Yes, Michael Ignatieff’s biggest gaffe of the campaign has been to state that his party could form the government without a coalition, even if the Conservatives have the most seats of any party in the house.
I still remain convinced that the 1997 Stephen Harper was the real one - he hasn’t changed his mind on any of the socially conservative issues, he has just stopped talking about them in the hope that we’ll give him a majority government.
That’s easy – euthanize half the retirees. Think of it as very late term abortion.
Well, the talk that Jack Layton talks is silky smooth to a certain demographics in the country (I’d say in any country) which comes down to Government will take as much money is needed from those who have it to provide for those who need it - just vote for me and you’ll see. Sounds great but the money first need to be earned by those you plan to tax and that part - how to create conditions for segment of society to actually earn money - that’s where NDP ventures not. I’m personally flabbergasted that nobody is calling him on it in terms of numbers (economy, jobs, GDP projections, Government revenue projections etc.)
Harper I have to admit plays great game. His game is to accentuate (by demurring or refusing clear public stance on purely ideological issues) things that at the end of the day don’t matter that much to an average voter (venerable “middle-class”) in this economy. Thus, he leaves question on economy largely ignored which - and that’s a “gamey” part - voters take as Harper has a handle on. And in the voting booth that’s what it comes down to.
Iggy, I’m sorry to say, did not create a separate stream of thinking in the campaign and there’s more than I’d like negative posturing against Harper and Conservatives. What he needs is more of actual Liberal promotion but the problem is finding the key transformational issue to rail around. Also, we need more of other prominent Liberals in the news and on the campaign trail but that then means more of Bob Rae. Can’t win like that…
I’m sure the 2004 Michael Ignatieff who called himself an American and claimed to have voted in the Presidential election was the real Michael Ignatieff, too. It’s not like the current versions of the leaders are new software releases.
I have no doubt Harper belongs to a chaurch that doesn’t like gay marriage and abortion. That is also true of Barack Obama, who nobody accuses of being a dangerous religious nut. It’s true of most of the Prime Ministers we’ve had, if not all.
We aren’t banning gay marraige. Abortion is not going way. Those are done deals. A Conservative majority isn’t getting rid of them.
RickJay, you sound like those folks who vote BQ saying that Québec will never separate, and the BQ can’t do anything to make it separate anyway, so it’s safe to vote for them. I just don’t want to find out what the conservatives would do with a majority - I don’t even agree with the stuff that’s on the table, let alone what I suspect they’ve got under the table.
Is it time that we institute ‘civics classes’ in Canada? There is so much crap floating around right now about what is and what is not legitimate in a Westminster parliamentary system, it’s driving me crazy! Maybe that’s a worthwhile leaf to take from the American book.
Well, no, I don’t, because I am not using my position on the lielihood of gay marriage banning to justify a vote for the Tories (I have not, and will not, say how I’m voting, and my voting record wouldn’t help you, since I’ve voted for all the major parties.)
I’ll tell you what; if the Conservatives win a majority I’ll put a thousand dollars on gay marriage being legal at the end of their mandate and a thousand dollars on abortion being legal at the end of their mandate.
I promise that when I collect my $2000 at the end of the mandate, I won’t gloat.
You know, I have yet to meet a single person IRL who has some huge misconception about how the system works. I can honestly say every person I know has a fundamentally correct impression of the way Parliament functions. The parties spin it in terms of what’s right and proper and traditional, but I don’t know anyone who has a basically incorrect impression of the concepts of confidence and such.
We had civics class in grade 10. It was a half semester, split with “career studies.”
It is a continual waste of money (but may be minor in the grand scheme of things admittedly). Language does not equal culture. Language equals division. I’ve asked before what a uni-lingual French person does in Quebec that is different than what a uni-lingual English person does outside of Quebec other than the language they speak. The differences other than language are insignificant. Speaking a different language won’t change your day to day activities or your culture.
Yet, I’ve never said that they can’t or shouldn’t speak French in Quebec. That is their business. But my province (former actually. I live in Hong Kong now) shouldn’t be spending money on translating documents and providing services in French when it is only the 4th most spoken language in the province. And I think that way not because I dislike French or French people, but because I think the ‘Two founding nations’ idea is past its due date.
Regarding this election and scandals:
So, people won’t vote for the current government because of their scandals or their arrogance or whatever. I put it forward that if it was the party they are primarily for that, for most people, it wouldn’t stop them from voting for them regardless of the scandals. They seem to forget the misdeeds of the past that the Liberals were famous for and will be again. What has changed with them that people think they’d be any less devious and arrogant than the current government?
When you are doing better than most countries in the world through the recession, why rock the boat? Could thing be better? Yep, usually through hard work and a long term commitment. Could things be worse? Christ yeah, and it usually takes one or two stupid mistakes to make it so and it usually happens very quickly. Anyone think that that may be the real reason people don’t want a change regardless of a few minor scandals?
This is pure scaremongering, straight out of the Conservatives’ talking points. Try giving us an an actual argument. What, in your view, will the Conservatives do better than the Liberals?
There are those of us who do not think that the current crop of scandals are in any way minor. Couple that with disagreement with the Conservatives fundamental policies, and you have some very good reasons for voting for a different party.
Not true, he was clarifying his position once again on the abortion issue yesterday.
A large portion of his support comes from social right of centre conservatives . He knows that. He’s entilted to have personal opinions about abortion, gay marriage, death penalty etc. But he knows if he meddles with them he won’t be in power for long. Some things you just don’t touch.
We also have Harper’s word on it but I’m afraid that’s not enough. If in a minority situation he tried to bite more than Parliament would let him chew, I wonder to what extremes he will go once in a majority position. Conservatives already have trouble containing their various members of speaking what they really think (despite Harper’s penchant for media control, things leak) so I find it quite interesting that he himself has to come out and say that whatever is brewing in the Conservative caucus will not in fact translate in Parliamentary debate and overturned laws. And, apparently, his word is the guarantee.
Here’s one: Breaking News - Headlines & Top Stories | The Star
From article:
*Stephen Harper is challenging a key element of Canada’s parliamentary democracy, saying the ability of the opposition parties to defeat his minority government and be asked to govern themselves is open to “debate.”
In an interview with CBC News on Thursday, Harper refused to concede that the opposition parties have the constitutional right to form government after the May 2 vote if they can win backing of most MPs in the House of Commons.
At first, he dismissed the question as a “constitutional theoretical discussion.”
But asked whether the opposition parties would have the “right” to form government, Harper said “that’s a question, a debate of constitutional law.*
Well the Bloc simply cannot do anything about Quebec independence, that much is true. And even though they may have it in their platform, as I’ve explained, what they’re actually doing in Parliament is anything but. As for the Conservatives, they couldn’t (or wouldn’t) outlaw abortion or same-sex marriage even if they had a majority government, but what they can do, and even with a minority government, is to make access to abortion or contraception more difficult by reducing funding to organisms who provide such access. They can do this both in Canada and abroad; indeed it might be in third-world countries that are dependent on Canadian NGOs to provide family planning services that the effect will be most obvious.
This would seem to be true–that it would be a debate of constitutional law.
As I promised above, I did a little research into this, reading through Peter W. Hogg’s Constitutional Law in Canada; and paying particular attention to the conventions and traditions surrounding the powers of the Governor-General. It seems that the closest thing we’ve had in our history to the question as to whether the GG can appoint the Opposition to form a government, was the King-Byng Affair, of 1926; and even that’s not exactly on point.
I’m unsure if Professor Franks, who was quoted in the Star article linked to above, is correct in his assertion that it is not a constitutional question. Hogg points out that while the GG is constitutionally bound to act of the advice of the PM, that didn’t happen in the King-Byng Affair. King’s request to dissolve the government, and Byng’s response (refusing to dissolve and instead, appointing Meighen’s Conservatives to the government in spite of their minority status) is still questioned and studied today by a number of prominent historians and constitutional scholars. The issue pretty much boils down to, “Were Byng’s actions in ignoring the PM’s advice and instead taking the initiative to appoint the Opposition to government constitutional or not?” Which is close to the question we face today, thus (Professor Franks’ assertion notwithstanding) making it a constitutional question.
Hogg discusses the question in a larger context, fairly presenting both sides, but stopping short of providing a definite answer to the question. In fairness, I doubt he could conclude anything definite; there are good arguments made by both sides. At any rate, Hogg cites the historians and scholars and their relevant works, that he used in his discussion. While I don’t expect the Star to include cites, I’d be interested in seeing what cites Professor Franks has, especially if they overlap with Hogg’s. After reading Hogg, though, I’m left with two conclusions: (a), that this is indeed a constitutional question; and (b), that there are no clear answers. Harper is correct; there would necessarily be a constitutional debate.
I may not have an insight into procedural part of such an action, but professor says very clearly in the article:
There’s only one requirement for being the government and that is you must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons,”
Which I understand to mean:
- Harper wins minority, puts together Government and fails on motion of confidence
- Then, Iggnatieff or Layton ask for permission to put together new Government AND passes vote of confidence
That’s it.
It really does not matter how the Government is formed as long asi it passes confidence vote. No?
And his cite is? He mentions precedents at home and abroad, but has provided no references to the “at home” ones; and as for the “abroad” ones, fails to mention that other countries, even ones with Westminster parliaments, have different constitutions. We cannot look to, say, Australia’s constitution, as it was written specifically for Australia. Just as ours was written specifically for us.
Read our constitution sometime–you’d be surprised at what is not in it. Nowhere is mentioned a Prime Minister, elections (with the exception of the democratic rights granted through ss. 3 and 4 of the Charter), parties, majorities, and so on. How our government is formed is not mentioned at all; unlike the US constitution. The best we can do is form a government “similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom.” (From the preamble to our constitution.) Which means that our constitution contains a number of unwritten conventions that are followed just as slavishly as if they were written down.
And so, we conventionally elect members to the Commons; and those members conventionally belong to parties; and, by convention, the party with the most members in the Commons can send its leader to the Queen (or GG in our case) and ask that his party be allowed to govern. It may be phrased as a request, but conventionally, it is always granted. Similarly, if the governing PM’s party loses an election, or loses the confidence of the Commons, it is traditional for the PM to go to the GG and ask that the Commons be dissolved. Again, the request will be granted (but it has not always, as the King-Byng affair demonstrated, and whether Byng was correct or not is still being debated). At any rate, this is all similar to what happens in the UK Parliament. But nowhere is this written down; it is literally a “we’ve always done it this way” scenario; and has occurred for so long that it forms part of the constitution anyway. As a result, we don’t know what, constitutionally, happens when the leader of a party that does not command that majority of seats in the Commons takes the initiative and asks that his party be allowed to form a government. There is no precedent for this in Canada, and there is nothing written down to tell us what to do.
It does. It is not as simple as you (or Professor Franks) has put it. In order for the government to be the subject of a confidence vote, it must first be the government. Per the above, constitutional convention demands that the party with the most seats in the Commons gets to make the request; and by convention, the request will be granted. So we have a government.
Now, if that government falls on a confidence vote, convention again demands that the leader of the government make another request of the GG: to dissolve the Commons. The request will be granted. Traditionally, and conventionally, we then have an election. But there is no precedent for anybody else to step up at this point and ask if they can form a government, as you understand thus:
Here is where the constitution fails us in all ways: written, unwritten, traditionally, conventionally, and so on. Whether Ignatieff or Layton, neither of whom led the party with the most seats (assuming that’s how things turn out), can ask to form a government, or even make such a request, is unknown. Hogg’s cites would indicate that some say a government can be formed in this way without an election; some say it cannot. Nobody knows for sure. In short, in order for Ignatieff or Layton to have confidence in any government they lead to be judged by the Commons, they must first be the government–and constitutionally, we don’t know if they can even ask to be the government if neither gets the most seats.
Are you willing to put money on it? I am.
[QUOTE=Hypnagogic Jerk]
As for the Conservatives, they couldn’t (or wouldn’t) outlaw abortion or same-sex marriage even if they had a majority government, but what they can do, and even with a minority government, is to make access to abortion or contraception more difficult by reducing funding to organisms who provide such access.
[/QUOTE]
How could the federal government make it harder to get abortions in Canada through funding? They’re at the practical mercy of the provinces in terms of how health care dollars are spent.
The GG is granting a request to attempt to form a government. I suspect that if a government fell on its very first vote of confidence, that the attempt has failed, and that the opposition would be provided the opportunity to form a government. Otherwise, we get the situation of having an election, Parliament sitting for one or two days, and then another election.
While she could have course have been planning to act in the wrong, Adrienne Clarkson has said that in 2004, she would have entertained the possibility of an alternative government if the Martin government had fallen within the first six months after the 2004 election.
These scare tactics are just another variation on, 'Conservatives are bigots who want to oppress gays and women." It’ll never stop, because creating scary monster caricatures of the right is the favorite trick in the opposition playbook.
Speaking of which - I saw an ad by the liberal party yesterday that was so over-the-top and outrageous it gave me a violently angry reaction towards them. The ad opens up with foreboding music, then shows an out-of focus picture of a scowling Harper sitting in a chair looking like a king on a throne, and the voiceover and text say, “Steven Harper is DEMANDING ABSOLUTE POWER!”.
They then float a quote, supposedly by Harper, saying that it’s time the Canada Health act was scrapped. And as it turns out, it’s a lie. They took a quote from someone else and attributed it to Harper.
The ad then says “Last year, Harper’s finance Minister recommended MASSIVE CUTS to increases in health care spending. Now Harper wants to cut 11 Billion dollars from the budget. Where would those cuts leave your family’s health?”
Notice the ‘massive cuts’ were to requests for increases to the heatlh care budget. Nothing was cut, but the ad leaves that impression. It also leaves the impression that the feds want to cut 11 billion dollars from health care.
In fact, there is no plan to cut health care. In fact, the Conservatives plan to increase health care transfer payments to the provinces by 6%. The entire ad is dishonest from end to end. Harper is not demanding absolute power - he’s responding to an election forced on him by the other side. There is no secret plan to cut health care. It’s a lie from start to finish.
I predict that ads like that may excite the liberal’s base (or the NDP’s base…), but moderates and independents and Conservatives on the fence are going to be turned off by those kind of ads - they’re very transparent. I wouldn’t be surprised if ads like that are what are causing the Liberals to lose popularity.
Attack ads like this may have worked in the pre-internet era, but I think it’s just too easy to find counter-information now. If you’re going to attack the other side, you at least have to maintain a modicum of accuracy or you’ll be called on it.
I’ve seen one Conservative ad, and basically all it did was accuse the Liberals of wanting to raise taxes, which is fairly standard campaign fodder. I didn’t spot any obvious lies. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Conservatives are running some pretty nasty attack ads as well, but I haven’t seen them.