UPDATED: ProrogueWatch - Battle of the Prime Ministerial Prerogative-Limiting Proposals!

Download Flash Player to view this content.

A few curmudgeonly types pointed out that such a provision would be largely symbolic -- unless, that is, it was accompanied by a proposal for a complementary constitutional amendment, which would almost certainly trigger the Seriously, Nobody Wants To Go There veto -- but, for the most part, the idea seemed to go over reasonably well, picking up the indirect endorsement from the Globe and Mail editorial board, which called for "legislative restraint" on the power to prorogue. Not to mention, of course, providing chant-fodder for CAPP ralliers over the weekend, in the form of a spirited round of "Pass the law! Pass the law!" as Layton was addressing the crowd in Ottawa. 

Just as (or possibly more) importantly, from the NDP's perspective, was the fact that it put Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff in the unenviable position of having to field questions on whether his party would support such a measure, to which he responded by criticizing this particular prime minister for his use of the prorogation prerogative, but insisted that if he was ever in that enviable position, he'd use it responsibly. "Just trust me" seemed to be the gist of his position. 

Well, judging from today's better-late-than-never counterproposal from the Liberals, their leader's breezy assertion that he would never shut down parliament for nefarious reasons weren't going over as well as they'd hoped, which is why they've upped the ante: Not only would it require "a full debate" -- although not necessarily a vote -- in the House, but the putative proroguing prime minister would also be bound by further restrictions, including ten days written notice of his (or her) intent to do so, with no requests to be made if an issue of confidence is before the House, and it would also impose a  limit of one calendar month on the period of prorogation itself -- that is, unless the House consents to a longer break. Parliamentary committees would also remain intact, and could continue to meet until the new session began. 

According to the backgrounder, all this could be accomplished by amending the Standing Orders, although as is the case with the NDP initiative, it's not clear whether it would have any binding power outside the Chamber, since it also fails to mention anything about the constitutional amendment that would almost certainly be required for it to have teeth. (On a side note, you know what would be seriously hilarious? If the Bloc Quebecois introduces a prorogation-limiting proposal that does -- or, at least, acknowledges the elephant-shaped constitution in the room.) 

Predictably, the Liberals' announcement was greeted with much mocking from the New Democrats, who pointed out that it was pretty much the opposite of what he was saying this week -- yes, we noticed, guys -- but as far as I know, they haven't yet said whether they'd agree to include the additional measures proposed by the Liberals in their still unreleased draft legislation.

So, how about it, commenters? Which proposal would you support -- if, indeed, you support either?  And is it going to drive you completely bonkers if the Liberals and the NDP now descend into their traditional interparty bickering, and lose any hope of actually getting any prorogation-related legislation through the House?

UPDATE: What's this? Layton "welcomes" the Liberal proposal? Has the spirit of cooperation returned to the hallowed halls of Parliament? Will it last the week? Stay tuned! (To the fax machine, Conservative Resource Group! Get out your sinister-coalition-of-socialists-and-separates talking points out while the gittin's good!)