[EyeBrock]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Just out of curiosity, can someone refresh my memory as to why the Liberals had FOUR prorogues during their reign of stupidity?

Because prorogue is a legitimate procedural move, with a legitimate purpose.

It is used when the government has generally accomplished its legislative mandate, and wants to go forward with a new set of priorities. Hence, following prorogue, there is a throne speech.

Chretien prorogued for times, that is correct. The first three were in this vein. The fourth, I have read, was not so innocent, as it was used to avoid receiving the Auditor General's report on the sponsorship scandal. But is Chretien's record supposed to have been clean? Spare me.

Harper has prorogued three times, now. Not two. The first went unnoticed. The second was last year.

What makes this different is that this is twice in a row, twice in one Parliament no less, that Harper has used it to undermine Parliament. Not the AG, Parliament. First it was to dodge a vote of non-confidence that had been all but taken. The coalition was not a sure thing, so that doesn't justify the move. Parliament has the right to vote non-confidence in the government at any time. Think of the precedent: is it okay for the PM to prorogue any time there is a looming confidence vote? This time, he used it to shut down the embarrassing revelation on detainee treatment. Again, think of the precedent: is it okay for any PM to prorogue to quiet a troublesome committee? The Conservatives will not always be in power, some other party will eventually take over. Think of the future.

Harper is taking legitimate procedural moves with legitimate purposes, and using them far more often than intended, for purposes for which they were never intended, to the detriment of Parliament's primacy over Government, to the detriment of the faith of the voters in our political system, and to the detriment of the state of democracy in this country.

That Chretien used this move illegitimately once in four times does not in any way excuse Harper using it illegitimately twice in three times.

Ultimately, the voters decided that the Liberals had to go. Ultimately, they will decide whether these Conservatives have to. Hopefully they will remember this shameful disgrace of democracy when they decide.

I think this is the most common sense post on this thread and explains the whole issue devoid of petty partisanship (99% anyway..!).

Nicely put.

[BeaverFever]

Ditto. Well said, hurley.

And to add colour to your comment (in the event that it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread) is the fact that this prorogation is being done by a MINORITY government, which unlike majority governments, has no claim to a mandate for unilateral rule. In minority governments, the participation, criticism and cooperation of the opposition parties in parliament are essential to democratic governance.

The real pupose of this prorogation is to silence criticism during the Olympics, when the worlds attention will be focused here.

[hurley_108]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I think this is the most common sense post on this thread and explains the whole issue devoid of petty partisanship (99% anyway..!).

Nicely put.

Darn it, I thought I was being harsh!

[EyeBrock]

Nope! Unlike others, you see that both sides have used the same tactic and apparently you see the recent gnashing of teeth like I do, a bit hypocritical. Just my take on those well written words.

[hurley_108]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ditto. Well said, hurley.

And to add colour to your comment (in the event that it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread) is the fact that this prorogation is being done by a MINORITY government, which unlike majority governments, has no claim to a mandate for unilateral rule. In minority governments, the participation, criticism and cooperation of the opposition parties in parliament are essential to democratic governance.

The real pupose of this prorogation is to silence criticism during the Olympics, when the worlds attention will be focused here.

I think the purposes of this prorogue are many-fold. One, as you say, to quiet Parliament during the Olympics. Two, as I said, to reset the house committees to kill the Afghan detainee issue. Three, as has been hinted at before, to gain advantage in the Senate.

About the Senate, though. Harper can appoint senators at any time he wants. He does not need to prorogue. He would have been able to make his five appointments no matter what, and gain his plurality in the Senate no matter what. What prorogue allows him to do is to reset Senate committees, and gain a stronger presence there, with his new plurality. Otherwise Senate committees would have stayed the same.

The fourth is that he thought he could get away with it with no problems. I think he would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't have been for last year's prorogue. I think he thought people didn't know what it was, and those who did wouldn't care much. But looking at the Google Trends for prorogue, there's a huge spike in searches or that word, coincident with the prorogue of last year, as they note. People actually educated themselves last year, and didn't forget.

There was a poll done before the prorogue was made official in which there were hints that this would be a non-issue, but probable reactions to possibilities are different than actual reactions to realities. Two polls on this specific issue have shown majority opposition to the move, and a voting intention poll shows the once double-digit Tory lead reduced to just over 5%.

It'll be fun to see if that hit is lasting, and it'll be interesting to see if Iggy finally pulls his head out of his butt and comes up with something people actually care about, so that he can capitalize on this shakeup and make some support for himself.

[EyeBrock]

Personally I think the Senate thing is the main point with Harper, way above all other considerations.
Anybody who has watched this guy since at least 2003 and on will know that senate reform is a big ideological issue with him.

True he could have appointed senators without the prorogue, but this way he kills the crime bills without the parts he wanted being deleted by the Senate. This way he can rebadge the same bill with a new number and be sure that a re-jigged senate won't block the bill.

The Afghan hearings may resonate with the media and Liberal/NDP partisans but the average joe in the street doesn't care and doesn't watch or listen. The media have screamed 'foul' too many times over Harper. It's like the boy who cried 'wolf', there's a 'scandal' every month that has turned out to be nothing way too often.

On the olympics thing. I personally find most sport very boring and it means that the CBC won't be showing Coronation St, which is annoying. But I do know most Canadians love this shit and I'm not suprised at all that Harper and the rest of the House would rather do Whistler and BC than Question Period. Really, if the World Cup was held in England I could easily see the UK House going for an early holiday.

Me, I believe this prorogue is a partisan but procedurally correct tactic that Harper is using to beat the Senate over the head with. I reckon that it's 80% of the reason and if the Afghan hearings cease, more the better in Harpers mind.

One thing I am sure of, the Senate as we know it will be changed for ever in 2010. That is Harpers real reason.

[herbie]

We're supposed to excuse a party that does shitty things, because the other party did shitty things.
Even one that's populist roots were based on Senate reform and now is fixated with stacking the Senate with it's appointees just like the Mulroney Tories.
I think we'd all like to see something "better" than an endless choice between Two Evils.

[EyeBrock]

I agree herbie.
At the moment all of us are voting (besides the rabid partisans on boths sides) for the least shite party with policies that piss us off the least.

Wouldn't it be nice to be inspired by real change and really accountable goverment that did what we asked it to do?

Instead we have Harper, Iggy, Jack and Gilles.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Wouldn't it be nice to be inspired by real change and really accountable goverment that did what we asked it to do?

Pffft. Might as well ask the sun to rise in the west and set in the east, you have better odds of it happening

And thanks Hurley, I was hoping for a non-partisan answer to me question.

[Scape]

Great post Hurley. I too think this is all about the senate. Much like a game of pinball has the 'tilt' so too Parliament has the Prorogue. It can be used deftly and it can be abused. In this instance it's being used too often to short circuit Parliament.

The 2003 Prorogue left two bills on the floor, this one left 35. Harper does not have the mandate to do this and he barley scraped by with the last one. Harpers only saving grace is that those who would replace him are worse and that is a direct result of the parties aristocratic nature. Harper knows this and needs to reform the senate committees so his power will be unquestionable. This is required if he is to make good on a triple E senate and at the same time ensure his current crime bills do not get hi-jacked.

The Afgan hearings do not have anything to reveal but to put on public record what was a torrid affair that is war. Which will only embarrass and not resolve. A witch hunt by any other name. To be sparred this is a blessing.

The Olympics timing is optics. If anything this will be good for all parties in that they get to hear an earful from the people they are supposed to represent. The only party that can make gains on this issue is the same party that was with their hands in the cookie jar all along and had their own thug in power. The liberal party is broken and Harper will end up on top because of them.

[EyeBrock]

Good post Scape.

[DoyleG]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

There was a poll done before the prorogue was made official in which there were hints that this would be a non-issue, but probable reactions to possibilities are different than actual reactions to realities. Two polls on this specific issue have shown majority opposition to the move, and a voting intention poll shows the once double-digit Tory lead reduced to just over 5%.

You're quoting the EKOS and Angus-Reid polls that were done. The problem with your assesment comes down to a number of factors.

1) The double-digit lead that you talk about came when Iggy was basically threatening a vote of confidence to force an election call. There was more than enough opposition within the Liberal party that say they support the Conservatives just to force Iggy down contributed to that lead. Once the threat came down, the poll numbers began to relfect the current reality. The numbers in the Angus-Reid poll nationally have been the same that were released in September.

2) EKOS admitted that their current poll has a much higher margin of error than there previous one. The current poll is at 2.4% margin while their last one is at 1.7%. In reality, we can only take that change with a grain of salt.

3) None of the polls could come up with a precise number of those who have a clear opinion of the situation. Nick Nanos has considered this to be an important issue, as the numbers may decrease over time as people have more pressing issues.

[OldChum]

Fix the Senate do whatever he Harper wants but , if you take a holiday then be nice enough to take a cut in your pay this year. Along with all of your members as it is only fair that they not be paid while they do nothing. But then when do they do anything .

[hurley_108]

DoyleG DoyleG:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

There was a poll done before the prorogue was made official in which there were hints that this would be a non-issue, but probable reactions to possibilities are different than actual reactions to realities. Two polls on this specific issue have shown majority opposition to the move, and a voting intention poll shows the once double-digit Tory lead reduced to just over 5%.

You're quoting the EKOS and Angus-Reid polls that were done. The problem with your assesment comes down to a number of factors.

1) The double-digit lead that you talk about came when Iggy was basically threatening a vote of confidence to force an election call. There was more than enough opposition within the Liberal party that say they support the Conservatives just to force Iggy down contributed to that lead. Once the threat came down, the poll numbers began to relfect the current reality. The numbers in the Angus-Reid poll nationally have been the same that were released in September.

2) EKOS admitted that their current poll has a much higher margin of error than there previous one. The current poll is at 2.4% margin while their last one is at 1.7%. In reality, we can only take that change with a grain of salt.

3) None of the polls could come up with a precise number of those who have a clear opinion of the situation. Nick Nanos has considered this to be an important issue, as the numbers may decrease over time as people have more pressing issues.

1) The double digit lead, just looking at EKOS polls to be consistent, opened in early October. It persisted until mid November, and was still 9.2% in their last poll of 2009, on December 15. See here for the polls.

2) Even with the larger margin of error, it's still smaller than what seems to be the largest acceptable - 3% based on a sample of 1000, and the drop in lead cannot be ignored, as it is larger than any of these margins of error.

3) Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but EKOS also did this poll, in which 52.3% of Canadians were clearly aware of the prorogue, and 58.7% - of those clearly or vaguely aware, it would seems - were either somewhat or strongly opposed.

Therefore, it would seem quite probable that the populace is generally aware of the prorogue, generally in opposition to it, and given that it's the biggest issue that came up between the last two EKOS polls, probably the cause of the reduction in lead. Or maybe it was the Afghan detainee issue, who knows, but I think that's less likely.

I would be very surprised if prorogue has had no negative impact on the Conservatives, and all this is chance and/or coincidence.

Whether this issue has traction, whether the Liberals or any other party can truly capitalize on it, and whether this will lead to a change in seats or even governments whenever the next election comes are the matters for debate, and we'll just have to wait and see.

[bootlegga]

DerbyX DerbyX:

When Westmanguy started this facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=canad ... 2301043..1, the cons here couldn't stop crowing about how this was proof positive the country was against a coalition government.

Now suddenly facebook is a bunch of teens and falsified users.

No doubt.

It's just like when a poll shows the Conservatives on the verge of a majority, they all show up and crow about it, but whenever its shows the opposite, all they say is "the only accurate poll is an election."