Past their best-by date – a “Dear Jack” letter.
It must bug you Jack, that the Tories are competitive virtually everywhere in the country except in two cities, while you are really competitive only in the poverty pockets. I can see it with my own eyes Jack. I travel through one of those pockets every day. Your representative there is hardly ever there. And he doesn’t need to be. A monkey could win that riding representing the NDP. It’s dirt poor and safe. If this country was poor as you pretend it is, your vote would be far more efficient. But it’s primarily a middle class country and that’s why your party is just a rump, a protest movement.
Speaking of Jack… how stupid does an NDP supporter have to be, not to have noticed that their party’s modern raison d’être is to grant a handful of career opportunists access to a parliamentary pay-tit?
Most organizations with a 48 year record of uninterrupted failure would have folded by now – unless there was something in it for the losers at the top.
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).