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.
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…