was simply tired of banding my head against a disingenuous brick wall. Kudos to the strategy though. It worked.

"No government in Canadian history ever formed a coalition of losing parties and overthrew the elected government."
Calling the opposition, "losing" parties speaks highly on your regard for democracy. Unless proven otherwise, every duly elected MP is a winner. Wonder if you formerly referred to Harper as leader of the official losers. The Opposition is absolutely vital for a healthy democracy. I referred to the previous coalition government not to suggest this was identical, but to point out that there was a precedent in which a combination of duly elected MP's collaborated in governing. When the Union Gov't was formed, there existed no normative precedent for the coalition. Extraordinary circumstances result in new precedents, building on previous ones.

"What these current LOSERS tried to do was unprecedented and wrong. Lose the confidence of the House, give me a break,". Your low regard for a foundational principle of responsible government also speaks volumes about your respect for democracy.

ET keep denying, never concede a single point, hold chauvinistically to your position because otherwise you might start to engage in genuine and honest debate. And we wouldn't want that around here. See you around...