Harper warns opposition over support for throne speech

[Nuggler]

steve's about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Bout as smart too. God save us from a Con majority. And a Lib majority. And an NDP or whomever majority.

Tonington; Use your "ignore" button. ;-)

Kick'em (no one in particular) in the nuts first, then use the ignore.

:laughing6: hehehehehe

 

[dj03]

Harper said he doesn't want an election before 2009.

Due to legislation passed last session, Harper cannot legally call an election on his own terms before 2009. He can attempt to engineer his own defeat through the defeat of a money bill or something contained in the speech from the throne (or failure to pass the speech from the throne in the first place), but he cannot call an election of opportunity in the way previous Prime Ministers could.

You can disagree with whatever policies of his that you like, but that he put a limit on one of the PM's more abuse prone powers is commendable.

But the prime minister added that he would consider any votes during the upcoming parliamentary session on items in the speech from the throne as confidence motions.

This isn't news, money bills and items from the speech from the throne are always considered matters of confidence.

"If they get approval of the throne speech, we're going to expect those things to be passed," Harper said.

That isn't the way it works.

I doubt we will have an election this fall, the timing is not right for either the Liberals or the Bloc...is it ever right for the NDP? I think most of this is just bluster ahead of the speech from the throne.

If we do have a fall election it will be at Dion's peril. The Liberals performed poorly in the recent byelections and I think Harper would out perform Dion on the campaign trail in both english and french Canada.

The Liberals need to wait for the Conservatives to screw up enough things to put them down in the polls and then force an election...that time isn't now.

 

[MikeyDB]

How different is it..?

"If you like my throne speech then I expect you'll support my legislation..."

"If your not with us then you're with the terrorists"

Same mold same dim wit same arrogance....

Welcome to CaMerica

 

[Niflmir]

I had to read your post twice. I thought you wrote that agreeing to a throne speech means when Jack says one thing and then turns around and does somrthing else,that makes him an ignominious,arrogant prick. Harper is saying" quit playing politics,if you vote for it now,don't say later that you don't like it". Harper is challenging Dion,Duceppe and Layton to show character.Good for Steven,we are long overdue for a gov't that governs for the people,not for the job.

The throne speech represents a first reading of first reading. This means that the government speaks about what principles it will use to look at which issues. It does not have a draft of the legislation it is planning before the house of commons and so the members of parliament vote towards confidence or lack of confidence on the principles set out.

The right honorable Stephen Harper is complaining about how the parties would commit in principle to fighting crime, let's say. Then they would get to committee and hear how mandatory minimum sentences would lead to more dangerous and frequent crimes, thus although they agreed in principle to attempt to combat the crime rate, they will vote against the drafted legislation which was shown to be counterproductive.

It sounds to me like the right honorable Prime Minister wants to have his cask full and his wife drunk. He wants agreement on principles to mean agreement on details. That is not the way it works, parties almost always agree on the principles and need to work out the details in committee.

It looks to me like Harper is waving a red flag at the opposition. He want it to appear that the next election is the fault of the opposition. I may be wrong but I think we'll have an early election. It will be a either a Conservative or Liberal minority.......and another election again within eighteen months..

That is exactly what I was thinking. It seems to me that he is trying to abuse a widespread misunderstanding about the Canadian standing orders. If the parties agree to fight crime, but decide that they don't want to increase the amount of time small time offenders spend in crime school (prison), the right honorable Stephen Harper will force them to accept bad legislation or trigger an election. The election will then be blamed on the opposition who didn't follow through on the principles, even though following through on the principles means that they must vote against the bad legislation. The media won't catch this easily, because they rarely analyze speeches or legislation in much detail.

 

[Colpy]

Okay, let's turn this around a bit. Mr. Harper has been taking it on the ear here, and I don't think it has been completely even-handed.

We haven't heard the Speech from the Throne yet. Let us assume, just for a minute, that Harper uses the Speech to do what was intended: he presents a clear, if not completely detailed, outline of his government's intentions. The Liberals, not wanting an election right now, support the Speech. Then they undercut, vote against, and work to kill all the bills introduced to achieve the goals laid out in the Speech.

WHO is playing unethical politics?

Harper and the CPC are the government. They are perfectly within their rights to expect support for their agenda as laid out in the Throne Speech, if the Speech is supported by a majority of Parliament. To use the tool of confidence motions to keep the opposition's duplicity to a minimum strikes me as excellent strategy and perfectly in line with how gov'ts should operate. After all, they are NOT forcing the opposition to do anything.......except make a choice between supporting the gov't or going to the people. That's all.

All that said, I am absolutely disgusted with the anti-crime, anti-terror legislation. Mandatory minimums are a joke, and an attack on the traditions and independence of the judiciary. The erosion of our legal rights continues unabated with ideas like warrants without a requirement of reasonable cause......outrageous!

The alternatives, however, are unthinkable. A return to the idiocy of Kyoto, senseless attacks on our friend and ally to the south, a useless military, and a Foreign policy that might as well have been written by Anne of Green Gables...........or Yassir Arafat.
And attacks on our freedom, just made from the left instead of the right......

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are STILL by far the best choice out there.......that rankles me, but there it is.

And, back to the point, the CPC's Parliamentary strategy is sound, ethical, and wise.

 

[MikeyDB]

Colpy

When was Canada declared a dictorship?

The process of government is the sitting government (and anyone else for that matter) tables legislation and the issues get debated.... After appropriate debate and tabling of facts and consideration of possible/potential outcome....a bill is written and passed into law or it isn't.

Pre-emptively wrapping the "throne speech" in the rehetoric of bait and switch doesn't in my mind speak to the effort to reach agreement and compromise or resolution with the involvement of like-minded individuals representing their constituents....

It's kind of like "voting" American style.... You get the Supreme Court to decide who wins and if you've padded the bench with sufficient self-interest you get George Bush....

If Harper wants to achieve a consolidated and focused government, a government that represents the will of all the people not just the multi-nationals of Alberta...the fifty-first American state....then the road to encouraging solidarity and cooperative effort isn't served by his attitude...

Or have I missed something here...

 

[Niflmir]

Okay, let's turn this around a bit. Mr. Harper has been taking it on the ear here, and I don't think it has been completely even-handed.

Sorry 'bout that, I was trying to be fairly non-partisan in my analysis.

If in his press releases the right honorable prime minister had not mentioned the precedence of the opposition parties, I would completely agree with your analysis. Confidence motions used in that way would certainly strengthen our parliament and probably lead to me dropping that 20% majority statistic I am always using.

Now the throne speech sets out some broad directions that the government wants to move in, the subsequent bills at first reading are debated on whether they are in accordance with the throne speech and the bills at third reading are debated on whether they can achieve those original goals or if there has been a mismatch. A vote of confidence on the throne speech cannot be interpreted as a blank legislative check, which is what I interpret the false dichotomy

The choice is not an election or obstruction. The choice is an election or give the government a mandate to govern,

as meaning. The government may have a privileged position as far as choosing direction goes, but they are outnumbered and cannot ever command the full authority of parliament which they are demanding.

Now, you and I both agree on the ludicrous nature of the minimum sentences, but this was an area that the right honorable Stephen Harper complained about publicly. The liberals and the bloc agreed in principle to look at the laws in an attempt to curb crime rates, which were already falling, in committee they were blocked from making the changes they thought necessary and so voted against the final wording of the bill. But that is not what comes out in the media, what comes out is: "Dion flip flops on mandatory minimums." This really was the issue that made me regret voting for the conservative party last election, because in keeping their word they showed a real lack of principle.

So I hope the future you envision comes to pass, but it just seems like a political trap to trigger an election and blame it on the opposition when legislation is blocked but the principles were agreed upon. Maybe not so nightmarish as MikeyDB's vision, but I can understand why people feel that way.

 

[Colpy]

Colpy

When was Canada declared a dictorship?

The process of government is the sitting government (and anyone else for that matter) tables legislation and the issues get debated.... After appropriate debate and tabling of facts and consideration of possible/potential outcome....a bill is written and passed into law or it isn't.

Pre-emptively wrapping the "throne speech" in the rehetoric of bait and switch doesn't in my mind speak to the effort to reach agreement and compromise or resolution with the involvement of like-minded individuals representing their constituents....

It's kind of like "voting" American style.... You get the Supreme Court to decide who wins and if you've padded the bench with sufficient self-interest you get George Bush....

If Harper wants to achieve a consolidated and focused government, a government that represents the will of all the people not just the multi-nationals of Alberta...the fifty-first American state....then the road to encouraging solidarity and cooperative effort isn't served by his attitude...

Or have I missed something here...

Let's see.....Canada was declared a dictatorship by Pierre Trudeau, when he began the practise of using the emergency powers of Order in Council to rule day-to-day without bothering to consult the "nobodies" in Parliament.

And HOW, exactly, is holding the opposition's feet to the fire over their support (or lack thereof) for the gov't agenda behaving in dictatorial ways? This is a minority gov't that has been in power for two years.......support it, or go to the people. Makes sense to me, and nothing could be more democratic.

I appreciate you don't like the Harper gov't. Fair enough, you get a vote like everyone else. Why would you complain and cry "dictatorship" because you might be given the opportunity to vote fairly soon?

Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think the point, Colpy, is that it’s the role of the Parliament of Canada to hold the feet of the Government of Canada to the fire—there is no need for Parliament, as an institution, to hold Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, or any third party, to any particular standard.

Parliament’s roles are to legislate and to hold the Government accountable.