Prime Minister's Question Time

Every Wednesday at 12:00pm David Cameron, the Prime Minister has to answer questions, mostly from ordinary Members Of Parliament. Of course some folk take the opportunity to be scornful but there are rules about polite language.
Last Wednesday 84 year old Dennis Skinner (Labour Party) went a tad beyond civilised language and was sent off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvIUa47x_Oc
Embarrassing moment on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme
It is shortly before 8:00am and the broadcaster is telling us what will follow the news. It will be an interview with Jeremy Hunt, The Culture Secretary (a Cabinet Minister).
There’s two more similar incidents to follow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS5mVoqJpUk

Every Wednesday at 12:00pm David Cameron, the Prime Minister has to answer questions, mostly from ordinary Members Of Parliament. Of course some folk take the opportunity to be scornful but there are rules about polite language. Last Wednesday 84 year old Dennis Skinner (Labour Party) went a tad beyond civilised language and was sent off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvIUa47x_Oc Embarrassing moment on BBC Radio 4's Breakfast Time Programme It is shortly before 8:00am and the broadcaster is telling us what will follow the news. It will be an interview with Jeremy Hunt, The Culture Secretary (a Cabinet Minister). There's two more similar incidents to follow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS5mVoqJpUk
Bloody marvelous, it's about time we start referring to the crooks in expensive suits as what they are.... Jeremy C...Hunt...
Every Wednesday at 12:00pm David Cameron, the Prime Minister has to answer questions, mostly from ordinary Members Of Parliament. Of course some folk take the opportunity to be scornful but there are rules about polite language. Last Wednesday 84 year old Dennis Skinner (Labour Party) went a tad beyond civilised language and was sent off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvIUa47x_Oc Embarrassing moment on BBC Radio 4's Breakfast Time Programme It is shortly before 8:00am and the broadcaster is telling us what will follow the news. It will be an interview with Jeremy Hunt, The Culture Secretary (a Cabinet Minister). There's two more similar incidents to follow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS5mVoqJpUk
Very good. You may be surprised to know that we get Prime Minister's Question Time here. Lois

Boy would I love it if the POTUS had to go before Congress every seek to answer questions.

Australian Parliament
Madam Speaker Kicks Arse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZTWX3f4eIo
Leader Of The Opposition Kicks The Prime Minister’s Arse
Nice Quip About Richard Nixon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeI5X001ATk
In both the Australian and British Parliaments there are rules about language, which do not inhibit much. You can say that what another member has said is untrue but to call that person a liar would lead to the Speaker demanding a withdrawal of that word, on threat of being kicked out. “Dishonesty, mendacity and hypocracy … won office based on a lie” seems to be OK here. The only warning that he gets is for referring to the Prime Minister as “Julia”, her name, rather than Prime Minister.

Embarrassing moment on BBC Radio 4's Breakfast Time Programme It is shortly before 8:00am and the broadcaster is telling us what will follow the news. It will be an interview with Jeremy Hunt, The Culture Secretary (a Cabinet Minister). There's two more similar incidents to follow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS5mVoqJpUk
Jeremy what? :lol: Morning vocals must be a bitch.
Boy would I love it if the POTUS had to go before Congress every seek to answer questions.
I agree. I have often thought such sessions would be good for American democracy. Probably will never happen, though. One problem is, Congress would need someone like the Parliamentary Speaker of the House--not like the Soeaker of the House in Congress, but an impartial person who keeps order and has the power to remove members from the floor as was done in the clip here. The pariamentary speaker does not engage in the political debates at all, but is there solely to keep order and make sure the rules are followed by everyone, regardless of his or her party or position in a debate. If Congress were to have si ilar "question time" sessions, the parliamentary speaker would need another name because he or she is nothing like our Speaker of the House who is anything but impartial and wields power for his own party--and who needs someone to impose order on him as much as anyone. There are many reasons a parliamentary system would be better for the United States than the mish-mash we have in Congress, where no one seems to be in charge of order and individual power is everything. I don't see it happening, though. Congress itself would never allow it because it tends to reduce the power of Congressional members, and in the US, power is all that matters. Lois
I agree. I have often thought such sessions would be good for American democracy. Probably will never happen, though. One problem is, Congress would need someone like the Parliamentary Speaker of the House--not like the Soeaker of the House in Congress, but an impartial person who keeps order and has the power to remove members from the floor as was done in the clip here. The pariamentary speaker does not engage in the political debates at all, but is there solely to keep order and make sure the rules are followed by everyone, regardless of his or her party or position in a debate. If Congress were to have si ilar "question time" sessions, the parliamentary speaker would need another name because he or she is nothing like our Speaker of the House who is anything but impartial and wields power for his own party--and who needs someone to impose order on him as much as anyone. There are many reasons a parliamentary system would be better for the United States than the mish-mash we have in Congress, where no one seems to be in charge of order and individual power is everything. I don't see it happening, though. Congress itself would never allow it because it tends to reduce the power of Congressional members, and in the US, power is all that matters. Lois
It's a great concept but it doesn't always work, our last Speaker of the House under the Harper conservative government was a joke, the government went out of its way to not answer any real questions. Rick's Rant captures it well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjtPesLLE1c When asked about Canada's growing role in the war in Iraq, a government MP refused to answer and instead accused the opposition of not supporting Israel. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/23/paul-calandra-iraq-mulcair-scheer-neutrality_n_5870714.html
Why provide details about Canada's military mission in Iraq when you can just accuse your questioner of failing to support Israel? Question Period sorely lacked answers Tuesday, as NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair pressed Tory MP Paul Calandra to provide more information about the scope of Canada's latest foray into the Middle East. Rather than answer Mulcair's questions, Calandra launched into accusations that an NDP fundraiser named Alex Anderson accused Israel of "genocide" and that New Democrats do not support Israel.
He then cried when it was pointed out how undemocratic his behavior was. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-mp-makes-tearful-apology-to-ndp-leader/article20802034/ The last "government" used this idiot to avoid answering a lot of very important questions during Question Period. http://o.canada.com/news/national/paul-calandra-2013-video They even created an interactive website where you can "ask" Calandra a question and get a BS answer back. http://askpaulcalandra.com/ Question Period is great when it works, but that requires a government that respects the rules and an opposition that is willing to fight often hard for the right to even ask questions. There are even less checks and balances in a Parliamentary democracy, our last Prime Minister was more like a dictator. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/10/Harper-Abuses-of-Power-Final/
I agree. I have often thought such sessions would be good for American democracy. Probably will never happen, though. One problem is, Congress would need someone like the Parliamentary Speaker of the House--not like the Soeaker of the House in Congress, but an impartial person who keeps order and has the power to remove members from the floor as was done in the clip here. The pariamentary speaker does not engage in the political debates at all, but is there solely to keep order and make sure the rules are followed by everyone, regardless of his or her party or position in a debate. If Congress were to have si ilar "question time" sessions, the parliamentary speaker would need another name because he or she is nothing like our Speaker of the House who is anything but impartial and wields power for his own party--and who needs someone to impose order on him as much as anyone. There are many reasons a parliamentary system would be better for the United States than the mish-mash we have in Congress, where no one seems to be in charge of order and individual power is everything. I don't see it happening, though. Congress itself would never allow it because it tends to reduce the power of Congressional members, and in the US, power is all that matters. Lois
It's a great concept but it doesn't always work, our last Speaker of the House under the Harper conservative government was a joke, the government went out of its way to not answer any real questions. Rick's Rant captures it well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjtPesLLE1c When asked about Canada's growing role in the war in Iraq, a government MP refused to answer and instead accused the opposition of not supporting Israel. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/23/paul-calandra-iraq-mulcair-scheer-neutrality_n_5870714.html
Why provide details about Canada's military mission in Iraq when you can just accuse your questioner of failing to support Israel? Question Period sorely lacked answers Tuesday, as NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair pressed Tory MP Paul Calandra to provide more information about the scope of Canada's latest foray into the Middle East. Rather than answer Mulcair's questions, Calandra launched into accusations that an NDP fundraiser named Alex Anderson accused Israel of "genocide" and that New Democrats do not support Israel.
He then cried when it was pointed out how undemocratic his behavior was. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-mp-makes-tearful-apology-to-ndp-leader/article20802034/ The last "government" used this idiot to avoid answering a lot of very important questions during Question Period. http://o.canada.com/news/national/paul-calandra-2013-video They even created an interactive website where you can "ask" Calandra a question and get a BS answer back. http://askpaulcalandra.com/ Question Period is great when it works, but that requires a government that respects the rules and an opposition that is willing to fight often hard for the right to even ask questions. There are even less checks and balances in a Parliamentary democracy, our last Prime Minister was more like a dictator. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/10/Harper-Abuses-of-Power-Final/ Yes, there are no perfect systems, but the kinks should be fixable. Incidentally, do you know if crying in Parliament permitted under the rules of order? ?
Yes, there are no perfect systems, but the kinks should be fixable. Incidentally, do you know if crying in Parliament permitted under the rules of order? ?
Our current government is working to undo a lot of the damage of the eight previous years including working on a new proportional representational electoral system. And the courts are busy overturning all the unconstitutional bills the Harper government passed, so our Parliamentary system is a work in progress. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-sentencing-mandatory-minumums-1.3537150
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that two key "tough on crime" measures brought in by the previous Conservative government are unconstitutional. In the first case, the court ruled 6-3 that a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison for a drug offence violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In the other case, the Supreme Court was unanimous in ruling that a person who is denied bail because of prior convictions should be able to receive credit for time served before sentencing. Normally, a person denied bail can get 1.5 days of credit for each day spent in pre-sentence custody, reflecting what are often harsh conditions with a lack of access to programs.
As for crying in Parliament, I don't think it's prohibited, but they sure took a beating from the public over the way that Paul Calandra and the Harper government refused to answer any questions about an ongoing combat mission with Canadian forces fighting in Iraq. People here were truly pissed over the arrogance shown by Calandra and Harper. http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch13&Seq=3&Language=E
Yes, there are no perfect systems, but the kinks should be fixable. Incidentally, do you know if crying in Parliament permitted under the rules of order? ?
Our current government is working to undo a lot of the damage of the eight previous years including working on a new proportional representational electoral system. And the courts are busy overturning all the unconstitutional bills the Harper government passed, so our Parliamentary system is a work in progress. All democracies are works in progress. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-sentencing-mandatory-minumums-1.3537150
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that two key "tough on crime" measures brought in by the previous Conservative government are unconstitutional. In the first case, the court ruled 6-3 that a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison for a drug offence violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In the other case, the Supreme Court was unanimous in ruling that a person who is denied bail because of prior convictions should be able to receive credit for time served before sentencing. Normally, a person denied bail can get 1.5 days of credit for each day spent in pre-sentence custody, reflecting what are often harsh conditions with a lack of access to programs.
As for crying in Parliament, I don't think it's prohibited, but they sure took a beating from the public over the way that Paul Calandra and the Harper government refused to answer any questions about an ongoing combat mission with Canadian forces fighting in Iraq. People here were truly pissed over the arrogance shown by Calandra and Harper. http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch13&Seq=3&Language=E I agree, that's poor practice and should not be permitted. In democracies the government is supposed to be answerable to the people. I suppose they would claim that to answer would reveal secret information, though that is too often used to cover up incompetence or outright wrongdoing.
I agree, that's poor practice and should not be permitted. In democracies the government is supposed to be answerable to the people. I suppose they would claim that to answer would reveal secret information, though that is too often used to cover up incompetence or outright wrongdoing.
I think by that time members of the Harper inner circle had come to the point where they no longer felt accountable to anyone, they certainly acted that way. Until October rolled around and we kicked them out of power. The questions in the House were pretty basic, how long did our government intend to have Canadians involved in a very bloody war. Incompetence and wrongdoing became - or always were - the core of the Harper government, as I think it does in any authoritarian government.
I agree, that's poor practice and should not be permitted. In democracies the government is supposed to be answerable to the people. I suppose they would claim that to answer would reveal secret information, though that is too often used to cover up incompetence or outright wrongdoing.
I think by that time members of the Harper inner circle had come to the point where they no longer felt accountable to anyone, they certainly acted that way. Until October rolled around and we kicked them out of power. The questions in the House were pretty basic, how long did our government intend to have Canadians involved in a very bloody war. Incompetence and wrongdoing became - or always were - the core of the Harper government, as I think it does in any authoritarian government. Order, order, order... order, order... I must insist... order, order... that the honorable gentleman... order, order, order... orderrr... in the name of propriety and all that is decent... order... simply choose another word... order, order... (the word beginning with "a" and ending with "n"), order, order, order... to describe the former government. Order...
(His Right Honorable Highness valiantly called for), Order, order, order... order, order... I must insist... order, order... that the honorable gentleman... order, order, order... orderrr... in the name of propriety and all that is decent... order... simply choose another word... order, order... (the word beginning with "a" and ending with "n"), order, order, order... to describe the former government. Order...
Tim, put the right music to it, and you'll have a hit.
I agree, that's poor practice and should not be permitted. In democracies the government is supposed to be answerable to the people. I suppose they would claim that to answer would reveal secret information, though that is too often used to cover up incompetence or outright wrongdoing.
I think by that time members of the Harper inner circle had come to the point where they no longer felt accountable to anyone, they certainly acted that way. Until October rolled around and we kicked them out of power. The questions in the House were pretty basic, how long did our government intend to have Canadians involved in a very bloody war. Incompetence and wrongdoing became - or always were - the core of the Harper government, as I think it does in any authoritarian government. Order, order, order... order, order... I must insist... order, order... that the honorable gentleman... order, order, order... orderrr... in the name of propriety and all that is decent... order... simply choose another word... order, order... (the word beginning with "a" and ending with "n"), order, order, order... to describe the former government. Order... It got completely silly, the conservative government MP who was tasked with dealing with Question Period in the House began answering legitimate and serious question about how the country was being run with talking about how he liked flowers and his daughters lemonade stand among other things. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-mp-makes-tearful-apology-to-ndp-leader/article20802034/
It wasn’t the first time Calandra has responded in the House with non sequiturs, raising questions about whether he will stick to his Friday pledge to never again deliver a pointless response. Last October, when asked about the Senate expenses scandal, he replied: “I do like flowers and, of course, with lemons I like to make lemonade. “My two daughters, this summer, actually had a lemonade stand where they sold lemonade for five cents on the street. They did very well. I am very proud of them."
As I said when he did the same thing about how long and how deep the conservative government was going to involve Canada in the war against ISIS then I think most Canadians had had enough. We really already have one Queen, we don't need someone else acting like one in Ottawa.

Then of course there are those who claim the last government was involved in a false flag operation that saw several Canadian servicemen murdered, if any information ever comes out that they were involved then many members of the former Harper government are going to have to find another place to live. They won’t be welcome here anymore, unless it’s in prison.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/canadas-false-flag-terror-fingerprints-of-u-s-involvement/5412838
I don’t think many people in other places understood how bad it got here and how close we came to losing our democracy.