Election 2015

[Altair]

But I don't think the opposition is the problem after 20 Oct. M Trudeau will have his political transition team, possibly headed by Mr Butts but, I'm guessing, including some veteran Liberal politicians. So will Janice Charette, and hers will be supremely professional. Ditto Paul Rochon, who, like Mme Charette is known, trusted and liked by many experienced Liberals. M Trudeau may, sooner or later, replace both Mme Charette and M Rochon but, unless he's really, incredibly stupid (a distinct possibility) he will not go too far afield and he wil pick people who think very much like those two ... and their thinking is not the same as premier Wynne's. People like Ralph Goodale and Scott Brison know full well that Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne have pursued fiscally foolish, even destructive policies and that Ontario, not Ottawa, is to blame for its economic malaise and that the solutions lie in Queen's Park, not on Parliament Hill. M Trudeau's finance minister will not be happy to pursue all the election promises ... unless he (M Trudeau) is totally deranged and appoints Chrystia Freeland to that post.

Oh, and don't forget the Wall Street Journal and Bay Street factors ... the best thing to do with M Trudeau's promises (Prime Minister Harper's, too) is to wrap them into a roll, perforate them every four inches and put them to good use in the outhouse.

If Mr Trudeau wins on the 19th, baring a majority miracle, he will have a slim minority government. During this time, the electorate will be hard on him, because despite voting for him, the "just not ready" line will linger. He needs to prove himself as a effective leader, and that would naturally include implementing the policies he campaigned on. If he cannot do this of his own free will (as opposed to the leaderless opposition trying to hold him back) then he would be trounced at the polls the next time around.

I called it before when I said the liberals would make a comeback at the expense of the ndp, I called it when I said trudeau would never under any circumstance work with the CPC and I'm calling it now, he will not back down on his the policies that got him elected to the highest office of the land.

He would rather face the electorate saying that the opposition prevented him from passing what he needed, give me a majority for real change.

He cannot face the electorate saying, meh, I was wrong.

Dislike the man all you want, say he's a empty head, but the man has good political instincts. If he wins he would have beat out a very skilled and experienced Stephen Harper and a very skilled Tom mulcair. I believe those political instincts will tell him that he cannot afford to campaign on the left govern on the right. He actually needs to demonstrate to Canadians that he can pass his own legislation, manage the economy and being a leader on the world stage. He cannot do any of this if he just drops his campaign promises the second he gets elected.

 

[suffolkowner]

That guys nuts. Hyperbole like that adds nothing to political discourse.

 

[suffolkowner]

If Mr Trudeau wins on the 19th, baring a majority miracle, he will have a slim minority government. During this time, the electorate will be hard on him, because despite voting for him, the "just not ready" line will linger. He needs to prove himself as a effective leader, and that would naturally include implementing the policies he campaigned on. If he cannot do this of his own free will (as opposed to the leaderless opposition trying to hold him back) then he would be trounced at the polls the next time around.

I called it before when I said the liberals would make a comeback at the expense of the ndp, I called it when I said trudeau would never under any circumstance work with the CPC and I'm calling it now, he will not back down on his the policies that got him elected to the highest office of the land.

He would rather face the electorate saying that the opposition prevented him from passing what he needed, give me a majority for real change.

He cannot face the electorate saying, meh, I was wrong.

Dislike the man all you want, say he's a empty head, but the man has good political instincts. If he wins he would have beat out a very skilled and experienced Stephen Harper and a very skilled Tom mulcair. I believe those political instincts will tell him that he cannot afford to campaign on the left govern on the right. He actually needs to demonstrate to Canadians that he can pass his own legislation, manage the economy and being a leader on the world stage. He cannot do any of this if he just drops his campaign promises the second he gets elected.

I don't know, I think its more likely that the promises will go by the wayside like most other Liberal campaign promises in the past

 

[PuckChaser]

Liberal promises are written in sand on a beach, unless it's a promise to cut military spending or procurement, then it's concrete.

 

[Altair]

I think you will all be surprised with your new overlord.

Not sure if it will be pleasant or not, but I do think Trudeau will try to keep most of his promises, as much the leaderless opposition allows in a minority parliament.

 

[suffolkowner]

Liberal promises are written in sand on a beach, unless it's a promise to cut military spending or procurement, then it's concrete.

Probably cancelling the F35 is the only thing we can count on the Liberals for

 

[jollyjacktar]

I think you will all be surprised with your new overlord.

Not sure if it will be pleasant or not, but I do think Trudeau will try to keep most of his promises, as much the leaderless opposition allows in a minority parliament.

I think not.  It might take some time to see how much shyte will be in the bedding, but I think the sheets will need a major wash day.

 

[Privateer]

For those interested in the Constitutional niceties, John Ibbitson has written a good, useful article in the Globe and Mail which includes some references to books on the matter.

The constitutional responsibilities of the Governor-General (and the Lieutenant-Governors in the provinces) have had me thinking that in reality we have four branches of government in our parliamentary system: Parliament, the courts, the government (which we usually think of as including the vice-regent, as "governor in council"), and the Crown in the constitutional watchdog sense.  Something to be developed when I have more time to think about such things.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I don't know who created this, I found it on a social media site, but it's pretty good ...

Elizabeth May as Khaleesi?  You know the nude scenes will give me nightmares.

 

[Altair]

I think not.  It might take some time to see how much shyte will be in the bedding, but I think the sheets will need a major wash day.

Wouldn't be the first time someone has underestimated justin trudeau.

 

[PuckChaser]

Wouldn't be the first time someone has underestimated justin trudeau.

Yeah, all those charities he charged for motivational speeches thought a rich trust fund kid would donate his time. My how they're were wrong.

 

[George Wallace]

The constitutional responsibilities of the Governor-General (and the Lieutenant-Governors in the provinces) have had me thinking that in reality we have four branches of government in our parliamentary system: Parliament, the courts, the government (which we usually think of as including the vice-regent, as "governor in council"), and the Crown in the constitutional watchdog sense.  Something to be developed when I have more time to think about such things.

Here you go; a condensed version:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/Education/OurCountryOurParliament/html_booklet/overview-canadian-parliamentary-system-e.html

Three branches work together to govern Canada: the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch (also called the Government) is the decision-making branch, made up of the Monarch represented by the Governor General, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet. The legislative branch is the law-making branch, made up of the appointed Senate and the elected House of Commons. The judicial branch is a series of independent courts that interpret the laws passed by the other two branches.

Parliament itself is made up of the following three parts: the Monarch, the Senate and the House of Commons.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy, which means that we recognize the Queen or King as the Head of State, while the Prime Minister is the Head of Government.

 

[Altair]

Yeah, all those charities he charged for motivational speeches thought a rich trust fund kid would donate his time. My how they're were wrong.

I was talking about Stephen Harper and Tom mulcair but sure, charities too.

Although I was under the impression that he repaid them.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The constitutional responsibilities of the Governor-General (and the Lieutenant-Governors in the provinces) have had me thinking that in reality we have four branches of government in our parliamentary system: Parliament, the courts, the government (which we usually think of as including the vice-regent, as "governor in council"), and the Crown in the constitutional watchdog sense.  Something to be developed when I have more time to think about such things.

The only really important part of the Constitution, the part that isn't written down, anywhere, but which has existed for over 1,000 years, and remains in full force today, says that we have a three-part Queen. She has three natures, she is:

    1. the Queen-in-Council, where she heads the executive branch of her government;

    2. The Queen-in-Parliament, where her parliaments debates and makes her laws for her people; and

    3. the Queen-on-the-Bench, where she gives justice to all her subjects and maintains the Queen's Peace.

As our head of state the Queen personifies us all, she is the country, she is us. In 1947 King George VI issued letters patent deliniating the "roles anf powers" which the GG exercises on the sovereign's behalf. Chief amongst those responsibilities, as has been discussed here and in other threads, is to always have counsel. The sovereign, the GG in practice, must, always have the advice of her people ... thus, the very first duty of a GG is to always have a government. The GG picks a government on the advice of the prime minister who is, in turn, advised by the people ~ by you and me ~ through periodic elections and by the elected members of parliament who give or withhold their confidence in the government.

I find it interesting that the best (and still authoritative) book on our, Canadian Constitution, was written in 1865 ... The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Wouldn't be the first time someone has underestimated justin trudeau.

Maybe not, but it wouldn't be the first or last time he wasn't underestimated either.

 

[Privateer]

The only really important part of the Constitution, the part that isn't written down, anywhere, but which has existed for over 1,000 years, and remains in full force today, says that we have a three-part Queen. She has three natures, she is:

    1. the Queen-in-Council, where she heads the executive branch of her government;

    2. The Queen-in-Parliament, where her parliaments debates and makes her laws for her people; and

    3. the Queen-on-the-Bench, where she gives justice to all her subjects and maintains the Queen's Peace.

As our head of state the Queen personifies us all, she is the country, she is us. In 1947 King George VI issued letters patent deliniating the "roles and powers" which the GG exercises on the sovereign's behalf. Chief amongst those responsibilities, as has been discussed here and in other threads, is to always have counsel. The sovereign, the GG in practice, must, always have the advice of her people ... thus, the very first duty of a GG is to always have a government. The GG picks a government on the advice of the prime minister who is, in turn, advised by the people ~ by you and me ~ through periodic elections and by the elected members of parliament who give or withhold their confidence in the government.

I find it interesting that the best (and still authoritative) book on our, Canadian Constitution, was written in 1865 ... The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot.

It seems to me, though, that (1) can properly be broken down into:

1(a): The Queen-in-council in the sense that you have it, and in the way that we are taught it (if we are taught it at all); and

1(b): The Queen exercising prerogative constitutional powers, possibly in a manner contrary to the advice / desire of her current "council", being the government of the day.  This doesn't really fit well into (1) or (2).  While I suppose it could be justified as a constructive loss of confidence in the government by Parliament, that is not, in my view, a satisfactory description of what I am getting at in 1(b), because the Queen could properly exercise her prerogative constitutional powers even where a governing party holds a majority in the House of Commons and can therefore survive a confidence vote.  Hence my proposal that we have, in reality, four branches of government.

 

[Edward Campbell]

According to a report in the Globe and Mail Thomas Mulcair has (as he should at this stage) categorically rejected a campaign by "a group calling itself Just The Facts Canada [which] ran a full-page ad in The Globe and Mail on Tuesday urging Mr. Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau to cede ridings to each other in constituencies where public opinion surveys suggest they have little chance of winning and vote-splitting could pave the way for a Conservative victory."

M Mulcair says he still has a chance of winning.

This proposal, ceding seats in advance, is, really, quite undemocratic, and it is fundamentally different from agreeing to coalition, which, I hope, good leaders would agree before the ballots are cast.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It seems to me, though, that (1) can properly be broken down into:

1(a): The Queen-in-council in the sense that you have it, and in the way that we are taught it (if we are taught it at all); and

1(b): The Queen exercising prerogative constitutional powers, possibly in a manner contrary to the advice / desire of her current "council", being the government of the day.  This doesn't really fit well into (1) or (2).  While I suppose it could be justified as a constructive loss of confidence in the government by Parliament, that is not, in my view, a satisfactory description of what I am getting at in 1(b), because the Queen could properly exercise her prerogative constitutional powers even where a governing party holds a majority in the House of Commons and can therefore survive a confidence vote.  Hence my proposal that we have, in reality, four branches of government.

This is (part of) that all important residual power. We are, after all, one of the good Queen's realms ~ it is her country, we are her subjects and we are going off (or have gone off) to vote to select her government, her council. The possessive pronoun really matters. Her majesty must have counsel and it is our job to recommend (through our votes) the best groups to give it to her. If we fail, if we are unclear, then she (the GG on her behalf) must decide ... initially he must consider the wishes of the sitting prime minister who, by convention, will recommend that (s)he should continue in that role if (s)he (her/his party) has the most seats in parliament, but might (and should, some would say) recommend , if (s)he (his/her party) does not have the most seats that the leader of another party should form the government. That is what Prime Minister Harper has, frequently, said he will do, but it is not what Prime Minister King did in 1925. A sitting prime minister might recommend, and some constitutional scholars believe the GG ought to agree, that (s)he should remain in power and try to secure the confidence of the House of Commons even though another party has more seats. This is a tricky decision which only the GG, as the de facto head-of-state, can ~ has the power to ~ make.

 

[dapaterson]

Yeah, all those charities he charged for motivational speeches thought a rich trust fund kid would donate his time. My how they're were wrong.

I haven't read his tax returns.  I do know that often charities will pay a speaker or provider of professional services, who then donates back the fee they receive.  It's a tax code thing - you can't issue a tax receipt for services, so instead a fee is paid and then donated back for a tax receipt.  It also lets the service provider charge their regular price - no setting a precedent for a reduction in rates.

Again, I can't testify that that is what M Trudeau did, but it would not be at all unusual if he did so.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm calling it now, he will not back down on his the policies that got him elected to the highest office of the land.

"Gutsy move, Mav[erick]!"

I wouldn't be surprised if he folds on the F-35 promise.  Read up on which province has the greatest number of aerospace firms currently holding contracts in the JSF Program...  :nod:

...I do think Trudeau will try to keep most of his promises, as much the leaderless opposition allows in a minority parliament.

That said, you have presciently identified the "out" he will take...darned opposition wouldn't let me cancel it... :not-again:

:2c:

G2G