Root of the Problem --PM's Bad Advice to the Public's last defense against arbitrary/despotic power!
Dear Canada,
I loathe the idea of the Lib/Ndp/Bloc coalition, more because of the stupid, damaging and hard-to-reverse programs that they'll jam through the House (assuming the GG doesn't refuse Assent to the bonehead-i-est ones), than because the recent 'wasted election' told each of them (and the economist that doesn't seem to factor economic/monetary effects into his decisions about self-serving, politics-of-the-minute) that we didn't want ANY of them to have a free hand in the House.
That said, what if ... Mr Harper had not offered the Advice that convinced the (virtually advisor-less) GovGen to disregard Harper's very own fixed date election legislation and to agree to a dissolution-without-a-defeat-in-the-House and the resultant 'wasted election'?
What if ... in September, Her Excellency (with or without the Advice and/or Advice and Consent of Her Privy Council) had suggested another Conservative or a coalition of Opposition parties to fulfill the balance of Mr Harper's first mandate's fixed date?
Given that Harper came to Rideau Hall (apparently with scarcely a whimper nor any regrets or remorse) to declare that he had given up (again) - Harper said he "couldn't govern any more" ... wouldn't it have been possible for the GG to just ask him to move to the sidelines and select an CPC member to carry on or, to ask any other Leader or combination of Leaders to finish out Harper's term rather than force new elections that EVERYONE presumed with 85-95% certainty wouldn't really change too much within the House?
In hindsight wasn't the election a Bad idea? at best a wasted experience and waste of money and public energy? Should Mr Harper be chastised for offering that advice? Doesn't Ministerial Responsibility require that the Crown be held harmless?
While we're on the Bad Advice file, wasn't Harper's advice to prorogue-without-a-defeat-in-the-House just as self-serving as Bad Advice #1?
The Rt Hon Firewaller recommended that the (virtually advisor-less) Vice Regal anticipate a hypothetical rather that allow actual events to transpire.
* Who is best served by the delay? You? Me? the coalition? Mr Harper?
* Who would have been most "on the spot" on Monday the 8th and avoided that awkward moment? You? Me? etc
* Who is best served by this new prorogue-instead-of-vote precedent? You? Me? etc
Harper was being counselled last Thursday by Kevin Lynch (who holds the conflict-of-interest-ridden dual Office of the Clerk of the Privy Council AND Secretary of the Cabinet {conflicted duality extant only since 1940} while the Public's last defense against arbitrary/despotic power, Ms Jean had to bring in a solitary, outside legal expert (who has had many govt-of-the-day contracts).
The strange part is that the Constitution's s.11 says the Privy Council is the GovGen's Advisors .... not the PM's.
What's going on?
Doesn't anybody see this?
The (wanna be) Emperor's New Clothes are on display.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reference:
Plain Language Translation of BNA?Constitution Act 1867
I loathe the idea of the Lib/Ndp/Bloc coalition, more because of the stupid, damaging and hard-to-reverse programs that they'll jam through the House (assuming the GG doesn't refuse Assent to the bonehead-i-est ones), than because the recent 'wasted election' told each of them (and the economist that doesn't seem to factor economic/monetary effects into his decisions about self-serving, politics-of-the-minute) that we didn't want ANY of them to have a free hand in the House.
That said, what if ... Mr Harper had not offered the Advice that convinced the (virtually advisor-less) GovGen to disregard Harper's very own fixed date election legislation and to agree to a dissolution-without-a-defeat-in-the-House and the resultant 'wasted election'?
What if ... in September, Her Excellency (with or without the Advice and/or Advice and Consent of Her Privy Council) had suggested another Conservative or a coalition of Opposition parties to fulfill the balance of Mr Harper's first mandate's fixed date?
Given that Harper came to Rideau Hall (apparently with scarcely a whimper nor any regrets or remorse) to declare that he had given up (again) - Harper said he "couldn't govern any more" ... wouldn't it have been possible for the GG to just ask him to move to the sidelines and select an CPC member to carry on or, to ask any other Leader or combination of Leaders to finish out Harper's term rather than force new elections that EVERYONE presumed with 85-95% certainty wouldn't really change too much within the House?
In hindsight wasn't the election a Bad idea? at best a wasted experience and waste of money and public energy? Should Mr Harper be chastised for offering that advice? Doesn't Ministerial Responsibility require that the Crown be held harmless?
While we're on the Bad Advice file, wasn't Harper's advice to prorogue-without-a-defeat-in-the-House just as self-serving as Bad Advice #1?
The Rt Hon Firewaller recommended that the (virtually advisor-less) Vice Regal anticipate a hypothetical rather that allow actual events to transpire.
* Who is best served by the delay? You? Me? the coalition? Mr Harper?
* Who would have been most "on the spot" on Monday the 8th and avoided that awkward moment? You? Me? etc
* Who is best served by this new prorogue-instead-of-vote precedent? You? Me? etc
Harper was being counselled last Thursday by Kevin Lynch (who holds the conflict-of-interest-ridden dual Office of the Clerk of the Privy Council AND Secretary of the Cabinet {conflicted duality extant only since 1940} while the Public's last defense against arbitrary/despotic power, Ms Jean had to bring in a solitary, outside legal expert (who has had many govt-of-the-day contracts).
The strange part is that the Constitution's s.11 says the Privy Council is the GovGen's Advisors .... not the PM's.
What's going on?
Doesn't anybody see this?
The (wanna be) Emperor's New Clothes are on display.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reference:
Plain Language Translation of BNA?Constitution Act 1867
posted by Walk a Kb or Two in my cassins | 4:30 pm
|
0 comments
