Over in the CBC comments section (sorry, no link), someone whines about how all those other people prorogued Parliament so, like, what's the big deal?:
Idiot commenter JoeGopher: "Livelier than the previous 104 times it's been done federally, not to mention how many times it was done provincially?"
Kady: "Joe Gopher: Oh please don't make me explain why that's a ludicrous metric again. Extremely short version: Until 1940, prorogation was *the only way to end a session* for longer than a weekend, even to rise for statutory holidays. In 1940, the Standing Orders were amended to allow for designated breaks - Christmas, Easter, that sort of thing - but extended adjournment still required consent. In 1982, the Commons adopted a fixed calendar, which included the winter and summer adjournments. Since then, prorogation has been used far more sparingly. I've posted about this in the past, and I'm sorry for the repetition, but of all the idiotic talking points that should be consigned to a fiery pit of oblivion, that may be the one that drives me the craziest."
Good girl, Kady. And a complete waste of time. You are lecturing to retards. You'll have to trust me on that one.
(Wag of the tail to e-mailer GH.)
16 comments:
That will not stop all the robotic denial emanating from the bunker located 100 metres below the CPC HQ.
She's cute as a button, too!
And a complete waste of time.
Too true. The idiot she was explaining this to wasn't looking to be educated on anything.
Well, it looks like the talking point about Parliament being prorogued 100+ times is no longer viable if it ever was, defeated by a simple history lesson. That is all well and good.
The NDP has an good opportunity here for their proposal to limit prorogation to be given some serious weight and prove again they deserve to the role of Official Opposition, because the Liberals just cannot be taken seriously on this matter. The reason for that is that for the Liberals, some of their prorogations as the last government saw their leader at the time doing so to avoid an inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, and to avoid leadership issues with a rival; not to mention Rae having done so a few times himself, on one occasion resulting in the Ontario Legislature sitting so lttle that a budget wasn't even passed one year.
All that hardly mitigates Harper for what many see are his own selfish reasons for doing so today. This is now. However, it kind of takes the bite out of Liberal criticism of the government over the issue when they've used prorogation for their own selfish purposes in the past as well, wouldn't you say?
Harper is the first PM to prorogue to avoid questions of complicity in war crimes at the highest levels of government. Harper is the firm PM to prorogue to avoid a non-confidence motion planned for the very next sitting day it would be possible.
You can try to draw equivalence to Chretien trying to delay release of a report on a financial scandal, but you would be wrong.
ha ha firm should be first
This is now. However, it kind of takes the bite out of Liberal criticism of the government over the issue when they've used prorogation for their own selfish purposes in the past as well, wouldn't you say?
But...but...but...the LIBERALS!!!
Part 248,489.
Repetition is a staple of propaganda.
LS, we can argue all day about the avoidance of "complicity" in "war crimes", but that argument is still going to be there when Parliament returns, so that is a non-starter. I'm quite sure the other Opposition parties are not going to let the Conservayives off the hook on that score. And they shouldn't.
Ti-Guy, you can't have it both ways; crying foul over the Conservatives doing that which Liberals, especially current ones, have done for likewise selfish motives. I can accept NDP criticism on the issue. This prorogation should never have happened. And I can understand that you're a Liberal supporter, however, the Liberals have no lessons to teach on this issue because their credibility on this issue is exactly zero. If the Liberals didn't have their own sordid history with prorogation, their criticism would make sense. They do, so it doesn't.
but that argument is still going to be there when Parliament returns, so that is a non-starter.
I'm sure the CPC would like it to be a non-starter, but it won't be. The lengthy prorogue is intended to make it go away, but it won't. They are trying to regain control of the agenda, hoping all will be forgotten in a few weeks. They are not succeeding as yet, and are simply trying to make it about proroguing in general.
I'm quite sure the other Opposition parties are not going to let the Conservayives off the hook on that score. And they shouldn't.
I'm quite sure the CPC wants to find a way to thwart this. They were hoping for the Olympic feel good halo effect. Considering the AFHG committe was running only in March and took until November before the damning evidence started coming out, the CPC will do their best to derail another attempt to get to the same point (they even have a manual on how to do so). Whereupon they will again prorogue, or if the polls look good, go for an election.
crying foul over the Conservatives doing that which Liberals, especially current ones, have done for likewise selfish motives.
You're still trying to pretend it is no different, despite the fact that it is very different.
the Liberals have no lessons to teach on this issue because their credibility on this issue is exactly zero.
I wasn't aware of the Liberals proroguing to avoid questions of complicity in war crimes. When did they do this?
If the Liberals didn't have their own sordid history with prorogation, their criticism would make sense. They do, so it doesn't.
Your logic is based on a false premise. The Liberals' haven't prorogued to avoid a confidence motion the next sitting day, nor have they prorogued to avoid questions of complicity in war crimes. The fact is that proroguing can be business as usual, it can be for political expediency, and then it can be abused, as Harper has done. Twice.
This discussion is as tiresome as the climate change debate. First it was 'there's no such thing', then 'there might be but people had nothing to do with it', then 'there is AGW but it's minor', then it's 'nothing can be done anyway'.
However, since there is no science to be denied and questioned, this won't easily be stymied. Keep trying though, it just makes the CPC look worse.
What we are currently witnessing is the collapse of the conservative messaging. From the uproar of calls for accountability propagated following the Adscam scandal, to the current political environment, the cons have cavorted their ideas into a narrow focus of gaining popular support without maintaining a cogent messaging apparatus.
Now, the messaging has broken down, they defund ecumenical groups aimed at tackling poverty, child protection and women's rights and then within two or three weeks they begin to ramp up their apparent support for women's and children's rights. There's an absence of credibility on any number of issue, where the messaging from the PMO gives us a nice glossy message devoid of any kind of self-criticism or even acknowledging any kind of failure or lapse in coverage or protection or you know the measures to which the effectiveness of a decision can be weighed.
There's the entire economic message which doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete, but again, through the rose-coloured glasses.
So really, its my hope that the CPC continues to maintain this broken and incoherent messaging system, as Canadians are engaged, are paying attention and its only a matter of time before Harper and his gang overstep the reality bar and step into the outright propaganda bubble of outright lies (to the extent it has already entered into this realm)
Michael:
You should consider seriously what liberal supporter wrote. Right now, you look like an ass. It's very unbecoming.
CC, I can appreciate the fact that the Conservatives (I refuse to use the moniker "Tories") shouldn't have used prorogation in this manner. However, all LS is doing is excusing Liberal use of prorogation by level of degree in his criticism of Conservatives using it for selfish reasons, too.
Both Conservatives and Liberals have used prorogation for cynical political motives. But the way LS describes it, it as if a person who is guilty of 2nd degree murder is chastising another for committing 1st degree murder. it doesn't wash.
I get that if the Conservatives ever want to be taken seriously as an accountable government, they can't use the poor past behaviour of the LPC as justification for acting in similar fashion without being hypocritical as well. They said they intend to do things differently and in this case, they certainly are not. The Conservatives need to take their lumps over this, but the Liberals should be the last ones holding the mallet because they have lumps of their own. I hear the Liberals lecturing, but they they have no lessons to teach here.
Harper is the first PM in the history of Canada to use prorogation twice in a year, the first to use it to avoid accountability (one to save himself on a non-confidence vote, now to avoid tough questions and a Parliamentary showdown that might him and his government in contempt of Parliament) and all while in a minority government situation.
Trying to bleat about "104 times before" is a non-starter, Michael. The meteoric poll drop in the past 2 weeks should have helped the Cons figure that out.
Trying to bleat about "104 times before" is a non-starter, Michael. The meteoric poll drop in the past 2 weeks should have helped the Cons figure that out.
Scott, I never supported the idea "104 times before". Go back and read at 9:29 where I've already stated otherwise - Well, it looks like the talking point about Parliament being prorogued 100+ times is no longer viable if it ever was, defeated by a simple history lesson. That is all well and good.
I think the drop in polls has more to do with a drip affect than anything else. Everything that has been happening over the last 6 months has added up. This thing with prorogation is probably the proverbial camel getting its back broken.
.......the first to use it to avoid accountability. Chretien also used prorogation to avoid accountability. We both know why. So did Rae. He used it in such a way that it prevented him from even passing a budget oneyear in Ontario. Those are not in dispute; they happened. All we are merely discussing now is the degree in contrast, which still makes Liberal credibility while criticising on this issue dead in the water. The other Opposition parties, on the other hand.........
If this minority Conservative government is so terrible for democracy, as I keep hearing is the case, then it should be defeated at the very next opportunity. Why is it that every time there is a chance to do so, it never happens? Will it finally happen, especially now? If not, what then?
But the way LS describes it, it as if a person who is guilty of 2nd degree murder is chastising another for committing 1st degree murder. it doesn't wash.
Still going with "liberals did it too", eh?
Your analogy is a false equivalence. More accurately, it is like a person who was in power when underlings spent money unaccountably, chastising another who ignored reports of possible war crimes, demanded that the reports stop being sent, demanded that nothing be in writing, refused to provide Parliament with the uncensored reports, and smeared a diplomat who issued the reports. In short, someone on whose watch a financial scandal happened chastising someone who may be complicit in war crimes.
By the way that second person is the one who changed the accountability rules so the first situation, if it happened again, would never come to light again.
All we are merely discussing now is the degree in contrast,
You've got to be kidding.
which still makes Liberal credibility while criticising on this issue dead in the water.
So we should just sit down, shut up, and let Steve get on to important things, right?
Not going to happen. Not this time.
Post a Comment