If elected with a majority would Harper further criminalize the sex trade?
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
If the Tories had been able to hold the centre in 1993, we'd have had a better party system: NDP to soak up most of the loony left and the Reform to soak up the ridiculous right. Tories and Liberals then battle for the centre.fuji said:
Make no mistake about it though, there still are loony lefties among the Grits who realize that the path to power is under the Liberal banner even though most of their fellow travellers flock to the NDP or fringe parties.
The verdict will be about optics and attack ads. No political party has made enough of an issue over Harper's blanket application of the confidence classification. This is probably because the average voter has almost no grasp or what is democratically justified with only a narrow minority mandate. Harper's extensive use of this tactic is probably unprecedented in our history but it would still be a boring and academic-sounding sell in this election. Dion is already boring and academic enough, thank you. So this will slide by the average voter and Harper will get away with it.johnhenrygalt said:
The separate section of the post about the youth crime was in responce to another poster, my apologies for not specifing that.slowpoke said:
In responce to the above post there is no rule, law or custom that the party forming the govt in a minority must collaborate on bills. The concept of cooperating can be done if it is nesisary to get bills through parliment, in this case it was not required, the opposition folded faster than a 5 dollar suit case. The impossition of confidence motions on the bills was to ensure passage as written . The opposition could have defeated the bills if they wanted to.
The harper govt governed as if they had a majority, from the outcome it would appear they did have a majority thanks to the opposition parties.
As far as the mandate to get things done in govt, things were getting done it just was not the way the opposition wanted it done, they had a solution for that if they wanted it, the different ideals of the direction of govt in the 5 parties made it difficult if not impossible to get a consensus to govern. The tories want to cut taxes and spending , the liberals the opposite, NDP want to own everything and give you what they think you need, the bloc well you know. I personally think he did a good job of getting his govt's agenda through as much as he did, wether or not he overstepped his bounds the people will decide in 3 weeks
I actually don't think they governed as if they had a majority. Though they strong-armed the bills through Parliament they were also careful to make sure that nothing they introduced would be so controversial that it would give the opposition an election issue.landscaper said:
With a majority they could push through some highly contorversial "election issue" type stuff in the first 1-2 years, and then play nice in years 3-5 so that by the time of the next election people have forgotten about the horrendous stuff earlier on.
That is what majority governments often do, and that is certainly NOT what the Harper minority government did.
So no, they did not govern "as if they had a majority", if they had a majority it'd have been much worse.
It may have been somewhat different if they had a majority, but the other parties had ample opportunity to make a stand.
Don't forget that the 'primary' concern of most elected representatives is to get elected again - and the two major parties are so close in the popular vote that in the end the differences matter very little.
Don't forget that the 'primary' concern of most elected representatives is to get elected again - and the two major parties are so close in the popular vote that in the end the differences matter very little.
They did, and Dion failed to stand his ground. That is one reason why I am not voting Liberal this time out: I think the party and the platform are fine, but Canada needs a good leader, and Dion isn't it.OddSox said:
I am throwing my vote to the Greens just to help them make their way, gradually, to becoming a viable alternative. Plainly they won't win much/anything this time out but the increasing popular vote should begin to attract some professional politicians to their cause and so maybe next time.
landscaper said:
You're still thinking in terms of rules, laws etc. Harper didn't break any rules or laws but he broke parliamentary custom and he exceeded his mandate. The content of Harper's bills and the conduct of the opposition parties in response to Harper's inappropriate use of the confidence designation also have nothing to do with this. It is about Harper intentionally ignoring what the voters said to him. It is really about Harper's lack of respect for democratic fundamentals.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...nt/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080923.wEConfidence24
Not everything in government is a confidence matter
Article Comments (31) Globe and Mail Update
September 23, 2008 at 11:13 PM EDT
Most public opinion polls taken in the months leading up to this federal election campaign suggested that another minority government for Stephen Harper's Conservatives was very likely. Mr. Harper was well aware of this, when he asked Governor-General Michaëlle Jean to dissolve Parliament; indeed he predicted another minority on the campaign's first day. Now, however, he is acting as though he would in effect refuse to accept that result.
For the second time in two days, Mr. Harper announced yesterday that his party would reintroduce anti-crime legislation that the previous Parliament did not pass – and that, if the opposition stood in the way, he would be ready to force another election over it. His aides indicated that the bills would be put to the opposition as take-it-or-leave-it propositions.
This is not how a minority government should work. Confidence votes are to be limited to money bills and measures at the core of the government's agenda – not routinely invoked by a prime minister whenever he wishes to put pressure on other parties to support less important bills. If Canadians elect the Conservatives with another minority, they will be explicitly saying that they have not entrusted them with full power over the legislative agenda – that they expect them to try to work with the other parties.
It is easy to understand why Mr. Harper does not believe he would need to make that effort. If they remain in opposition, the Liberals will likely begin another costly and all-consuming leadership campaign. In the midst of it, they will be in no shape to enter yet another general election campaign.
That does not mean, however, that the Liberals and other opposition parties should be unable to call Mr. Harper's bluff. If they have deep-seated objections to an anti-crime initiative, or any other bill, then they should vote against it. Mr. Harper should not put the Governor-General in the highly controversial constitutional position of having to think about declining a request to call another election in the near future and inviting the opposition government to form a government.
This campaign is a consequence of what Mr. Harper interpreted as political stalemate. He cannot keep creating dubious scenarios until he gets the result he wants.
Who are these self-appointed custodians of "parliamentary custom" and from where do they draw their mandate to circumscribe what a government may or may not introduce into the House?slowpoke said:
This one I agree with the parlimentary customs in this case are non existant. The Globe and MAil is cring sour grapes because the liberals could not stand up for their values, in several cases stateing they were going to vote against and then not showing up. A better case for parlimentary tradition would be showing up and voting like your constituants expectjohnhenrygalt said:
I agree that this is just sour grapes. In general, I think that “Parliamentary customs” are what ever happens to be expedient. Examples include the famous “bell ringing affair” federally and time the provincial opposition introduced a bill with every lake in Ontario in its title to hold things up while the bill’s title got read into the records. In each case they broke tradition in the sense of using the rules in ways they had never been used before. Likewise, when parliament decided to elect speakers. Minority governments normally compromise because they have to in order remain in power. It has nothing to do with democratic mandates. Indeed, what could be more democratic than saying to the opposition, this is what we believe and if you don’t think the public supports it, we can take it to an election. The only reason that minority governments often compromise instead is for expediency. However, they don’t always compromise. Joe Clark did not compromise on the budget that brought him down, even though the prospects of being able to do so were good (e.g. a deal with the then the Social Credit party).landscaper said:
In some sense we are in new territory. I can’t recall another time with a minority government has faced an opposition party so weak that they could get away with this. However, there is nothing undemocratic about challenging the other party to face the voters if they think the government is being heavy handed.
I agree with everything there except the Joe Clark part he was to stupid to count noses before a vote and he paid for it or actually we paid for it with a PET return
There are no custodians of parliamentary custom other than the electorate. I've already said the voters are not going to punish Harper for his blanket use of the confidence designation. When Harper was in opposition, he was part of a tri-party coalition that sought to reform these parliamentary rules. Considering that he introduced a total of 43 confidence votes in our parliament, it seems that Harper has forgotten those noble intentions.johnhenrygalt said:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/09/09/opposition040909.html
.."Harper said the tri-party deal "will make Parliament a more meaningful place for debating and deciding issues and it will make the government more accountable between elections."
Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals hold just 135 seats in the 308-seat House of Commons, so the three opposition parties intend to combine their votes once Parliament resumes on Oct. 4 to force their procedural changes through....
..The leaders also said they would seek a clearer, written definition of a confidence vote from Governor General Adrienne Clarkson so that the government can't make every vote a confidence item. That would allow opposition politicians to defeat Liberal motions in the House of Commons without bringing down the government."....
Apparently Harper wasn't the first to use this tactic. It seems their 'agreement' was never followed up on for whatever reason (I tried but couldn't find any other reference to the plan anywhere). If it's such a good idea, I wonder why the Liberals, NDP and Bloc never resurrected it during the time the Conservatives were supposedly abusing their power?
I accept that Harper probably wasn't the first to use the confidence designation on a non-critical bill to force the opposition to either pass that bill with no amendments or face an election. But I'd be surprised if any political party had done it nearly as often as Harper. If you can find any record showing another federal party that has done this so frequently in such a short period, I'll gladly retract my assertion that Harper exceeded his true mandate.OddSox said:
the only people who can decide if a political party has exceeded its mandate is the populace. David Peterson call an early election for no reason anyone but he knew about and got pummelled at teh polls. Brian Mulroney ran an election on the GST and won in a landslide. What actually happens in parliment is determined during the election, if his actions were wrong he will pay for it.
Doesn't matter what slowpoke or the Rocket man think as it does not appear that their opinions are shared by the majority. The majority is the only opinion that counts.
You have to laugh at the opposition leaders who after threatening to force an election for two years now cry foul when there is one. Most people recognize how truly pathetic that is. Like children in the schoolyard.
The Liberals would do well to forget this whining and address the issues at hand because in many areas of the country they have fallen to third and even fourth place - if you can believe the press ( which means it has a 50/50 chance of being right).
You have to laugh at the opposition leaders who after threatening to force an election for two years now cry foul when there is one. Most people recognize how truly pathetic that is. Like children in the schoolyard.
The Liberals would do well to forget this whining and address the issues at hand because in many areas of the country they have fallen to third and even fourth place - if you can believe the press ( which means it has a 50/50 chance of being right).
Rocket man so you are in both the Conservative and Liberal caucas ( what the hell is the plural of caucas?fuji said:
) are you? You have first hand info that one is more than the other ? Wow an insider in both camps. Impressive .Don't tell me you are relying on opinion pieces in the press. Or maybe you can pull another silly stat out of your butt. Truth is you just don't like Harper and are jumping on every issue ( real or imagined) that you can think of - most of which come to you from the Toronto Star.
Listen to JohnHenryGalt he is a lot brighter than you on these matters.
