Jump to content

Talk:Legislative session

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that Parliamentary session be merged with Prorogation, as both are stub articles on their own, and one is more or less dependent on knowledge of the other. Even though prorogation is the longer article, I propose that we merge them into parliamentary session, since prorogations are a consequence of parliament being divided into sessions. --Arctic Gnome 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prorogation in the UK

[edit]

Who prorogues a session of Parliament - the monarch (on the advice of the Prime Minister)? 195.92.40.49 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Commissioners painting

[edit]

The painting is in a style which does not make it a practical respresentation. I believe it should be removed Rotovia 08:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--76.224.64.68 16:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

[edit]

The Canadian parliament is prorogued right now (I had to come to this page to find out what that word meant) because of some parliamentary electoral gymnastics that I'm sure any Canadians here understand a lot better than I do. Should it be mentioned in the article? From what I gather, the situation is unusual. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice-Regal Prorogation of the Parliament of Canada

[edit]

My sense is that the real issue here is uncertainty over trade with the Untied States under the incoming Obama Administration.

??? Didn't come up in any of the debates or media coverage, and pretty far from public consciousness re teh current fracas, except for workers in the auto and forest and other crossborder-dependent industries but not in relation to the constitutional issue; but not in relation to the Tory v. Coalition dispute, except as one of many issues in the economic packages offered/promised by either side in the equation (we have yet to see one from the Tories). "This isn't a forum", but I'm sure the Obama people haven't forgotten the Tories' messing with them during the primary campaign....this may yet impact cross-border relations, though it won't be stated directly; we'll see....but relations between the White House and Sussex Drive are sure to be prickly if the Tories retain power in the long run (which they may or may not, dependiing on what happens between now and January 26, when Parliament gets called back into session)Skookum1 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have two "natural" trading blocs in the Americas: (1) the United States, Canada and the Caribbean; and, (2) Mexico, Central America, and South America. However, Mexico is geographically bifurcated between the maquiladora zone--and the rest of their country (not to mention a language barrier between Mexico and Mexico's NAFTA neighbors to the north) dipping its fingers in both pots--and that's the economic stumbling block to a three-bloc tripartite world commercial situation.

There is one complete European bloc; one complete Asian bloc; and a quasi-cohesive Americas trading bloc. It's kind of like two-and-a-half blocs rather than three solid world trading blocs.

Nevertheless, all this must be put in the exclusive context of Canadian sovereignty. Therefore, this all harkens back to the days of the Liberals, the almost-totally decimated Progressive Conservatives, the Canadian Alliance, the New Democrats, and the Bloc Quèbecois. A five-party system was more reminiscent of Italy than that of the great stable peaceable kingdom, from the days of Mackenzie King, Pearson, Trudeau--and yes, even that tumult-be-damned free-trader that Canadians love to revile, Brian Mulroney.

Harper's party did not pick up enough seats to form a majority government, although the Tories (if a student of Canadian political science can continue to rightly call them that) did increase their caucus by nineteen seats; and the Grits (similarly) decreased theirs by twenty-six seats, while the Bloc's diminution by two seats is de minimis. To call this a "crisis" is very much overstating the matter. Prorogation until January 26, 2009, while unprecedented in Canadian history, would amount to a lengthened hiatus for the Parliament, and probably nothing more.

Before the most recent election, the Canadians had a minority Tory government; now they would have less of a minority Tory government. A Tory alliance with the Bloc would put the Tories over the top, in to a majority government coalition position--it would amount to old-time politics, Canadian-style, with the intervening legacies of Mulroney and Trudeau to live by: for Canada, attorney Trudeau saw to the legalities of a patriated, written Constitution; and, attorney Mulroney took care of business with what ultimately became NAFTA. It's a forty-year bipartite political legacy and learning process Canadians can share with their neighbors to the south.

Canadians already know that they can be effectively governed by a Francophone French-Canadian Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in Canada. Why oppose Mr. Harper and Mr. Duceppe from making a go at it?

That's my US$0.0158 worth.

Hahbie 21:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC) (also known by my nom de plume--"Sy Wren")

Hm, I think you're out of pace with who's waht in Canada right now...LOL a Harper-Duceppe coalition would be very entertaining, and Harper has opined on it in the past, but certainly NOT NOW. See 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute and its wordstorm of a talkpage and update yourself. And for the record, "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in Candaa" does not and cannot govern - anything but.Skookum1 (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this: "It's a forty-year bipartite political legacy and learning process Canadians can share with their neighbors to the south.." ROTFLMAO - believe me you don't want this exported south, it's not a legacy you'd want and "learning process" is a bit of-target. We envy your powers of impeachment and recall and referendum and congressional independence; your President, for one thing, doesn't have the power to shut down Congress as jsut took place re the Candian PM and the Parliament that wanted to unseat him....... And it's anything but "bipartite" and the regionalization of American politicis would become even more pronounced - Sovereignty-association for Texas, Alaska, California, Hawaii...Jersey? LOL, believe me, you don't want to import the inherently undemocratic nature of Canadian parliamentary "democracy" southwards.....gonna be chuckling about this all day....Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unmerge prorogation

[edit]

I believe that prorogation should be a separate article, since currently, it unbalances this article, and it just became a highly important element in a possible constitutional crisis in Canada. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as a word and a procedural device, and not just in reference to the current almost-crisis, it deserves its own article. the "split" tempalte's call for a disambig page doesn't quite work, though I'll leave it for now in lieu of options.Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've amended the template to {{split-apart}} 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but don't see it as an urgent concern either way. Boston (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Support The article is imbalanced due to insufficient information about parliamentary procedures outside the United Kingdom, not because prorogation in itself is deserving of a separate article. Furthermore, a current event is not in and of itself a justification for splitting articles. I'd prefer the solution stated below. Regardingsweetness (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, have a search for prorogation forwarded to the current article. I drew a blank when I first searched. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are we saying that the act of proroguing parliament is notable on its own to have a separate article from parliamentary session? Probably not. The concern hasn't really surmounted to much until the political crisis in Canada. So what's notable, the current event which uses a commonly used (but not really important) parliamentary procedure, or the parliamentary procedure itself. In my view, it's the former. 99.225.118.72 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia - prorogations

[edit]

Quote: Parliaments are prorogued before elections to prevent the upper house from sitting during the campaign and to expunge all existing upper house business before the start of the next parliament. In Australia, prorogations not thus related to the conduct of an election are unusual.

Comment: I've just written Chronology of Australian federal parliaments, where I make some brief points about sessions and prorogations. Looking over the whole span since 1901, I think it's true to say that prorogation of the final or sole session has been the exception rather than the rule. It didn't happen at all between 1928 and 1989 (the 10th to 35th parliaments). We've more or less abandoned the practice of having more than one session per parliament – the last time there was more than one was 1977. But since 1993 we've reintroduced prorogation of the sole session prior to an election, usually on the same day as the dissolution (there was a 2-day gap in 2007). So, if we consider recent history only, it's true that "prorogations not related to the conduct of an election are unusual". But not if we look at the longer term. Could anyone comment meaningfully on this? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada prorogation - 2009/10 edition

[edit]

I put the NPOV header on the prorogation section because the commentary on Stephen Harper's motivations for proroguing parliament add no value to the article (the prorogation section is getting rather bloated). Though I don't expect the text to just go away without a fight in the near term because the issue has gained some notoriety in Canada. 142.165.167.119 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the first prorogation is accurate. It is quite clear that a request for prorogation was made to stop a vote of confidence. If I recall correctly, the request for prorogation occurred a day before the vote of confidence. The last sentence is a bit more vague. What bills were stopped? What special comities were suspended? The sentence is correct is stating that there were no circumstances that required prorogation. It doesn't add value because it is not specific as to what was being prevented with prorogation, not because the allegations are false. jlam (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't adding value yet, but after adding some more context I think it should be in there. Harper's two prorogations have attracted more attention than almost any others in history. We just have to make sure that any criticisms of his actions are well sourced to the people making the accusation. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attracting attention and being valuable to a discussion of 'legislative session' are two entirely different things. The 2008 prorogation was interesting due to the constitutional issue. The GG is only required to take the advice of the PM if he has the confidence of the house, and while he did have the confidence of the house in a legal sense (throne speech passed). At the same time there was no doubt that SH was proroguing the house because he had lost its confidence. There is nothing noteworthy about the 2009 prorogation which belongs in an article about legislative sessions in general. Mootinator (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If critics of Harper are right in that he is using prorogation for political goals, then I think it's very notable that this usually harmless tool can be used in that way. Even if most of the information was moved to a new article, I think this page should at least mention it. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Canadian section is odd and a little out of place. It reads more like a commentary on this one Canadian issue and doesn’t really say anything at all about legislative sessions. I don’t think any more than a sentence or two belongs in this article but here are the specific problems I have with it.

False claims:

  • “Prime Minister Stephen Harper has prorogued Parliament twice” and “Prime Minister Stephen Harper again prorogued the Canadian Parliament”
The PM does not have the constitutional authority to prorogue parliament. Only the monarch or the governor‐general can do this.

Unsourced claims:

  • “both times attracting significant national and international media attention”
  • “those prorogations were usually seen as procedural rather than political moves”
  • “was to avoid a vote of no confidence from opposition parties, an unprecedented use of prorogation”
  • “The 2009 prorogation was more like a routine prorogation”
  • “it still attracted significant criticism”
  • “opponents arguing that the timing was politically motivated”
  • “Harper argued that forming a coalition government would be inappropriate so soon after an election and that a coalition government should not have contractual support of a separatist party”
  • “This prorogation has been highly criticized, with opponents claiming that the timing of the prorogation was chosen for partisan reasons.”
  • “critics argue that Harper hoped to:...”
  • “Supporters of the prorogation have argued that prorogation is an unproblematic parliamentary practice...”

For the sources given, there are only two, one for each year and both from the same ultimate source.--Lairor (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with moving the section to Domestic policy of the Harper government, but if we do that, I strongly feel that we should leave a prominent link to that article because many Canadians will end up here while looking up the word "prorogue" and will want information about the incidents. As for your comments about citations, I agree that the section does need more sources, so I'll see what I can find. Thanks for the list. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.141.249 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legislative session. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legislative_session&oldid=1208136143"