The Governor General has passed, Long Live the GG!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Richelieu


You say "If we replaced the GG with..." "I prefer to keep the role nonpolitical"... etc...

I say get rid of it. Let this country grow up.

First, the function has to be replaced. With whom or what?

Second, we're talking Constitutional amendment here. What do you think the odds are?

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by notyoueither
First, the function has to be replaced.

No it doesn't. A-BO-LISH. Get it?

Second, we're talking Constitutional amendment here. What do you think the odds are?

No argument there.

[Wezil]

Good riddance.

I supported the position of GG until Clarkson.

She spent obscene of amounts of money (and no - she did not raise our profile. Her polar trip was ample proof of this).

She failed to do the 1% mentioned earlier. When Commons lost confidence in the gov't she was AWOL.

Time for Canada to grow up and abolish this wasteful and demeaning position.

[KrazyHorse]

When Commons lost confidence in the gov't

When would that have been?

[Wezil]

When Martin fudged on technicalities. The intent of Commons was CLEAR.

[KrazyHorse]

So now you want the G-G stepping in and making decisions about the intent of Commons instead of following actual procedure?

[Wezil]

Remember, Martin would not allow an official confidence vote....

When Commons is thwarted from the usual procedure by a government desperate to buy time (and votes), but still make absolutely clear their lack of confidence, the GG should have stepped in. Yes.

[Wezil]

Btw, glad you find humour in the failure of our institutions.

[KrazyHorse]

Martin delayed a confidence vote using the power vested in him as Prime Minister.

He is allowed to put off Opposition days for a set amount of time, which he did.

The G-G had no Constitutional authority to override him.

[Wezil]

I don't expect we will agree on the issue KH.

I was in favour of the GG position prior to Clarkson and am not now. That is a fact.

[KrazyHorse]

I can't help where you perceive failure. I actually think our institutions held up pretty well, given the enormous stress they were placed under.

And that would have gone whether or not the government fell in that period.

The opposition was unable to hold itself together long enough to hold and win a vote of no-confidence. Martin used his position as PM to buy himself some time (how much he was allowed was strictly dictated by House rules).

Where's the failure (other than in the Conservative Party)?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil
I was in favour of the GG position prior to Clarkson and am not now. That is a fact.

Congratulations. You've managed to insert one fact in here. Unfortunately, that fact has no bearing on the issue you brought up.

[Wezil]

Loss of confidence is loss of confidence. It was CLEAR. The way Martin deferred the intent to buy votes was shameful. Another institutional failure. A system that would permit such an occurence is obviously flawed.

[KrazyHorse]

The fact that the Conservatives managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (both in the last election as well as in the House) is simply indicative of the fundamental axiom of Canadian politics: the Tories always lose.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil
Loss of confidence is loss of confidence.

No confidence is a technical term. No confidence cannot be inserted in any committee motion that the opposition pleases. They have to follow the rules just as surely as the government does.