Comments on: A question of majority rules in Canada http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/ Speak Victorian, Think Pagan Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:09:04 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Psudo http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386695 Psudo Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:59:52 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386695 Canada has never really had a coalition party: in 1917 the Liberal Party divided against itself with half of them crossing the aisle over the issue of military conscription (the Draft, in US-talk). But that is different than the current situation in two ways: first, the aisle-crossing occurred before the election in 1917, allowing the population to place informed votes; and second, the coalition actually formed a new party (the Unionist Party) rather than a coalition. A coalition government behind Dion would truly be unprecedented in Canadian history. Canada has never really had a coalition party: in 1917 the Liberal Party divided against itself with half of them crossing the aisle over the issue of military conscription (the Draft, in US-talk). But that is different than the current situation in two ways: first, the aisle-crossing occurred before the election in 1917, allowing the population to place informed votes; and second, the coalition actually formed a new party (the Unionist Party) rather than a coalition.

A coalition government behind Dion would truly be unprecedented in Canadian history.

]]> By: tdaxp » Blog Archive » And you thought confidence in the American government has fallen? http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386681 tdaxp » Blog Archive » And you thought confidence in the American government has fallen? Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:18:37 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386681 [...] the Royal Governour of Canada may suspsend Parliament, as the Canadians are insisting on the inclusion a party that calls for the dismemberment of Canada [...] [...] the Royal Governour of Canada may suspsend Parliament, as the Canadians are insisting on the inclusion a party that calls for the dismemberment of Canada [...]

]]> By: von Kaufman-Turkestansky http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386657 von Kaufman-Turkestansky Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:21:16 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386657 Some Canadian Conservative supporters are quite aghast at what the (apparent) hubris of the PM's economic update, along with its perceived pettiness when it came to the contents (not just the campaign financing part). But while many point out that the Conservatives brought this on, you could also say that the Liberals brought this on by choosing the leader that they did in 2006! Dion was the result of an "anyone-but-Iggy" campaign. Then, when Dion lost, he should have gone away. They would have done well with someone like a thick-necked bulldoggy Ralph Goodale as an interim leader - Harper might have thought twice before trying to swoop in for the kill. How could he not? Asking the PM and his staff why they made that risky move is like asking a hunting dog why he went after the rabbit. "He was just sitting there... wiggling his rabbit whiskers at me... grrrwoof!". It's beginning to resemble this This Hour has 22 Minutes sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unDhAhsLZpQ ... Enjoy! Some Canadian Conservative supporters are quite aghast at what the (apparent) hubris of the PM’s economic update, along with its perceived pettiness when it came to the contents (not just the campaign financing part). But while many point out that the Conservatives brought this on, you could also say that the Liberals brought this on by choosing the leader that they did in 2006! Dion was the result of an “anyone-but-Iggy” campaign. Then, when Dion lost, he should have gone away. They would have done well with someone like a thick-necked bulldoggy Ralph Goodale as an interim leader – Harper might have thought twice before trying to swoop in for the kill. How could he not? Asking the PM and his staff why they made that risky move is like asking a hunting dog why he went after the rabbit. “He was just sitting there… wiggling his rabbit whiskers at me… grrrwoof!”.

It’s beginning to resemble this This Hour has 22 Minutes sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unDhAhsLZpQ …

Enjoy!

]]> By: Alfred Russel Wallace http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386645 Alfred Russel Wallace Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:32:24 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386645 While I think the coalition will prove fragile and unworkable, I don't see it as outside the rules of what a representative system like Canada's might include. I certainly wouldn't urge a referendum or new election... But I would guess the Conservatives will be back with a vengeance when this falls apart.... While I think the coalition will prove fragile and unworkable, I don’t see it as outside the rules of what a representative system like Canada’s might include. I certainly wouldn’t urge a referendum or new election… But I would guess the Conservatives will be back with a vengeance when this falls apart….

]]> By: Just An Australian http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386642 Just An Australian Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:18:38 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386642 Canada is a lot like Australia. Most of us here vote for a combination of policies and our local MP. If there's a coalition, we'll judge it on whether we are getting good governance, policies we like, and that our local representation is working. I don't see the need for a new election (costly business) unless the coalition or it's support collapses (usually the same thing, especially since a coalition is always closer to a no-confidence vote than a majority government) Canada is a lot like Australia. Most of us here vote for a combination of policies and our local MP. If there’s a coalition, we’ll judge it on whether we are getting good governance, policies we like, and that our local representation is working. I don’t see the need for a new election (costly business) unless the coalition or it’s support collapses (usually the same thing, especially since a coalition is always closer to a no-confidence vote than a majority government)

]]> By: tormsen http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386639 tormsen Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:02:20 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386639 I don't see the lack of a mandate here, this decision does nothing to change the results of the Federal election. Either decision by the GG would be reasonable. Drawing parallels with chavismo is pretty disingenious. Could you enlighten us on how exactly this arrangement resembles a left-wing South American political movement based centrally around a single polarising figure and typified by an aggressive foreign policy? I don’t see the lack of a mandate here, this decision does nothing to change the results of the Federal election. Either decision by the GG would be reasonable. Drawing parallels with chavismo is pretty disingenious. Could you enlighten us on how exactly this arrangement resembles a left-wing South American political movement based centrally around a single polarising figure and typified by an aggressive foreign policy?

]]> By: bingobangoboy http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386638 bingobangoboy Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:20:40 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386638 I'm with rod. It's not uncommon for a minority government to form a coalition with a 3rd party to give it a majority over the official opposition. I don't think the particular parties involved make this coalition any different in principle. Canadians don't vote for a government, coalition or otherwise; they vote for a parliamentary representative for their riding. Whether that MP is a member of the party that happens to end up with the most MPs is always independent of that fact; no election results are being overturned. What sounds undemocratic to me is suggesting that an appointed figurehead should dictate that a government most Canadians don't support must be allowed to retain power, even when the opposition finds enough common ground to outnumber it. (sorry if this ended up as a multiple post) I’m with rod. It’s not uncommon for a minority government to form a coalition with a 3rd party to give it a majority over the official opposition. I don’t think the particular parties involved make this coalition any different in principle.
Canadians don’t vote for a government, coalition or otherwise; they vote for a parliamentary representative for their riding. Whether that MP is a member of the party that happens to end up with the most MPs is always independent of that fact; no election results are being overturned. What sounds undemocratic to me is suggesting that an appointed figurehead should dictate that a government most Canadians don’t support must be allowed to retain power, even when the opposition finds enough common ground to outnumber it.
(sorry if this ended up as a multiple post)

]]> By: Younghusband http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386636 Younghusband Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:48:22 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386636 We are not in a presidential system but a parliamentary system based on political parties. We vote for parties, not people (a reduction, I know). If the CP was in power and Harper got sick his number two would step in until the next general election. I think the voters would be satisfied with that. But a change of ruling party through parliamentary tactics deserves a public referendum. That is my point. We are not in a presidential system but a parliamentary system based on political parties. We vote for parties, not people (a reduction, I know). If the CP was in power and Harper got sick his number two would step in until the next general election. I think the voters would be satisfied with that. But a change of ruling party through parliamentary tactics deserves a public referendum. That is my point.

]]> By: rod http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386634 rod Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:32:48 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386634 I can only assume that you think that we are in some sort of presidential system. The opposition did exactly what an opposition should do when they don't like some thing; show no confidence with the government of the day. Having a governing party put forward the proposition, that removing federal financial support of political parties, pay equity in the federal civil service and the right to strike in the federal civil service will help in these financially troubled times and then crying foul that the opposition didn't mention the possibility of a coalition during the last election speaks volumes about what Harper understands about parliament. He didn't win a majority! I seem to remember another Tory Prime Minister pretending he had a majority. But back to the economic statement, I don't remember hearing anything about these changes in the Conservative platform during the last election. Nor do I understand how these changes would have helped stabilize the current fiscal climate. Can the CPC say hubris? I can only assume that you think that we are in some sort of presidential system. The opposition did exactly what an opposition should do when they don’t like some thing; show no confidence with the government of the day. Having a governing party put forward the proposition, that removing federal financial support of political parties, pay equity in the federal civil service and the right to strike in the federal civil service will help in these financially troubled times and then crying foul that the opposition didn’t mention the possibility of a coalition during the last election speaks volumes about what Harper understands about parliament. He didn’t win a majority! I seem to remember another Tory Prime Minister pretending he had a majority. But back to the economic statement, I don’t remember hearing anything about these changes in the Conservative platform during the last election. Nor do I understand how these changes would have helped stabilize the current fiscal climate.
Can the CPC say hubris?

]]> By: Dave http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386631 Dave Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:49:54 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386631 Actually, the GG is ceremonially appointed by QEII (head of state) from a list of candidates selected by the elected PM (head of government). Actually, the GG is ceremonially appointed by QEII (head of state) from a list of candidates selected by the elected PM (head of government).

]]> By: tdaxp http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-386629 tdaxp Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:47:43 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/02/a-question-of-majority-rules-in-canada/#comment-386629 I love that an apointee by Queen Elizabeth II has the power to decide the fate of the Canadian people. Don't just call an election.. may Her Excellency Michaëlle Jean softly mutter under her breath... "Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or their lawful business, on pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to an imprisonment for life. God Save the Queen!" and then, after waiting the appropriate half-hours, orders her musketeers to "Open fire!" I love that an apointee by Queen Elizabeth II has the power to decide the fate of the Canadian people.

Don’t just call an election.. may Her Excellency Michaëlle Jean softly mutter under her breath…

“Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or their lawful business, on pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to an imprisonment for life. God Save the Queen!”

and then, after waiting the appropriate half-hours, orders her musketeers to

“Open fire!”

]]>