The court challenge from Democracy Watch over the timing of the last federal election gets thrown out.
The last election was legal and no laws were broken. Now if only the trolls, and the Liberal Party would stop with the "Harper broke his own election law" crap we can move on to reality and the present day.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I'm confident that that Libloggers who posted with glee that Harper broke the law will have their posts up any minute now appologizing.
I am beginning to think there is something wrong with the water in Calgary. First they vote WRA now Reid appears to be delusional thinking the Libloggers will apologize ;)
Apparently you believe facts are used in their smears. How did you come to that conclusion?
Many of the Left still cite the illegal Cadman affair (that was never filed).
liberals, 'Apologize' are you kidding. For the liberal to apologize is a 'sign of weakness'.
Isn't it amazing that the LPOC have to rely on their pathetic media to help them get through the day even hide their corruption stories from the public.
Whereas the prime minister has no media but Faith and the general public to get through the day.
CS is your comment directed at myself? If it is I am not sure what you are referring to.
Settled.
He did not break his own law, just his own election promise.
Good to know.
Not really Gayle, but I won't argue with you today since I know that trolls everywhere are hurting from the realization that half of what they have been saying since last years election has been proven false.
Yeah - that one really, really hurts.
Sheesh...
Oh, and here is a link to that fixed election dates promise.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051214/elxn_tories_senate_051214?s_name=election2006&no_ads=
Here we go again. There cannot be fixed election dates in a minority parliament period. Is this concept to hard for anyone on the left to grasp.
If you can find me a quote where the PM ever said that it applies to a minority situation and I will vote Liberal in the next election.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/26/fixed-vote-060526.html
Here you go - introduced in a minority government, and an election date set during said minority government.
Tell me something, it is widely acknowledged Harper was trying to get Dion to defeat him, over and over and over again. Why do you think he was doing that if he did not believe he had made a promise to abide by a fixed election date? Surely all he had to do was seek an election. There was nothing different in September 2009 that suddenly made an election necessary - nothing but impending economic recession Harper did not want to acknowledge.
He chose an election at a time when it was best for his party. This is exactly what he spoke out against when he made that promise.
And here is what he said:
"But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage."
Breaking News: Gayle just figured out that the PM called an election (now declared 100% legal as if there really was a doubt) at a time that was to his own benefit. It was not the only reason, but it was a factor.
Where you one of those Liberals also surprised that the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and our Prime Minister expressed publicly that he wants a Majority?
I guess that I am still voting for Mike because your link is lacking that magic quote.
And wishful thinking will not turn this:
"I read the polls saying if I called an election now we would win a majority. The same polls also say no one wants an election now, and no one does want an unnecessary election. So unless we're defeated or prevented from governing we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next 3½ years."
THe did not describe the circumstances in which he would consider the government to be prevented from governing. Among other things, he may have been thinking of opposition parties obstructing House business by procedural means.
into that.
I see you are moderating now, and that will mean you will not post this, but your responses are non-responsive.
I wonder why you failed to answer my question. Is that because the answer is too obvious and would force you to admit that Harper knew he would be breaking his promise?
And by the way, though it is cute you post your lsnide little insults behind the protection of moderation, anyone who is familiar with me knows that I have been accusing Harper of calling the last election at a time when it was politically expedient for him to do so since he called it. That, too, was a direct contradiction of his own promise. But of course you will ignore that too.
Because, of course, the government was NOT prevented from governing by any stretch of anyone's imagination. No one could look at the number of bills that were passed and conclude someone was obstructing them. In fact, the only party obstructing anything were the CPC.
These are the kind of facts that make it inconvenient for you to maintain your slavish devotion to Harper.
Comment moderation comes on automatically after 1 day Gayle for a number of reasons.
Of course it was to his benefit to call an election at that time. Do you really expect anyone to call an election when it is not to their advantage? Really.
The quote you provided the link for says it all" So unless we're defeated or prevented from governing we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next 3½ years."
He did not describe the circumstances in which he would consider the government to be prevented from governing. Among other things, he may have been thinking of opposition parties obstructing House business by procedural means."
Look, we can argue all day, but in the end it was legal and in the only persons opinion that really counts, the PM, he felt he could not govern (debatable) and as he said in his quote he called an election.
"No one could look at the number of bills that were passed and conclude someone was obstructing them."
Get with the program Gayle; Ignatieff is saying just that, the Conservatives can't make Parliament work, they aren't getting things done etc.
Is Ignatieff wrong on this too?
What Ignatieff is saying about the here and now has nothing to do with what was happening a year ago.
Harper was the guy who said fixed election dates would prevent the PM from calling an election when it was politically expedient to do so - and then he turned around and did just that. I am not taking issue with him doing that, I am pointing out that when he said he promised a fixed election date to prevent him from doing that he was lying.
Maybe you should re-listen to what Ignatieff said in his Montreal presser particularly the parts where he speaks about minority governments of the past and how they accomplished so much more than what the PM has.
The fixed election date law was ONLY for majority governments, and the PM gave a perfect example of where he would call an election and that is what he ended up doing.
You are taking issue with his interpretation of being held up from governing, fine and as I said that is arguable, but at no time did he ever flat out refuse to rule out the possibility of an early election under certain circumstances. The link to the quote you provided says as much and now you say he broke a non existent promise?
I asked earlier and I will ask again, provide a quote, without the caveats, where he promises to not call an early election.
"The fixed election date law was ONLY for majority governments..."
and so why, then, did he set a fixed election date, and then try, over and over and over again to be defeated?
You cannot even argue that he wanted to blame the LPC for the election because he was so transparent about it that would never have flown.
What is it about a minority government that makes it OK to choose an election date that is politically expedient when it is not OK during a majority? Why did Harper talk about his own fixed date during his minority if he did not feel bound by it?
By the way, you have changed your question. First you asked for the quote when Harper said it applied during a minority, and when I found it you changed the question to where he promised not to call an early election.
That's OK - I would not expect you to honour your promise to vote liberal anyway. Why should you do something Harper won't. :)
Gayle this is getting old.
"What is it about a minority government that makes it OK to choose an election date that is politically expedient when it is not OK during a majority?"
Could it be the law and the constitution maybe?
THE ELECTION WAS LEGAL GET OVER IT.
The PM called a legal election so anyone who was running around saying he broke his own law was WRONG. Moving the goal posts from breaking the law to breaking a promise, a promise never explicitly made I might add, does not change anything from my initial posting.
BTW my original question still stands Gayle.In the quote you provided nowhere does it indicate that the PM said it
applied to a minority
; in fact is says just the opposite and gives specific examples of why it does not.
This one is done, give your tired circular arguments a rest or take it somewhere else.
THE ELECTION WAS LEGAL GET OVER IT.
Which is why, in my original post, I said this:
"He did not break his own law, just his own election promise."
Speaking of moving goal posts...
As for applying to a minority, I have pointed out several times now that Harper conducted himself in a manner that suggested he believed his promise applied to a minority.
He also said that it applied to his minority government by setting a fixed election date.
I am not the one going around in circles here. I have made my point - you just keep ignoring it.
Gayle is your typical Libblogger. She can't defend her party so she flails by suggesting Canadian voters agree with her.
Cadman, Income Trust, Election issues were rejected as issues by the voters. The CPC have gained seats. Outside Quebec, the CPC gained 57% of the seats.
Harper invited all three opposition leaders to find common ground for his legislative agenda in Fall 09. All three publicly withdrew their support and promised to block everything.
The GG on the advice of thePM reviewed those public statement and agreed to dissolve the government.
Gayle is bitter, tied to a party without a leader who is left to draw imaginary lines trying to prove he is not a wimp.
1)Tough questions, Report Cards.
2)$ 3 Billion blank cheque.
3)Press Conference Meltdown June.
4)Blue Ribbon Panel.
5)Time is up.
In a new record, 8 months Iggy has reached the low levels of support of Dion as a leader and national support for his party. (LSI 54, 29%)
Gayle does have some good news, the NDP are not interested to test the patience of the voter this Fall.
Not going in circles huh;
"As for applying to a minority, I have pointed out several times now that Harper conducted himself in a manner that suggested he believed his promise applied to a minority.
"conducted himself in a manner that suggested he believed"?
Nice double talk Gayle, it sums up your entire argument nicely and don't bother replying back. I am done with your spin.
Post a Comment