Site Search

Custom Search

Monday, December 1, 2008

Canadians should choose their next government

We currently have a Liberal government-appointed GG, who was recruited from the ranks of a heavily left-wing-biased main stream media. For how many seconds do you think she will deliberate before anointing the Liberal/NDP coalition?

If the Conservatives do not have the confidence of parliament, it should be the Canadian people, not the GG who select the next government.

The GG is totally ill equipped to make such a constitutionally critical decision. We already have a crisis with our economy, we don’t need a constitutional crisis as well.

PM Stephen Harper should call an election so we can get on with democratically selecting the next government.

10 comments — This is a moderated blog and comments will appear when approved. Please don’t resubmit if your comment doesn’t appear immediately, and please do not post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable.

  1. We have a Parliamentary Democracy, learn what that entails and means.

    Your post is nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Got news for you skippy, Harper can not call an election,... it is not withing his power, he can only ask the GG to dissolve Parliament and at that time the GG can do one of three things.

    1) She can say no and send Harper back.
    2) She dissolve Parliament and call a General Election.
    3) It is also within her power to ask one of the other opposition parties to lead Government, either alone or via a collation.

    You guys need to seriously read up on how the Parliamentary System actually works. Oh and no one elects a Collation Government in a Parliamentary System, the Collation Method only become viable after after a GE results in minority situation. It is perfectly legal and constitutional in our system, especially this close to past GE.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon,

    You might do well to take your own advice and learn what a Parliamentary Democracy entails and means.

    I saw what the abuse of the powers of a figurehead head of state (like our GG) can lead to in a parliamentary democracy like ours, when Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi used the figurehead President of India to issue unilateral decrees that allowed her to bypass parliament when it no longer supported her.

    I don’t want to see Canada go down that slippery constitutional slope.

    But thanks for your sage advice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And, Zorpheous, you are so bursting with wisdom you leave poor old "skippy" so grateful that you took the time to set him right. Do me a favour though and take your banal lectures and name-calling elsewhere.

    BTW, love the name of your blog—it obviously suits you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love to see leftards hide behind obscure constitutional arguments. Regardless of all their nonsense, Canadians expect to be able to vote in their government.

    What will the Liberal's slogan be in the next election? How about "We dont need your stinkin vote, we'll just take power anyways"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Russ,
    I am with you on this one but I would like taxpayer funding of parties on the line. Unfortunately since the majority of Green, NDP and Liberal supporters expect taxpayers to pay for 'their' party that probably would work against a Harper majority.

    As for the parliamentary democracy (I could argue that term is an oxymoron if one uses the classical definition of 'democracy') debate, we could start with 1736 or 1738 (off the top of my head I don't remember exactly which one) when the British parliament declared itself to be sovereign thereby overturning concepts of natural law and declaring unto itself the capacity to make laws willy nilly (resulting in what we see now as social action policy becoming 'law' of the same stature as prohibitions against murder) and how that can, in this instance, be used to do whatever a majority in parliament is determined to do. There is some restraint from the Supreme Court but that being as it is not much to rely on there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerry,

    I too would like to see "taxpayer funding of parties on the line." Tax deductible contributions, OK, but taxpayer subsidy for election expenses and the $1.95 per vote should definitely be out. But how do we get this into the party platform?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Technically, we vote for our riding MP. If the majority of MPs can get together and ask the GG to form a government, that can be done. Those MPs may be Conservatives, Liberals, NDPers, Protestants, or curling fanatics. This week, the Liberals, NDP and along with the Bloc have a majority of the MPs in the House of Commons. They have every right to go the GG and ask her if they can form a government. There is no rule in the constitution that states that only the party with the largest plurality of seats can ask the GG to form a government.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Skinny Dipper makes the classic and common error of mixing representational forms and parliamentary forms of government. Under a parliamentary system one votes for the party which is represented by a local candidate. One does not technically vote for the local candidate as under a representational form of government. There is a vast difference between the US representational form and our parliamentary system. In the US you vote for a representative of the people in your district while in our system all we get to vote for is a party. This is why you get Southern Democrats voting with Republicans on some measures and vice versa while only under open votes do our elected officials officially get to represent their constituents. Otherwise party discipline dictates that an MP vote along party lines regardless of constituent views. This explains why more social policy initiatives have become federal law in Canada even though the majority of Canadians do not support them.

    ReplyDelete

ShareThis