Do Canadians actually prefer minority rule?


L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#31
This Canuck would prefer a minimalist gov't rather than a minority gov't. Kinda like a skeleton crew.
 
pegger
No Party Affiliation
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004 View Post

Wait a second here..

If the Liberals now vote against the Conservatives, they "are siding with separatists."

By who's standards.. ?

By partisan Conservative standards - not mine.

As the Bloc is a legally allowed entity, and also legally allowed to operate in the HoC, then I have no problem (in a legal sense) with any party working with them to further the best interests of the country.

I may not like what they stand for, but they have a right to say it.
 
Francis2004
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by pegger View Post

By partisan Conservative standards - not mine.

As the Bloc is a legally allowed entity, and also legally allowed to operate in the HoC, then I have no problem (in a legal sense) with any party working with them to further the best interests of the country.

I may not like what they stand for, but they have a right to say it.


"Hence the Conservatives also sided with the separatists and also had a "signed" agreement of understanding to take power in the same fashion as Dion in 2004 I believe. just because they did not require to use the letter does not make them as guilty. Let us call a Spade a Spade here.. Both Partied have used the separatists for their advantage."

Then the Conservatives are Hypocrites..
 
pegger
No Party Affiliation
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004 View Post

"Hence the Conservatives also sided with the separatists and also had a "signed" agreement of understanding to take power in the same fashion as Dion in 2004 I believe. just because they did not require to use the letter does not make them as guilty. Let us call a Spade a Spade here.. Both Partied have used the separatists for their advantage."

Then the Conservatives are Hypocrites..

You get that I agree with you, right?
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#35
Only voters have the right to decide on the coalition
TOM FLANAGAN
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 9, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST
Source: globeandmail.com: Only voters have the right to decide on the coalition

Defenders of the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition argue that, if the Conservative government's budget is defeated in the House of Commons, the Governor-General should invite the Liberal Leader to form a cabinet with some posts allocated to the NDP. There is no need for another election, they say, because together the three coalition partners hold a majority of the seats in the House, and the Bloc has agreed not to bring down a Liberal-NDP government for at least 18 months.

The coalition's apologists glory in the supposed fact that Canada's Constitution is not democratic. Responsible government, they say, means only that the cabinet has to maintain majority support in the House; it doesn't mean the voters have a voice. Canadians, in their view, are just deluded if they think Canada is a democracy.

Obviously, the apologists didn't pay attention in Political Science 101. Here's why they're wrong.

Canada has inherited the antiquated machinery of responsible government from the pre-democratic age of the early 19th century, when most people couldn't vote and political parties were only parliamentary cliques. But a lot has happened since Benjamin Disraeli last took tea with Queen Victoria.

Canada changed from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional democracy as the franchise was extended to all adults and political parties became national in scope. That evolution was recognized in 1982 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Section 1 characterizes Canada as "a free and democratic society," and Section 3 grants the right to vote to "every citizen of Canada."

In its 1998 decision on the secession reference case, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that democracy was one of "the underlying principles animating the whole of the Constitution."

The most important decision in modern politics is choosing the executive of the national government, and democracy in the 21st century means the voters must have a meaningful voice in that decision . Our machinery for choosing the executive is not prescribed by legislative or constitutional text; rather, it consists of constitutional conventions - past precedents followed in the light of present exigencies. The Supreme Court has said it will expound these conventions but will not try to enforce them. The virtue of relying on conventions is that they can evolve over time, like common law, and can be adapted to the new realities of the democratic age.

That means that, in the area of choosing the executive, the Constitution, for all practical purposes, is whatever the Governor-General says it is; there is no appeal from vice-regal decisions. But that doesn't mean the Governor-General is a free agent; she has a responsibility to make her decisions within the Constitution, including those "underlying principles" identified by the Supreme Court.

How, then, should Michaëlle Jean decide if the government is defeated over the budget? Arguably, a new election would be called for, even though it would only be five months after the last election. Gross violations of democratic principles would be involved in handing government over to the coalition without getting approval from voters.

Together, the Liberals and the NDP won just 114 seats, 29 fewer than the Conservatives. They can be kept in power only with the support of the Bloc, whose raison d'être is the dismemberment of Canada . The Liberals and NDP have published the text of their accord but not of their agreement with the Bloc.

The coalition partners, moreover, did not run on a platform of forming a coalition; indeed, the Liberals' Stéphane Dion denied that he would make a coalition with the NDP. In countries where coalition governments are common, parties reveal their alliances so that citizens can know how their votes will affect the composition of the executive after the election. In stark contrast, those who voted for the Liberals, NDP or Bloc in the last election could not possibly have known they were choosing a Liberal-NDP government supported by a secret protocol with the Bloc.

Put it all together, and you have a head-spinning violation of democratic norms of open discussion and majority rule. The Governor-General, as the protector of Canada's constitutional democracy, should ensure the voters get a chance to say whether they want the coalition as a government. They haven't yet had that chance.

Tom Flanagan is professor of political science at the University of Calgary and a former Conservative campaign manager.
________________________________________
 
pegger
No Party Affiliation
#36
Ah yes - Tom Flanagan. You know what would be more interesting to read? An opinion from a non-biased source - as opposed to Harper's former advisor and confidant.

By the way - the rhetoric in that article is overwhelming... "coalition apologists"? Nothing like not even bothering to cover up your biases...
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by pegger View Post

Ah yes - Tom Flanagan. You know what would be more interesting to read? An opinion from a non-biased source - as opposed to Harper's former advisor and confidant.

By the way - the rhetoric in that article is overwhelming... "coalition apologists"? Nothing like not even bothering to cover up your biases...


Yep.....sticking it out there with his heart on his sleeve. What a deplorable trait....
 
pegger
No Party Affiliation
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Yep.....sticking it out there with his heart on his sleeve. What a deplorable trait....

Never said it was deplorable. Just undermines his credibility is all, especially if he is trying to pass himself off as an expert.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by pegger View Post

Never said it was deplorable. Just undermines his credibility is all, especially if he is trying to pass himself off as an expert.


So being a former Conservative campaign manager would make Tom Flanigan not a
professor of political science and therefore not an expert then? Interesting. I'm off to
go shovel snow for an hour and call it my lunch break. I'll come back to this once time
permits again.
 
pegger
No Party Affiliation
#40
He is a partisan hack. As such, his opinion (to which he is entitled) should be given all the due consideration it is deserved. I would give the same amount of consideration to an opinion piece written by Paul Martin.

If you are holding up Tom Flanagan as "proof" of why an election is "needed," then I would respond that it is lacking, because it is not a balanced, well argued piece. It is a piece of standard Conservative rhetoric that does not further the debate at all. If you expect me to change my opinion on the "coalition", I would require an arms-length, non-biased opinion.

Read some of the comments on that "article" - and you will see that many agree with me.

PS - For the record - I believe that IF the budget is defeated, there should be an election. However, the "coalition" didn't deny me my right to vote - Mr. Harper did - when he dodged the confidence vote, and prorogued parliament.
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
#41
Ron as I see it, the Coalition isn't just democratic, it's also legal and if it wasn't supposed to be used in our parliamentary democracy, it wouldn't have been included in it in the first place.

You can argue that it's out dated or unfair, or even complain that the decision isn't put to the voters...... it doesn't have to be because it was never intended to be put to the voters in the first place.

I'm sure many people have problems with the US's constitution because of such things like the right to own firearms, etc...... but unfortunatly you can't just switch and change things around that have been collectively accepted for centuries, just because you don't like them.

Another problem I have with your above snippet, is it's title:

"Only Voters have the right to decide on the Coalition"

^ First that's wrong, as the decision falls on the Gov. General, not voters.

Secondly, it seems to me you're stating with that title that only people who have actually voted are allowed to have a say on the Coalition. What if those who didn't vote because they're already sick of the government actually like the thought of a Coalition? Apparently by the above reasoning, they don't get a say, even though they're citizens of this country.

Thirdly, if this whole thing goes to another election to determine by the people if the Coalition goes ahead, then that's a whole new vote, and therefore those who already voted, really arn't getting anything special out of their previous votes, since those just became null and void since we'd be going to vote for another election.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004 View Post

"Hence the Conservatives also sided with the separatists and also had a "signed" agreement of understanding to take power in the same fashion as Dion in 2004 I believe. just because they did not require to use the letter does not make them as guilty. Let us call a Spade a Spade here.. Both Partied have used the separatists for their advantage."

Then the Conservatives are Hypocrites..

Politicians are hypocrits? Noooooo, say it ain't so. hehehe And there I was thinking it was a mandatory aspect of a pol's character to be hypocritical.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#43
6 of 1 and a half dozen of the other. No-one leading a coalition party has my confidence anymore than Harpy has it. Whatever these people's intentions for Canada are or were, they are guided by their own biases and opinions rather than good sense.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#44
Well.....as far as the title to that snipped in the Globe & Mail....that's the actual title
to that snipped in the Globe & Mail. I didn't write the article, nor pick its title. I put
the entire article, including its title, out here for debate. If I didn't think anyone would
have an opposing viewpoint to this article, then planting it on the thread to debate
would be pointless.

As far as the author of the article not having a valid opinion about politics as a
professor of political science, because he's a former Conservative campaign
manager, then he must be nothing but a hack(?)....hmmm....I too would give all
due consideration to an opinion piece written by Paul Martin. That doesn't
mean that neither of them have any valid points to make due to their clear
political bias.

If someone is sold on the concept of this NDP/Liberal (with Bloc veto) coalition
come Hell or high water, I don't expect to sway their faith regardless of what is
put in front of them....but I can put out some balance. Tom Flanagan has made
some interesting points though, as I'm sure Paul Martin would also.

The Liberals and NDP have published the text of their accord but not of their
agreement with the Bloc. You'd think that might be relavant before deciding on
supporting a coilition that you voted for....oh wait....you (or I, or anyone else)
didn't vote for a coilition, and it sounds like we may not get the opporatunity to
either. Maybe that is still somehow democratic, but it sure doesn't feel like it.

Would the GG be violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if she was to
endorse this coalition without the Canadian electorate the right to vote to "every
citizen of Canada." Me....I don't know, but it's a very interesting question, no
matter which camp it comes from.

The NDP did propose the idea of a coalition during the election, and the Liberals
categorically denied that it would or could ever happen. That's about as forthright
as anything the Conservatives could be accused of, isn't it? No saints in Politics.
Politicians are hypocrites? Sorry, but it's true Les....and it doesn't matter which
banner they stand under (hehehe...). Tom Flanagan has made some interesting
points in his article though that I thought might be worth debating beyond his
character or his personal bias.

Right or wrong, if the Liberals and the NDP (and maybe the Bloc...whatever)
want to run on a platform of a coalition, or state their intention to form a coalition
during an election, I'd get off my duff and go and vote. If they won, so be it 'cuz
the electorate would have had their say. Right now though, without a vote if the
Budget is rejected, and the Queens representative just assigns governance of our
country to this coilition, it really doesn't feel very Democratic at all, but maybe
that's just me. Are we indeed a constitutional democracy or are we still just a
constitutional monarchy?
 
GreenFish66
#45
Minority rule can be alright as long as you don't have a minoroty dictator...Or an opposition party that can't oppose!.....Minority government should be better now that the liberals have a new leader...We will have to wait to see if they(we) can all Get along!lol
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#46
This Ignatius does seem like a very bright guy, who'll try to drag the Liberal
party back towards the political center, and he does seem way to bright to
actually shoot himself in the foot with the coalition gun, and turn himself into
another Dion. I think this coalition is a dead issue except for the hot air that
surrounds it, and we can use all the hot air we can get this winter.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by GreenFish66 View Post

Minority rule can be alright as long as you don't have a minoroty dictator...Or an opposition party that can't oppose!.....Minority government should be better now that the liberals have a new leader...We will have to wait to see if they(we) can all Get along!lol

Um, then it wouldn't be a minority gov't, would it? It'd be something like a dictatorship where minority and majority are irrelevant. Yes?
 
thomascollins
No Party Affiliation
#48
Canadians are afraid of a majority government. Yet they are also distraught with a coalition that has block members. This is the beginning of change for Canada. The problem has come about because there are more political parties than two to choose from. Couple this with first past the post style voting system and I believe it will be very difficult for any political party to obtain a majority ever again. The answer to this problem is quite simply proportional representation. Another thing that would help this situation would be the institution of online voting. It is a proven fact that online voting can be instituted and does create a much larger voter turn out of 30% and higher. If anyone wants the proof simply check out intelevote Systems Inc. who can be found on the internet. This company has sucessfully conducted municipal elections and is in consultation with some provinces about the possibility of implementing. Independent MP's would be the best way to vote in the future and I believe they will become the norm.
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#49
Re: the question posed in the title: I am a Canadian and I do prefer it.

I oppose strong leadership and have found that most terrible things are born out of decisive action. Muddling and prolonged debate while sometimes annoying and frustrating is still our best defence against hasty actions made by well intended and not so well intended leaders. In my experience the longer a debate caries on for is directly proportional to the probability errors will be avoided and in retrospect the decision will still seem like good ones.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#50
Do Canadians actually prefer minority rule? No we do not, that is what we had great hope that democracy would eliminate.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#51
I don't think its matters. What matters is are the actions of our government.

Whether a minority or majority, there must be some type of leadership, and noticeable progress.
Last edited by In Between Man; Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:47 PM..Reason: c
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayz View Post

there must be some type of leadership, and noticeable progress.

Why?

Can't that come from us the people?

Are we seriously so pathetic?

Do we really need government trying to make Canada a utopia by passing laws? Is that really what makes a utopia? I would think utopia is only possible with a fewness of laws.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#53
I notice the progress to depression and war.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

Why?

Can't that come from us the people?

Are we seriously so pathetic?

Do we really need government trying to make Canada a utopia by passing laws? Is that really what makes a utopia? I would think utopia is only possible with a fewness of laws.

Well, we need some leadership. With all the varying opinions we need some one to point out common ground. Give us some direction by turning on that light bulb. How else could we possibly agree on anything, if we didn't establish something to build on?

The leader doesn't have to be a politician. It can start from a more grass roots level.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

I oppose strong leadership and have found that most terrible things are born out of decisive action. Muddling and prolonged debate while sometimes annoying and frustrating is still our best defence against hasty actions made by well intended and not so well intended leaders. In my experience the longer a debate caries on for is directly proportional to the probability errors will be avoided and in retrospect the decision will still seem like good ones.



HEAR HEAR

 
turubawebmaster
#56
im a conservative and i do think they just want power.... i 100% despised of stephane dion as PM... i dont think ignatief will form a coalition with the bloc.... i favour him over the all the past liberal leaders ive seen.... but i like the harper view on our budget plan.... with difficulty dealing with the opposition i still think he's doing a good job, im not blaming him for doing not enough, it's the opposition who tend to disagree which makes it difficult to act on our priorities... one of them is the senate role which the conservatives plan to make a change for people to elect senators rather the parties in power appointing their own... it is the most democratic way for our people to have a say.... i also despise layton because i have seen what the labour party (socialist) has done to the UK, they are simply destroying it by raising taxes too high, opening the doors for more newcomers and allowed them to rule the UK... they also had terror attacks because of being too lax on immigration.... conservatives wont let this happen, we will secure our borders and allow the people to decide rather than the communists because communists allow bad things to happen to good people
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayz View Post

Well, we need some leadership. With all the varying opinions we need some one to point out common ground. Give us some direction by turning on that light bulb. How else could we possibly agree on anything, if we didn't establish something to build on?

Most leaders that aren't politicians end up in jail or dead. Leadership is very much opposed by the political class. The only protection for a true leader is that a political leech will see opportunity in attaching themselves to the work of someone else thereby affording some protection.

Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayz View Post

The leader doesn't have to be a politician. It can start from a more grass roots level.

Sure if your starting a charity or an ngo like: citizens for larger government, or, citizens for higher taxes otherwise you can expect to get pepper sprayed, tazard and beaten silly.
 

Similar Threads

15
Canadians prefer Obama over own leaders
by I think not | Jun 30th, 2008