Back to TheU.ca
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Banned Users List
Usergroups
RSS Feeds
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log inTheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Prorogue 2 - Reply to topic
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter  Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights    votes: 42 View user's profile |
The old topic about the first one disappeared, or at least couldn't be found quickly. I love prorogues, if only because of the impotent rage they spawn. _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
The greatest part about Canadian government is our bureaucracy. Now that the pesky "People's Forum" is out of the way, those cynical robots can do their jobs properly. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster  Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University  votes: 38 View user's profile |
Senther wrote: The old topic about the first one disappeared, or at least couldn't be found quickly.
Oh, it's one of these "I'll laugh at something getting people mad and hope I rile somebody because that's how I get my rocks off blah blah blah". For a second I thought you had something to say. It's sad when people think that being a message board parasite is a substitute for actual balls. Or , you know, a real fulfilling life.
I love prorogues, if only because of the impotent rage they spawn. On the prorogue it is a cheap move, obviously, but people should have seen it coming after the first one. It's Harper's 'I'm going to spend the next two months desperately hoping I come up with a way to cover myself on Afghanistan'. He's a snake in the grass, but that has long been apparent. Some people are giving Michelle Jean flak but they are missing one thing: when a PM requests something the Governor General is supposed to do it should it be constitutional. As an appointed official she is understood not to play an active part in Parliamentary decisions. It is not her fault, it's the idiotic rules that allow it in the first place. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights votes: 42 View user's profile |
Always with the testicles... and if people are already mad, why would I have to rile them up? I wish some of you would think a little more before posting. Turning off the quick reply box might help. On prorogation, any takers on Harper going for a juggle combo next? _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
To see people getting madder, obviously. I think Harper is in a bind and I'm not sure he can get out of it like this. Legislation on the table dies but most of what is on the table at any given time is the government's. What Harper wants to avoid is more Afghanistan stuff and the investigation is not going to die because of proroguing. He might have ideas about axing certain records surreptitiously but doing that without leaving signs is easier said than done. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: Some people are giving Michelle Jean flak but they are missing one thing: when a PM requests something the Governor General is supposed to do it should it be constitutional. As an appointed official she is understood not to play an active part in Parliamentary decisions. It is not her fault, it's the idiotic rules that allow it in the first place.
False. None of these procedural things are written down as such. Although the structure is laid out (Gov Gen, Privy Council, Parl., bleh bleh bleh), M. J. can do whatever she wants, so long as the Matriarch Windsor is down with it. That the Governor Generalship is such a toothless office has to do with historical practice, not the Candian "constitution". She could break these "rules", because they're more like guidelines. JBE you said it perfectly...she is "understood" not to play an active part. What would it take to undo this understanding? |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights votes: 42 View user's profile |
The rage is great, but I have trouble stomaching the smarminess in all of these anti-prorogue/Harper Facebook groups popping up, on both sides. Can we just put the computers in charge already? _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
If we get rid of all the groups in which there is smarminess, there is no Facebook. Except for the nastier ones, where smarminess gives way to vitriol. @d_s: I don't think it will be undone. It's true that it is not the official rules, exactly, but as an appointed official with this unwritten rule she is in a tough spot. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: @d_s: I don't think it will be undone. It's true that it is not the official rules, exactly, but as an appointed official with this unwritten rule she is in a tough spot.
If M.J. had thatchers we wouldn't be having this conversation.While I agree the current situation won't revert to a situation where the G.G. is calling the shots, wouldn't it be nice to have a Crown with some balls (or in this case, thatchers?) Someone who wouldtake that minor (but critical) step of calling an election when the minority government avoids attempting to work with Parliament? Or, as we saw a while ago, call a poll when the opposition forms a coherent ruling bloc? For my money this would seem to make more sense then sitting back as the democractic element in Canadian federal politics self-destructs. What is this lockstep towards mob rule that Parliament has us in anyways? Do we really want the MPs to be totally in charge? |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine  Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place  votes: 6 View user's profile |
Did you guys like the news about how the Liberal MPs keep meeting despite the suspension of Parliament. For fans of Canadiana and parliamentary politics, I recommend the novel King John of Canada. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
Yes, we want elected MPs in charge and not an appointed ceremonial officeholder. Michelle Jean should not set a new precedent of a government-influencing Governor General; unless there really is a tough requirement for allowing proroguing she has to allow it if she is asked. Dilly_sam what you call 'mob rule' I call democracy. She has no choice and should not have one. I thought the Liberal MPs setting up in Ottawa was a very astute move. People are taking far more exception to proroguing this time and this highlights their claim that they are interested in solving problems while the government is interested in fiddling while Rome burns. The Conservatives cannot fight back by doing the same thing since that would make Mr. Harper look foolish. It's too early to count on it but I hope Stephen Harper crashes and burns, finally. This piece of unethical nonsense is merely the latest in a rather long string of unconscionable behaviour. I wonder what he will do; other countries' scandals such as Watergate demonstrated that it is difficult to cover something up without leaving traces of your handiwork. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Chesty LaRue
X-Talk Pervert  Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 4166 Location: Up Yours votes: 29 View user's profile |
What scandal is Harper covering up? _________________ Who said that?! |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
Afghan detainees. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: People are taking far more exception to proroguing this time
Yeah, except for that pesky 33% of us that don't even know its happened. Joining a facebook group does not constitute taking exception. If this was another country, people would be in the streets, flipping cars and then lighting them on fire. Too bad it's Canada, and everything moves real slow when its 40 below. And btw Jimmy Big, my mob rule, your democracy, it all depends on the virtue of the political character of the state. Which you don't appear to be that confident in. Source for above figure: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/01/07/ekos-poll-prorogue.ht ml |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
Taking exception is when you significantly object to something, which I think people are doing. I agree that there should be more protests although nothing destructive like flipping cars; that just makes the protesters look worse. The 33% of people are probably, to a large extent, a big part of the non-voting population. It's still not looking too good for Harper. Speaking of protests I would like to see a few start. I keep emailing the Young Liberals contact (I'm not an NDP supporter but might contact them, since this is against Harper) but I'm not getting replies. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
dilly_sam wrote: Do we really want the MPs to be totally in charge?
The problem as I see it is that MPs are barely in charge at all. In the Harper government and the current Canadian political climate in particular, they are completely tied to the political will of the party leader and party higher-ups. There are some truly great and brilliant people from every party in Ottawa who are routinely silenced and marginalized that they should tow the party line. For those who are seething with rage over this, what do you want to see happen? Another shot at a coalition government? A bloody coup? I'm no Harper supporter, but this is a democratically elected government pulling a stunt that is perfectly allowable under our existing parliamentary system. |
|
Lance Uppercut wrote: dilly_sam wrote: Do we really want the MPs to be totally in charge?
The problem as I see it is that MPs are barely in charge at all. Perhaps a misunderstanding. I was using 'MPs' and Parliament synonymously, and on the level of the "democratic" and "monarchic" elements of the Canadian federal state. I do sort of agree with you that the MPs as a group of individuals are not in charge. Instead, the one MP who happens to be the leader of his or her party gets to rule, to the degree that their party solidarity will allow them. That is who is in charge: the Privy Council (elected MPs), centred around the 'winner' of the Canadian Parliamentary sweepstakes. Which, under our system, hides between 33-35% of the popular vote (not counting whatever huge chunk of the country didn't vote). Even under a minority Parliament, where the voting public have ostensibly "asked for" co-operation between the balance of stakeholders in Parliament, the one lucky winner (because believe me the Liberals would do this too) that happens to be some dork from Toronto pretending he's from the Flatland is acting like he constitutes some fictitious executive branch of the Government. Which is why we need leashes on Parliament. Like the Senate (which although also degraded by extreme partisanship in Parliament, still fundamentally acts as a useful leash), and like the Governor General, who is not supposed to be a useless tit, or a rogue, but an intelligent, interested and compassionate individual. Which, by my vote, she seems to be. |
|
Wasn't really arguing, as I agree that the GG and the Senate are important parts of the system. My point was that partisanship in Parliament stifles the important issues and leads us to exactly where we are today. The idea of elected members serving constituents rather than party interests seems to be lost entirely. Sadly, if Parliament ceases to function, so too does the Senate. Those who are all riled up about proroguation should really check out what's up with the senate right now, keeping with that theme. |
TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Prorogue 2 - Reply to topic
