Re: Work Ethic
JD
<lucreti...@fl.it> wrote in message
news:0qjnj510cob2qp1hd...@4ax.com...
> Does St Harper have any work ethic at all ?
>
>
> "Prime Minister Stephen Harper will move to prorogue Parliament for
> two months, until after the end of the Vancouver Winter Olympics, the
> Prime Minister's Office announced Wednesday."
>
> They should be forced to spend X number of days in parliament, like
> schools. It becomes obvious they knock off, with full pay, and
> without doubt charge up their tickets, fares and hotels to the
> Olympics to us as well.
Parliament has been sitting for only about half the time under every Prime
Minister that I can remember.
JD
<lucreti...@fl.it> wrote in message
news:3nrnj5lern7dbivne...@4ax.com...
I don't disagree
Ice Age
>
> Parliament has been sitting for only about half the time under every
> Prime Minister that I can remember.
>
That may be, JD, and that is how the schedule works in *normal*
circumstances. My point is that twice in a row when things got hot for
Harper, he pulled the prorogue card to avoid the negative publicity and
opposition questions. This is not normal scheduling. We always have a
budget in February. Not this year, in the middle or the aftermath of an
economic mess. Instead we are told the Olympics are more important.
Going to the Olympics is not an excuse to avoid answering why he and his
Ministers allowed prisoners to be turned over to the Afghans to be
tortured. It is not an excuse to avoid explaining the finances of
Canada. That's why he did it; not to avoid missing the pole vault or
the shot put.
Ice!
JD
"Ice Age" <ice_ag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:00ea0a28$0$27836$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
And you seem to be misinformed about prorogation.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_parliamentarycycle-e.htm
wmd
> Does St Harper have any work ethic at all ?
>
>
> "Prime Minister Stephen Harper will move to prorogue Parliament for
> two months, until after the end of the Vancouver Winter Olympics, the
> Prime Minister's Office announced Wednesday."
Harper is a study in hypocrisy. His actions give new meaning to the old
adage, "It's only illegal if you get caught." In his case, replace the
world "illegal" with "unethical" or similar. Hypocrisy is a character
trait I dislike most in any politician, regardless of political ideology.
More generally, I tend to wonder if having Stephen Harper as our PM
provides a good case study for reforming Canada's parliamentary system,
perhaps once the Queen dies. The only reason he is able to play these
political tricks is because the Governor General is a figurehead. If the
GG function was working as designed, it could potentially provide a
counter-balance to the PM.
Of course, no GG in her right mind would oppose the PM in this day and
age, which may be an excellent reason to reform the whole works. Either
make the PM an arms-length Head of State, removed from the legislative
body; or, create an elected Head of State (i.e. an elected President...
hell, even continue to call the person a Governor General if we want,
just elected) to work in conflict with the legislative body, including
the PM.
I dislike the way the current system works, and Harper has exposed many
of the flaws and loopholes in the system. Of course, when the opposition
tries to exploit these loopholes (e.g. the coalition plan last year,
perfectly legitimate in our parliamentary system), Harper is quick to
call it undemocratic. However, he isn't above using similar tricks to
his advantage. Tsk, tsk.
Disappointing. Frustrating. Not at all surprising.
wmd
Ice Age
>
> And you seem to be misinformed about prorogation.
>
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_parliamentarycycle-e.htm
>
Read your own reference, JD, "A Parliament is summoned following a
general election and continues to exist until it is dissolved (ended) by
a proclamation of the Governor General at the request of the Prime
Minister. This is followed by another general election."
Stephen Harper didn't do it last year or this year to have it
followed by an election. He did it to avoid the opposition, kill
committees and circumvent standard Parliamentary process.
Ice!
JD
"wmd" <wmd...@NOSPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:l3T_m.59570$PH1.33464@edtnps82...
Good God. Those same "loopholes" have been used by virtually every Prime
Minister since Confederation. I don't believe he is hypocritical; he does
what he says. Like it or not, I appreciate that in any politician since it
has been a long time since a Prime Minister of any party did that.
I think, given that most of the world was slammed by recession while we got
away pretty unscathed, that it simply shows that Canadians get it right once
in a while. We have a minority government that has successfully navigated
us through one of the worst economic crisis in 100 years.
I think he is doing pretty well; and I didn't even vote for him the first
time he was PM.
JD
As usual, you are cherry picking again. A Parliament is made up of one or
more sessions. Each one ends with a prorogation except the last one when
the GG dissolves Parliament.
Prorogation is perfectly normal and very common.
Ice Age
> I think he is doing pretty well; and I didn't even vote for him the
> first time he was PM.
You can vote for him the next time and feel a lot better!
Ice!
Halifax_Hooligan
> "wmd" <wmd5...@NOSPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think the economy survived because banks in Canada couldn't create
fictional financial products, like they did in the USA. Not sure if
those we're Harper's policies,likely have been place for years.
As for proroguing parliment for the Olympics, Harperis just running
from the prisoner abuse scandal,hoping it will be gone by March. Did
Parliment stop in 72, or 88 ( when were the Calgary Olympics?)?
Ice Age
>
> As usual, you are cherry picking again. A Parliament is made up of one
> or more sessions. Each one ends with a prorogation except the last one
> when the GG dissolves Parliament.
>
> Prorogation is perfectly normal and very common.
I quoted your reference word for word. JD. How is that cherry picking?
Ice!
JD
Given the current choices, I probably will.
JD
"Halifax_Hooligan" <skepti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:042a6c0e-0971-4dc1...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
*** That is partially true. Conservative policies are generally about less
regulation and not more. However, they didn't tinker with the banking
system even when under pressure to do so. But their management of the
economy has been pretty sound.
As for proroguing parliment for the Olympics, Harperis just running
from the prisoner abuse scandal,hoping it will be gone by March. Did
Parliment stop in 72, or 88 ( when were the Calgary Olympics?)?
*** Could be. It won't be gone by March and I am sure they know that. As
for 72 and 88, probably not. But it was a different time. The amount of
security and planning going into the security in Vancouver is something to
behold compared to 72 or 88.
JD
You didn't read far enough into it. Prorogation is described in detail and
the reasons for it.
wmd
> Good God. Those same "loopholes" have been used by virtually every
> Prime Minister since Confederation. I don't believe he is hypocritical;
> he does what he says. Like it or not, I appreciate that in any
> politician since it has been a long time since a Prime Minister of any
> party did that.
If the loopholes are used as frequently as you suggest (and I don't
agree that they are, but for the sake of this argument), then it still
holds that, perhaps, the time has come to re-think the system.
No politician should be allowed to shut down committee work or run from
situations that aren't flattering to his policy or party. Regardless of
whether one likes Harper, it is plain as day why he is proroguing now.
The Afghan prisoner torture issue has the potential to hurt his party,
so he is trying to minimize the amount of formal investigation into the
issue.
There is also the stacking of the Senate. Harper will have the
opportunity to appoint some Senators, creating a Conservative majority
in the upper chamber and on the committees (now that he has prorogued).
Despite the fact that Harper said he wouldn't appoint unelected
Senators, he now holds the record as the PM who has appointed the most
Senators in a twelve-month period!
If he wanted to demonstrate leadership on this issue, he'd appoint
Senators based on the same party representation as the elected House. In
my mind, that would be the next best thing to having an elected Senate,
and it would provide Harper a world of legitimacy.
> I think, given that most of the world was slammed by recession while we
> got away pretty unscathed, that it simply shows that Canadians get it
> right once in a while. We have a minority government that has
> successfully navigated us through one of the worst economic crisis in
> 100 years.
I think that is a simplistic argument, but some do feel that
Conservatives are the best governments to have when times are tough. I
think our perseverance through this economy goes deeper than any one
government, or government at all for that matter. Still, I'll grant to
you that an NDP federal government, or a Dion-led federal Liberal
government, might not have made wise decisions!
> I think he is doing pretty well; and I didn't even vote for him the
> first time he was PM.
Harper is a brilliant strategist, or he has a brilliant strategist
working for him. Unfortunately I find that he is too conservative for my
tastes, plus I just don't trust him. I go back to my original hypocrisy
comment: with Harper, he always has a reason why he isn't wrong, but he
would never apply that same standard if anyone else was doing the exact
same thing. I know that is how all politicians operate, but Harper comes
across as if he truly believes he is better. That is what bothers me.
wmd
JD
"wmd" <wmd...@NOSPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
> JD wrote:
>
>> Good God. Those same "loopholes" have been used by virtually every Prime
>> Minister since Confederation. I don't believe he is hypocritical; he
>> does what he says. Like it or not, I appreciate that in any politician
>> since it has been a long time since a Prime Minister of any party did
>> that.
>
> If the loopholes are used as frequently as you suggest (and I don't agree
> that they are, but for the sake of this argument), then it still holds
> that, perhaps, the time has come to re-think the system.
>
OK. Have a look at the "Presidential Discretion" they have in the US; a
republican democracy which you are suggesting. The loopholes are there
because there are times that it is necessary to use them. However, because
they are there, they are open to abuse too. But, yes they have been used
and abused regularly.
> No politician should be allowed to shut down committee work or run from
> situations that aren't flattering to his policy or party. Regardless of
> whether one likes Harper, it is plain as day why he is proroguing now. The
> Afghan prisoner torture issue has the potential to hurt his party, so he
> is trying to minimize the amount of formal investigation into the issue.
>
Chretien shut down the Somalia Inquiry. Because he had a majority, he
didn't even bother to go to Parliament. It was the right decision, but it
was certainly done using a 'loophole'.
> There is also the stacking of the Senate. Harper will have the opportunity
> to appoint some Senators, creating a Conservative majority in the upper
> chamber and on the committees (now that he has prorogued). Despite the
> fact that Harper said he wouldn't appoint unelected Senators, he now holds
> the record as the PM who has appointed the most Senators in a twelve-month
> period!
>
Every party since Confederation has done it. Harper wanted to move to an
elected senate and he can't get enough votes in either Parliament or the
provinces to make it fly. So now he is playing the same game as everyone
else plays; he has no choice.
> If he wanted to demonstrate leadership on this issue, he'd appoint
> Senators based on the same party representation as the elected House. In
> my mind, that would be the next best thing to having an elected Senate,
> and it would provide Harper a world of legitimacy.
>
Really? The Liberals never have, and the NDP certainly wouldn't. Why would
he he appoint senators that will handicap his government?
>
>> I think, given that most of the world was slammed by recession while we
>> got away pretty unscathed, that it simply shows that Canadians get it
>> right once in a while. We have a minority government that has
>> successfully navigated us through one of the worst economic crisis in 100
>> years.
>
> I think that is a simplistic argument, but some do feel that Conservatives
> are the best governments to have when times are tough. I think our
> perseverance through this economy goes deeper than any one government, or
> government at all for that matter. Still, I'll grant to you that an NDP
> federal government, or a Dion-led federal Liberal government, might not
> have made wise decisions!
>
That's right. But the government had a significant influence on economic
activity. But, if the Liberals (Dion or Iggy) were in power, we would be
sunk now. If the NDP were in power, we'd be sunk for the next 50 years.
>
>> I think he is doing pretty well; and I didn't even vote for him the first
>> time he was PM.
>
> Harper is a brilliant strategist, or he has a brilliant strategist working
> for him. Unfortunately I find that he is too conservative for my tastes,
> plus I just don't trust him. I go back to my original hypocrisy comment:
> with Harper, he always has a reason why he isn't wrong, but he would never
> apply that same standard if anyone else was doing the exact same thing. I
> know that is how all politicians operate, but Harper comes across as if he
> truly believes he is better. That is what bothers me.
>
> wmd
He may not be likeable, but he isn't hypocritical either. He has been very
consistent; which is why those who like him and his policies continue to,
those who dislike him continue to, and he has had very few converts to one
side or the other.
Halifax_Hooligan
>
> *** Could be. It won't be gone by March and I am sure they know that. As
> for 72 and 88, probably not. But it was a different time. The amount of
> security and planning going into the security in Vancouver is something to
I didn't know Saint Stephen was also in charge of Olympic security
!!!
JD
*** The government is accountable for it and the ministers are still
responsible to him. They hold the purse strings and make the policies.
wmd
> OK. Have a look at the "Presidential Discretion" they have in the US; a
> republican democracy which you are suggesting. The loopholes are there
> because there are times that it is necessary to use them. However,
> because they are there, they are open to abuse too. But, yes they have
> been used and abused regularly.
Sure one example are so-called "signing statements". Bush Jr. went nuts
with them, but Clinton was no slouch either. Another example of an abuse
of a loophole. Whenever they're found, they should be closed. Either
that, or perhaps some type of oversight to ensure that such loopholes
aren't being exploited.
I'm not suggesting a carbon copy of the American republican system, but
a type of hybrid. No system is perfect, but I tend to think the
Westminster Parliamentary system may have run its course, or at the very
least it is due for some updates and reforms.
> Chretien shut down the Somalia Inquiry. Because he had a majority, he
> didn't even bother to go to Parliament. It was the right decision, but
> it was certainly done using a 'loophole'.
In that case, at least Chretien allowed the inquiry to have a life. It
went on for quite some time before Chretien killed it (wasn't it even
his own government's decision to create the inquiry in the first place,
or did Kim Campbell or even Mulroney start it?).
> Every party since Confederation has done it. Harper wanted to move to
> an elected senate and he can't get enough votes in either Parliament or
> the provinces to make it fly. So now he is playing the same game as
> everyone else plays; he has no choice.
> Really? The Liberals never have, and the NDP certainly wouldn't. Why
> would he he appoint senators that will handicap his government?
Why compare to what the NDP or the Liberals would do? Harper wants an
elected Senate. Since we don't have an elected Senate, we can only guess
as to what the makeup would be if it was elected. Thus, if Harper wanted
to go along with the spirit of his own suggestion, he could use the
results of the last federal election as a basis for picking the partisan
Senators he appoints. It is a logical suggestion, since we don't
actually have an elected Senate.
To say that he has no choice, that he must go along with how it has
always been done, is a cop-out. You spoke about how Harper hasn't
converted many people to his side: if he did things a bit differently,
like the suggestion above, it might give him more legitimacy in what he
says.
> That's right. But the government had a significant influence on
> economic activity. But, if the Liberals (Dion or Iggy) were in power,
> we would be sunk now. If the NDP were in power, we'd be sunk for the
> next 50 years.
I don't know if Iggy would do as poorly as the others, but agreed about
Dion and Layton.
> He may not be likeable, but he isn't hypocritical either. He has been
> very consistent; which is why those who like him and his policies
> continue to, those who dislike him continue to, and he has had very few
> converts to one side or the other.
Unless he is willing to allow the same standards to be applied to the
opposition that are applied to his own actions, I feel he is a
hypocrite. What if the Liberals called a confidence vote for the most
minor of bills? What if the Liberals brushed off the media except for
tightly scripted photo ops? What if the Liberals prorogued Parliament to
avoid a controversial committee investigation, or to stack the Senate?
Harper would be frothing at the mouth! He cannot claim that his own
actions are just, if he would trash another party for identical actions!
To back away from the policy for a moment: as you say, if he hasn't
managed to convert, why do you think the Conservative Party keeps him
around? Perhaps as a safety net, since he is showing gradual
improvement, versus an unknown who could set the party back? Harper just
doesn't seem to be the man to deliver a Canada-wide majority government
for the Conservatives - too many people seem to be entrenched in their
opinions about the guy. I often talk about the need for the Liberals to
find a polarizing leader to take back Parliament, but that seems to be
true for the Conservatives as well.
wmd
Al Smith
I can't complain too much about Harper ... but I want him to come
through on his promise to completely abolish the long gun registry.
-Al-
JD
"wmd" <wmd...@NOSPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
> JD wrote:
>
>> OK. Have a look at the "Presidential Discretion" they have in the US; a
>> republican democracy which you are suggesting. The loopholes are there
>> because there are times that it is necessary to use them. However,
>> because they are there, they are open to abuse too. But, yes they have
>> been used and abused regularly.
>
> Sure one example are so-called "signing statements". Bush Jr. went nuts
> with them, but Clinton was no slouch either. Another example of an abuse
> of a loophole. Whenever they're found, they should be closed. Either that,
> or perhaps some type of oversight to ensure that such loopholes aren't
> being exploited.
>
What oversight would you suggest, and who ensures that that position is not
abused?
> I'm not suggesting a carbon copy of the American republican system, but a
> type of hybrid. No system is perfect, but I tend to think the Westminster
> Parliamentary system may have run its course, or at the very least it is
> due for some updates and reforms.
>
I don't agree. I think it works better than most republican systems.
>
>> Chretien shut down the Somalia Inquiry. Because he had a majority, he
>> didn't even bother to go to Parliament. It was the right decision, but
>> it was certainly done using a 'loophole'.
>
> In that case, at least Chretien allowed the inquiry to have a life. It
> went on for quite some time before Chretien killed it (wasn't it even his
> own government's decision to create the inquiry in the first place, or did
> Kim Campbell or even Mulroney start it?).
>
It was his government.
>
>> Every party since Confederation has done it. Harper wanted to move to an
>> elected senate and he can't get enough votes in either Parliament or the
>> provinces to make it fly. So now he is playing the same game as everyone
>> else plays; he has no choice.
>
>> Really? The Liberals never have, and the NDP certainly wouldn't. Why
>> would he he appoint senators that will handicap his government?
>
> Why compare to what the NDP or the Liberals would do? Harper wants an
> elected Senate. Since we don't have an elected Senate, we can only guess
> as to what the makeup would be if it was elected. Thus, if Harper wanted
> to go along with the spirit of his own suggestion, he could use the
> results of the last federal election as a basis for picking the partisan
> Senators he appoints. It is a logical suggestion, since we don't actually
> have an elected Senate.
>
Because what the Liberals and NDP would do is what the game is. Because he
can't get his elected senate, he is playing the game; same game as everyone
else. Why would you hold him to a higher standard than everyone else just
because you don't like him?
> To say that he has no choice, that he must go along with how it has always
> been done, is a cop-out. You spoke about how Harper hasn't converted many
> people to his side: if he did things a bit differently, like the
> suggestion above, it might give him more legitimacy in what he says.
>
No. He'd simply be defeated.
>
>> That's right. But the government had a significant influence on economic
>> activity. But, if the Liberals (Dion or Iggy) were in power, we would be
>> sunk now. If the NDP were in power, we'd be sunk for the next 50 years.
>
> I don't know if Iggy would do as poorly as the others, but agreed about
> Dion and Layton.
>
He hasn't impressed me so far. I feel the same about him as many feel about
Harper; I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. I don't think his
coronation was the right thing for the Liberal Party. But time will tell.
>
>> He may not be likeable, but he isn't hypocritical either. He has been
>> very consistent; which is why those who like him and his policies
>> continue to, those who dislike him continue to, and he has had very few
>> converts to one side or the other.
>
> Unless he is willing to allow the same standards to be applied to the
> opposition that are applied to his own actions, I feel he is a hypocrite.
> What if the Liberals called a confidence vote for the most minor of bills?
> What if the Liberals brushed off the media except for tightly scripted
> photo ops? What if the Liberals prorogued Parliament to avoid a
> controversial committee investigation, or to stack the Senate? Harper
> would be frothing at the mouth! He cannot claim that his own actions are
> just, if he would trash another party for identical actions!
>
They frequently did under Trudeau. Chretien had majorities so never needed
to. As for the media, Chretien frequently brushed them off, as did Paul
Martin.
> To back away from the policy for a moment: as you say, if he hasn't
> managed to convert, why do you think the Conservative Party keeps him
> around? Perhaps as a safety net, since he is showing gradual improvement,
> versus an unknown who could set the party back? Harper just doesn't seem
> to be the man to deliver a Canada-wide majority government for the
> Conservatives - too many people seem to be entrenched in their opinions
> about the guy. I often talk about the need for the Liberals to find a
> polarizing leader to take back Parliament, but that seems to be true for
> the Conservatives as well.
>
> wmd
>
Harper hasn't delivered a majority. He may not either. But, he has won two
terms. No party would turf a leader who is a sitting PM.
I have often thought that I would like to see a more dynamic leader who
could rally people. I don't want another Liberal government for a while;
they have very few policies I would support. As for Taliban Jack, I can't
conceive of it.
JD
JD
<lucreti...@fl.it> wrote in message
news:lo5pj51jfc6lfstqb...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:31:44 GMT, "JD" <m...@home.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>I think, given that most of the world was slammed by recession while we
>>got
>>away pretty unscathed, that it simply shows that Canadians get it right
>>once
>>in a while. We have a minority government that has successfully navigated
>>us through one of the worst economic crisis in 100 years.
>
> Martin making the banks stamp their feet in outrage when he would not
> agree to de-regulate them like their US counterparts !
And Harper left it that way.
Brian Smith
>
> Perhaps he is about to hand Vancouver several more millions of
> dollars, even though he said he would not - in which case if
> parliament is not sitting, he hopes it will go unnoticed.
If you know about it, it can't be going unnoticed. LOL!
Brian Smith
>
> That had little to do with the current people and more to do with Paul
> Martin making the banks stamp their feet in outrage when he would not
> agree to de-regulate them like their US counterparts !
The current people left it in place, or else we would have fallen like
the States.
Brian Smith
>
> And Harper left it that way.
Exactly!
Best
"wmd" <wmd...@NOSPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
> JD wrote:
>
> There is also the stacking of the Senate. Harper will have the opportunity
> to appoint some Senators, creating a Conservative majority in the upper
> chamber and on the committees (now that he has prorogued). Despite the
> fact that Harper said he wouldn't appoint unelected Senators, he now holds
> the record as the PM who has appointed the most Senators in a twelve-month
> period!
by Harper. He held off for a long time appointing any Senators, hoping to
get his "Elect Senators" legislation through Parliament. The Liberals and
NDP's refused to go along in any way, so Harper finally had to start filling
seats, as there were not enough Senators to do the work required, sit on
committees, etc. Naturally this was in a twelve month period: he held off as
long as could, while the opposition dithered on Senate Reform.
Brian Smith
>
> So why was he the good little tag along with the US boy when Martin
> wouldn't allow it ? Bit two faced isn't it to say one thing then and
> do another when in power ?
He is not screwing the country as the liberals have done in the past
and lord help us if the populace ever becomes so stupid as to elect the
NDP to run the nation. A lot of people are learning what they were told
would happen if the NDP were put in office here, imagine how hard the
country would fall if they were in the power seats in Ottawa.
Brian Smith
>
> They may have done so when they were in power but at the time they
> were crying 'shame' 'shame' in the House when Martin turned them down.
That unfortunately is the way governments and parties ru(i)n the
process of running the country/province. They spend so much time arguing
amongst themselves that the jurisdiction suffers.
wmd
> What oversight would you suggest, and who ensures that that position is
> not abused?
In the case of the US, perhaps have a congressional veto power on
signing statements, or something similar... perhaps a 2/3 vote to
override a signing statement. I don't know if that would be effective or
not. Best case scenario would be to have some type of an unbiased panel
to watch over such things, but the panel itself would also need to be
accountable. The judiciary might work, but they are hardly unbiased.
> I don't agree. I think it works better than most republican systems.
I dislike the concentration of power in the PMO. It is rife for abuse.
Yes, it does allow for more to be accomplished, and when those
accomplishments are positive then it can be argued that it is a good
thing. Unfortunately, abuse of process is far too easy.
I'd be happy with the system if we re-enabled the Governor General to
have an effective role as the system was designed, but that will never
happen so long as the position is an appointed representative of the
monarch.
The Senate, too, is due for reform. I don't recall if you have an
opinion on that or not, but remember that our system was designed
intentionally to have appointed Senators to act as a protective barrier
for the upper class, versus the unwashed members of the House. I
actually agree with Harper on Senate reform, but unfortunately his
actions demonstrate that he is perfectly okay with the status quo of
appointing his friends and well wishers to the Senate. Too bad.
> Because what the Liberals and NDP would do is what the game is. Because
> he can't get his elected senate, he is playing the game; same game as
> everyone else. Why would you hold him to a higher standard than
> everyone else just because you don't like him?
He should hold himself to the higher standard, if he truly thinks he is
better than the opposition parties.
> No. He'd simply be defeated.
He wouldn't be defeated. He might be frustrated, but ultimately he can
still run with his agenda.
> He hasn't impressed me so far. I feel the same about him as many feel
> about Harper; I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. I don't
> think his coronation was the right thing for the Liberal Party. But
> time will tell.
I don't think Iggy was the best choice, but I don't know if there was
any better. Bob Rae has too much baggage from his Ontario days. Iggy is
certainly better than Dion.
I'd still like to see what Frank McKenna would do as leader, but I doubt
we'll ever know. Who knows - maybe they need Danny Williams in there to
fire up the party! lol (Yes, I know he's PC, but a switch to Liberal
federally could work.)
> They frequently did under Trudeau. Chretien had majorities so never
> needed to. As for the media, Chretien frequently brushed them off, as
> did Paul Martin.
Not to the same extent. Harper hates the media, and does as much as he
can to control the content. He is a control freak, which works for him,
but it also diminishes the openness and accountability that ought to
surround a PM.
> Harper hasn't delivered a majority. He may not either. But, he has won
> two terms. No party would turf a leader who is a sitting PM.
>
> I have often thought that I would like to see a more dynamic leader who
> could rally people. I don't want another Liberal government for a
> while; they have very few policies I would support. As for Taliban
> Jack, I can't conceive of it.
I doubt the NDP will ever do anything federally. I've sometimes wondered
how long they'll continue to flounder... one would think that, at some
point, they'd consider uniting the left. But, they seem to be content
being a minor party, at the ready to go on a tangent about whatever they
think the government of the day is doing wrong!
wmd
JD
<lucreti...@fl.it> wrote in message
news:urspj5pc23fldfg0h...@4ax.com...
> were crying 'shame' 'shame' in the House when Martin turned them down.
While any party is opposition they do that. The governing party can't do
anything right as far as the opposition is concerned. The Liberals screamed
"shame, shame" when Mulroney put in the GST, they promised to kill it, and
the last time I looked, 20 years later, we still have it.
JD
<lucreti...@fl.it> wrote in message
news:itspj5t78p0rbkgim...@4ax.com...
> wouldn't allow it ? Bit two faced isn't it to say one thing then and
> do another when in power ?
And the Liberals didn't kill free trade, didn't kill the GST, and didn't
implement anything that could have made Kyoto a success even though they
signed it. Then they blame the Conservatives for all the ills associated
with all three.
JD
JD
"wmd" <wmd...@NOSPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
> JD wrote:
>
>> What oversight would you suggest, and who ensures that that position is
>> not abused?
>
> In the case of the US, perhaps have a congressional veto power on signing
> statements, or something similar... perhaps a 2/3 vote to override a
> signing statement. I don't know if that would be effective or not. Best
> case scenario would be to have some type of an unbiased panel to watch
> over such things, but the panel itself would also need to be accountable.
> The judiciary might work, but they are hardly unbiased.
>
>
>> I don't agree. I think it works better than most republican systems.
>
> I dislike the concentration of power in the PMO. It is rife for abuse.
> Yes, it does allow for more to be accomplished, and when those
> accomplishments are positive then it can be argued that it is a good
> thing. Unfortunately, abuse of process is far too easy.
>
> I'd be happy with the system if we re-enabled the Governor General to have
> an effective role as the system was designed, but that will never happen
> so long as the position is an appointed representative of the monarch.
>
> The Senate, too, is due for reform. I don't recall if you have an opinion
> on that or not, but remember that our system was designed intentionally to
> have appointed Senators to act as a protective barrier for the upper
> class, versus the unwashed members of the House. I actually agree with
> Harper on Senate reform, but unfortunately his actions demonstrate that he
> is perfectly okay with the status quo of appointing his friends and well
> wishers to the Senate. Too bad.
>
He isn't. He tried to reform the Senate and the Liberals and NDP would not
go with an elected Senate. As for the GG, I agree; it should be an elected
position or appointed by the Queen directly and not beholden to the Prime
Minister.
>
>> Because what the Liberals and NDP would do is what the game is. Because
>> he can't get his elected senate, he is playing the game; same game as
>> everyone else. Why would you hold him to a higher standard than everyone
>> else just because you don't like him?
>
> He should hold himself to the higher standard, if he truly thinks he is
> better than the opposition parties.
>
That's bullshit and you know it.
>> No. He'd simply be defeated.
>
> He wouldn't be defeated. He might be frustrated, but ultimately he can
> still run with his agenda.
>
Why would anyone deliberately handicap their own government?
>
>> He hasn't impressed me so far. I feel the same about him as many feel
>> about Harper; I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. I don't think
>> his coronation was the right thing for the Liberal Party. But time will
>> tell.
>
> I don't think Iggy was the best choice, but I don't know if there was any
> better. Bob Rae has too much baggage from his Ontario days. Iggy is
> certainly better than Dion.
>
> I'd still like to see what Frank McKenna would do as leader, but I doubt
> we'll ever know. Who knows - maybe they need Danny Williams in there to
> fire up the party! lol (Yes, I know he's PC, but a switch to Liberal
> federally could work.)
>
He'd probably win as a Conservative.
>
>> They frequently did under Trudeau. Chretien had majorities so never
>> needed to. As for the media, Chretien frequently brushed them off, as
>> did Paul Martin.
>
> Not to the same extent. Harper hates the media, and does as much as he can
> to control the content. He is a control freak, which works for him, but it
> also diminishes the openness and accountability that ought to surround a
> PM.
>
Not so. The Liberal Party Whip was every bit as effective as the
Conservative Wip is, and during the 90s, much more effective than the
Conservative Whip.
>
>> Harper hasn't delivered a majority. He may not either. But, he has won
>> two terms. No party would turf a leader who is a sitting PM.
>>
>> I have often thought that I would like to see a more dynamic leader who
>> could rally people. I don't want another Liberal government for a while;
>> they have very few policies I would support. As for Taliban Jack, I
>> can't conceive of it.
>
> I doubt the NDP will ever do anything federally. I've sometimes wondered
> how long they'll continue to flounder... one would think that, at some
> point, they'd consider uniting the left. But, they seem to be content
> being a minor party, at the ready to go on a tangent about whatever they
> think the government of the day is doing wrong!
>
Which is just about everything no matter which party is in power.
Best
"wmd" <wmd...@NOSPAMyahoo.ca> wrote in message
> The Senate, too, is due for reform. I don't recall if you have an opinion
> on that or not, but remember that our system was designed intentionally to
> have appointed Senators to act as a protective barrier for the upper
> class, versus the unwashed members of the House. I actually agree with
> Harper on Senate reform, but unfortunately his actions demonstrate that he
> is perfectly okay with the status quo of appointing his friends and well
> wishers to the Senate. Too bad.
Certainly it's due for reform. Harper has been trying, but blocked at every
turn. What is being forgotten is that, even though he has been blocked from
getting an elected Senate, he has passed a Bill making all Senators
appointed subject to an 8 year term!!!! They will not become the doddering
old fools like the Liberal appointments are. And indeed, even the ones he
appointed prior to the Bill (S-7?) agreed to the 8 year limitation on term.
His goal is an elected Senate, and I'm sure he will make this an Election
issue. If he had a majority in 2006, it would have been in place
immediately.
wmd
> * He is NOT happy with the status quo. Why do you keep saying that?
> Certainly it's due for reform. Harper has been trying, but blocked at
> every turn. What is being forgotten is that, even though he has been
> blocked from getting an elected Senate, he has passed a Bill making all
> Senators appointed subject to an 8 year term!!!! They will not become
> the doddering old fools like the Liberal appointments are. And indeed,
> even the ones he appointed prior to the Bill (S-7?) agreed to the 8 year
> limitation on term. His goal is an elected Senate, and I'm sure he will
> make this an Election issue. If he had a majority in 2006, it would have
> been in place immediately.
It isn't exactly correct to say that Harper has been "blocked at every
turn". Senate reform isn't as simple as passing a bill. C-20 would have
provided a mechanism to seek the opinion of the electors in each
province about who they prefer to serve as Senators, but the final
decision would still have rested with the Governor General, on the
advice of the PM. That is required under the Constitution Act.
Whenever Senate reform is discussed, it opens up other controversial
issues like representation. Should each province have an equal number of
Senators, or each region? What to do about the west? What to do about
the perennial problem of Quebec? Etc.
In any event, no bills have actually passed, due to being bogged down in
committees or having amendments proposed in the Senate (one co-sponsored
by a Conservative and a Liberal). Harper's proroguing of Parliament
doesn't help the process either!
wmd
wmd
> He isn't. He tried to reform the Senate and the Liberals and NDP would
> not go with an elected Senate. As for the GG, I agree; it should be an
> elected position or appointed by the Queen directly and not beholden to
> the Prime Minister.
Are you sure about that? I've done a bit of limited research online, and
what I see as bogging down the process is the fact that Senate reform
opens all the other doors as well (especially representation). In fact,
a Conservative Senator co-proposed an amendment to one of the bills,
seeking an increase in the number of Senators.
>> He should hold himself to the higher standard, if he truly thinks he
>> is better than the opposition parties.
>>
>
> That's bullshit and you know it.
Why? It wouldn't change anything... he already has a minority in the
Senate. If Harper wants us all to believe he is better than the rest,
then he needs to act better than the rest. Period.
The business of parachuting a buddy of his into the Senate so that he
could serve on Cabinet was another example of Harper's hypocrisy.
wmd