Harper Government to be found in Contempt

[rareboy]

Just in case anyone has any doubt that it is only in the US where the conservatives are high handed and anti-democratic, for the first time in history, a government of Canada will be charged with contempt of Parliament.

Our PM has decided that running the country is just too important to trust to elected members in the House and has been running a secretive and paranoid minority government.

Misleading the House. Not providing proper information to the House.

Well done lil Stevie and your band of fools.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...t-could-trigger-election-call/article1946464/

Recently, StevieCo. tried to change 'Government of Canada' to 'The Harper Government' on official signs and communiques.

Sigh. But I don't think that many of us are in the mood for another stupid election.

 

[gaypiper]

I spent 5 1/2 years up there and was shocked to watch that asshole's star rise so damned quickly. The trouble is that those conservative shits depend on your voter apathy, just as they do down here in the States. Really now... how much bother is it to listen to a month or so of ads and then get off your arses and cast a ballot? I mean, it's not such a big deal. If you want democracy, you do have to pay for it, you know.

 

[BostonPirate]

Opposition parties have agreed they will find the Harper government in contempt of Parliament and have begun efforts to put the matter to a vote in the Commons – a move that would set the stage for an election call as early as next week.

you guys can recall an official in a week? Wow.

 

[CowboyBob]

Canadians think they're so smart with their health care and equal rights. Now they actually might recall a corrupt conservative.

The USA could learn a lot from Canada.

 

[frankfrank]

And, if this happens, a GOOD RIDDANCE it will be, indeed.

I don't like seeing vile political leaders north of "our borders" any more than I do here.

Tea time. *pours out*

 

[rareboy]

you guys can recall an official in a week? Wow.

We have the delicious luxury of having a minority government at the moment.

A fact that the conservatives have had a really hard time remembering over the last four years.

But it does mean that governments can be turfed out on a non-confidence motion.

And I'd be really surprised if any party could actually hold their nose and not make this a non-confidence measure.

 

[Aaron]

I think I'm one of the only people out there who thinks there is a half decent chance of avoiding an election. This the Conservative's election to lose. The Liberals are charging into a campaign with a leader whose only redeeming quality is that he's not quite as bad as the last guy and their poll numbers should make any Liberal strategist shudder. The NDP are in an even worse spot, and will most likely LOSE seats in an election (the gun registry and strategic voting could easily see to that).

Cooler heads could still prevail here. It's also rumoured that senior caucus members on all sides expect an election to be avoided, including Bob Rae and Stephen Harper.

We'll see what happens at lunch on Wednesday when the NDP caucus meeting ends.

 

[jayoTN]

you guys can recall an official in a week? Wow.

Canada is a parliamentary democracy and the prime minister holds a seat in parliament as well as serving as leader of the party with the largest plurality - if not majority - in the chamber.

Prime Minister Harper could be deposed as leader of the Conservative Party and have to forfeit his office as prime minister, while retaining his seat in parliament. The Harper government - even if it were not a minority government - can be brought down by a no-confidence motion.

This would be akin to having the U.S. President be required to hold a seat in the Congress and be the leader of his or her political party (the de jure leader, as opposed to just being the de facto leader). Under this scenario, the president would be someone like ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Sen. Harry Reid, since they both lead/led their respective chambers. Depending on which house the president would have to serve (in most parliamentary democracies - such as Canada and Britain - the prime minister serves in the lower chamber), the presidency could change hands every two years, and Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) would potentially be president if the U.S. were a parliamentary democracy.

 

[rareboy]

The Harper government - even if it were not a minority government - can be brought down by a no-confidence motion.

Only if there was a majority vote. It is highly unlikely that majority governments would get caught out by a no-confidence vote. The only ones at risk are those with bare majorities who don't get enough members in the house for the vote.

Otherwise....a non confidence vote doesn't mean spit.

 

[jayoTN]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a bare majority = a majority. Does it not?

 

[Aaron]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a bare majority = a majority. Does it not?

Yes, but it's possible that the governing party could, for some reason, be unable to get enough members to attend the House that day. If they're not physically in the House to vote, then a government with a bare majority could be brought down if the opposition had more members in attendance.

Each party appoints a Whip, who is charged with ensuring maximum attendance, particularly for important votes.

 

[Aaron]

Only if there was a majority vote. It is highly unlikely that majority governments would get caught out by a no-confidence vote. The only ones at risk are those with bare majorities who don't get enough members in the house for the vote.

Otherwise....a non confidence vote doesn't mean spit.

Which is the only reason why we haven't had a contempt vote until now. Governments have treated Parliament poorly in the past; this is just the first time that the opposition has had enough seats to do anything about it.

 

[rareboy]

Well...actually there have been many other minority governments..........but this is the first instance that I can remember in my lifetime where the minority government has been so arrogant and contemptuous as to be censured in this way.

Normally, the government would have been brought down on various other confidence motions before they achieved this singular distinction.

 

[Aaron]

Well...actually there have been many other minority governments..........but this is the first instance that I can remember in my lifetime where the minority government has been so arrogant and contemptuous as to be censured in this way.

True. But is that because no other minority government has ever attempted similar behaviour, or because this opposition has failed to hold them to task?

 

[bankside]

Rising star? Nobody here can stand the man more than just holding their noses and granting him a bare minority government. The only reason his government has been tolerable is because he's on a short leash. The Opposition has been doing its job.

 

[Kulindahr]

you guys can recall an official in a week? Wow.

Efficient, isn't it?

Too bad our President isn't elected by Congress and more subject to censure thereby.



BTW, how is he a "rising star"? If he's a "rising" anything, I'd say it's a gas bubble in a cess pit.

 

[BostonPirate]

Efficient, isn't it?

Too bad our President isn't elected by Congress and more subject to censure thereby.



BTW, how is he a "rising star"? If he's a "rising" anything, I'd say it's a gas bubble in a cess pit.

The american method allows for more political stability AND more abuse.

 

[Aaron]

The only reason his government has been tolerable is because he's on a short leash. The Opposition has been doing its job.

The actions of the Harper Government are hardly those of a government on a short leash. Iggy's version of a short leash included supporting a budget that he owtwardly denounced, for crying out loud.

If the Liberal Party had been doing its job it would have held Harper to task years ago. The Liberals have presented such piss poor excuses for leaders it's no wonder the Tories are so arrogant in the House. Dion was an absolute disaster, and Iggy hasn't proven to be much better. I'm sure that the members would be doing their job if they had some competent leadership at the helm.

If we do vote, and the Liberals lose, maybe they can turf Iggy and find someone of sufficient quality. Third time's the charm, right?

 

[Kulindahr]

The american method allows for more political stability AND more abuse.

It's one reason I've always been attracted to benevolent monarchies. The trick, of course, is having a way to make sure the monarch is benevolent.

 

[BostonPirate]

It's one reason I've always been attracted to benevolent monarchies. The trick, of course, is having a way to make sure the monarch is benevolent.

I am not a fan of Monarchial rule.

I would fuck the piss out of Prince Harry, though, and tell him anything he wanted to hear while I was there.