Sunday, April 04, 2010

Temporarily Out Of Bullshit

...Bullshitting will resume Monday, April 5.

28 comments:

Sir Gallahad said...

"Temporarily out of Bullshit""

OK, Fred from BC, Rotterdam, Wilson, Wayne, CS, Bubba......

Time for you guys to step up to the plate and provide all the bullshit we need for today.

I feel assured you silly individuals, will provide plenty.

wilson said...

Oh, I feel so special now Sir G!

Are you Libs watching the Britsh soon to be election?

In preparation for a possible coalition govt, a (precedent setting) contingency plan is in the works.

A few highlites from my partisan perspective:
-negotiations involve ALL parties, not just the losers
-negotiations are facilitated by the civil service (no Queen involvement)
-the Prime Minister, even if he wins less seats than his opponents,
gets first crack at forming a coalition majority because he is PM until otherwise advised by the Queen,
-the PM is given 3 weeks to form a majority govt/agreement and then a confidence vote will be held.

So the prorogation of Parliament was not out of order,
and the secret negotiations of the opposition party's was!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/30/gordon-brown-hung-parliament-pm

Gene Rayburn said...

Wow Wilson truly is on another planet. So even if Stephen Harper loses he remains PM? Has he gone from King to Emperor?

Is Harper our Caligula now Wilson?

wilson said...

Gene, read the article.
The PM remains PM thru and election and right up until he/she is reappointed or resigns.

That is not news.
What is news, is that the Opps held secret negotiations that excluded ONE party,
and our mother coutry has it right,
negotiations include ALL parties and the civil service handles the party negotiations.

The GG got it right,
she gave PMSH his prorogation and then PMSH held a confidence vote (budget)

Sir Gallahad said...

Wilson,

Well I predicted it, and you have not failed to disapoint.

Stephen Harper, serves at the pleasure of the house not the other way around.

Stephen Harper will remain PM, as long as he commands the confidence of the house.

You like all good CPC, flunkies, do not understand our inherited Westminster system of government.

I am sensing a trend going on by the CPC flunkies as of late.

All you seem to talk about are Coalitions, Illegal Coups, Back room secret meetings, between the oppostion to seize control.

You are the cut and paste expert, Wilson, why is that?

Gayle said...

"So the prorogation of Parliament was not out of order,
and the secret negotiations of the opposition party's was!"

And this is where you could use some lessons in logic.

Your conclusion does not flow from the facts you have highlighted.

Try again.

While you are at it, I think it is time for you to acknowledge Harper and his minions did more damage with their lies about "coups" and "coalition with the separatists" than anything the coalition actually did. Since you have taken a sudden interest in the workings of our system of government, don't you think it is time you asked Harper to revoke his earlier statements?

Sir Gallahad said...

One thing that still has my blood boiling is the 08, prorogation granted to Harper.

Slithering off to the GG like Harper did to ask for prorogation, all in order to avoid defeat on a confidence motion was WRONG.

It set a horrible precedent.

Any prime minister in future can ask for prorogation, to stave off defeat on a confidence motion.

The second prorogation was just as egregious, to shut down the Afghan committee's work.

Harper still refuses to accept parliamentary supremacy, and hand over unredacted documents, as ordered by parliament.

The greates threat we have to our democracy, and Canadian institutions, is Stephen Harper, and those scoundrels who follow him along blindly.

wilson said...

read the article Gayle

-Senior Whitehall (cabinet?) sources stressed tonight that Brown could remain prime minister and try to create a working majority even if the Tories were to win most seats.

-Under the proposals, which have been drawn up to prevent a constitutional crisis and a run on the pound,
parliament may not reconvene for nearly three weeks to allow the prime minister to form a working government with the minority parties.

-Gordon Brown likely to stay as PM in hung parliament
MPs will get 18-day window to form government under emergency plan drawn up by Whitehall


-It has also been agreed that for the first time the civil service will be able to facilitate talks between Labour or the Tories and the minority parties on forming a coalition.

-Civil service staff would remain outside the room during inter-party talks, but may be asked to draw up any formal agreement between them.
The cabinet would not meet after the election unless a Queen's speech had been voted through.

Gayle said...

I am not the one with reading comprehension problems wilson.

Where does it say coalition discussions between 3 opposition parties is wrong?

Where does it say it is OK for the Prime Minister to prorogue rather than face a vote where his government would be defeated?

Now, where is your acknowledgement that the coalition was never a coup, never illegal and that when Harper fought it he lied to the Canadian people?

Sir Gallahad said...

Wilson,

You can correct me if I am wrong.

What exactly are you saying now?

If PM Brown in England, in the UK, election gets less seats than Tory leader Cameron, it is OK, if he tries to form a working coalition.

So I guess if he can obtain the support of the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP, he could remain on as PM. Even if Labour has less seats than the conservatives.

In essence Brown, would command the confidence of the house, and Cameron (Even with more seats than Labour could not)

Funny, when that happened in Canada, you guys called it "ILLEGAL" "COUP" "OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT"

Are you now agreeing, that whoever can command the confidence of the house forms the government.

Please give me your detailed explanation.

It sounds like you do not understand how our inherited system of Westminster government works.

double nickel said...

Wilson = FAIL

Gayle said...

The funniest part is how wilson thinks it is the opposition who can learn a lesson from the Brits.

Hmmm. Just think what would have happened if Harper had followed this example. What if Harper had decided the stability of the country is more important than the interests of his party? What if Harper had reached out to the opposition parties and tried to find areas of common ground so as to ensure the government stays stable during times of economic turmoil?

But that is not what he did. He did not confer, he did not try to find areas of common ground. No. He decided to put a poison pill into the first confidence vote of his new government. Instead of reaching out to the opposition, he poked them with a pointy stick.

So wilson, if there is anything to be learned from the British example, it is that a good Prime Minister puts his country first. And that is definately a lesson Harper could stand to learn.

Sir Gallahad said...

Wilso, has not returned to provide an answer to my question.

Funny how conservatives slink away, when hit with the truth.

When their hypocrisy, and fabrications, and lack of understanding of issues becomes apparent even to themselves, off they go.

I can't say I am surprised.

The bullshit I read from tories all over the net, makes me question the sanity of most of them.

wilson said...

Sir G,
''So I guess if he can obtain the support of the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP, he could remain on as PM. Even if Labour has less seats than the conservatives.''

That is exactly what the article said,
if no party wins a majority the incumbent PM is given the chance to form government first.
And that is in Canadina books too:

B. Forming a Government (half way down page)

2. If there is no clear majority, which party is entitled to be asked to form a government first – the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, or the incumbent party?

If there is no clear majority, the incumbent Prime Minister is given the choice of resigning
or meeting the House to see if his or her party has the confidence of the House.(18)
(SFTT/budget)

4. If two parties were tied after an election,
the Prime Minister would have to make a decision.
The Prime Minister could try to gain the support of other parties – either formally or informally ...

An incumbent Prime Minister appears to be entitled to try to form a government first.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0812-e.htm#minority

Gayle said...

Hey look everyone. Wilson has totally missed the point...again.

wilson said...

When the Official Opposition can win more seats,
but the govt in office (incumbent PM) still remains in power:

How Canadians Govern Themselves:
pg 36
...The second largest party
(or the largest party in the instance when the government in office does not win the highest number of seats but is able to form a government with the support of minor parties) becomes the official...

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/AboutParliament/Forsey/PDFs/How_Canadians_Govern_Themselves-7ed.pdf

wilson said...

Chirp on Gayle,
but I have just linked to the FACT that the PM gets first crack at forming government,
if the Off Opp ties or even wins more seats than the incumbent PM.

The GG had to give PMSH a chance at winning the confidence of the House, before she could entertain any other coalitions.

Instead of prorogation, the British are setting out a 3 week period to allow the INCUMBENT to negotiate with other parties.

IF PMSH lost a confidence vote,
the GG could turn to the Off Opp to see if he/she have the confidence of the House.

However, as the article on the British dilema states,
if the incumbent PM asks the Queen for a new election having failed to get House confidence, she may also call another snap election.

Given that PMSH actually gained seats, and no 2 other parties out numbered the incumbent govt,
imo, the GG/Queen would have taken the advice or her First Minister and held a new election....

Sir Gallahad said...

Wilson,

So what are you saying now.

After the next election and we still have a minority.

The NDP/Liberals have more seats combined than the tories.

They then decide they have no confidence in Harper.

You then want Harper, to actively seek a working coalition with the BLOC?

Really Wilson, is this what you want?

Is this acceptable to you?

Please Wilson, provide me with your thoughts on this.

What would you like Harper to do under the scenario laid out above.

As always, your thoughts will be most appreciated.

Sir Gallahad said...

Wilson,

I am not trying to put words in your mouth.

But do you now agree that a working coalition is perfectly legal and acceptable.

That it is not a coup, or an overthrow of the government.

That Stephen Harper, and the conservatives lied to the Canadian public.

Do you now agree, that any involvement of the BLOC, with the Liberals/NDP is evil, but perfectly acceptable for the Tories, to have the BLOC support.

Do you now agree, that the BLOC was not part of the coalition.

The Bloc only agreed to support the Libs/NDP on confidence motions. The BLOC, had no seats in cabinet, and were not a part of forming any legislation.

Do you now agree Harper is liar?

I feel confident that after the next election if we still have a minority, and the Libs/NDP have more seats combined than Harper he will have no problem at all actively seeking the support of the BLOC, in order to remain PM.

He will crawl and humiliate himself in front of Duceppe, probably even cry, because he is that desperate to remain on as PM.

I have a feeling most CPC supporters will not have a problem with this.

After all if Harper loses the job as PM, he will probably have a nervous breakdown, and have to be put on a suicide watch.

Or he will probably just declare himself dictator for life, and I still think most CPC supporters will be fine with this.

Thoughts welcome Wilson.

Gayle said...

wilson

Congratulations on your belated interest in our Westminister style of government. I am still waiting for you to acknowledge Harper lied to Canadians about the legality of the proposed coalition. Given your recent conversion as evidenced on this blog, it is clear that you now understand this.

In any event:

"I have just linked to the FACT that the PM gets first crack at forming government..."

and he did. The problem is that, having formed said government, instead of acting in Canada's interests and trying to find common ground between his party and the opposition, he decided to provoke the opposition without regard to the FACT his party did not represent a majority of the seats in the House.

That is why the FACTS are the opposition had the legal authority to form a coalition and vote non-confidence against his government.

"Instead of prorogation, the British are setting out a 3 week period to allow the INCUMBENT to negotiate with other parties."

Ummm, no. What you mean to say is that instead of simply declaring the leader of a party that did not win the majority of the seats in Parliament the Prime Minister, the leader of the party expected to win the most seats is looking for a way to appease and work with the other parties for the good of Britain.

That is completely different from what happened in December/08. At that time Harper was Prime MInister, had survived one confidence vote, and in a fit of childish anger decided to punish the opposition for actually pointing out he lied about the deficit. Sure, he could have approached the opposition during the election to lay down plans for governing should he fail to attain a majority, but he didn't. He did not do that after he won either.

I bet even you are starting to see the difference now.

"...if the incumbent PM asks the Queen for a new election having failed to get House confidence, she may also call another snap election."

Again, congratulations for finally starting to understand how our system of government works. Of course, had you been paying attention at the time you would have realized the rest of us already knew this.

"Given that PMSH actually gained seats, and no 2 other parties out numbered the incumbent govt,
imo, the GG/Queen would have taken the advice or her First Minister and held a new election."

Nope. Not even close. There is no basis for this conclusion. Of course there may have been an election, but it was just as likely she would have turned to the opposition. One reason for that could have been the FACT Harper was unwilling to consult the opposition, and instead decided to provoke them.

Apples and oranges wilson. Apples and oranges...

Sir Gallahad said...

Wilson,

I am not an expert, but nowhere in a parliamentary system of Government, has a prorogation been granted to stave off defeat on a confidence motion.

Since you are now so fond of the UK, constitutional experts from the UK, said no British PM would ever have the nerve to ask for a prorogation, under those circumstances, nor would it be granted.

Australian costitutional, experts also opined, the same for their country. Australians, would not put up with it, and the GG would never grant it under those circumstances.

As well in Sri Lanka, the PM there, also tried to seek prorogation to stave off defeat on a confidence motion, and it was refused.

As for the here and now, Stephen Harper is defying the will of parliament, in essence breaking the law, and trashing the Canadian Constitution.

Since you now seem so interested, in what is going on maybe you can now educate yourself, to the dangers of the Harper government.

Maybe for your own sake, you can start to see the light.

wilson said...

Sir G,
you are assuming that Harper could not get support from either the Dippers or Libs after an election.
I beg to differ.
There were many Lib MPs and NDP MPS that were against the coalition.

To be legitimate, the Libs can not campaign on NOT forming a coalition, and then form a coalition with the Dippers and BLOC.
That was 100% deception.

Clearly negotiations for government must include the incumbent party.
And the British govt is setting out rules for those negotiations,
setting a precedent.

What I am saying, with links as proof that our Parlimentary system works as such,
is that when there is no clear majority,
the incumbent PM gets first crack at forming a govt,
regardless of the seat count from the election.

Precedent:
A Harper minority govt can work on a case by case basis and give stable government.
-First term lasted 2 1/2 years,
that is longer than the proposal of the coalition.
-Second term will last longer than the average minority govt, at least 2 years.
-Harper has the longest running minority govt in Canadian history.

So, you give the GG evidence that a Harper minority can be as stable as a coalition
(Dippers have never been in govt and Libs have 1/2 the seats of the Cons and a very rookie leader that Cdns have no confidence in),
the incumbent PM wins government govt.
That would be the results that is best for Canada, LibDipper aspirations aside.

Then follows a confidence vote.
(As you saw with the abortion motion,
there are MPs that will break with the party.
Don't assume the LPC would not break up under the stress of a coalition with Dippers)

Dippers want seats in cabinet,
they will take no less in a coalition.

How many Lib MPs want to give the NDP that much crediability?

Why should Iffy be PM when Jack has all the experience and twice the crediability as a leader?

How will that work out for Libs in an election that follows the coalition?

wilson said...

Sir G,
'I am not an expert, but nowhere in a parliamentary system of Government, has a prorogation been granted to stave off defeat on a confidence motion.'

There was a confidence motion just before the Opps tried to execute their coup,
the GG appointed Harper and won the confidence of the House with his Speech From The Throne.
The GG had no choice but to take the advice of the PM she had just appointed.

That was the 'evidence' of confidence the GG had to rule on.
In hind sight, she was very correct in her decision,
Harper again later won the confidence of the House, with the budget.
He is still PM, 16 months after the attempted coup.

Looking at what the British are doing now (perhaps after watching the crisis here in Canada Dec 2008),
setting out rules that include a 3 week period for negotiations BEFORE the PM is appointed,
a better option to the prorogation period, should the same thing happen again.
But it was uncharted territory, now not so much.

A coalition govt is definitely a legal and legitimate option.
But it has to be above board and in keeping with Parliamentary conventions and precedents.

The incumbent PM gets first crack at forming government.

Imo, PMSH could prove that his minority ( case by case ) has been and would be more stable than a coalition of 2 or 3 other parties.

Gayle said...

"Clearly negotiations for government must include the incumbent party.
And the British govt is setting out rules for those negotiations,
setting a precedent."

Nope, and nope.

Do you not understand the fact these negotiations are precedent setting means that they have never happened before, which means this "precedent" did not exist in December 2008? Not that it means anything even if it did, because the simple fact that one parliament does this does not mandate all future parliaments must follow this example.

And of course, there's that elephant in the room you keep ignoring - the fact that Harper brought this on himself by REFUSING to negotiate with the opposition parties.

Oh, and then there is that other little FACT you keep ignoring - which is that Harper was given his opportunity to govern. He just failed to retain the confidence of the House, and failed to do anything to try to regain it (you know, like negotiating in good faith with the opposition). Instead, he prorogued.

"...when there is no clear majority,
the incumbent PM gets first crack at forming a govt,
regardless of the seat count from the election."

If you had bothered to pay attention to the facts, rather than the "coup" lies that were coming from Harper's camp, you would have realized that everyone who knows about our system of government already knows this. You would have learned that the coalition government formed when King lost the election to the conservatives, who won more seats, came about because King was able to form a coalition with another opposition party, thereby giving him the confidence of the majority of the House, and relegating the conservatives to opposition status despite the fact they had more seats than King's liberals.

Though I am so very amused by your efforts to "teach" us something we have been trying to teach you and yours for over a year now.

I am also amused by your assumptions about what would have happened in a confidence vote. Don't you think if Harper actually believed he would not lose the vote he would have allowed it to proceed?

Give it up wilson. You are making a fool out of yourself. I am embarassed for you.

Gayle said...

"A coalition govt is definitely a legal and legitimate option.
But it has to be above board and in keeping with Parliamentary conventions and precedents."

Sigh...

Poor poor wilson. She probably does not understand this is what we have been trying to tell her.

Sir Gallahad said...

Gayle,

My kudos to you for your knowledge, and reasoning abilities.

My apologies if I offended, with my comments about Alberta.


Wilson,

You have clearly lost the arguement.

But I will also give you kudos, for putting your points forward, and participating, in a civil debate.

Sir Gallahad said...

Wilson,

I just would like to share a random thought with you.

In 2004, when Paul Martin was still PM, Harper was fearing that Martin would go to the GG, and ask for dissolution, this bringing on an election.

Harper then teamed up with his coalition buddies, Duceppe, and Layton, in penning a joint letter to the GG, asking her to consider all her options, if Martin came calling.

Now what exactly was Harper up to?

Was Harper plotting a coalition?

Was Harper lieing to the Canadian public about his intentions?

After the coalition threat in 08, when Harper, went ballistic on the unholy alliance of "Socialists, and Separatists", the letter was pointed out to him by Duceppe, and Layton.

Harper of course denied it, but that sneaky Duceppe, he had a copy and produced it.

Now Harper is not only a liar, but also a coward, and a hypocrite.

What do you think of that Wilson?

Thoughts welcome

Gayle said...

No worries SG. I only act like I take things personally. ;)