If Music Could Talk

Wolter wrote:I think that second post might be an EDITING FAIL.

I was drunk and you.

matedog wrote:

Wolter wrote:I think that second post might be an EDITING FAIL.

I was drunk and you.

Damn my ability to look drunker than I am!

matedog wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

matedog wrote:All this drama is getting me warmed up for The Hills tonight. I wonder if Audrina is going to come to her senses re: the Justin Bobby/LC thing. Or should I say NON-thing. She's so crazy.

Are you playing the role of child in an abusive relationship who tries to draw attention away from the bickering parents? Because I've got a belt with your name on it, son …

Nah, I'm just really excited for the new ep tonight. Perhaps that is belt-worthy in and of itself.

You got me thinking though, who would be the father and who would be the mother? Given your fairness and Eummie's volatility, I choose you to be the mother.

"Hmm...what's in today's Hoy?. . ."

matedog wrote:You got me thinking though, who would be the father and who would be the mother? Given your fairness and Eummie's volatility, I choose you to be the mother.

All that's up for debate, but what we can all agree on is that you're destroying this family, you ungrateful little shit!

Dr. Medulla wrote:

dpwolf wrote:Please forgive my ignorance but what do they mean by "bring down the government" and what is a "minority government" ? I'm interested but find this confusing.

In a Parliamentary system—Canada and Britain for sure, maybe others—people don't actually directly vote for a head of government, just their local member of parliament. At the first session of parliament, whichever party holds a plurality of seats is asked to form government, with that party's leader becoming PM. If they hold a majority of the seats, it's all easily done. If they only hold a plurality, it's a minority government because the opposition parties combined have more seats and can vote down any measure. A government is brought down if a spending bill is defeated in a vote or a formal non-confidence measure is passed. In that event, the prime minister has to resign and normally an election is called. However, the governor general (the queen's representative) has the option of asking the opposition if they can form a viable government. This is usually not the case, tho. But the Liberals and NDP have agreed to the framework of a coalition, so if they defeat the Conservative govt in a non-confidence vote, the g-g should ask them to give it a whirl. Otherwise Canada will be into its fourth general election in five years, and second in only a few months—something that few would want.

Thank you! So a minority government, although elected, is expected to be 'brought down' in such a manner, i.e. they can't pass anything and/or get a no confidence vote, so you expect its PM to resign and another general election to be held. However in further expectation of this new general election yielding the same result, you have the option of pressuring the other parties, here the Liberals and NDP, to pressure the G-G to see if a coalition government between them might be an option. Maybe I don't understand but why would you expect a result other than the same minority government with a new general election? Perhaps a new general election is more expansive than a regular election. :head scratch: But anyhow if the collated opposition is given this chance who picks the PM? Would it be a joint decision of those parties or would the Conservative Party have a say as well? And does the G-G have a role in establishing this alternate/collated government other than asking the parties/allowing it? Interesting.

dpwolf wrote:Thank you! So a minority government, although elected, is expected to be 'brought down' in such a manner, i.e. they can't pass anything and/or get a no confidence vote, so you expect its PM to resign and another general election to be held. However in further expectation of this new general election yielding the same result, you have the option of pressuring the other parties, here the Liberals and NDP, to pressure the G-G to see if a coalition government between them might be an option.

Right on both points. If we hadn't just had an election, and hadn't had so many in the last few years, a non-confidence defeat would trigger another election. The undesirability of another election is also a big reason why the Liberals and NDP are even entertaining the notion of a coalition govt. The last time the NDP supported a minority govt—Trudeau's Liberals in the early 70s—they got a lot of their agenda passed, but Trudeau got the credit and won a majority.

Maybe I don't understand but why would you expect a result other than the same minority government with a new general election? Perhaps a new general election is more expansive than a regular election.

There's an outside chance that the Conservatives would win a majority this time around, but in all likelihood, yeah, we'd just be left with another minority situation. Which would be fine if he were willing to govern like it was a minority. His first minority govt (the last couple years), he kept on daring the opposition parties to bring him down and trigger an unwanted election. For a number of reasons related to electoral politics, the Liberals refused to take the bait. Finally, Harper forced the issue and called an election himself (even tho one of his first acts as PM was to pass a law prohibiting arbitrary dissolution of Parliament by the governing party—so much for that law) hoping to win a majority. He didn't get it, tho. Given the weakening economy, people don't want to spend money on yet another election, so if a functioning coalition can be cobbled together, the stability would be appreciated (except by those on the right). It might also be worth noting that while the Conservatives hold around 45% of the seats, they only managed around 36% of the popular vote. Meaning that that 64% voted for the Liberals, NDP, Green, and Bloc Quebecois. The Greens didn't elect any MPs, but there is a decent argument that this proposed coalition more accurately reflects the will of those who voted in the October election. It's not a airtight argument, but it's stronger than the Conservative claim that the opposition is hijacking democracy and engaging in a coup d'etat.

But anyhow if the collated opposition is given this chance who picks the PM? Would it be a joint decision of those parties or would the Conservative Party have a say as well? And does the G-G have a role in establishing this alternate/collated government other than asking the parties/allowing it? Interesting.

Over the weekend, a deal was hashed out by the coalition partners, whereby a prominent Liberal, Michael Ignatieff, will assume the PM's position. His main competition for the Liberal leadership, Bob Rae, will be Foreign Minister. This, apparently, was decided by the Liberal caucus. The Conservatives have no input into this other than voting no in the upcoming non-confidence vote (assuming that Harper even allows it to be held; he could shut things down for Christmas, but I suspect that'd make a bad situation worse for him and the country). The G-G is largely a ceremonial position (like the queen in England) but her main job is to help ensure a functioning govt. As I understand it, Canada hasn't had a real coalition govt in about a hundred years, so, yeah, normally she'd just order an election.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

matedog wrote:You got me thinking though, who would be the father and who would be the mother? Given your fairness and Eummie's volatility, I choose you to be the mother.

All that's up for debate, but what we can all agree on is that you're destroying this family, you ungrateful little shit!

Listen to your mother/father/uncle, Hoy...

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

matedog wrote:You got me thinking though, who would be the father and who would be the mother? Given your fairness and Eummie's volatility, I choose you to be the mother.

All that's up for debate, but what we can all agree on is that you're destroying this family, you ungrateful little shit!

Listen to your mother/father/uncle, Hoy...

Why can't you be like Wolter, our exchange student? Go clean out my office, Wolter, and then you can have a fig newton before bed.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

matedog wrote:You got me thinking though, who would be the father and who would be the mother? Given your fairness and Eummie's volatility, I choose you to be the mother.

All that's up for debate, but what we can all agree on is that you're destroying this family, you ungrateful little shit!

Listen to your mother/father/uncle, Hoy...

Why can't you be like Wolter, our exchange student? Go clean out my office, Wolter, and then you can have a fig newton before bed.

Yessir, Mr. Dr.! I love the delicious fruitpaste and wheaten goodness!

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

matedog wrote:You got me thinking though, who would be the father and who would be the mother? Given your fairness and Eummie's volatility, I choose you to be the mother.

All that's up for debate, but what we can all agree on is that you're destroying this family, you ungrateful little shit!

Listen to your mother/father/uncle, Hoy...

Why can't you be like Wolter, our exchange student? Go clean out my office, Wolter, and then you can have a fig newton before bed.

Yessir, Mr. Dr.! I love the delicious fruitpaste and wheaten goodness!

[glare at Hoy]

GODDAMN IT HOY DO I GOTTA WHIP YOU AGAIN?? Mix me an Old Fashioned before I get out my razor strop.

Hyuh hyuh, git 'em, pa …

[nibbles on Fig Newton excitedly]

Wolter wrote:[nibbles on Fig Newton excitedly]

Get momma another beer and do a little dance for us, Pancho.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:[nibbles on Fig Newton excitedly]

Get momma another beer and do a little dance for us, Pancho.

[scampers off to the kitchen]