Now is the time for action – call his office.
Contact the Party.
Reach out to his supporters, let us lend our voices and our courage!
Stay Stephane Stay!
But, whatever the fate of the man who’s come to be known as the best Liberal Party leader in the history of Canadian conservativism, let us be grateful in the knowledge that Stephane has left us with a gift even greater than himself…
So now is the moment for action – call your Liberal and NDP MP’s!
Tell them they must not waver.. they must not give in to doubt and partisan accusation – that they must fight, fight, fight the forces that would tear their Coalition apart!
Tell them their parties deserve no less!
ET,
Too much to say. Too little time.
Any party that can claim confidence of the majority of the House can be called on to form the government. I referenced King-Byng purely on the issue of dissolution, insofar as the GG can call on the leader of the opposition to form a government if he can prove to the GG that he has the confidence of the House.
” our normative standards of government organization does not allow the parties to organize as they wish”
Our ‘normative’ standards are irrelevant. Our constitution allows parties to organize as they wish. When these normative standards get constitutionally enshrined – which they really should have been a long time ago – this argument might hold some weight. Right now, tearing your hair out and saying “that is not how do things” means nothing when it is, in a strictly technical sense, legally allowed.
Italy and Israel were only referred to show that coalitions do not feature in any democracy’s constitution. If you insist on playing like-for-like, then what about India – a democracy built on British lines. No reference to coalitions there either – despite it being one of the newer, longer, and most thorough constitutions in the world.
“No, the electorate votes in a party, not a parliament. The term ‘parliament’ is general; it carries no indication of the nature of a government or an opposition, both of which are required in that ‘parliament’.”
Wrong. The electorate votes in a parliament. Whichever party can lay claim to the confidence of the majority of the House is entitled to form a government – as you correctly pointed out in the King-Byng case. Meighen did not become Prime Minister initially because the Progressives supported the Liberals agains them. To put it midly he did not have the confidence of the House, despite having the most seats. This changed when things soured between King and the Progressives.
By your logic, and ‘normative’ standards, King should never have been allowed to form the government in the first place. That does not change the fact that he was legally entitled to do so – and did so. Byng recognized that he had the confidence of the majority of the House, and gave him a chance till it floundered. The electorate DID NOT vote a party in (in this case Meighen’s party). Only a parliament.
“MPs can, once elected, do whatever they want”
Yes. In an ideal world, Liberal MPs would hold a referendum in their constituencies before going in for the vote of confidence around which this pithy charade centers. They would then vote according to what their constituents want, not what their party wants. But this is not an ideal vote. They are free to vote as they wish. And they will be answerable – albeit in the next eleciton.
“The reason for this is because coalitions, whether ruling or oppositional, are not part of our parliamentary history or normative procedures.”
In strictly technical terms – King’s Liberals and the Progressives had what you would call a coalition. Regardless, coalitions are determined by political atmosphere. It may never have happened before, but that does not mean it will never happen. There have been ample opportunities for governments to put constraints on coaltion formation in Canada. None of them have ever done it. Maybe that will change after this charade.
“Therefore, when the electorate votes ONE party in over the others, that party gets to be the government.”
“Furthermore, my point is that a set of MPs has no right to, on their own, decide which party is in governmental power.”
And two lines later, you contradict yourself through the King-Affair, where the ONE party in oever the others, did not get to form the government, for the very simple reason that it did not have the confidence of the majority of the, you guessed it, parliament. This is a curse that only afflicts minority governments, it has to be said.
“It is democratically unlawful.”
Once again, the coalition only comes into play once Harper seeks dissolution. The three parties can and probably would have voted together on a no-confidence vote regardless of the coalition. Two of them have their political existence at stake. We all know that the Liberals would never recover from cutting off public funding. Its a fact, and to ignore it for the sake of an overly self-righteous “They are greedy” claim does not reflect well on you.
This is about public funding. Plain and simple.
“They had planned this coalition months before he announced his fiscal update.”
Yeah, and Stockwell Day wanted an alliance with the BQ in 2000. You expect me to believe that one of Canada’s most famous Quebecois federalists was in cahoots with the separatists? Such alliances are usually borne out of desperation. Even when the idea of this coalition was being tossed around initially, Dion’s presence made it unlikely because of his frosty relations with the BQ. Now you expect me to believe that he was planning this all along.
“Coalitions are a reality in states that use proportional representation”
They are not restricted to PR states. The most similar case I can think of, off the top of my head would be India. Not sure about Australia, which has coalitions, but I suspect they are similar too.
“No, it is not enough that Dion or whomever shows that he has a ‘majority’ in the House; he has to show that this is approved by the people.”
No, he doesn’t. The precedent set by King-Byng ensures that. In theory a no confidence should trigger an election, but the King Byng precedent ensures that an alternative can be sought if the GG thinks Dion has the confidence of the House – ie he can pass legislation etc.
“As for the GG, he or she is obliged to follow the advice of the PM”
Nope. King-Byng amongst others. The GG is an INDEPENDENT representative of the Queen with certain extraordinary powers that rarely come into play, but are at his/her entire discrtion.
“No, it was not a cyncical powerplay by Harper. ”
I never figured you for an out and out partisan hack, but the truth comes out all the same. Harper can do no wrong, eh?
Harper didn’t smoke anybody out. He threatened their existence and they bared their fangs. Am I wrong to say that the Liberals would fold if public funding was cut? We both know its true, but admitting it puts you in a spot of bother – you will have to accept that Harper played his cards all wrong.
Antenor – Like I said, this coalition is meaningless until after Harper seeks a dissolution. At this point it is entitield to put his govenrment through a vote of confidence, and to defeat it. He does not have a majority.
astard – your argument is filled with incorrect and ungrounded assertions.
Because something is NOT in the constitution does not mean that it OUGHT to be in the constitution. We in Canada, do not govern ourselves via formal coalitions.
No, it is not true that ‘any party’ that has the confidence of the House can be called upon to form the government. That puts the role of ‘Making the Government’ in the hands of partisan politicians rather than the people. The people vote; the party with the most seats gets to form the government. The onus is on the MPs and the GG to recognize and be responsible to this action of the people. Your model is undemocratic because it removes this recognition of the electorate.
You totally ignore the fact that King was PM before the election, and because he did not resign his role as PM, but said he’d govern via a coalition, the GG ‘allowed him to do so’. This had nothing to do with ‘the will of parliament’ but with King’s refusal to resign. This is not a precedent that we want to continue. Why? Because it violates the electorate’s role in choosing the nature of their own government. The fact that King did it, does not make it a just or democratic example that we wish to make normative. It was wrong then and remains wrong now. The ‘precedent of King doesn’t ensure anything’.
That would have meant, for example, that Paul Martin, who lost the 2006 election could have continued to govern as PM IF he had made a signed coalition with, eg, the NDPs or the Bloc. Such behaviour is not part of our legacy nor do we want it to continue.
Please note that Dion was NOT the PM and therefore, has no right to usurp the legitimate PM, Harper, without an election.
Again, and I’m assuming you are a young student, the electorate does not vote in a parliament. Such a term is too general and as such, has no meaningful content – what does ‘parliament’ operationally mean? The electorate, on their ballots, vote in political parties. The party with the most seats forms the govt..etc.
No, MPs know that when elected, they must ‘represent’ the wishes of their electorate. If they do not acknowledge this, and instead, move into Individual Will, then they have violated the basic principles of ‘representation’. I suggest that you study a bit of history and philosophy of the development of representative parliament.
I repeat – the Liberals are greedy, and don’t try to denigrate my statement with a trivial ad hominem (“it doesn’t reflect well on you”). The Liberals have had their old reliance on massive donations from corporations and others cut for five years; they have done nothing to move into small private donations but have instead, relied on the taxpayer. And to take down a government out of partisan agendas (for money) rather than on any concern for the economics of the nation – that’s greed.
Because something has ‘never happened’ does not mean that it OUGHT to happen. Kindly learn the distinction between IS and OUGHT.
As for the powers of the GG – you are quite wrong; they are no longer that of Byng, and I suggest that you read the Magna Carta to understand why.
I conclude that Harper ‘smoked them out’; your opinion is that he threatened their hands-in-the taxpayer-trough. Since neither you nor I know what was in Harper’s mind, we’ll have to leave it as two different opinions on what was in his mind.
Don’t try the fallacious argument tactic of ‘coalition’ (we both know it’s true). Argue your own side and don’t move into my side of the debate.
The coalition is not meaningless until dissolution. The coalition is a public, SIGNED agreement between the NDP-Liberals. And the Bloc. It binds those parties to their behaviour; that is meaningful. Furthermore, the leaders of the coalition have been going public to justify and gather support for their agenda. That is meaningful. And, the coalition contains in it a rejection of the electorate – they have set it up so that the electorate would not be consulted on this action – and would not be consulted for uup to two years. That is meaningful. What does this ‘meaningful’ mean? It means that the values of this coalition are undemocratic.
It all makes sense now.
http://www.xtra.ca/blog/ottawa/
Bringing sexy back to the Parliamentary Press Gallery, Dale Smith gives you what you need to know about what’s going on in politics.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Where have all the gay MPs gone?
Last evening, I was invited to a Wonderful Wednesday being hosted by the fledgling Fierté Liberal Pride network (whom you’ll be hearing more about in the near future). And it while a fun time was had by all, none of the gay MPs showed up.
That’s not to say that there wasn’t a good turnout. Early in the evening, a bunch of MPs showed up, including Carolyn Bennett, Siobhan Coady, Anita Neville, and Mike Savage. Rounding out the first wave were Senator Art Eggleton, and former MPs Don Boudria and Sheila Copps. Hedy Fry’s assistant made her apologies, saying that Hedy had House Duty and was thus in the Commons and unable to attend. But where were Scott Brison, Mario Silva or Rob Oliphant? I couldn’t a clear answer to those questions.
Bob Rae turned up, and while talking to me, has promised Xtra a full-frontal centrefold spread – to complement his now infamous Rick Mercer exploit. I didn’t even have to ask – he volunteered! Rae talked about how much he’s learned from his Toronto Centre constituents, and on a more serious note, he’s looking forward to sitting down with me in the near future to talk about GLBT issues in the context of his bid for party leadership. I’m going to hold him to that promise.
When the president of Fierté Liberal Pride, Bryn Hendricks, took the microphone to thank everyone for showing up, he spoke about the importance for Liberals to reclaim the GLBT vote, pointing out that in the 2004 election, lesbians disproportionately voted NDP. When he passed the microphone to Sheila Copps (whose birthday it happens to be today, so here’s a shout out to you), she spoke about how the Liberals not highlighting their accomplishments when it comes to GLBT issues, they’re not doing themselves any favours. Copps was also instrumental in helping Hendricks get the organisation off its feet, and they are now looking to set up chapters in every riding across the country.
While most of the MPs took off early for other engagements (a full social calendar has been compressed into four weeks, and there is a fall economic update tomorrow that rumour has it could spell doom for the Liberal party), a few turned up later in the evening, including Martha Hall Findlay and Gerard Kennedy. But if there was one image that stuck with me as I left, it was that the characterisation of a “velvet mafia” operating on the Hill with all those gay and lesbian staffers can’t be too far from the truth.
(Oh, and Suite 34, the venue for the evening’s festivities – a big thumbs down for running out of red wine. Seriously? You may have had hot boys behind the bar, but your shocking lapse in judgement when it comes to stocking your bar leaves much to be desired).
Astard –
Allow me to intervene and reply to ET’s pathetic reponse to your post. Undoubtedly you read his words, rolled your eyes, and walked away chuckling in a mixture of pity and disbelief.
I, however, handed ET his ass in a ‘debate’ around his bloodthirsty support of the Iraq debacle awhile back. For sheer entertainment value, allow me do it again.
ET leaps in with the purpose of delineating your ‘incorrect and ungrounded assertions’.
First off, he takes you to task for your conjecture that ‘normative standards’ COULD be enshrined in the constitution. ET hastens to inform you that simply because things COULD be in the constitution doesn’t mean they ought to be.
Not sure exactly why ET thinks you’re not aware of this very fundamental point of logic, but he evidently feels it necessary to return to the point later: “because something has never happened doesn’t mean it OUGHT to happen. Kindly learn the difference between is and ought”.
What on earth does ET mean by such semantic idiocy? Does he really not understand your point was made in conjecture – when you specifically stated it was?
Of course not – he’s not that dumb. He does believe, though, that by presenting your statement of conjecture as though you presented it as established fact he’s “scoring points” on you. With who? With those not paying attention, I guess!
You see, ET believes that when he writes “kindly learn the difference between is and ought”, and “I suggest you study a bit of history and philosophy…” and “I’m assuming you’re a young student” – as well as “don’t argue my side of the debate” – he’s convincing everyone that he knows more than you, simply because he’s adopting a condescending attitude.
He doesn’t see that his argument stands and falls by itself, and that no-one is swayed by his condescending ad hominems: in fact, people who are genuinely more informed usually don’t bother to get into a pissing contest over the fact. They simply state their argument and are done with it.
ET can’t do that because he’s aware his argument doesn’t hold water. So he makes a big deal over your clearly stated conjecture, apparently considering it one of your ‘incorrect and ungrounded assertions’.
And for humour’s sake, let’s all enjoy the spectacle of ET taking you to task for your ‘trivial ad hominem’ against him. This from a guy who repeatedly implies you are too young and too uneducated to even dare have an opinion on the matter!
Again, all of his condescending trash talk serves the purpose of obscuring the fact that he hasn’t got an argument. He ‘believes’ that Harper made his boneheaded move because he was trying to ‘smoke’ the opposition out. Naturally he has to believe this, because the alternative is unacceptable to him: that Harper was unable to control his monomaniacal partisan fixation, was unable to resist using the office of the PM to poke his political opponents in the eye, and in a gross miscalculation handed them a rifle to blast his government into Joe Clark-ian oblivion.
ET can’t admit this, so he’ll sashay around and speak of things being “democratically illegal” and “normative standards” and adopt his pose of professorial condescension towards anyone who bests him in an arguement. I guess he thinks he’s fooling some folks.
Fact is, though, his unflagging allegiance to party above and beyond everything else is antithetical to that democracy he speaks so frequently of. No surprise – his Leader evidenced this same loyalty to party over country in the viciously partisan “budget” which is in the process of bringing his government down.