Vancouver Forum: Dissecting Harper's Argument

Read this on facebook. He makes good points.


"1. Un-Democratic.
Stephen Harper claims that he was elected Prime Minister and therefore nobody else has the right to be Prime Minister except him, barring another election. This is false. Stephen Harper was not elected Prime Minister. Legally and constitutionally speaking, he was elected as the Member of Parliament for Calgary West. In the eyes of the constitution Mr Harper is just one of 308 other duly elected Members of Parliament. We have recent experience of Prime Ministers changing without an election – like when Jean Chretien handed power to Paul Martin.

Another of Mr Haper’s claims is that the voters rejected the opposition parties. This is also false. Constitutionally speaking the party affiliation is meaningless. That’s why, on occasion, members can switch sides like Belinda Stronach, Garth Turner and Bill Casey have in recent years. On no occasion did this switch of parties cause an election.

So on both counts – the choice of party and the choice of prime minister – we’ve got recent examples of those things changing without it causing an election. People may not like when this happens very much but there’s nothing illegal or undemocratic it - the people involved are still the same people that were elected in their ridings.

So, who gets to be Prime Minister then and which party governs?
Well constitutionally speaking this decision isn’t actually up to the people, it’s up to the 308 members that the people elect. The government is formed of whatever arrangement of parties and members achieves a majority of the 308. After the last election Mr Harper and his party had the most seats so by tradition he automatically has the first opportunity to form a government. However in order to actually pass bills and govern Mr Harper needs at least 154 members to agree with him. Since the Conservatives have only 143 members themselves that means Mr Harper needs 11 more votes from elsewhere, and that brings me to the second point

2. Separatists.
Stephen Harper’s core argument against the Coalition is that to pass any bill the coalition partners would need the support of the Bloc. Harper is trying to terrify the nation with doomsday predictions of the breakup of Canada. This argument though is extraordinarily flimsy for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Mr Harper himself proposed a coalition with the Bloc a few years ago as a way of unseating the then Liberal government of Paul Martin.

Secondly, the argument doesn’t make any sense; When Mr Harper says the coalition needs the Bloc he does so with the assumption that his own Conservative Party will not support any Coalition bill. If that assumption holds then it is true that the Coalition government would rely on Bloc support to pass their bills. However, the reverse is also true – Mr Harper himself has only a minority of the seats in parliament so if he wants to pass any bill he needs 11 other members to support him. If you make the same assumption – that the coalition partners will not support any Conservative bill, then Mr Harper needs the Bloc just the same as the coalition would. So in fact, under the same assumptions, both Mr Harper and the coalition would be at the mercy of the Bloc, so this argument he’s making is completely meaningless. The only difference is that the coalition have a written promise of support from the Bloc whilst Mr Harper would need to beg for it on a bill by bill basis.

3. In support of the Coalition.
The only way a government can function in Canada is if it has the support of at least 154 of the 308 elected members of parliament. Mr Harper has only 143 and with his actions last Thursday made clear that he is incapable of finding the common ground necessary to attract those 11 other votes he needs to remain prime minister. It is unfortunate for him to come so close and yet be so far away, but that was his choice – he chose to lose the trust of the other members, he chose to make his government fail. The coalition by contrast has a written agreement guaranteeing the required votes for a functioning government for a minimum of 18 months.

There is no need for another $300million election just a month after the last one. Elections are expensive and the public have already spoken. The 308 members we have today are the 308 that the Canadian people chose. It is now their job to figure out how to behave like reasonable adults and govern the country. Mr Harper clearly has no idea how to build the required consensus to do that and so he should keep what’s left of his dignity by resigning now, and letting the coalition get on with the job. "


Gareth Hitchings



http://www.facebook....gid=51482725308

Match.com - Everyone knows someone who met on Match.com. Now it’s your turn. Search Now!

1. - It is un-democratic. It may be constitutional, but it is certainly not democratic. Even liberal supporters are pissed.

2. - The separation of Quebec, is not a danger. It is something many Canadian's would rejoice in, but the odds of it happening are doubtful. What the problem is, is that anything produced by the session of parliament will be in Quebec's best interests, not the nations. The BQ has made that abundantly clear.

3. - He lost the trust of the other MP's? Time will tell, that much is unknown. What is clear is that the leadership of the respective parties are making a ridiculous bid for power at the expense of the nation.

You're hate for Harper is fogging common sense.

The opposition parties did not come clean about a possible coalition government during the election. So they lied. If they told the truth, the Tories would probably get a majority.

So lets have an election to straight everything up.

Marion Morrison, on Dec 2 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

Then a Tories majority is likely not a favorable outcome either, most definitely not with a contempt filled Harper.
Things were fine, why do they have to be so dammed greedy. Leave it alone.

The Harper government did not lose the confidence of the voters. Last I heard, they were at top of the polls. Losing the confidence of the people vs losing the confidence of parlaiment are two separate things. Let the voters have a final say. No back room deals!

Paradox, I voted for the Liberals, but I sincerely hope that something happens to make this coalition falls apart as soon as it was put together. In short, Dion's an a.sshole. He's putting his own fragile ego ahead of the party's best interests and its supporters. He doesn't care if he drags the party down with him, so long as he can be his coveted portrait space in the halls of the House of Commons. Many of us never voted to keep him in no matter what. We voted for him in hope that he'd step down so someone more effective and more capable could succeed him and resurrect the Liberal Party. He does a great disservice to his own party and all Liberals as well.

?, on Dec 2 2008, 08:35 PM, said:

I really thought I'd never see the day when we agreed on two things in a single day..... :unsure:

Goat Boy©, on Dec 2 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Technically, the Conservatives didn't get the majority of the popular vote. The number of seats they got was a reflection of the political system - it has nothing to do with how many people voted for them.

Quote

The coalition cannot be formed without the consent of the house. The reason why his government is failing is because the house does not trust him anymore, so they will vote against him.

Quote

Who said I hate Harper?

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

If you order a 52" LCD & get a 12" CRT, are you getting what you paid for? This is identical.

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

The government isn't failing at this point. All this is, is some sneaky leaders that found a loophole in the law to propose what is essentially a hostile takeover.

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

Apologies. I simply assumed with all the anti-Harper stuff showing up.

?, on Dec 2 2008, 08:35 PM, said:

I don't think Dion is an asshole, I just think he's not capable of leading the country. I surely understand your position, though I do not totally agree with it, just like I do not totally agree with the coalition either.


As long as the parliament can govern and that realistic measures to solve the financial crisis are taken (and, of course, the house acts on behalf of the people, with OUR best interests in mind), I will be happy with whichever steps are taken to do so.

Goat Boy©, on Dec 2 2008, 08:51 PM, said:

I don't follow you. My point is that his current minority government was not achieved democratically in terms of majority, but rather through the political system only. He didn't win the popular vote at all.

Quote

Yes, it is failing because Harper made promises which he broke. Furthermore, his financial plans are very ineffective and appear to be an excuse to exclude other parties through the elimination of their subsidies, which is a very tiny percentage of government expenditures.

Quote

No worries, it happens.

What was good for the goose is good for the gander!

Letter to the Governor General September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the
Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons
fail to support some part of the government’s program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together
constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We
believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give
you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the
opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising
your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

It is virtually impossible to get a majority in a multiparty parliamentary sytem. When is the last time a party in the federal election got over 50%? it occurs in the US because of the 2 party system.

To Quote Bud, on Dec 2 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

A red herring because this letter say nothing about a coalition plus the three opposition parties did not agree to to a coalition formally.

And Haper is in much stronger position because the Tories are only 10 seats short of a majority.

This post has been edited by Marion Morrison: 02 December 2008 - 08:08 PM

To Quote Bud, on Dec 2 2008, 08:58 PM, said:

ROFLMAO!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Boys and their silly games!! :lol:

Marion Morrison, on Dec 2 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

11.


And I don't think that's the point in showing the letter. Harper is saying how undemocratic the current situation is and how unethical and so on. He's vilifying those who are simply doing what he once considered doing himself!


It's called "hypocrisy".

Marion Morrison, on Dec 2 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

True. However, the Liberals and the NDP have similar goals and they, together, got more of the popular vote then Harper did.


In fact, the current situation in Canadian politics is largely due to "Strategic voting". A lot of people voted for the Liberals instead of the NDP because they thought the Liberals were more likely to win, even though they would rather vote for the NDP. The same the other way around! Not mentioning all the people who support the Green party but voted for the Liberals or the NDP because they had a better chance of winning against the Conservatives!

Hence some speculation that the Liberals and the NDP will eventually form a single party. Because, currently, we have one party that is right wing and 3 parties that are left wing! (In varying degrees, of course, but they are all left wing.)

To Quote Bud, on Dec 2 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

This is standard practice when there is a chance a minority will fall. The GG can not force a coalition or name a government without request.
NDP working with the Conservatives. hmmmm

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

If the the Liberals /NDP want to merge, that is fine. Doing this way without the parties members input is undemocratic. They are doing it at the top and in back rooms. Should the Liberals and NDP form a single party, many people on the right side of the liberals will move to the Tories. In this way we will have a 2 party system like the US.

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

People got what they were voting for. It's what was expected. People didn't vote for a minority coalition.

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

My thoughts are that this happened for two reasons;
1 - Harper threatened to take away their campaign money (The real reason)
2 - Harper is delaying the stimulus package until next year to wait and see what America does. (Smart move, but they are calling this the reason)

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Why then did the Liberals post the worst election result they have ever had?

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Same as above.

paradox, on Dec 2 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

They should, but they should do it in a public fashion, prior to an election.

Goat Boy©, on Dec 2 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

I know I sound like from another planet but anyone explain what's going on why all those politicial threads and topics about S.Harper ???

Thanks.

cynicalgirl, on Dec 2 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

Liberal/NDP/BQ attempting to form a coalition and take over the government.

hey guys

check this out. hows my understanding of our political system.

we dont vote for a prime minister we vote a parliament. the largest party in parliament is invited by th gg to form the governmnet. in the case of a minority government the government exists at the pleasure of the opposition or until parliament losses confidence in the government.

in the case of this minority government that has happened. the pm may then ask the gg to dissolve parliament at which point the gg may ask another party or group of parties to form a government.

you guys can not like it all you want. all british parliament systems across the world opperate this way. its a very good system based on a body of law hundreds of years old.

the fact that a seperatist party exists in our country is irrelavant. they are elected mps and are entitled to the same rights and privalages as any other partys mps.

the gg wont let harper suspend parliament, as an agreement is in place all ready she will ask the coalition to form the government. thats how a parliament works.

sim, on Dec 2 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

You are correct.

sim, on Dec 2 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

It's not a very good system, it's very unstable.

sim, on Dec 2 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

It's completely relevant. How can you call yourself Canadian and say that? On top of which, it's obvious that Gilles Duceppe is the one whom is really in charge, and it's pretty clear that this government won't accomplish anything that isn't directly beneficial to Quebec. He's as much as gone on TV and announced that, but it remains ignored like it's no big deal to the anti-harper crowd.

sim, on Dec 2 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

You have no idea what she will do. This is unprecedented.

This post has been edited by Goat Boy©: 02 December 2008 - 09:25 PM

Goat Boy©, on Dec 2 2008, 11:46 PM, said:

thanks sweetie. i move on

Goat Boy©, on Dec 2 2008, 08:38 PM, said:

GB...I don't agree nor disagree for the sake of being in one tent...like Left Wing or Right Wing. Just to be logical. And the pieces in this coalition don't fit. Is simple as that. It won't work, especially with the weak cornerstone at the helm, Stephane Dion. Just like I predicted George Dubya would be a disaster. That Boy Stephane (and he comes across as one) will be lucky if he holds this would-be coalition together successfully for more than 3 months. He's a very weak and gullible individual, swayed by false promises of glory. Jack Layton comes across as an extremely Machiavellian character, whose only interest is the pursuit of power, at the expense of the great good of the country. Just as he knifed Paul Martin in the back, he'll do the same to Dion, or his successor. Layton's goal is power at all costs, either with the the hope of displacing the Liberals as the 2nd party of power or creating the conditions for a merger one day, making himself either kingmaker of Prime Minister. Every time someone is toppled, Layton's power grows. Just a game of chess to that guy. I'm not even that concerned about Duceppe. He's a country bumpkin looking out for Quebec's interests and somewhat of a nice fellow compared to Layton. Layton'll sleep in bed with anybody to get what he wants. Harper, Dion, Duceppe. Having seen what he'll do, I don't trust that guy's motives. Harper's certainly no angel, but He seems to have a sincere desire to at least create a stable government, even if people don't agree with it. Layton appears to have borrowed a Chapter or two from Marx. De-stabilize the system no matter what the cost. Ends justify the Means.

?, on Dec 2 2008, 09:56 PM, said:

Hey man, I was just goofing. You know, keeping with the whole arch nemesis thing? Taliban Jack may be the biggest snake in the grass, but the BQ presents the biggest threat to the government with this.
What does that tell you about voters who are supporting this when;
Gilles so much as went on TV and said I'll only go along with what's good for Quebec, Veto power was an absolute necessity for his support.

The whole reason for this coalition was due to Harper's supposed "Inability" to address the economic crisis, and one of the first parts of the mandate is a guarantee of countless dollars funneling into Quebec for, "cultural programs." What sort of precedent does that set?

Just how naive can people be?

Goat Boy©, on Dec 2 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

Hey, that is what I said a couple of posts above. Unite the parties publicly, not in some backrooms. Let members of the parties vote on it. Don't impose from the top.