Canadian government toppled by non-confidence vote

[Thecla]

So is your Govt as crooked as it appears or is it just politcal spin?
[right][snapback]95945[/snapback][/right]

FWIW -- and with no claims to its accuracy -- here is a recent corruption perceptions index. Among countries with sufficient data to be included in the survey, Canada ranked #14, below just about all of the Scandanavians -- who must be making up for the excesses of their Viking past -- the idyllic Kiwis, with the less idyllic Aussies following a bit below, Singapore (whose relaxation of its ban on chewing gum to allow nicorette gum does not seem to have led to widespread lawlessness), the strict Austrians, a few northern European commercial nations (the Netherlands, the UK, and Luxembourg) where it probably rains too much to encourage corruption, and above the US (#17), Botswana (#32), Cuba (#59), China (#78), Iraq (#137), and Bangladesh & Chad (#158). You know it must be bad when you rank below Myanmar.

[Guest]

Notice the difference in situations.

I tend to take issue with peoples opionions not nuetral questions.

[Ashock]

FWIW -- and with no claims to its accuracy --  here is a recent corruption perceptions index. Among countries with sufficient data to be included in the survey, Canada ranked #14, below just about all of  the Scandanavians -- who must be making up for the excesses of their Viking past -- the idyllic Kiwis, with the less idyllic Aussies following a bit below, Singapore (whose relaxation of its ban on chewing gum to allow nicorette gum does not seem to have led to widespread lawlessness),  the strict Austrians, a few northern European commercial nations (the Netherlands, the UK, and Luxembourg) where it probably rains too much to encourage corruption, and above the US (#17),  Botswana (#32), Cuba (#59), China (#78), Iraq (#137), and Bangladesh & Chad (#158). You know it must be bad when you rank below Myanmar.
[right][snapback]95994[/snapback][/right]

I find it curious that Singapore and Hong Kong scored better than the US. Then again I also find it curious that the color of my urine is golden yellow sometimes and almost colorless other times, so you can pretty much ignore this.


-A

[NiteFox]

a few northern European commercial nations (the Netherlands, the UK, and Luxembourg) where it probably rains too much to encourage corruption,[right][snapback]95994[/snapback][/right]

I'm surprised that the UK is as high as it is. I would probably go as far as saying the the current Labour government is the most corrupt one Britain has ever had in the last century.

[Quark]

If all the USA followed Philadelphia's example, its rating would plummet. But hey, at least Mayor Street doesn't burn the city, he just wastes its money ...

[Guest]

I wish Philly had been flooded instead of NO.

I live in PA - we have one of the only major cities in Philly I believe that is an economic drain on the rest of the state rather than a motor.

[Occhidiangela]

I wish Philly had been flooded instead of NO.

I live in PA - we have one of the only major cities in Philly I believe that is an economic drain on the rest of the state rather than a motor.
[right][snapback]96012[/snapback][/right]

Detroit.

Occhi

[Doc]

It's because of cities like Philly and Detroit that I stubbornly refuse to cross the Mason Dixon line in my old age.

Stinky smelly crime infested hell holes.

And to be completely fair and not have this looking like a cheap shot at Dayumyankees, I no longer set foot in Atlanta either. Nor do I go to South New York-Jersey. Er, I mean Florida.

Oh, and to keep this on topic, I say we invade Canada. Unstable governments create breeding grounds, according to our current administration, and we can't have the pot smoking, free health care loving, free crack pipe getting peoples of Canada being turned in to terrorists. Second, we owe them for burning down the white house way back when. I say we liberate the heck out of them and take away their delicious maple syrup. I mean, I was just reading about peak maple syrup prices and how the Canadian Maple Syrup consortiums are using underhanded means to artificially inflate the cost of that sweet sugary liquid crack for flapjacks. Why, grade B organic maple syrup, the really thick mostly unrefined stuff, the GOOD stuff, it was 39 dollars for a gallon when I went shopping the other day.

[Jester]

That's a good point.  I remember reading a while back that Leonid Brezhnev's (for the teens here, he was USSR's leader in the '70's) son had a villa in Canada years back. He is not the current leader of the Ultra-Liberal Party is he?
-A
[right][snapback]95963[/snapback][/right]

Yes, yes he is. In fact, all of our leaders are former Soviet cronies. Some are just a little more disaffected than others. We call those "conservatives".

Really, they're just Mensheviks.

-Jester

[Doc]

Yes, yes he is. In fact, all of our leaders are former Soviet cronies. Some are just a little more disaffected than others. We call those "conservatives".

Really, they're just Mensheviks.

-Jester
[right][snapback]96018[/snapback][/right]

That frightens me for reasons I am unable to explain, having Soviet cronies in charge next door.

[Occhidiangela]

The Gomery Report.   
Required reading before any further questions  ;)
[right][snapback]95955[/snapback][/right]

*Snort*

I'll read the Full Monty when I get home. Thanks for the link, Shadow. :) Your comments on timing are enlightening.

The four page summary looked a lot like a cut and paste, with a few changes into Canadianese, from one of a dozen audits of US Derpartment of Defense Acquisition and attendant Congressional Malfeasance in ( _____ insert a district or state here.)

What, not even a footnote from the gentlefolk in Ottawa? With the high academic standards held in Canada, I would have expected the authors to present a proper citation! :lol:

All joking aside, I will ponder the report in its fullness over a Boddington's tonight.

For DeeBye

No, vote of no confidence is not like an impeachment in the US.

To clear up your misconception, an impeachment is explicitly called for when high crimes and misdemeanors, breaches of the law, are shown to have been committed by a government official. In an impeachment, government does not dissolve, nor are elections triggered. The individual hits the road, and everyone else pretty much "gets on with it" until the next scheduled election cycle. During the interim, they attempto to cut each other to ribbons over the impeachment mess and other issues, politics as usual.

As you know, the "vote of no confidence" may be called due to shady behavior as well, but it can also be called based on sheer incompetence. We have no real analogue for the "you're fired because your policies and decisions are appalling and we have no confidence that you'll get smarter soon enough to unscrew the mess you have made. We (the majority vote) all agree that you suck irrecoverably at this governing thing."

Impeachment for incompetence-absent-illegal-behavior is not an option. (Awaits torrent of GWB jokes) Incompetence is usually worked around, or the office holder involved is induced, by his own party, to GTFO for the good of the party. Or not.

If one is looking for a US parallel, the vote of no confidence is more similar to the recent California Recall vote vis a vis Governor Gray Davis -- which then led to the Governator -- than it is to impeachment.

They are all similar in that each is a political tool, and is thus driven by political agendas. Big surprise there. :o

Occhi

[Quark]

Believe it or not, Philly's condition is finally beginning to improve. Things like "well, maybe we can have buildings taller than the Penn Statue ..." are actually helping.

The positives just seem to be coming despite everything the corrupt, kick-back contract, government does to try to stop it.

[martini]

No, vote of no confidence is not like an impeachment in the US. [snip]

As you know, the "vote of no confidence" may be called due to shady behavior as well, but it can also be called based on sheer incompetence.  We have no real  analogue for the "you're fired because your policies and decisions are appalling and we have no confidence that you'll get smarter soon enough to unscrew the mess you have made.  We (the majority vote) all agree that you suck irrecoverably at this governing thing." 

Impeachment for incompetence-absent-illegal-behavior is not an option.  (Awaits torrent of GWB jokes)  Incompetence is usually worked around, or the office holder involved is induced, by his own party, to GTFO for the good of the party.  Or not.

The party that has been asked by the GG to form the government can get rid of the Prime Minister in a similar fashion, by asking him (or her) to resign as leader of the party.

If one is looking for a US parallel, the vote of no confidence is more similar to the recent California Recall vote vis a vis Governor Gray Davis -- which then led to the Governator -- than it is to impeachment. 

They are all similar in that each is a political tool, and is thus driven by political agendas.  Big surprise there.  :o

Occhi
[right][snapback]96020[/snapback][/right]

I'm not sure that there is a US parallel... if the issue was decided by the voters, rather than by the political parties, the government likely would have stood. This is the big difference between the 2-party system and a multi-party parliament, that it's possible for parliament to fail to form, or to dissolve, purely due to political expediency and for no real reason whatsoever. I guess the only thing that would be similar in the US would be if the majority leader found that a significant number of the members of his party were voting against the party line, so that the government couldn't get anything carried. The impossibility of a minority government in a 2-party system really makes finding an analogy for this situation difficult.

I still can't figure out why the Conservatives and NDP were so keen on toppling the government now. Polls are showing that we'll almost certainly get the same result (Libearl minority government) and I can't see the NDP having more power than they just gave up (barganing power, given the Liberals' need of NDP votes to stay in power). I suspect that only the Party Quebecois will really gain any momentum here. Was it so hard for the Conservatives to accept the Liberals calling the election on their own?

Agreed. I think that Stephen Harper's horror at the sponsorship issue is disingenuous, and he's been looking at his best chance to grasp at power ever since the last election, and he thinks that this is it. Fighting on the side of change is a plus for him, since Canadians will throw out the government just to throw it out sometimes, we're capricious. :) But it seems like the Liberals are trying to push the Conservative = Socially Conservative button that got them to come out on top last time, we'll see if it has a similar result this time around. Harper has already stated that he wants to re-open the same sex marriage issue.

Paul Martin's position is difficult, but he's still ahead in the polls, and he was personally exonorated by the Gomery report, although that doesn't seem to stop the opposition. The recent Liberal spending spree was a little conspicuous, but so was the Conservatives' deputy saying that he would have spent on those programs too.

For the NDP, I don't see what Jack Layton's motivation was here... he basically had Paul Martin over a barrel, and managed to force the Liberals to support NDP ideals in the last government. I think a lot of NDP voters might do the same as they did in the last election: vote Liberal in fear of Stephen Harper.

The Bloc probably will pick up some ground in this election, which is funny, since the sponsorship scandal was a Quebec issue. What extra BQ seats will mean for the running of parliament, and the sovereignty debate, I shudder to think.

Most people that I talk to don't really see the need for this election, and in reading the media coverage, it seems like a straight-out rewind of the last election. I'm not sure what we can gain by this, if anything.

[gekko]

The way it looks to me, this non-confidence motion is just more of the same political gamesmanship the Conservatives and NDP have been engaging in from the moment the government was elected.  They aren't able to see national interest, only their own narrow goals.  They wanted to show they could push around the government whenever they wanted, and they chose to do it now.

[right][snapback]95953[/snapback][/right]

That's the same conclusion I arrived at - the Conservatives in particular just couldn't bear the thought of the Libearl minority government choosing its own timetable. That's unfortunate, since the timing suggests to me at least that the Gomery Report is the only major issue the Conservatives are going to campaign on. What a waste.

gekko

[KiloVictor]

Last election, I was a reluctant Liberal voter, mourning the demise of my PCs.  The antics of the Opposition since then have turned me into a die-hard Liberal partisan, and I never, ever thought I'd be saying those words.
[right][snapback]95953[/snapback][/right]

The number of times that I've heard this sentiment over the past few weeks is truly staggering.

I suspect that this election will not be kind to Messrs. Harper or Layton, but time will tell.

Kv

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not sure that there is a US parallel... if the issue was decided by the voters, rather than by the political parties, the government likely would have stood.  The impossibility of a minority government in a 2-party system really makes finding an analogy for this situation difficult.

Agreed, no real analogue . . . just a bunch of anal pogues. (the politicians) :lol:

I think that Stephen Harper's horror at the sponsorship issue is disingenuous, and he's been looking at his best chance to grasp at power ever since the last election, and he thinks that this is it.  Harper has already stated that he wants to re-open the same sex marriage issue.

Aha, the ulterior motive! Perhaps he saw the Texas vote earlier this month and decided that he can ride Texan momentun?
*dials Mr Harper's phone number.*
*click*
MP Harper speaking.
Dude, wrong country! :whistling:

What extra BQ seats will mean for the running of parliament, and the sovereignty debate, I shudder to think.  Most people that I talk to don't really see the need for this election, and in reading the media coverage, it seems like a straight-out rewind of the last election. I'm not sure what we can gain by this, if anything.
[right][snapback]96023[/snapback][/right]

As for gain . . . just a thought here . . . it being winter, the hot air of an election campaign reduces the need for heating oil. :whistling:

The way it looks to me, this non-confidence motion is just more of the same political gamesmanship the Conservatives and NDP have been engaging in from the moment the government was elected.  They aren't able to see national interest, only their own narrow goals.  They wanted to show they could push around the government whenever they wanted, and they chose to do it now.

Gee, sounds like the braying of donkeys since November of 2000 down here in the Lower 48. ;) We may be more similar than I realize, politically. Canada still has better beer.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Believe it or not, Philly's condition is finally beginning to improve.  Things like "well, maybe we can have buildings taller than the Penn Statue ..." are actually helping.

The positives just seem to be coming despite everything the corrupt, kick-back contract, government does to try to stop it.
[right][snapback]96022[/snapback][/right]

The pending departure of Mr Terrel Owens will at least cut your noise pollution problem . . . ;)

Occhi

[Roland]

Detroit. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]96016[/snapback][/right]

Lol. That's good. Thanks for the chuckle.

Ah, home sweet Massachusetts home.

[Ashock]

Really, they're just Mensheviks.
-Jester
[right][snapback]96018[/snapback][/right]

Bah, a little menshe a little bolshe.... what's the difference...



-A

[KiloVictor]

No, vote of no confidence is not like an impeachment in the US. 

{stuff snipped}

As you know, the "vote of no confidence" may be called due to shady behavior as well, but it can also be called based on sheer incompetence.  We have no real  analogue for the "you're fired because your policies and decisions are appalling and we have no confidence that you'll get smarter soon enough to unscrew the mess you have made.  We (the majority vote) all agree that you suck irrecoverably at this governing thing." 
[right][snapback]96020[/snapback][/right]

Minor nit: This is AFAIK the first time in the Canadian parliamentary system that an explicit vote of non-confidence has been held. The Opposition put forward a motion stating simply that the government no longer held the confidence of the House (i.e. of all the elected members) and won a vote on it. To date, when a government has fallen on a confidence motion, it's because they lost vote on a matter which is considered a "confidence vote". British parliamentary tradition (which Canada inherited) holds that only certain votes are matters of confidence - the annual budget is the prime example, and any money bills are by definition confidence votes. If the government fails to carry a simple majority in the House on any of those votes, it is deemed to have lost the confidence of the House.

Because Canada has a multi-party system, it is possible for a party to have the most seats of any party, but still have less than a majority in the House - the current situtation for the Liberals. In a minority government, they are forced to seek support from one of the other Opposition parties (or independent members of the House) to get their budget and money bills passed, and in theory they should govern in a more consultative and consenual manner than a party with an absolute majority. Minority governments are a basically sign that the voters trust none of the parties enough to hand over unfettered control of the government. :)

Anyhow, having lost a confidence vote means the Prime Minister must then ask the Governor-General (as the representative of the Crown) to dissolve the House and call a national election. In this case it doesn't mean that "you're fired" as you stated above so much as it means that "we think it's politically expedient for us to bring down the government now because we think we can get more of our people elected than you will". The majority of Canadians haven't significantly changed their opinions on the parties since the last election, and therefore will very likely elect a House that looks very much like this one. Time will of course tell if that holds true.

So this election is extraordinary in that it's the first time in history (modern history at least) that the Opposition has arbitrarily decided to force a national vote - usually it happens when the House can't reach agreement on the budget or significant issues of national policy. In those cases, the system arguably functions as designed: the elected representatives can't agree on how to govern the country, so they take it to the people.

This is different because the Opposition is basically making a naked play for power. And the stakes this time are high - this will be the end of the line for one or more of the party leaders. In the case of the governing Liberals, having won a narrow majority last time and losing the House this time would likely mean the end of Mr. Martin's career as leader of the party. By the same token, forcing an election and then losing ground in the vote would mean the end of the line for Mr. Harper (Conservative party leader) and Mr. Layton (NDP party leader) on the Opposition side of the House. Traditionally, any leader that loses two elections from the Opposition side of the House is done.

What the Conservatives hope to do is upset the Liberals and form the government. However if the voters get annoyed enough at them for forcing a winter election, they may smack the Conservatives down. The risk for the Conservatives is high, and the benefit they get by forcing the election now is minimal, since the government had already pledged to call an election around the end of February with a vote around the end of March or mid-April. So for the sake of pushing the vote up by three months, they've taken the risk of looking like their ambition for power trumped common sense (as Mr. Martin put it in the opening salvo of the campaign).

I'm frankly flabbergasted that the people running the party would take that risk for what looks like a marginal benefit. It will be a very interesting election.

~Kv