IntenseDebate - Zamprelli

13 years ago @ http://www.themarknews... - Catholic High School B... · 0 replies · +1 points

Does the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board realize just how sad and pathetic it looks right now?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Is Canada a nation? · 0 replies · +1 points

Canada = nation
Canada = country

Québec = nation that is part of Canadian nation
Acadia = nation that is part of Canadian nation
First nations = nations that are part of Canadian nation
Newfoundland = (arguably) nation that is part of Canadian nation
All provinces minus Québec = not a nation

13 years ago @ http://www.themarknews... - Harper’s Cabinet... · 0 replies · +1 points

B. Stronach never ran for the PC leadership. She ran for the Conservative leadership, after the merger, against Harper and Clement. Otherwise, excellent analysis.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - How Stephen Harper wil... · 0 replies · +1 points

We all know you're a créditiste plant

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The guardian of our de... · 1 reply · +2 points

You're right - "hey, talk to us before you call an election because we've been in discussions and think you should consider all your options...and oh by the way we represent a majority of the House" probably means they just wanted to chat with her about the weather or something. And I'm sure Harper's subsequent statements that he was ready to lead an alternative government without an election were just a series of unfortunate Tourette syndrome-related outbursts.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The guardian of our de... · 3 replies · 0 points

The GG has two options lol: call an election or ask someone else to form government. lol. The letter proves Harper lol knows handing the reins to an alternative government, led lol by the second-place party, without a new election, is a legitimate possibility lol lol. Now he pretends it isn't lol lol lol. He is therefore a lying sack of...lolololololololololololololololol

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The guardian of our de... · 10 replies · +1 points

"As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. "

The letter is signed by Harper, Duceppe, and Layton. What "options" do you think they are referring to?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The guardian of our de... · 0 replies · +5 points

If you find the idea of a coalition led by the second-place party "illegitimate," in the sense that it appalls you and you don't like it, that's all well and good. Though you must then admit that you find our parliamentary system wanting, because our system allows for such a thing to happen. In other words, if you think in is "illegitimate" in the sense of being illegal or unconstitutional, you would be wrong (possibly brainwashed, but definitely wrong).

So yes, I believe it is legitimate for the second-place party to lead a coalition (only, of course, after the first placed party as demonstrably failed to maintain the confidence of the House). The logic of my position lies simply in a straight reading of the rules of the game. Any party leader can potentially be prime minister if that person commands the confidence of a majority of MPs.

I'm glad to see that you would have opposed Harper's 2004 coalition just as much - this shows you are a thinking, non-brainwashed person. But your beef lies with the system itself. A coalition led by the second -place party is nothing more than a potential product of that system. Logically.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The guardian of our de... · 0 replies · +6 points

Thanks for that. (And I hope it's clear I read too quickly and thought the questions said 'legitimate'. So the answer is No in every case)

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The guardian of our de... · 52 replies · +18 points

We all know that the answer to every one of these questions is yes. And Stephen Harper knows it (recall his 2005(?) letter to the GG explaining how his second-place party could legitimately lead a coalition government with the Bloc and NDP, without a new election).

What matters is that Harper has no problem pretending the answers to those questions aren't yes, and people believe him. Well, 30% of them do, anyway. For the Conservative base, then, truth is whatever Stephen Harper says it is. Facts matter little to them, and I fear clarification from the GG would do nothing to change this.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with Zamprelli

People I'm following

Zamprelli