Saturday, May 01, 2010
The "Legal Obligations" Smokescreen
The Conservatives have no intention of complying with the Speaker's order. Coyne lays it all out for us here. Parliament has the constitution on its side. If one part of Parliament wants to see documents and they are not categorically excluded from seeing them in legislation they themselves passed (which they are not), then the government has no choice but to comply. This whole "legal obligations" nonsense is nothing more than a framing device for an upcoming election Harper will call if the opposition doesn't bend to his will. The bottom line, Harper is stretching the truth to beyond the breaking point and we would be better off as a country if he was retired and writing papers about flat tax schemes at the Fraser Institute.
Recommend this Post
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's all about whether Harper can arm-wrestle a few Liberals into seeing/doing things his way.
ReplyDeleteIn which case, "Parliament" will ratify whatever agreement they hammer out.
But then, that's been the way of things in the 39th and 40th Parliaments of Canada since September 17, 2007.
And yes, of course, election-framing.
ReplyDelete(Gun to Iggy's head -- "See that 11 point Tory lead in Leger? Do you feel lucky, punk?")
The problem is, and I think some Conservatives see this, they will not be in power forever. If Harper prevails, our democracy is over. Sure, we will vote, but if Parliament has no effective oversight power, even in a minority situation, then we have a dictatorship. Conservatives know a Liberal with total power is not a good thing. They should be and I think are quite uncomfortable in their role as nursemaids to this abortion. The problem is, the system is already so heavily skewed toward executive power, they are afraid to speak publicly.
ReplyDeleteThat's nonsense.
ReplyDeleteAll the opposition needs to do to get its way is to tell Harper to pound sand. Parliament is supreme. The Speaker saying so was simply a recognition that the sun rises in the east -- the majority rules.
Whether the Liberals fold like a cheap suit in this case has no effect whatsoever on whether a future parliamentary majority can bind the government of the day, in a minority situation.
And all the opposition needs to do to get rid of Harper is vote non-confidence, go to an election, hold him to at most 153 seats (or 152 seats, if you think Andre Arthur will get re-elected), vote down his first Throne Speech in the next parliament, and vote in favour of a new Throne Speech written for the GG by the Liberal leader.
"Dictatorship" or "total power" is not revocable on a week's notice.
Or, more succinctly:
ReplyDelete"Has the last three years of Canadian politics been a Jedi mind-trick by Stephen Harper on the various leaders of the Liberal Party? Damn straight."
And all the opposition needs to do to get rid of Harper is vote non-confidence, go to an election, hold him to at most 153 seats (or 152 seats, if you think Andre Arthur will get re-elected), vote down his first Throne Speech in the next parliament, and vote in favour of a new Throne Speech written for the GG by the Liberal leader.
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't have to come to that and we both know how this will play itself out. The Coalition crisis will show us the way. The PM will say anything, do anything, to maintain power. He is willing to tear the whole country down around him if only he can hang onto power for one more day. He makes the Liberals look like saints in comparison.
If he manages to scare the Liberals into submission, shame on them. If he can't and throws us into an election for no better reason than he thinks he can lie about his "legal obligations" and get away with it, I will do anything to get rid of him -- and that includes something I never thought I would do, vote Liberal.
Politicians can say whatever they like -- but if they can't get a Throne Speech passed, they can't govern. Parliament is supreme. (And the PM still hasn't lost a confidence vote. Last vote of non-confidence in a Canadian parliament was on 28 November 2005.)
ReplyDelete(T)hat includes something I never thought I would do, vote Liberal.
As a free citizen, that is your right.
As a free citizen, that is your right.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, but I feel trapped by a crappy electoral system into choosing between sleazy corruption and complete, immoral evil. When sleazy corruption seems like the best and only choice, you know your system is in deep, deep, trouble.
Oh, the system's working fine.
ReplyDeleteIf you take the polling shifts during the Coalition Crisis as a guide to what Canadian voters _really_ want (including the 56% who demanded a snap election so that they could vote a new parliament in, instead of seating a new government) -- which I think was a pretty accurate guide, because it crystallized voting preferences -- what they really want is Harper as PM with a tin can tied to his tail so that he can't do anything too crazy right-wing. (As much as I'd like him to.)
And if the vote-split on the left disturbs your aesthetic sense, well, that's right around the time that you people will start holding "Unite the Left" conferences. (See "Why the Liberals Will Rule Canada Forever" for context.)
Harper's a hired hand on a contract that comes up for renewal pretty often. He'll be gone someday -- maybe in two months, maybe in ten years. Depends on the quality of the opposition and whether they can get their act together.
What I want is a functioning, multi-party democracy.
ReplyDeleteEverything's fine. Parliament is supreme relative to the government, but the people are supreme relative to Parliament. This whole issue (including the documents, since the coalition was first mooted) is that the opposition wants to boss around the government without giving the people themselves a say. This can't be done any longer. The oppo should just suck it up and go to an election.
ReplyDelete"And if the vote-split on the left disturbs your aesthetic sense, well, that's right around the time that you people will start holding "Unite the Left" conferences."
ReplyDeleteYou people?
"What I want is a functioning, multi-party democracy." The problem is that the multi-party is afraid of the democracy/
ReplyDeleteEverything's fine. Parliament is supreme relative to the government, but the people are supreme relative to Parliament. This whole issue (including the documents, since the coalition was first mooted) is that the opposition wants to boss around the government without giving the people themselves a say. This can't be done any longer. The oppo should just suck it up and go to an election.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of your argument is that the people directly elected the government and that is simply not true. The people elect the parliament and the parliament creates the government from its ranks. The people had a say when it created the House to this configuration. So, Parliament has every right to "boss around" the government. The Speaker just ruled to that effect. All Harper is doing is warning the Liberals that he will use your incorrect argument as a bludgeon and spend 18 million dollars to ram it home. All he has to do is jettison our system of government for some bizarre American/Westminster hybrid constructed out of television ads and our poor education system. For me, that is just one lie too many.
Greg - What I want is a functioning, multi-party democracy.
ReplyDeleteYou already have it. What you want in addition to that, I know, is some alternative voting system that includes elements of PR.
ace - You people?
Progressives.
So, Parliament has every right to "boss around" the government.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. But the PM also has every right to go to the people and get a parliament with a fresher mandate.
"What I want is a functioning, multi-party democracy." The problem is that the multi-party is afraid of the democracy/
ReplyDeleteNonsense, I am not afraid of democracy. I am afraid of what we are calling a democracy. Give me Proportional Representation and rep by pop, or don't talk to me about democracy in this country.
But the government has every right to go back to the people and give them another say. The government, in our system, has the right to consult the people whenever they want. (Except maybe immediately after an election, and this is not that) And the reason why that is so is precisely because of this situation. If Parliament can just give orders to the government, and the government couldn't go back to the people, then who is ultimately accountable? Nobody - just the way the Liberals like it.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the government should not be able to get a dissolution and a new election is a pure American import and, as such, has no place in our system.
MarkCh - The idea that the government should not be able to get a dissolution and a new election is a pure American import and, as such, has no place in our system.
ReplyDeleteI'll blame Harper and the Reformers for that. A mistake brought on by (understandable) frustration with their years in opposition.
Bring on the election!
Greg - Give me Proportional Representation and rep by pop, or don't talk to me about democracy in this country.
I'm with you on restoring rep by pop. PR/MMP, on the other hand, was pretty decisively defeated in Ontario in 2007.
Doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't try again. (Tho' I'll fight it. :p) But calling FPTP anti-democratic just isn't true.
Absolutely. But the PM also has every right to go to the people and get a parliament with a fresher mandate.
ReplyDeleteIn normal circumstances I would agree with you, but Harper is not normal. He prorogues when he can't get his way, calls elections against his own law and threatens to call confidence votes in between. That isn't democracy, it is an S and M nightmare.
But calling FPTP anti-democratic just isn't true.
ReplyDeleteAll right, it is democratic lite.
In normal circumstances I would agree with you, but Harper is not normal. He prorogues when he can't get his way, calls elections against his own law and threatens to call confidence votes in between. That isn't democracy, it is an S and M nightmare.
ReplyDeleteTo put this into historical context, a "normal" right-wing minority government in Canada lasts six months.
The only stable portion of Harper's mandate was the 2006-07 ceasefire with the Bloc. Since then, it's required managing/handling the Liberals just right... It's actually been a lot of fun to watch. :p
Actually, normal in the sense of not having an election law in place that is supposed to stop PM's from calling elections on a whim.
ReplyDeleteOh right, that.
ReplyDeleteWell, that one _is_ Harper's fault -- and it's foreign to Westminster-style systems. If he hadn't rammed that bill through in his early days, he'd have been able to call an election in fall 2007 or spring 2008 once he saw Dion as ripe for the taking & and won his majority (just as he would have in October 2008, had the markets not crashed mid-campaign).
It was a bad idea. Still, he's the one paying for it. (And taxpayers -- he had to spend a lot more than he should/would have.)
Why don't you two get a room? Holy friggin' echo chamber Batman!!
ReplyDeleteManners, sir/or madam. Manners.
ReplyDelete