# Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition.  Will there be another election?



## Zell_Dietrich (27 Nov 2008)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/27/question-period.html



> Opposition parties won't support Tory economic update
> Last Updated: Thursday, November 27, 2008 | 4:55 PM ET Comments144Recommend62CBC News
> Canada's opposition parties said Thursday they will vote against the Conservative government's fiscal update, sparking speculation the country could face another election in the midst of a global economic crisis.
> 
> ...



I think the opposition parties have allot more to loose by not fighting than by going into an election.  And I don't think the GG will allow the NDP/Liberals to assume the mantel of the government.


Who else is geared for an election?


----------



## ARMY_101 (27 Nov 2008)

So, instead of supporting a bill worth $30 Million that will help minimize Canada's debt, they'd rather spend another $200+ Million on another election?  Isn't that a bit backwards?


----------



## Snafu-Bar (27 Nov 2008)

Time to push a new piece of legislation through prohibiting defeatist oppositions to one re-election per millenium. Mulligan has been used...


----------



## Yrys (27 Nov 2008)

I could say : ''%?&$%?#$%" as I live in Québec and 
we're in another provincial election.
In another as the last one was 20007 !

And we got cityes election in November 2009.
And schools boards elections soon, I don't want to know when !!!

I'll just try not to lessen to anymore talk of that   !


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (27 Nov 2008)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/11/26/update-subsidy.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g12:r1:c0.587013:b19862881


> Flaherty to axe subsidies to political parties in fiscal update: sources
> Last Updated: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 | 11:13 PM ET Comments1113Recommend256CBC News
> Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is set to deliver a fiscal update Thursday in Ottawa. (Frank Gunn/Canadian Presss)
> The Conservatives are poised to eliminate the public subsidies that Canada's five major political parties receive, a move that would save $30 million a year but could cripple the opposition.
> ...



Tendentious article,  but still, the opposition parties have WAY more to loose by giving in on this than by fighting.  I think Mr Dion learned his lesson on waiting until everything is perfect to fight. The NDP will fight it for sure but I am not sure what the bloc will do for sure.  (I think since they will getless money, they will claim it is bad for Quebec)


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Nov 2008)

> The Conservatives earned $10 million in subsidies, compared to $7.7 million for the Liberals, $4.9 million for the NDP, $2.6 million for the Bloc Québécois and $1.8 million for the Greens.





> But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party's total revenues.
> 
> By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals' funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc's, 57 per cent of the NDP's and 65 per cent of the Greens'.



With subsidies Conservatives have 27 MCAD per year to fight the next election. Minus 10 MCAD means they are still accumulating revenues at the rate of 17 MCAD. 

With subsidies the Liberals are accumulating at the rate of 12 MCAD (and have a debt to carry and a leadership race to finance), while the NDP are at 8.6 MCAD, the Block at 3.0 MCAD and the Greens at 2.7 MCAD.

Collectively the subsidized opposition could outspend the unsubsidized Conservatives, if the Liberals and the NDP weren't carrying a massive debt.

In the meantime the Tories saying they would forego the subsidy and challenge the other parties to do likewise would be an interesting political gamble.

Flaherty may not HAVE to shut the other parties down - just set the stage for "who wants to lead by example"....


Also, I guess inflation has finally caught up with us - it used to be that a Million was Real Money.  Now it seems that 100 Billion doesn't make the cut.



> Canada has announced no new stimulus, although it injected more than $100 billion into domestic money markets to ensure banks have sufficient capitalization to continue lending to homeowners and businesses


----------



## GAP (27 Nov 2008)

The opposition can't win....good move by Harper. 

If Dion and the other rabble do force an election, Harper will get his majority....


----------



## X Royal (27 Nov 2008)

My question is why this is being proposed now knowing the most likely result? The current government has been known to push confidence votes when they think they will slip though as no one wants another election. I hope this time it won't backfire and cause another election.
But than the Governor General may also chose other options available.


----------



## GAP (27 Nov 2008)

Fine...if a workable coalition can be made up of Libs, dippers and BQ...they are going to want to push their individual mandates so hard they are going to make a real hash of things......let them do it.....sometimes that's the only way people learn....


----------



## X Royal (27 Nov 2008)

Wait & shoot.  : ???


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Nov 2008)

>"We will vote against this plan … (It) does not address the economic slowdown," Liberal leader Stéphane Dion told reporters.

Utter bullshit.  The first, second, and third reason the opposition parties don't like the "plan" is their own narrow funding interest, for which they are - apparently - prepared to set aside the national interest in having government actually govern with continuity for a while, rather than incur the cost to taxpayers of another election.

As far as I'm concerned, the paper on which Dion's fancy "Sciences Po" education credential is written is neither substantial nor broad enough to remove the amount by which he figuratively beshat himself today.

As for the "economic slowdown", the last thing our economy needs is sudden and violent manoeuvring on the sheer speculation that it might offset some unforeseen and unforeseeable event in the near future.  Let's see some fire discipline from the high foreheads on matters fiscal, please: manage change instead of creating it.  As the French say, this is a good opportunity to sit down and STFU.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Nov 2008)

First off - I guess I overestimated Harpers willingness to play nice.... 

Secondly, with respect to throwing more rocks in the pond.....until the US (and everbody else) stops throwing rocks and we get to see what effect they are having on the overall economy (Global, US (80% of our exports) and Canadian Domestic) we would be well advised to hold onto our pebbles.  Otherwise any little ripples that we can create will be swamped by the massive waves created, haphazardly, by everyone else.

Our situation is not so dire that we need to be "doing things".

Now is not the time for:

"When in trouble,
When in doubt,
Run in circles,
Scream and shout."


----------



## McG (28 Nov 2008)

There is also election talk that I did not expect to see again so soon:


> Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition
> *Unwilling to accept fiscal package, Liberals consider governing with NDP *
> MICHAEL VALPY , JANE TABER and DANIEL LEBLANC AND STEVEN CHASE
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> November 28, 2008 at 1:30 AM EST


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wfiscalparties28/BNStory/politics/home


----------



## helpup (28 Nov 2008)

I heard a brief mention of it on the Radio this morning.  I don't think that there will be a coalition right now.  The Libs are not set up for it.  NDP don't want it, and the Bloc..... will only if it suites them.  I do think though that they may all vote against it and that would trigger another election ( like anyone wants that).  In this instance though I can not say I blame the Opposition at all for it.  What was he thinking about tagging on the election funding formula with this.  The grand total money saved is minimal to the big scheme of things.  Yes it is smart as it will hurt other parties but come on a blind man could see how this will be perceived by the opposition and the people.  As for the rest of the complaining about the budget calls.  I think that is all it is, complaining.  Yes by divesting of Govt assets when the market is down will cost us in the long run.  It will free up some cash now and you could argue that who ever will buy it will come ahead and be able to forge ahead with job's, money ( see also taxes) and other benefits.  

Personally I am all for letting the current Govt handle the "Crisis".  The worst thing we could do right now is trigger an election creating more uncertainty in the markets.  If the Conservatives blow it and make really dumb moves they will pay for it in the future.  Yet I am also a believer that there is only so much any political group can do to affect this storm we are in


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2008)

I heard this yesterday afternoon and I promptly phoned the Liberal and NDP offices here and demanded they contact Ottawa and tell them they are playing politics with the average person's life. This is irrepsonsible of them and the Canadian people have to phone their MP and demand this nonsense stop. 
The government, whether it be Conservative or Liberal, has very little control over the economy. This is the NDP and Liberal way of whining about the proposed total cutoff of taxpayer money to their parties.
I do not see why I  and the Canadian people have to fund a political party without my consent. Thank you Mr. Chretien. :rage:


----------



## Gunnar (28 Nov 2008)

Cutting government subsidies to political parties that should be supported by their members?  Say it ain't so!

Did you know that 82% of the Bloc Quebecois' funding comes from the Canadian taxpayer?  Imagine, we're funding the separatist message.  Like that makes sense.  If you're a Liberal supporter, your taxes are going to split the vote in Quebec, the traditional breadbasket of the Liberal party.  Must make you proud.

I don't happen to agree with the Liberal or NDP viewpoints, but I believe they have every right to express themselves....but why should their expression be at MY expense?  You believe it, YOU pay for it.  I'm not understanding why public funding for what is *by definition* a special interest group is some sort of sacred cow we cannot kill.

Smaller political parties will wither without government funding?  Well, maybe they'll wither through lack of membership...maybe only a minority of people agree with their ideology.  Why should we let them pretend they have some sort of national support?  Maybe they're minority parties because the MAJORITY of Canadians don't care enough about them to support them financially.  If that's the case, why force us to support them?  Because there is a perceived need for the Marijuana Party that all Canadians (secretly) want to finance?  (Actually, I wonder...could you use these subsidies to support "expressions of your political beliefs", i.e., more weed?  Can we form the DSF (drinkin', smokin' and fightin') Party?  I'll see you at the pub).

Does the cut to political parties have anything to do with the economy?  Probably not too much...it will have limited impact.  Still, it will save millions.  Millions.  I don't have a spare million myself.  And those millions add up, I'm told.  Soon, taxes don't need to be as high because there is LESS government.  Yes, this is an ideological point.  Personally, I believe the opposition parties are most upset about the fact that the Conservatives actually espouse conservative principles *and follow thru*.  Wow.  Imagine that.  Integrity in the face of toppling their government and losing it all.  Sounds almost like they are a group of like-minded individuals with shared beliefs.  You know, like a political party used to be.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Nov 2008)

My first reaction was that there must be something in the water in Ottawa that attacks the political class. There was the case of the Carleton University Students Council and the paralysis of Ottawa city council and now this.

On reflection, and I am not devious of mind enough to delve into all of the ramifications, I suspect this will resolve itself over the weekend. First, who wants an election at this time? Darn few, if any. It would be difficult to mobilize the unpaid party workers who do much of the nuts and bolts campaigning in the ridings, and the candidates - especially the 80% who were unsuccessful - have largely run through their war chests and have yet to receive their reimbursements from Elections Canada. 

Okay, then, what about a coalition? To have any guarantee of governing, it would require the support of all three opposition parties. Do you think the Liberals especially want to be linked with the Bloc? Maybe there could be an informal alliance as was the case in 1972 between the Liberals and the NDP. That only lasted until the Liberals saw the chance of a majority, went to the polls and won a majority. This was also done between the Ontario Liberals and NDP after the 1984 (?) provincial election, but with a signed agreement. True to form the Grits pulled the plug when the time was right and got their majority.

There are also some major differences in policy between the Liberals and the NDP, especially the corporate tax cuts. Neither may back down, so except for the retention of their 1.95 per head, what is in it for the NDP? Perhaps a bailout for the auto makers, but that was likely anyway from the Tories. This may be a show stopper.

Say all this could be overcome. Who would be the prime minister? None other than Stephane Dion, who is not likely to voluntarily resign, and cannot be forced from office. The party establishment may want him out, and they may try all sorts of inducements, but he could stand firm. He could also say that he is withdrawing his resignation as he has now led the party to Grit nirvana - power.

The whole thing is an unholy mess and I have no idea what is going to happen. Will someone shine the light of their brilliance on my befuddlement, please?


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Nov 2008)

Anything with Jane Taber's name attached is hysterics.
I agree with the CPC. I cheered yesterday when I read it. Goodbye Green Party, goodbye the Bloc. No more sucking the Canadian Taxpayer. Obama proved if you work at it you can raise the money for an election (though I am suspicious of some of the sources). I would not allow contributions via internet as it is impossible to track (see US elections).
Now, about the CBC.


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2008)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Now, about the CBC.



Gee, it's a time of restraint.....why is the GOC spending taxpayers $$ duplicating what the Private Sector is already doing? Time to Cut Back!!


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Nov 2008)

We live in a democracy (sort of) and the Conservative Party seems hell bent on taking what we have left away. They are playing politics with the economic crisis. To artifically balance the books, they are talking about selling government assets at cut rate prices to the private sector. Maybe the GST cut has something to do with the projected deficit? It is despicable, and Canadians should be up in arms about it.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We live in a democracy (sort of) and the Conservative Party seems hell bent on taking what we have left away. They are playing politics with the economic crisis. To artifically balance the books, they are talking about selling government assets at cut rate prices to the private sector. Maybe the GST cut has something to do with the projected deficit? It is despicable, and Canadians should be up in arms about it.



What planet are you from?
The Liberals brought in the $1.75/vote in. That is undemocratic. Chretien just did it, no questions asked. Now how about the GST???? Chretien promised to remove it and NEVER did. 
Now when Harper cuts the GST by 2%, you have the nerve to whine about it?
Give me a break. It's the Liberals, NDP and Bloc playing politics with the average persons wallet.... :rage:


----------



## Neill McKay (28 Nov 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Gee, it's a time of restraint.....why is the GOC spending taxpayers $$ duplicating what the Private Sector is already doing? Time to Cut Back!!



When I can listen to the Sunday Edition, As It Happens, and Ideas on private radio (and not be assaulted by commercials designed to appeal to someone with an IQ in the low double digits while doing so) then we can talk about whether the CBC and the private sector are doing the same thing.


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Nov 2008)

> What planet are you from?
> The Liberals brought in the $1.75/vote in. That is undemocratic. Chretien just did it, no questions asked. Now how about the GST? Chretien promised to remove it and NEVER did.
> Now when Harper cuts the GST by 2%, you have the nerve to whine about it?
> Give me a break. It's the Liberals, NDP and Bloc playing politics with the average persons wallet....



You are assuming I am pro-Liberal. How do you know I didn't "whine" about the Liberals when they were in power? I think all the parties are corrupt and ineffective, thats just politics. However, the Conservatives are going too far. Would you like to see all the parties bankrupt and the Conservatives have free reign? Take your blinders off. The party you love today might turn around and bite you in the @#$ if you let them get away with it.  I don't agree with most of the NDP, Liberal or Bloc policies, but having what would amount to a single party system (for a time anyway) is not the way to go, even if you are onside with that party. Power corrupts as we all know. I am sure we all remember the 1990s. This is not a partisan issue, it is an issue of democracy.


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Nov 2008)

No matter what happens in order for a coalition to be formed the Governor General would have to ask for it and in my opinion that would mean the death of that position in the Canadian Democracy.

I do not think that most Canadians are prepared to see their vote be overturned by what amounts to little more than a Monarch approved government appointed national babysitter.

No, I'm not a fan of either Monarchy or the post of GG.  We've come a long way baby, both are anachronisms and not required in a mature democracy.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2008)

And making US pay millions to any political party solves the problem? I don't think so

What will bring money into any political parties coffers is honesty and integrity. Those that want to contribute will. I find it offensive that virtually every Canadian has to support the $1.75 per vote concept of funding. We had no choice and were not consulted. THAT is undemocratic, and it was put in place by Chretien and company. :rage:

Let the parties raise their own funds. No union or corporate donations allowed. No donations over $500 per year from anyone.


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Nov 2008)

> Let the parties raise their own funds. No union or corporate donations allowed. No donations over $500 per year from anyone.



Agreed. I would just argue that a party in power cannot decide when this should happen. Otherwise, you get situations like our current one where one party has an overflowing treasury and the others do not.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Agreed. I would just argue that a party in power cannot decide when this should happen. Otherwise, you get situations like our current one where one party has an overflowing treasury and the others do not.



The Liberals made their own bed. Let them sort it out. 
If the Conservatives were in the same boat I'd say the same thing.
If they govern honestly, fairly and with transparency, they should have no problems filling the party war chest.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Nov 2008)

According to CTV Newsnet the talks re a Liberal-NDP coalition are based on Dion being forced out and caucus selecting an interim leader, who would be Iggy. This apparently is supported by Bob Rae. They expect the coalition to survive for a year.

The following is the text of an email I sent my MP:

I like to assume there is a plan here, and I am not very devious of mind. However the current situation is straining my credulity. My first reaction is there is something in the water in Ottawa that warps the brains of the political class. On top of the chronic paralysis of Ottawa city council and the CF fiasco perpetrated by the Carleton students union council, we now have the pending defeat of the government over 30 million in cuts in a huge government funding envelope, make that a huge government sea container. 

Frankly it is too soon to get back at getting out the vote and fund raising and putting up signs and all the rest. Even worse would be the prospect of throwing the victory away, even if the possible Liberal-NDP coalition may be short lived. I am not a happy Tory. The only saving grace is that come mid-January, I am out of here until Easter.


----------



## Scratch_043 (28 Nov 2008)

The opposition parties would be shooting themselves in the foot big time if they forced an election this soon after the last one. ESPECIALLY on this issue. It would be very easy for the average citizen to form the link that tax money going towards political parties for the election = more expense for the tax payer to bear/less money for other programmes, because the opposition parties want to get up on their soapboxes agian, with no cost to themselves, because, afterall, the party isn't paying for it, the taxpayers are, silly buggers.

The CPC wouldn't even need much of a platform this time around. All they'd have to say is 'we stand for now, what we stood for 2 months ago, except now, we don't want YOU to have to pay for US to campaign. Maybe even have a disclaimer at the bottom of every add that says something like "paid for by the CPC, NOT by YOU" haha


----------



## McG (28 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I find it offensive that virtually every Canadian has to support the $1.75 per vote concept of funding. We had no choice and were not consulted. THAT is undemocratic ...


Although, every Canadian does get full control over who will get thier $1.75.  That aspect at least seems relatively democratic.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Although, every Canadian does get full control over who will get thier $1.75.  That aspect at least seems relatively democratic.



The very concept of giving a political party $1.75 for every vote they receive is hogwash. We all pay, whether we want to give money or not.


----------



## Rodahn (28 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The very concept of giving a political party $1.75 for every vote they receive is hogwash. We all pay, whether we want to give money or not.



Why then does the majority of western democracies do so?


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Nov 2008)

Whatever happens, this will look bad on the politicians. Other measures in the financial update include limiting pay raises for MPs and the public service. The cynic in me says this is a ploy by the liberals to regain power.


----------



## jeffb (28 Nov 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Although, every Canadian does get full control over who will get thier $1.75.  That aspect at least seems relatively democratic.



That's a fair enough opinion but the $1.75 was brought in by the Liberals to replace corporate and union donations. The Conservatives later reduced the donation limit for individuals to $1000 (now $1100). This was OK at the time because the parties had the $1.75 thus allowing them to continue the business of politics. Flaherty's move is so odious because the per vote funding removal is not being met with an increase in the individual donation limits or a return of corporate and union donations.


----------



## Teeps74 (28 Nov 2008)

I say let the opposition parties form their coalition. They will then enact there policies in the midst of a recession. Handing the CPC a majority at the next election.

Whoever is in power, only has to limit spending, which is what we are seeing here. What more of a stimulus package is needed? Remember the opposition whining and crying about the corperate tax cuts? What was that, other then stimulus? What more can be done without driving up a wild deficit? Tax more?


----------



## helpup (28 Nov 2008)

$ 1.75 per vote is what each party gets, not all Canadians voted, All Canadians will pay out the total sum to each party what they got vote wise.  ( I will state now I voted Conservative ) I don't mind this policy, not one bit. If your better at math then I am you can be more specific but my quick fuzzy math means that each tax payer gives  peanuts if not pennies to run this.  What this program does like it or not is allow parties to exist based on numbers of votes they get.  I think it is a fair idea. That the program actually came out of the Liberals when they seen the PC / CPC floundering is deliciously ironic.  They thought it would keep money in their own pockets and hence they would stay in power.  Regardless of the reasons it is a program that exist to the benefit of all parties.  To have a party in power especially a minority, to say hey we are getting rid of it.  Nope sorry that is not smart optics and very debatable smart politics.  I agree with the view that a party should pay it's own way.  Trouble is in our system it would lead to a two man show trading every 4 years ( or worse every 3 elections) who the governing power is.  And with the powers our PM has that is allot of power that shapes generations if you are unlucky.  

Don't get me wrong I don't want to have 15 parties in Canada. Each jockeying for a coalition to put into power.  I do not see that ever happending nor will I believe that under the paid for each vote scheme it will happen.  I do not like that the Bloc gets a cut out of it but am realistic enough to know what the outrage would be in that province if they were unilaterally excluded. 

I am all for Harper manning the helm of this ship in this storm.  I do not think he pushed the right button when he sounded this Fog Horn.


----------



## helpup (28 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The very concept of giving a political party $1.75 for every vote they receive is hogwash. We all pay, whether we want to give money or not.



There are those out there who would use that argument about defence spending.   OS I am not trying to start something but there are better arguments then that one to use


----------



## helpup (28 Nov 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I say let the opposition parties form their coalition. They will then enact there policies in the midst of a recession. Handing the CPC a majority at the next election.
> 
> Whoever is in power, only has to limit spending, which is what we are seeing here. What more of a stimulus package is needed? Remember the opposition whining and crying about the cooperate tax cuts? What was that, other then stimulus? What more can be done without driving up a wild deficit? Tax more?



I actually thought of that when I first heard about it.  If you want to take power now by all means.  After this financial crisis is over and if Canadians suffer much from it.  I fully expect the Conservatives to take a major hit in the next election.  Having the Coalition of the Pop Shop drinkers take over may actually be the best thing for those who like the Conservatives


----------



## ArmyRick (28 Nov 2008)

I agree with the earlier comment that is nothing but a ploy to get the liberals-NDP in power. If they force an election SO soon then I say we as Canadians must ensure we stop sitting on the fence and start sending to power the ones we want.


----------



## Remius (28 Nov 2008)

I personally think it's another game of chicken that might blow up in the Conservatives faces.  This is definitely to piss the opposition off.  They vote for it and they take a hit financially they vote against it and they look bad.  They Economic Update includes some pretty dubious and vague things as well.  10 billion in Assets to be sold off?  What assets?  Nothing specific.  4 billion in cuts to social programs?  Which ones?  Or how about the removal of the Public Service's right to strike? (I'm not a uninon fan but this is rings some alarm bells about what's next)

I'm more worried about those other issues.

And really?  What is 1.75 per vote really mean in the grand scheme of the economy?  30 million dollars?  And what will it achieve?  Personally I think that a partially public funded system minimises the corruption that say a corporate sponsored system would do.  I would hate for a party in power to have to "owe"  a company or a an individual and be forced to cater to their agendas.  Not that this doesn't really happen.

i really think that that Harper has gotten a little too cocky with his political maneuvering.  In the past he was able to pull off some masterful stuff but this time I think he's going to lose out.  Everybody is pissed about a potential election...doubtful.  If a coalition is formed with the Bloc holding the real balance of power there won't be an election.  And then what?  A year of leftist agendas.  How is that good?  

The Conservatives have pushed the other parties into a corner and they are now literally fighting for their survival.  Of course they will fight back.  Hopefully Harper will rethink this.  He'll look weak for the short term but at least he'll still be in power.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2008)

I think that the main argument is that the Lib/NDP lot are playing politics in a time of worldwide financial crisis, as are the Conservatives.
I still think the public (taxpayer) funding of political parties is hogwash. I don't see why I have to fund the Conservative, Liberal, NDP and whatever other party is our there. Why should I fund the BQ, who are out to destroy our nation?

The arguments forthis type of funding are somewhat logical, and I could care less what other countries do. That is their internal matters; why do we need to do what "other countries do"?

I stand against this on principle, that funding of a political party out of taxpayer dollars is wrong, period.


----------



## jeffb (28 Nov 2008)

Looks like the Tories are backing down. No election. 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/tories-fiscal.html


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2008)

They will just hive it off of the ways and means bill, then reintroduce it as a normal vote. This allows the Ways & Means bill to pass as a confidence vote, and if the opposition vote down the subsidy cut, the government does not fall, but it provides them with fodder to hammer them with in the next election....


----------



## helpup (28 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I stand against this on principle, that funding of a political party out of taxpayer dollars is wrong, period.



So we are to go back to a funding formula that let the political parties be paid for by Unions and Lobbies? Can you say UAW, Teachers union, PSAC.  Lobbyist can even be worse.  I agree with your line of thought when it comes to funding for most groups coming from the public purse.  If you want to be a advocate for the numerous funded groups out there that want to present a voice then you should have the members to back it up and pay for that group.  But political parties?  Nope I am all for a system that removes them from special interest group donations as much as possible. ( funny that one as special intrest groups get a good chunk of money from the tax payer so under the old system you were helping to pay for it regardless )  In a perfect world you would not need much money for a campaign.  Yet in this day and age it is a must.  Thankfully we are nowhere near what the US spends on it.  So if it is going to cost then try and keep the costs down and have a level as can be playing Field.  That in my mind for the time being includes the pay per vote idea.  Come up with a better system and I will more and likely support it.  Until then this one is better then what we had ( even though it was presented to assist the Liberal Machine at the time that thought itself unstoppable.)

*as a note I almost hate taking this side as anything that has to deal with Chretien's legacy I would love to get rid of.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2008)

In my previous posts I stated that no unions nor special interest groups or corporations could contribute. Individual donations only.

Maybe this will force candidates and volunteers to spend some time pounding the pavement talking to people rather than spending OUR money buying TV & radio slots only to tell us theat the "other guy" is a big liar, or has a hidden agenda or is a weakling.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (28 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> In my previous posts I stated that no unions nor special interest groups or corporations could contribute. Individual donations only.
> 
> Maybe this will force candidates and volunteers to spend some time pounding the pavement talking to people rather than spending OUR money buying TV & radio slots only to tell us theat the "other guy" is a big liar, or has a hidden agenda or is a weakling.




That would also force the people in those parties to actually make you want to vote/donate to thier cause. But we ALL know where that is headed.......

Cheers


----------



## helpup (28 Nov 2008)

Then no other party would be able to afford it.  The conservatives are the only ones who can right now.  That attitude will quickly see all canadians who are on the fence against them and they will effectively of hanged themselfs.  With that addition to the bill they are pointing a very big gun around during a time that doesnt need it.  As I said OS not trying to start something but this policy has bad optics , timing and up yours all over it.  And I like the the PM.


----------



## CountDC (28 Nov 2008)

youi have my support OS - tired of having to pay for parties I don't support too. 

Just thought of a way to cut this cost without the politicians having a say - no one.  No vote, no money!!

added:  If no other party could afford it perhaps they need to look at what they are doing that their support base is not willing to fund them.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Nov 2008)

Could it be that the Conservatives do not wish to be resposible for the economic criss mess ?

Think about it. They pull a stunt so stupid that the Libs/NDP end up taking the reigns. That coalition bungles it up royaly ( as one would expect) and this is followed by a quick ellection putting a majority Conservative Government in power.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Could it be that the Conservatives do not wish to be resposible for the economic criss mess ?
> 
> Think about it. They pull a stunt so stupid that the Libs/NDP end up taking the reigns. That coalition bungles it up royaly ( as one would expect) and this is followed by a quick ellection putting a majority Conservative Government in power.


Could be,I will agree there.

As I've posted previously though, no government has any real control over the economy. The current ecomimic crisis is world wide, and time will sort it out, not governments.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> As I've posted previously though, no government has any real control over the economy.



I couldnt agree with you more OS. They dont control the economy but they sure get the blame when its gone bad.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2008)

I think this whole debate is a moot point, as it looks like the CPC government has backed off the $1.75 per vote thing for now.
Looks like the hogs will be at the trough for a while longer.

Wish we had a little pig face thingy we could add to this comment! ;D


----------



## Baloo (28 Nov 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Although, every Canadian does get full control over who will get thier $1.75.  That aspect at least seems relatively democratic.



Fair enough, but that only works if 100% of the tax-payers in this country vote.

41% of those that were over 18 didn't vote, much less decide to where their funding was going. 

And what of those under voting age, that pay taxes? 

No political party should thrive on public coffers.


----------



## helpup (28 Nov 2008)

Baloo said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but that only works if 100% of the taxpayers in this country vote.
> 
> 41% of those that were over 18 didn't vote, much less decide to where their funding was going.
> 
> ...



You could also say that if you didn't bother to vote then you lost the say as to what party is going to get your 1.75 that when rounded out for the full tax payer base versus who actually voted doesn't give you enough for a phone call.


----------



## twistedcables (28 Nov 2008)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081128/n_top_news/cnews_us_politics_canada 

By Randall Palmer 

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's minority government teetered on the edge of collapse on Friday, just six weeks after its re-election, as opposition parties talked of forming a coalition to replace the ruling Conservatives.

Both the Conservatives and the three opposition parties were engaged in high-stakes brinkmanship over the fiscal update that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty presented on Thursday.

The opposition said the update did not contain needed stimulus for an economy increasingly squeezed by the global downturn, but they were most angered by a planned end to direct public financing of political parties.

If neither side blinks, the government will likely fall, perhaps as early as Monday, and Canada would either head into a snap election or into some sort of coalition led by the opposition Liberals.

"Canadians ... just might get a Christmas present next week and have the Conservatives turfed, which is exactly what they deserve for their mismanagement of the economy," Thomas Mulcair, deputy leader of the leftist New Democratic Party, told CBC television.

The Conservatives were in no mood to back down, however, although they did announce that the first confidence vote on the fiscal update -- due on Monday -- would not be on the public financing proposal. That will be included in a separate financial bill and no vote on that has yet been set.

"We're not anticipating changing our agenda," Kory Teneycke, a top spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told CTV television, accusing opposition parties of trying to subvert democracy.

"This is an attempt to take control of the government without actually having to go to the electorate in a democratic vote," Teneycke said, noting that the Conservatives won a strengthened minority in last month's election.

CANADIAN DOLLAR SLIDES

The uncertainty helped push down the Canadian dollar. At 12.10 p.m., it was at C$1.2378 to the U.S. dollar, or 80.79 U.S. cents, down from C$1.2311 to the U.S. dollar, or 81.23 U.S. cents, at Thursday's close.

"A lot of investors are rewarding governments that are showing strong leadership on the financial crisis and it looks like we're (Canada) going to be thrown into disarray," said David Watt, currency strategist at RBC Capital markets.

The New Democrats' Mulcair said all three opposition parties -- the NDP, the Liberals and the separatist Bloc Quebecois -- had consulted with one another more intensively than usual in the last 48 hours.

Former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent were working behind the scenes on possibilities for a coalition government.

If the Conservatives lose the vote in the House of Commons, Harper would go to Governor General Michaelle Jean -- the representative of Canada's head of state, Queen Elizabeth -- to say he has lost the confidence of Parliament.

Harper could ask Jean to call an election but experts said she could also call upon the opposition to see if it could form government instead.

If the Liberals and NDP sought to form a coalition, they would also have to rely on at least the tacit support of the Bloc Quebecois. That could present a major difficulty because the Bloc is dedicated to breaking up Canada.

"They'll have to answer to the Canadian people if they make certain coalitions," Flaherty said..

The Conservatives have 145 members, including two allied independents, in the 308-seat House. The Liberals have 77 and the New Democrats 37 -- totaling only 114 and well short of the 155 needed for a majority. They would thus need the backing of the Bloc, which has 49 seats.

In recent past political crises, the Liberals have often backed away from bringing down the government because of their weak political position, but this time they seem to smell power.

Canadian newspapers united to condemn what they said was an act of crass political gamesmanship by the prime minister.

(Additional reporting by David Ljunggren; editing by Rob Wilson)


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Nov 2008)

There is a thread already started on this subject Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition . Suggest that the MODS merge these two threads.

Edited as MODS have merged the two threads.


----------



## jeffb (28 Nov 2008)

Plus it's old news, the Conservatives have backed down on removing public funding to political parties.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (28 Nov 2008)

I am all for a viable party getting funding.  As stated earlier, it is quite democratic, they get as much support as the Canadian electorate wants to give them.  Hopefully that limits how far special interest groups with deep pockets can influence parties.

What really pissed me off this morning was an interview at around 0630 on CBC with a Conservative party spokesman.  He was ranting on about how the other parties were trying willing to topple the government that Canadians had elected.  The Conservatives did not win a majority, they were invited by the GG to form the government.  Overall a very juvenile performance that dropped my view of the Conservatives quite a bit.

There are other options, the GG can ask the other parties if they can form a government, and if they are willing to then they have an equal chance of being toppled.  It is the nature a minority government in that the party does not form the government, a group of parties must.  The Conservatives cannot pass any confidence vote on their own, therefore you cannot say they are the government, rather the Conservatives and whoever votes with them form the government.

Simply put, the Canadian electorate did not have enough confidence in the Conservatives to make them the ruling party, therefore they have aren't the ruling party.

What's that saying?  Something along the lines of people don't get the government they need, they get what they deserve.


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Nov 2008)

Just a quick thought on why I think the opposition parties are up in arms over this entire money issue. The last couple of years have shown that the Conservative party easily raised more money from citizens than any other party. It would seem then that conservative supporters have no problem opening their wallet and shelling out some money, whereas the other parties supporters would seem to prefer that the public "en masse" do the financial support.

I think PM Harper should continue to push this, force an election, and run on that one issue. The opposition parties wouldn't give up their gravy train in these hard times. For those who said this is unfair to the Libs and dippers, where was your complaint when Chretein passed the 1.75 per vote(during the Libs majority years of course)? Threatening to assume power in such an underhanded foul, way reeks of third world politics. But that being said they would need to get all 3 opposition parties to agree to the make-up of this "mickey mouse" government. The dippers would probably jump at it, as it would be their only hope in hell of ever getting any power on the national stage, and if either of these two would jump into a relationship with the separtists I think it would be the final death knell for both of them.

Just one guys pragmatic opinion.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Nov 2008)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081128/coalitions_past_081128/20081128?hub=TopStories

Experts doubtful a Liberal-NDP coalition would work
Updated Fri. Nov. 28 2008 3:42 PM ET

Parminder Parmar, CTV.ca News Staff

As talk of a potential coalition government swirls through the halls of parliament, some experts in Canadian political history say the reality is it will likely never come to fruition. 


There's "not a chance" that the Liberals and NDP will be able to convince Governor General Michaëlle Jean they'll be able to form a working coalition, says Barry Cooper, a political science professor at the University of Calgary. 


Cooper, the author, editor, or translator of 27 books and dozens of academic papers, says the NDP and Liberals are just too far apart on issues for their MPs to agree on a working alignment. 


Cooper says it doesn't matter that party elders are behind the coalition talk. CTV News reported Friday that former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent were discussing a possible coalition government, with the support of the Bloc outside cabinet. 


If they do come up with a deal and the MPs for their respective parties agree to the terms, they could defeat the government as soon as Monday when the Tory economic update comes up for a confidence vote. 


Prime Minister Stephen Harper would then have to go to the governor general to dissolve Parliament and call an election. But the governor general may also decide to hand power to the leader of one of the other parties, if she believes he or she can hold together a coalition. 


That's what happened in 1926 during the so-called King-Byng Affair. That's when Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King went to the Governor General Lord Byng of Vimy, asking for an election call, but was turned down. Instead, Byng asked Conservative Arthur Meighen to end a parliamentary stalemate. 


Cooper says he doubts that would happen this time. 


"The Governor General has to be convinced that this coalition is real," he said, noting the party's MPs won't necessarily listen to Broadbent or Chretien. 


"If she thinks it's doable she is in deep doo doo." 


Cooper says that even if the governor general granted the opposition parties' request to form some type of coalition government, they just wouldn't be able to function effectively. 


"The consequences would be catastrophic," he said. "They will be defeated right away," he said. 


The governor general would likely shoot down the idea well before that point, says Steve Patten, a political science professor at the University of Alberta. 


"The hurdles to forming a coalition government are absolutely massive," he said, noting that the fact that the Liberals are in the middle of a leadership race doesn't help matters. 


"Who would be the prime minister," he asked, adding, "What kind of policy agenda will there be?" 


But while Cooper is all but certain that a coalition government won't happen, Patten isn't so sure. 


"My gut reaction would be similar to his (Cooper's). However, sometimes, the political parties in Ottawa get themselves into a situation where they can actually create a momentum that is hard to push back," he said. 


"It's possible that they (MPs) are all saying we'll defeat the government. But they don't want to force an election and so they will force themselves to make a coalition work." 


Cooper said even if that were to happen, the new government would, like Meighen, have an extremely short tenure. King was voted back into office in the next election. 


"(The new coalition) will be defeated right away," Cooper said. 


"Instead of Mr. King, it will be Mr. Harper who has a majority."


----------



## MARS (28 Nov 2008)

The PM is expected to read a statement within the hour addressing this topic (if I understood the newscaster correctly).  Didn't say if it would be televised, but I assume so.  Caught this on CBC.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (28 Nov 2008)

I think at this point, both the Liberals and the NDP will try and place aside their diffences to make this work. The big hurdle here is getting the GG on board. But i'm sure that if both parties are serious and have a sound game plan, they could pull it of. 
Harper is trying to govern like he has a majority, just like he did last time around, but he has to be reminded once again that he is still at the small end of the stick. 

Flip flopping around on the econmic issues isn't helping his government much either. I've never heard of a "technical recession", must be one of those new conservative phrases, like technical deficit or technical surplus. 

Either we're in a recession or we're not and from what I've seen so far we're pretty deep into the manure pile and it's getting smellier everyday. Giving it a shiny new "technical" name other than what it is, isn't going to magically make it go away.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Nov 2008)

If you think the lefties are good for the economy,think again. I think all this will do is to force another election and the voters may make the Liberals/NDP pay a price at the polls.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Nov 2008)

Libs + NDP < CPC.  If the wannabe coalition wants to survive its first confidence motion, it needs the Bloc.  What will be the price of Bloc support, and how will that price be received by voters?

Harper built a shoe - the proposal to cut per-vote public party funding - and the opposition parties made a lot of noise about how well it fit.  Now that has been yanked as a possible matter of confidence, leaving the public with no doubt about what the opposition parties think is important enough to force an election, and leaving the opposition parties free to vote out the government on the remaining issue: whether enough capital has been shovelled out the door to the most vocal lobbyists.  You can split the difference on whether voters will side with the CPC for being willing to cut the funds, or against the CPC for attacking the funds.  But now the opposition is a long way out on a branch called "fiscal stimulus".


----------



## DONT_PANIC (28 Nov 2008)

I could see the Liberal/NDP coalition comming to pass, but it might be pretty unpalatible for many Liberal MPs.    Might this be enough to push Ignatieff and a few others into crossing the floor?


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Nov 2008)

Take a good hard look at the second chart here.

If you think that western Canada is going to roll over and be left with a socialist government that they _*overwhelmingly rejected*_ you're smoking dope. 

Look at the numbers 71 CPC MP's 7 Liberal, and 14 NDP.

The separatists in Quebec may get their wish courtesy of Liberal NDP and Bloc greed and delivered by the long ignored western provinces.


----------



## Rodahn (28 Nov 2008)

Possibly the most astute commentary regarding the whole issue that I've read.


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/28/don-martin-harper-has-no-one-to-blame-but-himself.aspx


----------



## Rodahn (28 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Take a good hard look at the second chart here.
> 
> If you think that western Canada is going to roll over and be left with a socialist government that they _*overwhelmingly rejected*_ you're smoking dope.
> 
> ...



I'm not so sure of this, as the Alberta labour federation seems to be having doubt regarding one of their own's ability to govern. 

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=bb5ee6d7-5936-495e-ba1f-1535e5c9af62


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Nov 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure of this, as the Alberta labour federation seems to be having doubt regarding one of their own's ability to govern.
> 
> http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=bb5ee6d7-5936-495e-ba1f-1535e5c9af62



Rodahn, do you think that the Communist party of Alberta would support the PM just because he's from Calgary?

Come on.  Labour unions are overwhelmingly against Conservative governments, always have been always will be.


----------



## Rodahn (28 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Rodahn, do you think that the Communist party of Alberta would support the PM just because he's from Calgary?
> 
> Come on.  Labour unions are overwhelmingly against Conservative governments, always have been always will be.



No argument there, however one has to consider the influence of the unions on their membership if job loss is imminent. How do you think the membership will vote? Self interest is powerful motivation.


----------



## McG (29 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> No matter what happens in order for a coalition to be formed the Governor General would have to ask for it and in my opinion that would mean the death of that position in the Canadian Democracy.
> 
> I do not think that most Canadians are prepared to see their vote be overturned by ...


Most Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives.  The GG could conceivably gain in popularity by putting in a coalition that collectively represents more of the actual votes cast.  Especially when one considers that most Canadians would be more than a little upset by another election so soon.


----------



## TCBF (29 Nov 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Most Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives.  The GG could conceivably gain in popularity by putting in a coalition that collectively represents more of the actual votes cast.  Especially when one considers that most Canadians would be more than a little upset by another election so soon.



- I wasn't aware the GG was in a popularity contest. If the government falls, will people blame the PM or the sore losers of the last election who brought it down?


----------



## McG (29 Nov 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware the GG was in a popularity contest.


Read the quote to which I was responding.  Previous poster concluded that if the GG were to invite the opposition to form a coalition then there would be a public backlash that would see the end of that position.  I was pointing out the inaccuracy of this conclusion based on two things:
1.  It assumed Canadians would see the GG as having "overturned" their votes despite the fact that the majority did not vote for the current government (so at worst only a minority of Canadians might feel their vote was "overturned."
2.  It ignored the fact that many/most Canadians would be satisfied by a solution that would avoid another election.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Nov 2008)

Well MCG the majority certainly did not vote for Stephie DeYawn, and they certainly did not vote for Iggy Liberal King in waiting who could not even run for the top job during the election.

As far as Chretien and Broadbent playing kingmaker that should show all Canadians what this is about.  It's not about the Torries playing partisan politics it's about the other guys trying to ensure that the gravy isn't turned off.


----------



## Rodahn (29 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> It's not about the Torries playing partisan politics it's about the other guys trying to ensure that the gravy isn't turned off.



Maybe, maybe not. If the Tories are successful, and the other three main parties go bankrupt then what? We have a one party system... And history has shown how well one party systems have worked in the past.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Nov 2008)

The reason the Tories are successful in raising money has more to do with the mindset of their constituents than anything else.  A conservative says to himself "Hm, this is worth fighting for... I think I'll support the worthy cause" <opens wallet>.

The socialist (Liberals and NDP being just shades of this particular Grey) says "Hm, this is worth fighting for...  How can we force everyone to pay for our worthy cause?"  <takes money from everyone's wallet>.

This is done not only in the arena of party finance but in all other political schemes as well to a lesser or greater extent.

By the way. If you have a leader who people will follow, who is charismatic, personable and seen as having vision you can make money hand over fist, regardless of their political stripes... Just ask the Obama campaign.

The idea that this could destroy the other parties is ridiculous.

Think about it.  30 million dollars every year.  Your taxes going to a party hell bent on destroying this country.  It's enough to make me puke.


----------



## Rodahn (29 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> The idea that this could destroy the other parties is ridiculous.



Really, How so? Considering from what I've read and heard of the state of the other parties finances, they are in disarray.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Nov 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Really, How so? Considering from what I've read and heard of the state of the other parties finances, they are in disarray.



So you believe that without stealing our taxes that there are not enough liberals, NDP and Bloc supporters to donate to their own parties?  What kept them afloat before Chretien decided to steal our taxes to pay for his party (it was the largest at the time and therefore got the largest share).  

Anyone want to try and tell me how this money grab is democratic?  

I mean if the winning party of an election gets 14 million votes and wins a majority but then proceeds to lie, cheat and steal, elect unpopular people to lead their party, divorce the party from the very people parties are supposed to represent and still get $23,800,000 every year regardless of the poor job they do?  

On the other hand, if you eliminate the subsidy the party has to remain loyal to its base, it has to generate it's own funds.  It has to be able to come up with leaders, platforms and policies that their supporters will support and it has to hopefully do well enough to gather more support the next time.  That is democracy.

Democracy is not being forced to treat a vote like a post dated cheque.

The other concept being hoisted upon us is that these parties (all of them) are somehow part and parcel of our democracy and they *must* survive or our democracy won't function.  Absolute BS.

There is no party that has to exist.  If the party can not survive on it's own then like a business it shouldn't.  There is no legal, democratic or constitutional mandate for any of them.  They are supposed to be private entities separate from and unconnected to government qua government in any way.  Anything less than that is an aberration of democracy the likes of which we see in Banana Republics and communist "Peoples Republics".

I hope that the Conservatives stick to their guns on this one.  It's sink or swim time and I'm sick and tired of the political parties using my money to keep themselves afloat.


----------



## HDE (29 Nov 2008)

Where does one actually see the details of what the budding "coalition" would offer in their "financial stimulus" plan?  If that is indeed the rationale for dumping the government it seems reasonable to see what the Liberal/NDP/BQ "coalition" would be offering before they take the reins, right?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (29 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if you eliminate the subsidy the party has to remain loyal to its base, it has to generate it's own funds.  It has to be able to come up with leaders, platforms and policies that their supporters will support and it has to hopefully do well enough to gather more support the next time.  That is democracy.



I have a more cynical view.  Rather than having to work hard to develop sound ideas that will cause people to support and fund a party, the typical party will approach a few people or organizations with deep pockets and an agenda and in return for money will promise to promote that agenda when they are in power.
They can then use that money to put on a slick campaign that will convince people that their party is out for the good of Canada.

I'm sure individual politicians sometimes want to improve the good of general people, but I believe their party is more interested in the party.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Nov 2008)

HDE said:
			
		

> Where does one actually see the details of what the budding "coalition" would offer in their "financial stimulus" plan?  If that is indeed the rationale for dumping the government it seems reasonable to see what the Liberal/NDP/BQ "coalition" would be offering before they take the reins, right?



Why? 


With the US, the EU, China and practically every one else stimulating their economy, with Canada being a natural resource exporter, the already lower Canadian dollar easing the burden for our manufacturing sector and a banking system that has avoided most of the problems seen in other parts of the world to the point of being considered a model for how other countries should have done it do we need to?

Why not wait and see.  If the US stimulates it's economy then they buy our resources.  With our dollar lower again the US sees deals to be had in Canadian products.  China continues to provide cheap products for us to import.

It's possible we could have a free ride out of this mess thanks to the rest of them spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we just don't have and can't afford anyway.


----------



## Rodahn (29 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> So you believe that without stealing our taxes that there are not enough liberals, NDP and Bloc supporters to donate to their own parties?  What kept them afloat before Chretien decided to steal our taxes to pay for his party (it was the largest at the time and therefore got the largest share).
> 
> Where did I state this? As to what kept the other parties afloat prior to the payments based upon votes received, was donations from Unions, large corporations, and other special interest groups in an effort to influence how government was run.
> 
> ...



And just for the record I am not fond of any politician, I think that they all have some hidden agenda, in one form, or another.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Nov 2008)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I have a more cynical view.  Rather than having to work hard to develop sound ideas that will cause people to support and fund a party, the typical party will approach a few people or organizations with deep pockets and an agenda and in return for money will promise to promote that agenda when they are in power.
> They can then use that money to put on a slick campaign that will convince people that their party is out for the good of Canada.
> 
> I'm sure individual politicians sometimes want to improve the good of general people, but I believe their party is more interested in the party.



Except under campaign finance laws they can't do that anymore either.  

The responsibility to fund political parties has been given to the individual.  The reforms by the Liberals in 2003 started the work but they screwed the taxpayers to try and give themselves a boost (largest # of votes =most money, what could go wrong for Canada's "naturally governing party") the conservatives in my opinion are just putting things right and getting government out of political parties.

State funding of political parties is the opposite of democracy.  It's against everything a modern democracy should stand for.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Nov 2008)

> Where did I state this? As to what kept the other parties afloat prior to the payments based upon votes received, was donations from Unions, large corporations, and other special interest groups in an effort to influence how government was run.



Ok, and we both agree that is a bad idea, so instead Chretien came up with the idea that the most votes = the most money.  But there is no freedom in that.  There is no will.  In typical liberal fashion the "solution" is force fed down the throats of the people who have to pay for it like it or not, approve or not.  I don't call that democratic.



> By limiting the influence peddling noted above, and that fact that the payments are based upon votes received. Therefore the larger percentage of the popular vote, the larger contribution to the party of whichever ilk.



Democracy is not being forced!  Democracy is the individual acting on free will _especially_, _*PRIMARILY*_ in the political realm.  You believe, you contribute, you don't then there is no way in hell that you should have your money taken from you to fund a private agency who's political ideals are antithetical to your own. Like the Bloc Quebecois.



> Who governs then? Call them what you will, but more than a single party is a necessary evil.



Who governs?  Whatever party replaces the one that goes belly up.  You know the way the PC's did, and the way Reform replaced them.  It's the way it should be.  I no more wish to fund a political party that can't keep it's believers happy than I wish to fund a Car company that can't win a market share.  They are private entities.  Their role in our process is that of propaganda machine and talent pool, that's it, that's all.  They have NOTHING to do with the governance of this country.  Ideology is what they represent, they do not have a function within government

Absolutely I can guarantee you that if the Liberals imploded and went bankrupt there would be another socially left leaning political party created out of it's ashes before Stephan Dion could take the curtains down in Stornoway.


----------



## Daidalous (29 Nov 2008)

I have been trying to find a written reference (on the internet) that clearly states the GG can award the opposition the right to govern in a coalition, and the powers a PM has over a GG. to no avail,  all I have found are people's view on who has what power.  

    Based on what I have read with out reading the official law on this is that the PM can sake a GG and the GG can call new elections when asked by the PM and award power to a coalition to avoid a election.     So what would stop the PM from sacking the GG and installing one more to his liking.

Thanks


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2008)

What one party system?:

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false



> Registered Political Parties
> 
> * Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada
> * Bloc Québécois
> ...



There is also the Freedom Party of Canada, which has not yet registered partially in protest against State funding to parties.

If these guys have ideas and policies that appeal to you, open up your wallet, give them some of your time and effort and get yourself or your representative elected. That is democratic. Forcing you to pay for only four out of the 19 registered parties (especially if you actually support one of the others) isn't democratic, it is *extortion*.


----------



## Rodahn (29 Nov 2008)

Daidalous said:
			
		

> I have been trying to find a written reference (on the internet) that clearly states the GG can award the opposition the right to govern in a coalition, and the powers a PM has over a GG. to no avail,  all I have found are people's view on who has what power.
> 
> Based on what I have read with out reading the official law on this is that the PM can sake a GG and the GG can call new elections when asked by the PM and award power to a coalition to avoid a election.     So what would stop the PM from sacking the GG and installing one more to his liking.
> 
> Thanks



Role and responsibility of the G.G.

http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/index_e.asp


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2008)

And what of thei supposed coalition anyway?

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/11/media-keeps-ignoring-one-of-coalition.html



> *Media keeps ignoring one of the coalition partners...missing the real story*
> 
> As the media cover this Liberal coup d’état, they seem to forget one of the coalition partners that are necessary to maintain the confidence of the house. A NDP and Liberal coalition means absolutely nothing and the Governor General has no right to even consider it unless the Bloc Quebecois is a formal part of the agreement guranteeing to support the Canadian government for a reasonable period of time. The Liberals have 77 seats and the NDP has 37. Together they have 114 seats, not even close to the 143 that Tories earned. An NDP-Liberal coaliton has no where near enough seats to govern and together are not even the biggest party in the House of Commons. By itself, a Liberal-NDP coalition lacks any kind of mandate and would be given no legitimacy on its own. Therefore the media needs to find out what has been promised to a party that wants to break apart our country. An explanation is required on how a party only concerned with the interest of Quebec is good to balance the affairs of the entire nation (FYI the Western provinces would go from 58 seats in the government to 20 under this arrangement. Quebec would go from 10 seats in government to 64 with the coalition) . Finally it needs to be determined if the BQ is a formal part of this coalition or is simply onside for only one confidence vote. If they are not in the coalition formally, every confidence vote will cause drama as Conservatives would have a responsibility and obligation to bring down this undemocratic coalition at all costs and on every confidence vote.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Nov 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> isn't democratic, it is *extortion*.



Thanks Thucydides, extortion, that is the word I've been searching for for the last couple of days.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Nov 2008)

Parties can't simply run to donors with large pockets.  Chretien closed the door on organized entities (big business, big labour) when he introduced the per-vote public funding, and the Conservatives further tightened the individual limit down to $1000.  The Liberal move was understood then and now to be a political manoeuvre to undercut the Conservatives at a time when they were already divided and weak, just as the Conservative move now is understood to be a political manoeuvre to undercut the opposition parties at a time when they are short of money.

Nevertheless, the suggestion our "democracy" is endangered is a ridiculous one, and no one has bothered to explain or estimate the actual minimum funding required by a national party before it truly becomes unable to inform voters of its ideas and intentions.  While it is true that brute force volume of advertising has an influence, that is not an excuse.  I need to see parties brown-bagging at their conventions in second-rate venues before I accept they are short of funds.

No one has argued for a fixed lump sum to be awarded to place all truly viable national parties (or even non-national parties like the Bloc) on an equal basic footing, so from nearly all points of the political compass the assertions and conclusions derive from pure partisanship.

AIUI, the contentious funding cut has been dropped from a confidence-related vote, and the coalition - if it proceeds - will do so purely on the assertion that the Conservatives are not spending enough.

I think the opposition parties will find they have pooched themselves greatly if their government is short-lived and they have no time to replenish their wallets.  They would be better off nipping at the heels of a Conservative minority with another 2-3 year lifespan.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Nov 2008)

Daidalous said:
			
		

> I have been trying to find a written reference (on the internet) that clearly states the GG can award the opposition the right to govern in a coalition, and the powers a PM has over a GG. to no avail,  all I have found are people's view on who has what power.
> 
> Based on what I have read with out reading the official law on this is that the PM can sake a GG and the GG can call new elections when asked by the PM and award power to a coalition to avoid a election.     So what would stop the PM from sacking the GG and installing one more to his liking.
> 
> Thanks



That's because you won't.  The Prime Minister and the political party system are not mentioned in our written constitution - they are conventions.


----------



## Flip (29 Nov 2008)

Kirkhill - I belive you have it exactly right.
The opposition is horrified that the conservatives have their ducks in a row and actually understand the economy better than they do.  No one is pulling the fire alarm because the big red trucks have come and gone.

The last bloody thing on earth we need is hysterical partisan nonsense - who can out doom and gloom the others so that he looks like a genius.

The opposition looks to me like little kids hiding under a bed with a flashlight tellling "Stephen Harper" stories.  :


----------



## CorporalMajor (29 Nov 2008)

Everyone knows the Liberals and NDP are pretty much on their last legs with the public.  This is the only feasabile means they could get any pull in parliament.  

They couldn't do it the old fashioned, conventional way - getting people to vote for them.  So now how do they do it? Through weaseldom, and cunning means to manipulate the naive.  I'm hoping they don't fool too many people.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Nov 2008)

This is all beside the point- while Mr Harper may have been intellectually correct on the proposal to cancel the public subsidies for political parties, if this one act causes the three opposition parties to unite and gain power in a coalition- he was wrong to suggest it while in a minority situation.  I'm afraid, at that point he will have no choice but to accept all of the blame and fall on his sword, for the good of the Party.  

Frankly, I can see no way now that he can head this off- the Liberals, NDP and Bloc have discovered that they can talk to one another and what's worse- can taste power.  Dark days are coming and the brain trust of the Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves- they blew it.

By the way- Alberta and Saskatchewan should prepare themselves for a screwing not seen since 1982. NEP will be the least of their worries with the NDP rumoured to be about to gain control of Environment and Finance...


----------



## the_girlfirend (29 Nov 2008)

hihi

The Federal elections in Can, the presidential elections in the U.S. and the provincial elections in Quebec in 2 months is enough!!!!  :-X

I love elections but they are going to lose me if they keep going... Hey kids in the Parliament please get along!!!


----------



## observor 69 (29 Nov 2008)

I'm a political junkie, can't get enough of this stuff.  
Roll on the Quebec election.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2008)

There will be, starting today, a vicious Conservative campaign to discredit the Liberals and the NDP.

Just a few weeks ago the Liberals said, the Tories will remind us, that the NDP is fiscally irresponsible – now they plan to give them some key economic portfolios (which is what Layton will certainly demand). Is this the gang, the Conservatives will ask, that you want running the country when the economy is in trouble?

The “no stimulus” excuse is utter nonsense, the Tories will tell Canadians. Thanks to prudent measures taken since early 2006 the Government of Canada has the luxury of time to watch what is happening in other countries and regions, to learn from others’ experiences, to avoid mistakes and to leverage our eventual fiscal decisions. That’s just good, sound management – the sort of thing a panicky, unelected Liberal/NDP coalition will not do as they rush to pay off special interests.

The NDP is, probably, already wary; they should be. The coalition cannot last very long. Even if they have some of the key economic portfolios the cabinet will approve only measures dictated by the old St Laurent/Pearson/Turner/Martin/Ignatieff wing of the party or the newer Trudeau/Chrétien/Dion/Rae wing. Both wings will argue for policies that look an awful lot like something Stephen Harper would propose – remember, please, that the Liberals always campaign on the left and govern on the right - things that good, left wing NDP supporters will regard as anathema. The NDP’s views will be, to (maybe) paraphrase an American, “not worth a bucket of warm spit.” 

The Pearson/Trudeau, Trudeau/Turner, Turner/Chrétien, Chrétien/Martin and Ignaieff/Rae wars will rage on – to the detriment of the Liberal Party and any and all of those who join with it to govern.

Even if _Taliban Jack_ Layton is Finance Minister the NDP will be irrelevant because this is cabinet government and the PM always wins the big fights. In the process of gaining irrelevancy the NDP will have sold its soul and lost its reputation as the _conscience of parliament_. Soon, in less than a year, while the economy is still enduring dark days, any coalition will break down and the Liberals will blame the NDP for being fiscally irresponsible. The Conservatives will blame the NDP for being fiscally irresponsible and, like the Liberals, lusting after unearned power. During the consequential general election campaign the Liberals and the NDP will be made to eat the blame – all of it – for the fact that Canada will have high unemployment and a still stagnating economy.

The Liberals should also be wary. If - and it’s a really big IF - the economy does start to recover the NDP will take all the credit for it.

In fact, Stephen Harper might not be too terribly displeased to swap 24 Sussex Drive for Stornoway for a year or so – not with all the problems facing whoever is in government and not considering all the wonderful political campaign ammunition that the BQ, Liberals and NDP will give the Tories during their (very roughly) eight or nine months in power.

I’m, personally, betting that the recession is on and, notwithstanding anything and everything everyone does or fails to do, it will not be over, technically, until sometime after 1 Jul 09 – and it will not feel like it’s over even then because the US and Europe will be in recession until sometime in mid/late 2010 so our ‘recovery’ will be slow.  It’s not a good time to govern. 

Harper may wish to:

•	Amend his proposal to bring it in in two phases – a 50% now and the other hal after the next election; and

•	Start taking, loudly, about the potential size and shape of some possible stimulus packages. 

Or he may just wish to stick to is guns, let his government fall, let the Liberal/NDP coalition founder and then fail and, in late 2009, pick up the pieces.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (29 Nov 2008)

Well,  from the sound from the grits and dippers they have a working plan.  I think the opposition parties want more economic stimulus, right now,  where as the conservatives want to wait to see how little they can get away with.  

I find it funny how Harper is going in front of cameras saying "the opposition doesn't have the right to seize power like this"  Actually, according to the Constitution, they do.  In fact when Paul Martin was going to topple his government,  Stephen Harper asked the GG to do exactly what he is saying is wrong now.  


I think that the NDP and Libs have about 6-9 months of policy in common before they have inherit ideological differences that can't be worked out - even by Prime Minister Dion.    


 :warstory: He'll get the time from mid Dec to the leadership convention.  And then Bob Ray will win the leadership.    (I know I'm spelling out most Tories worst case scenario right now) 

Just think,  moving from 24 Sussex to Stornoway just in time for Christmas.  (I think is Dion has the choose he'd swap houses after Christmas,  just thinking of the children)


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (29 Nov 2008)

1)  They're sitting in the house of commons,  they were elected.

2) The NDP / Liberals are doing the same thing Stephen Harper asked/tried to do in 2004.  The only difference is that they can actually pull it off. Lets add it to the list of things Tories are allowed to do, but if someone else does it it is scandalous. :blotto:

3) Parliament has a duty to make an HONEST go of it.  The Tories know that the other three parties want substantial economic stimulus now, not "lets see what the yanks are doing so we can go el-cheepo"  By the government refusing to do what most of the MPs want,  they are simply refusing to do the will of the people and don't deserve to have the mantel of power because they are not able to get bills through.

4) The NDP's primary problem for attracting votes is the idea that  even if your riding elects an NDP member, they can't affect government.  By getting into a formal alliance, Jack Layton is showing that they can really make a big difference.  (Remember out west the NDP run second to the Tories in quite a few riding's) The NDP's only real problem with this is that they'll have to restrain party expectations.  Layton will have to come out and say "we can't do everything we want,  we wont agree with everything this government will do BUT it will be better than what Harper would have done and you will be better off for the compromises we are making."

5)  I love how the Tories, in order to keep the books our of "torches and pitchforks" level of deficit they said they'd sell government assets.  Great plan,  they didn't list which assets would be sold.  (in a down market selling assets = lower price)  

6)  You can only use an advantage the same way against your opponent for so long.  Remember predictability is death. In the last house the Tories pushed through allot of stuff the Liberals hated,  but they didn't want an election.  It cost them in a big way - and Dion learned.  Waiting until everything is perfect to engage the enemy is a luxury almost no one has.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Nov 2008)

>(in a down market selling assets = lower price) 

Does your conscience ease if you remember to call it a "fiscal stimulus"?  The whole point of fiscal stimuli is to accelerate stalled spending.

Conflating the "will of the MPs" with the "will of the people" is a mistake.  The NDP have plenty of dogma regarding recessions; the Liberals less so but still their own share.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Nov 2008)

In their protestations, the Conservatives are confusing the _technical_ right to seize power with the _moral_ right to seize power.  Everyone has ideas about what Canadians want, but I propose that the best indicator of what Canadians want is that the government elected recently is for all practical purposes structured the same as the one which preceded it.  It is a common refrain that "most Canadians voted against Harper" (apparently, few Canadians voted "for Dion" or "for Layton" etc), but that doesn't stand up well when you accept the fact that Canadians took an electoral opportunity for change and pretty much picked "status quo".


----------



## Flip (29 Nov 2008)

> Everyone has ideas about what Canadians want, but I propose that the best indicator of what Canadians want is that the government elected recently is for all practical purposes structured the same as the one which preceded it.



I don't think the liberals or NDP have ever cared about what Canadians want.
They Tell us what's good for us us and do what's best for their party. :rage:


----------



## ballz (29 Nov 2008)

I'll trust the posters that it is okay according to the constitution, but IMO a coalition government undermines democracy. It's almost like pre-schoolers getting the idea that they should rise up against their teachers.... Sure there's more of them, but there's a reason the teachers are in the position their in.

Maybe it's a silly analogy, I don't know, but I really don't think anybody can change my mind that this coalition government would be very democratic... Suppose these 3 parties had merged before the election, and ran against the Conservatives. Now that would be democratic, and guess what? I think the Conservatives would have gotten the majority if that were the scenario.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> 1)  They're sitting in the house of commons,  they were elected.



Indeed. They (the potential coalition) were elected with far fewer seats than they had before, indicating they were no longer resonating with their potential constituents


> 2) The NDP / Liberals are doing the same thing Stephen Harper asked/tried to do in 2004.  The only difference is that they can actually pull it off. Lets add it to the list of things Tories are allowed to do, but if someone else does it it is scandalous. :blotto:



Interesting how when the CPC tried to force out an openly corrupt government (remember a little thing called ADSCAM) it was bad, but  forcing out a sitting government so you can make an open tax grab is good?


> 3) Parliament has a duty to make an HONEST go of it.  The Tories know that the other three parties want substantial economic stimulus now, not "lets see what the yanks are doing so we can go el-cheepo"  By the government refusing to do what most of the MPs want,  they are simply refusing to do the will of the people and don't deserve to have the mantel of power because they are not able to get bills through.



The government has a duty to carry out the mandate they got from their electorate. The CPC rejects Keynesian "stimulus" as an economic theory (and history has proven them right many times over; the only thing Lord Keynes delivers without fail is inflation), so they are acting as responsible stewards of our tax dollars, and leaving more funds in our pockets to stimulate the economy through tax cuts. (If you were to complain about their spending habits, I am with you there). As for cooperation, we have seen how that worked in the last parliament; I see no changes in the behaviour of the opposition to suggest they are working for anything other than their own entitlements.


> 4) The NDP's primary problem for attracting votes is the idea that  even if your riding elects an NDP member, they can't affect government.  By getting into a formal alliance, Jack Layton is showing that they can really make a big difference.  (Remember out west the NDP run second to the Tories in quite a few riding's) The NDP's only real problem with this is that they'll have to restrain party expectations.  Layton will have to come out and say "we can't do everything we want,  we wont agree with everything this government will do BUT it will be better than what Harper would have done and you will be better off for the compromises we are making."



I'd wait and see on that. The true believers in the US are howling at the moon now that the Obama Administration is appearing to be a repeat of the Clinton Administration after all (and retaining the foreign policy and tax policy of George W Bush to boot!). Expect the same from Canada's true believers. Anyway, as was pointed out, Prime Minister (presumptive) Dion or Ignatieff can easily overrule anything Finance Minister (presumptive) Layton proposes. The coalition will self destruct on that aspect alone.


> 5)  I love how the Tories, in order to keep the books our of "torches and pitchforks" level of deficit they said they'd sell government assets.  Great plan,  they didn't list which assets would be sold.  (in a down market selling assets = lower price)



Selling assets will probably never raise the cash expected since governments tend to overvalue their assets (since they probably paid far too much in the first place). Look at your local community; I'll bet that the true market value of their stadiums, performing arts centers and convention centers is way below what they say their worth (and the annual taxpayer subsidies to keep them running should be proof enough). Personally, I would prefer cutting subsidies, since that is a minimum $19 billion spending cut and profitable, well managed companies will come out ahead.


> 6)  You can only use an advantage the same way against your opponent for so long.  Remember predictability is death. In the last house the Tories pushed through allot of stuff the Liberals hated,  but they didn't want an election.  It cost them in a big way - and Dion learned.  Waiting until everything is perfect to engage the enemy is a luxury almost no one has.



The Liberals have predictably grabbed at the productivity and wealth of Canadians for a generation, and it still doesn't seem to have hurt them; many voters will continue to vote for Christmas trees if they were announced as a Liberal candidate in Toronto or Vancouver. Oh, that wasn't what you meant?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (30 Nov 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Indeed. They (the potential coalition) were elected with far fewer seats than they had before, indicating they were no longer resonating with their potential constituents


With respect,  there was an assertion that this would be an unelected government.  I wanted to point out that the MPs were in fact elected.  The constitution and historical presidents allow them to do this.  Inferences as to the meaning behind why they returned with fewer seats (and there are many to be drawn) is an aside.  



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting how when the CPC tried to force out an openly corrupt government (remember a little thing called ADSCAM) it was bad, but forcing out a sitting government so you can make an open tax grab is good?



I was pointing out how Stephen Harper is complaining that the very technique he tried to use in the past is unfair.  Just like how he claimed it was unfair for a sitting government to call an election just to catch the opposition off guard,  in fact he made a law to stop that.  (Well a really pointless law as the first paragraph in it basically says that things are exactly the same) 



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The government has a duty to carry out the mandate they got from their electorate. The CPC rejects Keynesian "stimulus" as an economic theory (and history has proven them right many times over; the only thing Lord Keynes delivers without fail is inflation), so they are acting as responsible stewards of our tax dollars, and leaving more funds in our pockets to stimulate the economy through tax cuts. (If you were to complain about their spending habits, I am with you there). As for cooperation, we have seen how that worked in the last parliament; I see no changes in the behaviour of the opposition to suggest they are working for anything other than their own entitlements.



The NDP Liberals and Bloc have a responsibility to push the ajenda their voters sent them with.  So if that means 9 months of playing friendly with the NDP,  so be it.  Better that then trying to recover from what the conservatives want (or in this case not) to do.

But Just so we're on the same page.  
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a5Y2SnQXs_OA&refer=canada


> Canada's Harper Says He'll Provide Economic Stimulus (Update2)
> Email | Print | A A A
> 
> By Theophilos Argitis and Greg Quinn
> ...




http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2888/


> Our Government will announce an infrastructure program, the Building Canada Plan, to support our long-term growth. By investing in our transport and trade hubs, including the Windsor–Detroit corridor and the Atlantic and Pacific gateways, our Government will help rebuild our fundamentals for continued growth



The conservatives promised more on the campain trail,  in interviews and in the throne speech.  If they can't be bothered to follow through on their own throne speech,  what will they do?




			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'd wait and see on that. The true believers in the US are howling at the moon now that the Obama Administration is appearing to be a repeat of the Clinton Administration after all (and retaining the foreign policy and tax policy of George W Bush to boot!). Expect the same from Canada's true believers. Anyway, as was pointed out, Prime Minister (presumptive) Dion or Ignatieff can easily overrule anything Finance Minister (presumptive) Layton proposes. The coalition will self destruct on that aspect alone.


To respond to the subtle dig: Clinton's Administration  http://readythinkvote.com/images/deficit_chart.gif    http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/WindowsLiveWriter/FiscalConservative_14458/greenberg21_2.jpg
You'll see a similar thing with the Liberals and the Conservatives in Canada.  

I think you're right,  the coalition will implode and fast.  I think they'll have 6-9 Months at most,  better than a January election. 


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Selling assets will probably never raise the cash expected since governments tend to overvalue their assets (since they probably paid far too much in the first place). Look at your local community; I'll bet that the true market value of their stadiums, performing arts centers and convention centers is way below what they say their worth (and the annual taxpayer subsidies to keep them running should be proof enough). Personally, I would prefer cutting subsidies, since that is a minimum $19 billion spending cut and profitable, well managed companies will come out ahead.



Good old book value vs market value.  And would one of those cuts be to the Automotive Innovation Fund? (the Conservative pre-election we'll give you money vote for us ploy  http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1004/102798 )



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Liberals have predictably grabbed at the productivity and wealth of Canadians for a generation, and it still doesn't seem to have hurt them; many voters will continue to vote for Christmas trees if they were announced as a Liberal candidate in Toronto or Vancouver. Oh, that wasn't what you meant?



As opposed to the fence posts vote for in Alberta?   *cough* Dreeshen *cough*  *cough*


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Nov 2008)

I'm not sure a coalition is possible in the first place. Any attempt to form the government would require the participation of the Bloc, which suggests that:

a) the Bloc will not act in their own self interest (which they never fail to do); and

b) they can trust the most hated Liberal in Quebec (Dion wrote the Clarity Act).

Personally, I don't see either condition being met.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I was pointing out how Stephen Harper is complaining that the very technique he tried to use in the past is unfair.  Just like how he claimed it was unfair for a sitting government to call an election just to catch the opposition off guard,  in fact he made a law to stop that.  (Well a really pointless law as the first paragraph in it basically says that things are exactly the same)



Most of the other points have already been disposed of, but there are some very profound differences here.

1. When the opposition parties wrote Her Excellency in 2004, they actually stated that should the government fall on a confidence vote, the GG should ensure she looks at all her options. There was no suggestion that the GG simply end Paul Martin's mandate and install Stephen Harper as PM. The more obvious difference is the CPC was an actual party with a shadow cabinet ("Government in waiting") while this presumptive coalition has no shadow cabinet, policy, plan (except continue extorting tax dollars to their supporters and themselves) or any reason to suggest that the current GG should give them any consideration whatsoever. Her Excellency would be well justified to tell them to pound salt (with or without diplomatic phrasology!)

2. Stephan Dion, as leader of the opposition, boasted on more than one occasion that he would make the government fall over a proposed piece of legislation, then had his members abstain or be absent at the moment of truth. (Someone can supply the actual number of times). He went into the fall session with the same tough talk, but was obviously unprepared to do business. Short answer, the opposition was making House business unsustainable, and the private meetings Prime Minister Harper held with Mr Layton, Duceppe and Dion convinced the Prime Minister that there would only be a gong show for the fall session as well. If the opposition was threatening to force an election, the PM accommodated them.


----------



## Rodahn (30 Nov 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Most of the other points have already been disposed of, but there are some very profound differences here.
> 
> 1. When the opposition parties wrote Her Excellency in 2004, they actually stated that should the government fall on a confidence vote, the GG should ensure she looks at all her options. There was no suggestion that the GG simply end Paul Martin's mandate and install Stephen Harper as PM. The more obvious difference is the CPC was an actual party with a shadow cabinet ("Government in waiting") while this presumptive coalition has no shadow cabinet, policy, plan (except continue extorting tax dollars to their supporters and themselves) or any reason to suggest that the current GG should give them any consideration whatsoever. Her Excellency would be well justified to tell them to pound salt (with or without diplomatic phrasology!)
> 
> 2. Stephan Dion, as leader of the opposition, boasted on more than one occasion that he would make the government fall over a proposed piece of legislation, then had his members abstain or be absent at the moment of truth. (Someone can supply the actual number of times). He went into the fall session with the same tough talk, but was obviously unprepared to do business. Short answer, the opposition was making House business unsustainable, and the private meetings Prime Minister Harper held with Mr Layton, Duceppe and Dion convinced the Prime Minister that there would only be a gong show for the fall session as well. If the opposition was threatening to force an election, the PM accommodated them.



To a certain extent I agree, however Messr's Harper & Flaherty are continuing on with their bullyboy ways. So much for the increased civility promised by the PM prior to Parliament sitting (which is what really irks me). 

Further what Mr. Flaherty presented in his budget update, is the opposite of what the PM promised during the G20 summit.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2008)

The G20 summit revealed some fairly petulant behaviour on the part of other countries and prominent economists.  The target seems to be to inject 2% of GDP worth of "stimulus", a goal which Canada in theory has already achieved in its recent federal budgets if the articles I have been reading the last few days are accurate.  But the other nations, and some economists, are denying that pre-emptive measures should count equally with reactive measures.  Our reward for having one of the most stable economies in the G20 - and being one of the few, if not the only, to have a federal operating surplus - is to have more demanded of us.  Canada has been applying fiscal stimuli for the better part of a decade.  I postulate that Canada's fiscal management and regulatory climate contributed very little to the current crisis, that Canada's federal governments have already applied more fiscal stimuli than the G20 asked for or that most G20 governments are ready to pony up, and that Canada is not duty bound to risk whipsawing its economy in order to punch above its weight.  We should not allow ourselves to be bullied into additional, premature action.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2008)

I suspect part, if not all, of the opposition's sudden resolve to go ahead with a non-confidence motion and to form a coalition government stems from what White House CoS Rahm Emmanuel was quoted as saying.  From the NY Times:

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”

It was a matter of open discussion among Democrats and Democrat supporters for at least a couple of weeks prior to our governmental crisis, that an economic crisis is an opportunity to ram through social, political, and economic change.  The Republicans have long been accused of ramming through police state legislation under the pretext of a security crisis; this is basically the same idea except the intention has been openly admitted before the act.

If a Liberal/NDP coalition government gains the confidence of the House, it will be easy to observe the resulting legislative agenda to determine whether fiscal stimuli or social/political engineering is the priority


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Nov 2008)

Let's for a moment consider the situation if the government is defeated on 8 December. The next morning PM Harper calls on the Governor General and shortly thereafter M. Dion is summoned to Rideau Hall. He tells Her Excellency that he can form and lead a minority government made up a coalition of Liberals and New Democrats and supported by the Bloc. She then invites him to form a government and the transition begins.

The interesting part to me is how does this work? Based on numbers the ratio of Liberals to New Democrats is roughly 2:1. Thus any cabinet presumably should be structured on the same basis, with due consideration to region and all the rest of it. Does Dion tell Layton you can have Transport, Environment, Defence, etc, etc or does he ask the NDP leader to submit his selections for cabinet and parliamentry secretaries? In either case, the cabinet will have a strong progressive bent to it. However cabinets do not decide by reaching consensus. Decisions are reached by voting and the majority rules. Thus the NDP members of our prospective cabinet could find themselves outvoted on matters about which they care strongly, and just as bad from their point of view, on policies that are anethema to them. How long would an arrangement like this survive? 

Interesting times, methinks.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Nov 2008)

I really can not believe that two parties who have called themselves federalists since their inceptions are now not just looking to the separatists to help them gain the government they did not win, but to prop them up for favours to Quebec to the detriment of the country.

The language filters and G rated nature of this board preclude me from expressing the utter rage I feel against Layton and Dion, the NDP and Liberals. This is nothing less than political treason against everything those two parties have claimed to stand for (on the Liberal side since Confederation).


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2008)

I suspect the details of who gets what will be worked out in the next 7 days, or the whole thing does not fly.  They will at least have a plan to get up and running without improvising from the get-go.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Nov 2008)

Without full participation, "support" by the Bloc means very little. What compromises are the other two parties prepared to make for the Bloc's support? After all, their not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Nov 2008)

With the Conservatives having more MP's than the IlLiberals or the NDP put together doesn't any coalition have to have the explicit participation of the Bloc and not just implicit agreement from them?


----------



## Flip (30 Nov 2008)

Well well.....lookie here.



> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> The New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois held talks to form a coalition party well before the opposition's uproar over the government's fiscal update, CTV News has learned.



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081130/conservative_budget_081130/20081130?hub=TopStories

Turns out the NDP and the block have been cooking this up for a while.
Their timing is exquisite. How else can you end capitalism but by seizing power when the makets are , er.....correcting!


----------



## George Wallace (30 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> With the Conservatives having more MP's than the IlLiberals or the NDP put together doesn't any coalition have to have the explicit participation of the Bloc and not just implicit agreement from them?



I would think so.  Without it, we would have even less than a "Minority Government" and be setting ourselves up for yet another election.


----------



## Flip (30 Nov 2008)

The question that bothers me most is,

If the electorate punish candidates by not voting or voting for change, what is the likely outcome?  Isn't likely that the conservatives and liberals take it on the chin for this instead of those who so richly deserve it? (NDP and Bloc).

The other fear is that a shift to the left at this time in particular will not be economic good news. Particularly in Alberta where we might get the green shaft after all.

I have to confess - I'm a little upset.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2008)

It looks like some of the details will not need to be worked out, as they have been worked out already, including the Bloc's role.


----------



## Rodahn (30 Nov 2008)

This just keeps getting interestinger and interestinger by the minute....


http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n113049A.xml


----------



## McG (30 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Well MCG the majority certainly did not vote for Stephie DeYawn, and they certainly did not vote for Iggy Liberal King in waiting who could not even run for the top job during the election.


Are you attempting to hide flaws in your logic by attacking arguments that I have not made?  I never suggested that the majority voted for those two parties.  You, however, did presented us with the notion that there would be some mass out-cry from Canadian's if the GG were to invite a coalition to form the government.  You stated that Canadians would take offense to having their votes "overturned."

That is logic is ludicrous in light of the fact that the majority of Canadians did not vote Conservative.  A minority of Canadians certainly could feel slighted, but nothing to the extent that would see the GG position destroyed.  I suspect that most Canadians would be pleased or at least content with any solution that avoids a second election in less than a year.  I am off the opinion that your assumption is wrong.  Attacking arguments that I have not made does not change your wrongness.

... but, if you do want to get into who the majority of Canadians did vote for, you will find that a Coalition government would represent greater than 50% of the voter turnout.  It is true that the Conservatives did have a plurality of the popular vote.  However, between the Liberals, NDP and Block (and we've already covered that a coalition would require all three) a coalition would represent 54.4% of Canadians.  Odds are, nearly all of this 54.4 % would be happy with the GG inviting a coalition to take the reins.

In the end, I also suspect that the average Canadian will recognize that this trend in Canadian polotics is the making and responsibility of politicians on both sides of the floor.


----------



## McG (30 Nov 2008)

Here is for the fact checkers:  http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx


----------



## Rodahn (30 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> This is nothing less than political treason against everything those two parties have claimed to stand for (on the Liberal side since Confederation).



Does this also hold true if, as reported, it comes to light that the CPC did the same thing during Martins tenure?


----------



## Love793 (30 Nov 2008)

Why is everyone speculating that the GG will even ask the Loyal Opposition to form a Gov't? She may see right through this and just disolve Parliment, forcing us to the polls again.  Of course the Liberals would be against this, and the NDP would be caught completely by surpise.  I say let them try and bring about a vote of non confidence.


----------



## Redeye (30 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> The language filters and G rated nature of this board preclude me from expressing the utter rage I feel against Layton and Dion, the NDP and Liberals. This is nothing less than political treason against everything those two parties have claimed to stand for (on the Liberal side since Confederation).



I don't like the situation any more than you do, but there's not an ounce of treason in anything they're doing.


----------



## Jed (30 Nov 2008)

Zip I am in lock step with you wrt Stephen Dion and Jack Layton. Ciivility keeps me from truly expressing my opinion on the motives of these individuals at the ulitimate cost to the country. If anyone truly feels a coalition led government is a serious option then they are truly blinded by their left wing philosopy and / or the dislike of Stephen Harper. Frankly, the only non conservative seats west of Thunder Bay are in big cities. If the eastern half of this country and the big urban centres think that this is going to be the answer then Canada better get ready for a truly strong Western Canada separtist movement, one that will rival the Bloq in Quebec. Give me a break. A coalition with Taliban Jack, a leaderless liberal party and self professed traitors to the country? Let's get serious here.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2008)

We need to think about how we the people should react to this coup. Since this is a grab for taxes and power, we should be prepared to resist in any way possible, including a tax strike (a la John Galt) and various forms of active and passive resistance.

As well, overwhelming the MSM through letters, bogs, posting on their sites, call in radio will push the message through that this is not about the economy but only about grabbing for entitlements from our pockets.

Finally, we can take action directly against the Liberal Party for their part in these events, do everything possible to cause them to spend money, call for the return of the stolen $20 million in ADSCAM money and find out which banks loaned the LPC money for their operating expenses; find out and tell these banks you will withdraw your savings and refuse to do business with them.

Take action now.

Freedom is a self help project.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2008)

With respect to the federalist / nationalist credentials of Jack and Gilles I would point out that both of them are probably quite familiar with the lyrics of the Internationale. 



> .....
> 
> Duceppe studied political science at the Université de Montréal yet did not complete his program of study. While attending Université de Montréal, he became the general manager of the school's newspaper, Quartier Libre. In his youth, he advocated communism, and held membership in the Worker's Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). Duceppe later claimed that his three-year membership in the W.C.P. (M.L.) was a mistake brought on by a search for absolute answers [4]. However, during this period - which lasted well into his thirties - he subscribed to militant Maoist ideology and was fired from his job as a hospital orderly for belligerent activities [5]. *Duceppe even went so far as to intentionally spoil his 1980 sovereignty-association referendum ballot arguing that Quebecois should instead focus their efforts on staying united to fight their common capitalist enemy*[6]. ....



Source


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (1 Dec 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would think so. Without it, we would have even less than a "Minority Government" and be setting ourselves up for yet another election.


We aren't setting ourselves up for anything.  The Tories don't want a stimulus package,  the other three do.  The GG has a choice,  let the Libs/NDP try to run things for a while or allow an election now.  Elections in 6 months sounds better to me than a January vote.

Although,  I do find it funny,  our election was called after Sarah Palin was announced as VP,  we had out voting day before theirs,  It would be funny to have another full election before Obama takes the Oath of office.  :-D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (1 Dec 2008)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/546198


> NDP eyes legal action after Tories tape meeting
> TheStar.com - Canada - NDP eyes legal action after Tories tape meeting
> 
> November 30, 2008
> ...



So the NDP and the Bloc agreed that if the Tories started pulling what they did last election they would approach the Liberals and assure them they can stand up to the Tories - no secret there.  I love how the Tories are all upset that the opposition is using the Bloc to support their proposed government...... just like the Tories did.  (is this another thing to add to the list of things Tories can do/try to do but others can't?)

I know emotions are running high,  we have people secretly taping phone calls and intense power struggles between conflicting ideologies in a troubled and uncertain economy.  I think it is time for a limerick.


Jack and Gilles went up the hill
to take over the house of commons
Jack was proud, to know that now
the economy would be well looked after.

I know it wasn't that good,  I look forward to seeing others be far more creative.


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Dec 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Are you attempting to hide flaws in your logic by attacking arguments that I have not made?  I never suggested that the majority voted for those two parties.  You, however, did presented us with the notion that there would be some mass out-cry from Canadian's if the GG were to invite a coalition to form the government.  You stated that Canadians would take offense to having their votes "overturned."
> 
> That is logic is ludicrous in light of the fact that the majority of Canadians did not vote Conservative.  A minority of Canadians certainly could feel slighted, but nothing to the extent that would see the GG position destroyed.  I suspect that most Canadians would be pleased or at least content with any solution that avoids a second election in less than a year.  I am off the opinion that your assumption is wrong.  Attacking arguments that I have not made does not change your wrongness.
> 
> ...



Not a single Canadian voted for a coalition of Liberals, Socialists and Separatists.


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Does this also hold true if, as reported, it comes to light that the CPC did the same thing during Martins tenure?



If this is true I would argue that there is a huge difference between a coalition cobbled together in the face of what appeared at that time to be a case of blatant fraud and Mafia style corruption and one we are now hearing was designed to overturn a legally elected minority parliament even before the speech from the throne had been given.



> So the NDP and the Bloc agreed that if the Tories started pulling what they did last election they would approach the Liberals and assure them they can stand up to the Tories - no secret there.  I love how the Tories are all upset that the opposition is using the Bloc to support their proposed government...... just like the Tories did.  (is this another thing to add to the list of things Tories can do/try to do but others can't?)



An election is held to give parliament a fresh start, and the fact that the Conservatives achieved a significantly higher number of seats in Parliament the second time round indicates that MORE Canadians were on side with what they were doing not less.  It's not up to Jack and Gilles to plot the overthrow of the government that the plurality of Canadians decided was in their best interests before parliament even starts.  The fact that Dion was in on this is just another indicator of how low the Liberals have slunk and another indication of Dion's poor judgment (note that Iggy is keeping clear of this train wreck).


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> If this is true I would argue that there is a huge difference between a coalition cobbled together in the face of what appeared at that time to be a case of blatant fraud and Mafia style corruption and one we are now hearing was designed to overturn a legally elected minority parliament even before the speech from the throne had been given.



I would argue that there is not a huge difference, the Martin government was also legally elected. As you aptly pointed out the leader of the opposition at the time was in talks with "socialists and separatists" to overthrow the duly elected government, and form a coalition government. Wherein lies the difference?

While I will grant that there was Adscam, that occurred under the leadership of the previous PM.

I suppose that you do not find the following disturbing?

"A spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office said there was nothing unethical about covertly listening in to the private NDP deliberations, taping those discussions and releasing them to the media."

How about possibly illegal?


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> I would argue that there is not a huge difference, the Martin government was also legally elected. As you aptly pointed out the leader of the opposition at the time was in talks with "socialists and separatists" to overthrow the duly elected government, and form a coalition government. Wherein lies the difference?
> 
> While I will grant that there was Adscam, that occurred under the leadership of the previous PM.



I disagree, obviously.



> I suppose that you do not find the following disturbing?
> 
> "A spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office said there was nothing unethical about covertly listening in to the private NDP deliberations, taping those discussions and releasing them to the media."
> 
> How about possibly illegal?



No I don't.  I am too busy concentrating on the tone and intent of that tape to care about the actions of a nobody Conservative staffer.  I think you will find a lot of people like that.

As for the legality of it, I'm no lawyer but if the guy received an invite to attend this teleconference and he listened in sure that's pretty sketchy, because he knew it was the enemies phone line, *but* he was invited and the law is going to have a hard time pressing that the listening was illegal.  

As for taping it I dare say that if this guys lawyer can prove that he wasn't the only one who did record it, and that everyone knew the conversation would be taped (which I would think would be standard practice for a caucus meeting like this) again the opposition lawyers will have a tough time making it illegal for one invited participant and having it be legal for another.

All of this aside... the information is already known, it's too late for Jack and Gilles to put the genie back in the bottle.  Western Canada is becoming more and more angry as this thing progresses and this information, that the Conservatives were never going to be allowed to function as a government is one hell of a straw.


----------



## observor 69 (1 Dec 2008)

Can you say Dawn Black Defence Minister.  >


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Western Canada is becoming more and more angry as this thing progresses and this information, that the Conservatives were never going to be allowed to function as a government is one hell of a straw.


I can see why you and the others are royally pissed here, but calling this a coup?


> a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force


Sudden?  Yes.  
Decisive?  Far from it.  
Illegal?  No.  
By force?  No.



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> Not a single Canadian voted for a coalition of Liberals, Socialists and Separatists.


Of course not - that wasn't an option on the ballot I filled out, and I'm guessing it wasn't elsewhere.  Did you see anywhere on the ballot us voting for another election so soon after this last one?



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> ....the fact that the Conservatives achieved *a significantly higher number of seats in Parliament* the second time round indicates that MORE Canadians were on side with what they were doing not less.  It's not up to Jack and Gilles to plot the overthrow of the government that *the plurality of Canadians decided* was in their best interests before parliament even starts....


If you're talking SEATS, voters wanted more Conservatives.  If you're talking PLURALITY of votes, not only do Canadians want the Conservatives less than last time (5.205M votes now vs. 5.374M votes last time), MORE voted against the Conservatives for across-Canada parties this time than last (6.147M now vs. 6.068M last election).  Stats attached to show I'm not pulling these figures outta someplace dark & nasty.  

If the GG can constitutionally do this, I'd rather the Bad News Bears give it a go than spend another $200M+ on another election so soon.  That said, any real coalition holding together would have to be based on the Bloc putting down the separatism gun to our heads - I believe they're left-of-centre enough in social policies to find at least _some_ mutual operating space with Jack and Gilles.  

How likely is the Bloc to drop separatism from their radar, though, and how long would all three of these parties agree to play nice together?  Given this idea, for example


			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Can you say Dawn Black Defence Minister.  >


I can't see how differences in OTHER policy areas would allow such a coalition-of-the-unexpected to stick together in even the medium term.



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> As for the legality of it, I'm no lawyer but if the guy received an invite to attend this teleconference and he listened in sure that's pretty sketchy, because he knew it was the enemies phone line, *but* he was invited and the law is going to have a hard time pressing that the listening was illegal.


Bang on - if you're invited, it's not illegal to listen in....



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> As for taping it I dare say that if this guys lawyer can prove that he wasn't the only one who did record it, and that everyone knew the conversation would be taped (which I would think would be standard practice for a caucus meeting like this) again the opposition lawyers will have a tough time making it illegal for one invited participant and having it be legal for another.


...but this I'm not so sure on.  I'M NOT A LAWYER EITHER, but the last time I read up on this, it's legal in Canada to record a phone conversation as long as at least one of the participants knows it's being recorded.  I know that applies to citizens, and I also know if the Government of Canada records phone calls in dealing with clients, they have to advise the caller that they could be taped and why.   All that said, don't how these apply:
1)  in the more political realms of the Government; and
2)  when there's more than one person on the other end of the phone.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2008)

Ahhh....nothing like a Constitutional Crisis for Christmas...and a war and a major recession to boot!  May you live in interesting times indeed!

At least the Americans have decisiveness in their divisiveness.  The antiquated nature of our creaking system, not intended for what it's used for, is being revealed as we speak.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ahhh....nothing like a Constitutional Crisis for Christmas...and a war and a major recession to boot!  May you live in interesting times indeed!
> 
> At least the Americans have decisiveness in their divisiveness.  The antiquated nature of our creaking system, not intended for what it's used for, is being revealed as we speak.



Somebody suggested stocking up on Beans and Bullion in times like these.  I am now encouraged to add Beer to the list.

Only with alcohol can I truly appreciate the entertainment value of this gong show.

I have now truly reached the DILLIGAS stage of enlightenment.


----------



## helpup (1 Dec 2008)

Well said for living in interesting times.  So we have the prospect of a Coalition being born in Canada. And it couldn't of come at a worse time.  I am of the opinion that if it does happen it will be very entertaining on one level and embarrassing on another.  Then with all the goodies and money thrown out everywhere by a LIBLOCNDP  Govt I cant wait to see how much we are going to increase our Deficit.  The only good thing to come out of it will be the much needed infrastructure upgraded through out the country.  Any takers on if it will even go where needed?  So for as long as the Coalition lasts ( if it happens) I can forsee the next election burying the Liberal/NDP and maybe finally the BLOC.  

I still think that Harper didn't need to be so belligerent with the start of this Govt, but the wait and see attitude and the no worry line.... Well I didn't mind that at all.  Why should we go running around saying the sky is falling and make plans before we even know what the elephant next door is going to do.  Waiting to see the plan they come up with and to make ours compliment it sounds like the best approach to me.


----------



## JackD (1 Dec 2008)

Well, two cents or zloties from Poland where i reside, this country (Poland) does not have first-passed-the-post style elections, hence, coalition governments, almost every two months it seems a new one - nothing gets done, no stability, the politicos are basically a bunch of braying jackasses - fat cats who look no farther than their own bank accounts... coming to Canada now?


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Dec 2008)

To me, I think it is simply the dirtiest grab for power from the left. They are desperate and will do anything.

It is times like this (actually I kind of always did) prefer the american fixed term concept.


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

What scares the bejeesus out of me in this statement;

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office said there was *nothing unethical about covertly listening in to the private * NDP deliberations, taping those discussions and releasing them to the media."

is the portion that is in bold. While the spokesman may not have had explicit approval from the PM for the statement, being from the PMO's office would denote implicit approval. If this is the case, what is to prevent the mindset from doing so to any private conversation? I state private due to the wording of covert in this instance.



Edited for spelling.


----------



## Gazoo (1 Dec 2008)

What the conservatives have done is brilliant(I'm not saying I support it).  They put forward an 'economic update' with part of it being eliminating the political party funding formula.  The media reported that the opposition parties intended to vote against the 'update', not because of the political party funding issue, but because of the lack of an economic stimulus package.  Since(according to media reports) the political party funding issue has been pulled from the update the opposition parties now have no choice but to continue to push forward with their coalition government talks.  If they backed down now they would be exposed as hypocrites by proving the real reason for this plan is to not lose their funding.
If I remember right the projected savings for eliminating the party funding was 30 million?  I'm pretty sure that the last federal election cost us more than that, and so will the next one.


----------



## Remius (1 Dec 2008)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> To me, I think it is simply the dirtiest grab for power from the left. They are desperate and will do anything.
> 
> It is times like this (actually I kind of always did) prefer the american fixed term concept.



Yeah, we sort of had that but then the Conservatives went and called an election against the very rule they brought in...


----------



## helpup (1 Dec 2008)

It is to the point that you dont vote for who you like but who you dislike the least.  I voted and like the conservatives but they have pulled some stunts that did not sit well with me.  I think most Canadians just want to face the day with grown ups working on the Hill.


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Dec 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I can see why you and the others are royally pissed here, but calling this a coup?
> Sudden?  Yes.
> Decisive?  Far from it.
> Illegal?  No.
> By force?  No.



Guilty of excessive hyperbole as charged 



> Of course not - that wasn't an option on the ballot I filled out, and I'm guessing it wasn't elsewhere.  Did you see anywhere on the ballot us voting for another election so soon after this last one?



Apples and oranges.  We never vote for the next election but we do vote for the party/person/ideals that we wish to see in power/in charge/inacted.



> If you're talking SEATS, voters wanted more Conservatives.  If you're talking PLURALITY of votes, not only do Canadians want the Conservatives less than last time (5.205M votes now vs. 5.374M votes last time), MORE voted against the Conservatives for across-Canada parties this time than last (6.147M now vs. 6.068M last election).  Stats attached to show I'm not pulling these figures outta someplace dark & nasty.


  

You are correct, though I always consider Seats as separate from voter share, after all the Liberals won majorities with only 38% of the vote.



> If the GG can constitutionally do this, I'd rather the Bad News Bears give it a go than spend another $200M+ on another election so soon.  That said, any real coalition holding together would have to be based on the Bloc putting down the separatism gun to our heads - I believe they're left-of-centre enough in social policies to find at least _some_ mutual operating space with Jack and Gilles.
> 
> How likely is the Bloc to drop separatism from their radar, though, and how long would all three of these parties agree to play nice together?  Given this idea, for exampleI can't see how differences in OTHER policy areas would allow such a coalition-of-the-unexpected to stick together in even the medium term.



I'd rather we spend 300 million on a vote in which the people of the country determine who gets to lead rather than have an unelected royal babysitter, two political has beens, a lame duck leader, a socialist and a $%# separatist decide it for us.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Guilty of excessive hyperbole as charged


I wasn't trying to single you out specifically, since I saw several other uses of the word, so you're certainly not alone.



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges.  We never vote for the next election but we do vote for the party/person/ideals that we wish to see in power/in charge/inacted.


We vote who we want NOW, not who we MAY want?  Fair enough...
  


			
				Zip said:
			
		

> You are correct, though I always consider Seats as separate from voter share, after all the Liberals won majorities with only 38% of the vote.


Ah, the fun of how we elect governments, eh?



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> I'd rather we spend 300 million on a vote in which the people of the country determine who gets to lead rather than have an unelected royal babysitter, two political has beens, a lame duck leader, a socialist and a $%# separatist decide it for us.


I'm not a republican, so I'm OK with the GG being there, but you sure make a good case for any coalition being FAR less than ideal.  I'd rather see them give it a go than spend all that election $ - besides, wouldn't THEY look knobby during any subsequent election, with the Conservatives saying, "hey, you saw how THEY did it, which do you prefer now?"


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Dec 2008)

Gazoo said:
			
		

> What the conservatives have done is brilliant(I'm not saying I support it).  They put forward an 'economic update' with part of it being eliminating the political party funding formula.  The media reported that the opposition parties intended to vote against the 'update', not because of the political party funding issue, but because of the lack of an economic stimulus package.  Since(according to media reports) the political party funding issue has been pulled from the update the opposition parties now have no choice but to continue to push forward with their coalition government talks.  If they backed down now they would be exposed as hypocrites by proving the real reason for this plan is to not lose their funding.
> If I remember right the projected savings for eliminating the party funding was 30 million?  I'm pretty sure that the last federal election cost us more than that, and so will the next one.



I am with ya there... Historically speaking, how did governments fair in the next election after a recession? During this period, any government would have to make very unpopular policy decisions, or do incredibily stupid things which would prolong our collective pain. A coalition takes power, when the recession ends, the CPC sits back and says "I told ya so..." rides to an easy majority win.

Dirty politics. I am trying not to read into it too much. As long as whoever is in, does not change the price of beer (or decide to budget cut me out of work) I will be content with whoever.

Would be really nice tho, if watching CPAC I was no longer confused as to whether I was watching elected officials or a bunch of drunks in a very bad poky chest arguement.

EDIT TO FIX SPELLING


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Dec 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm not a republican, so I'm OK with the GG being there, but you sure make a good case for any coalition being FAR less than ideal.



I am very quickly becoming one.  It's a shock to see just how easy it is for all of our votes to become meaningless and (I would argue) our democratic process and rights to go along with them.
  


> I'd rather see them give it a go than spend all that election $ - besides, wouldn't THEY look knobby during any subsequent election, with the Conservatives saying, "hey, you saw how THEY did it, which do you prefer now?"



I'm being shown just what the other two "federalist" (and from now on I will not use that term to describe the Libs and NDP) parties are made of right now, I don't need to see how bad they are going to cock it up.  

The Conservatives proposed more long term stimulus of the economy (on top of what they have done i.e. reduced taxes, reduced corporate taxes), they implied that there might be money for the auto sector, depending on the answer they get from the big three after telling them (prudently and rightly) to come back with a plan and not just their hands out ready to reach into our proverbial wallets.

The plurality of Canadians elected the Conservatives, thereby electing for conservative fiscal policy, which has always included a certain portion of non-intervention (not anywhere near laissez faire though in spite of Dion's assertions).  The fact that the Libs and NDP don't like it is a given.  They wouldn't like anything the conservatives had proposed.  It wouldn't be "enough" it would "ignore workers and their families to benefit the big business" it would "have nothing for Quebec" yadda, yadda, yadda...  But going at the problem from a different ideological point of view is exactly what Canadians voted for. 

There has been an incremental change in Canadian politics and how Candians have been voting since the rise of the CPC, we seem to be realizing that big programs sponsored by big government ideals tend to mean less service, poor results and even bigger governments.


----------



## helpup (1 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> .
> 
> I'm being shown just what the other two "federalist" (and from now on I will not use that term to describe the Libs and NDP) parties are made of right now, I don't need to see how bad they are going to **** it up.



Hey good point just what are we going to call this coalition party.  the LIBLEFTies? SeparLefties, the IDONTLIKESHFORPMSOMAKEOUROWNPARTY, the Green Collage, the Green blob, the Spend and Me Party?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> Well said for living in interesting times.  So we have the prospect of a Coalition being born in Canada. And it couldn't of come at a worse time.  I am of the opinion that if it does happen it will be very entertaining on one level and embarrassing on another.  Then with all the goodies and money thrown out everywhere by a LIBLOCNDP  Govt I cant wait to see how much we are going to increase our Deficit.  *The only good thing to come out of it will be the much needed infrastructure upgraded through out the country.*  Any takers on if it will even go where needed?  So for as long as the Coalition lasts ( if it happens) I can forsee the next election burying the Liberal/NDP and maybe finally the BLOC.



I was working in Kingston recently, and their city council tried to get $8 million in federal "infrastructure" money for their vast and uneconomic multi-use downtown arena. London Ontario receives *121% more from the federal and provincial governments than the average of 30 similar Canadian cities*, yet refuses to actually spend that money on infrastructure (they budget @ $8 million/year vs the @ $30 million /year actually needed). A large "Stimulus" package will only trigger inflation and devalue any accumulated savings and wealth you might have (compounding the global financial crisis to boot, which is caused by a vast imbalance between wealth and accumulated debt.)

It looks like a multi prong counterattack against inept and "progressive" city councils, Provincial governments and programs wherever they exist and national level "Progressive" parties is needed to end the madness.


----------



## Paul W... (1 Dec 2008)

The liberals,the marxists and the seperatists have no moral right to govern.

During the election only 32% of people said they wanted a coalition government,and I would now suspect with the bloc holding this coup together that that number will be lower.


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

Paul W... said:
			
		

> The liberals,the marxists and the seperatists have no moral right to govern.
> 
> During the election only 32% of people said they wanted a coalition government,and I would now suspect with the bloc holding this coup together that that number will be lower.



Where do you get the 32% from?


----------



## Paul W... (1 Dec 2008)

I heard it said by a reporter on Saturday.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

Paul W... said:
			
		

> The liberals,the marxists and the seperatists have no moral right to govern.



Care to explain?

Do you mean that, as individual parties, they did not receive sufficient votes to form a government?

Now that the election is over, they stand as representatives of those shares of votes they did receive.  If they choose to pool their shares and attempt to form a government within an existing structure that allows such an option, it is hardly without a "moral right to govern."  

Just because we don't like the option, doesn't make it a "moral" outrage.


----------



## Paul W... (1 Dec 2008)

37% voted for Conservatives the largest of all the parties.

32% said that wanted a coalition governent,those numbers are what makes what they are doing antidemocratic,against the wishes of Canadians.

It doesn't matter what the opposition parties numbers are,they don't have the support of Canadian to do this.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Dec 2008)

It lives?

Liberals, NDP, Bloc sign deal on proposed coalition
'We must try to make this Parliament work,' Dion says of accord
Last Updated: Monday, December 1, 2008 | 5:22 PM ET CBC News

The Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois signed an agreement on Monday to form an unprecedented coalition government if they are successful in ousting the minority Conservative government in a coming confidence vote.

The accord between parties led by Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe came just hours after Liberal caucus members agreed unanimously that Dion would stay on to lead the Liberal-NDP coalition, with support in the House of Commons from the Bloc.

The six-point accord includes a description of the role of the Liberal and NDP caucuses, which will meet separately and sit next to each other on the government benches in the House of Commons, Dion told a news conference alongside Layton and Duceppe.

Dion said he has advised Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean in a letter that he has the confidence of the Commons to form the government should Stephen Harper's Conservatives be defeated in a confidence vote.

The Liberal leader, who has announced he will step down in May, also pledged he would hand over "a strong government for a stronger Canada" to his Liberal successor.

Dion said the parties reached the accord after watching the "sad spectacle" of other countries' governments acting to counter the "unprecedented" global economic crisis while Harper's Conservatives "sat and did nothing."

"Given the critical situation facing our fellow citizens and the refusal and inability of the Harper government to deal with this critical situation, the opposition parties have decided that it was now time to take action," he said.

"We must try to make this Parliament work."

Layton said a proposed economic package, which is part of the accord, is "prompt, prudent, competent and, most important, effective."

The NDP leader also called on the prime minister to "accept this gracefully" and not bring further instability by fighting the verdict of his colleagues in the House.

The proposed coalition cabinet will be composed of 24 ministers and the prime minister. Six of these ministers will be appointed from within the NDP caucus. 

The accord will expire on June 30, 2011, unless it is renewed. It includes a "policy accord" to address the "present economic crisis," which states that the accord "is built on a foundation of fiscal responsibility."

An economic stimulus package will be the new government's top priority, while other policies include a commitment to improve child benefits and childcare "as finances permit." 

There is also a commitment to "pursue a North American cap-and-trade market" to limit carbon emissions.

The Bloc Québécois would not officially be a part of the coalition, but the new government's survival would depend on its support.

No-confidence vote set for Dec. 8
Parliament is due to vote on a Liberal no-confidence motion on Dec. 8. If Harper's government were to lose a confidence vote, Dion would request that Jean approve the proposed plan to form a coalition government.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last week the government should be empowered by Canadians through elections — not through deals negotiated in the shadowy halls of Parliament. (CBC)But the Governor General, who is currently on a state visit in Europe, could also decide to send Canadians to the polls for a second time in less than two months. The prime minister could also still block coalition efforts by proroguing Parliament, that is, suspending it without dissolving it.

Dion, who has been blamed by some for the Liberals' poor showing in the October election, had agreed to step down as party leader in May. However, in the hour-long meeting on Monday, Dion received support from all three Liberal MPs vying to replace him, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc, the CBC's Susan Bonner reported from outside the House of Commons.

The three leadership candidates emerged from the meeting together and told reporters they agreed to Dion's presence, but insisted the campaign to replace him will continue "in the normal fashion."

Details of the deal
The proposed coalition government would include:

24 members of cabinet and Dion as prime minister. 
18 Liberal cabinet ministers, 6 NDP cabinet ministers. 
6 NDP parliamentary secretaries. 
2 caucuses that would sit side by side in the House of Commons. 
Source: Susan Bonner, CBC News
Ignatieff, who is the front-runner to succeed Dion in an upcoming leadership convention, said the three candidates were "at one" in their belief that "the only leader who can lead us in this context is the duly elected leader of the Liberal party."

"I support the accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality that our party has always believed in," he said.

Rae described the caucus meeting as "historic" and "moving," while also saying the deal was "perfectly constitutional" and would present for Canadians "the very best possible government."

The opposition parties say they have lost confidence in the Harper government after last Thursday's economic update by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty failed to provide a stimulus package for Canadians. Since then, the Liberals had been in negotiations to form a coalition with the NDP, planning to oust the Conservatives in a confidence vote.

During question period in the House of Commons on Monday, Dion challenged Harper to allow his government to face a vote.

"Does the prime minister still believe that he enjoys the confidence of this House?" Dion asked.

A fiery Harper, in turn, accused Dion of "playing the biggest political game in Canadian history," saying the Liberal leader would recklessly attempt to govern the country amid a global economic crisis under threat of veto by "socialists and separatists."

Dion reminded the House that in 2004, in a letter to the Governor General, Harper — then-opposition leader — proposed that he be allowed to form a government if Paul Martin's Liberal minority government were to fall.

NDP would hold 25% of cabinet spots
Earlier Monday, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, who took part in the talks, told reporters that "a very constructive, positive agreement has been reached between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party that will bring stimulus to the economy, which is badly needed."

"There are going to be a lot of jobs, a protection of pensions and I think we can look forward to a very constructive period," he told reporters, saying the deal included aid for the suffering auto and forestry sectors.

The Canadian Press reported a source saying mid-Monday that the parties had agreed to present a $30-billion stimulus package that would offer substantial aid to the troubled auto and forestry industries.

The source said the deal also calls for the formation of an economic advisory panel of experts that would include Paul Martin, John Manley, Frank McKenna and Roy Romanow.

Details of the agreement were fleshed out Sunday night.

The CBC's Bonner reported that, under the proposed deal, the NDP would hold 25 per cent of cabinet positions, while the positions of finance minister, treasury board president and deputy prime minister would be held by Liberals.

The deal would reportedly last 30 months. Asked whether the coalition is for 18 months or two years, Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy said, "It's actually for a longer period of time than that."

But Kennedy did not elaborate on the time frame.

PM 'has no one to blame but himself: Rae
If prime minister moved to prorogue Parliament, the Conservative government could not be defeated in the current session of the House. But Harper would also need the approval of the Governor General to do that.

But Rae said a move to prorogue would lack legitimacy, as it would clearly be to avoid a vote of confidence. 
"Mr. Harper has no one to blame but himself for the fact that he's not been able to gain the confidence of the majority of the House," he told the CBC's senior parliamentary editor, Don Newman.

On Sunday, Flaherty said the government would deliver the budget on Jan. 27, about a month before one would normally be tabled in the House.

Shortly after Flaherty's announcement, Transport Minister John Baird said the minority government wouldn't try to eliminate federal civil servants' right to strike over the next couple of years, as pledged in last week's economic update.

On Saturday, Baird also announced the government had shelved its contentious plan to eliminate political party subsidies that are based on the number of votes received during elections.

With files from Reuters


----------



## midget-boyd91 (1 Dec 2008)

Alright, I'm going to throw in my two cents, as I've been seeing red from this whole...mess.

    I voted Conservative. I voted Conservative because I as well as the largest percentage since Confederation over 140 years ago did NOT want the Liberals in power. I did NOT vote for the NDP, they've always got their heads shoved so far up their own @sses that all they can do is talk $hit. 

    However, somehow, even though the Liberals wound up with the lowest popular support since Confederation in a general election less than two months ago, we could end up with one Prime Minister Stephane Dion. I am not pleased at all about this, quite frankly I'm quite pissed. The Conservatives were elected, and now in an attempt to nullify the election we had, we could end up with a country run by separatists (yeah, I live in Nova Scotia and could have someone who wants Canada to break part of my government how happy do you think that makes me?), communists sans balls, and a party with their worst ever vote.

If I bring out the pickup truck, anyone up for a trip to Parliament to _verbally_ express opinions?

_edited to remove non-sense_ 

Midget


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Dec 2008)

I for one, and happy. We need proportional representation in this country, and with the proposed coalition government, more Canadians will have the parties they voted for in power.


----------



## meni0n (1 Dec 2008)

Canadians voted for a party not a coalition, how is that representative? I hope the GG calls an election, and this time it will only have conservative and coalition on it.


----------



## chris_log (1 Dec 2008)

Unreal. Stephan Dion obviously will stop at nothing to be PM. 

We're going to have a government backed up by a party whose goal is to break up Canada. Just wow. Almost makes me want to pull pole, move to Texas and say frig this country. I really hope the GG sees what is going on and decides to call an election instead of letting this happen. Fingers crossed.


----------



## canadian_moose (1 Dec 2008)

Lets say this coalition comes to fruition, and Dawn Black becomes minister of defense, is the CF screwed and back to the old days of slashing our budget.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2008)

> The NDP leader also called on the prime minister to "accept this gracefully" and not bring further instability by fighting the verdict of his colleagues in the House.


........As Brutus said to Caesar ;D

Gawdstrewth.  It is to laugh.  I am too old to waste anymore tears on this nonsense.


----------



## Lil_T (1 Dec 2008)

Anybody want to join me on the hill tomorrow in protest?  I mean, you know, if the left can do it, why not us?


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ........As Brutus said to Caesar ;D
> 
> Gawdstrewth.  It is to laugh.  I am too old to waste anymore tears on this nonsense.



As noted earlier, start stocking up on the brewski's....


----------



## Mike Baker (1 Dec 2008)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> Alright, I'm going to throw in my two cents, as I've been seeing red from this whole...mess.
> 
> I voted Conservative. I voted Conservative because I as well as the largest percentage since Confederation over 140 years ago did NOT want the Liberals in power. I did NOT vote for the NDP, they've always got their heads shoved so far up their own @sses that all they can do is talk $hit.
> 
> ...


How much more right can you get? Why don't they get over the fact that we don't want them in power? Guess I'll have to move to the U.S. if this shyte happens.

:

-A very disgusted and angry Beaver


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Dec 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I for one, and happy. We need proportional representation in this country, and with the proposed coalition government, more Canadians will have the parties they voted for in power.



No matter how many times I read this it is still too stupid to understand.........
I didn't see 'coalition party' on my ballot.


And if I'm a Tory I think this is perfect, you want to be the Govt. during a recession?.....  here ya go, take the keys.


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Dec 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No matter how many times I read this it is still too stupid to understand.........
> I didn't see 'coalition party' on my ballot.
> 
> 
> And if I'm a Tory I think this is perfect, you want to be the Govt. during a recession?.....  here ya go, take the keys.



Quoted for truth. This coalition would pretty much wind up giving us a one party system come next election... Then it will go the other way again after the CPC fixes what the coalition broke. Happened in Ontario after that moron Rae drove the province straight into the ground like a 6' picket.


----------



## Bograt (1 Dec 2008)

Can someone clarify this for me. If the coalition goes forth, and Dion becomes the PM, he will still step down in May. Then the new liberal leader will step in as Prime Minister.

So, in six months, the Liberal Party will determine who is the new Prime Minister? Better still 308 Liberal Delegates will determine who is Prime Minister? hmm. Does that sound correct?

Does this sound crazy to anyone else?


----------



## Blakey (1 Dec 2008)

Our next Prime Minister, golly ***king gee whiz.  : , god help us all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hoSfvIFFE

EDIT: Language


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Dec 2008)

What irritates me the most is that the NDP started negotiations immediately after the election. This clearly shows that the issue has less to do with the so called fiscal update, and more to do with a pure grab for power. The talk radio out west is full of similar sentiment. If the Liberals and the NDP want to loose all their seats in the west, then this is the best way to do it.


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Dec 2008)

this is the letter I sent my mp, dion and layton

"
Dear Sirs:

Let me start this off, by relating how discusted I am with your planned coup d'etat, of the properly elected Government of Canada.  Your are all spitting in the face of Canadian's who very clearly sent you all a message, that said loud and clear, "WE DO NOT WANT YOU IN CHARGE!"  You can try and dress this up as much as you want, with political double speak, about how this is in the best interests of Canadians, but the plain reality is, it is painfully obvious to Canadians that this is nothing more than a naked power grab, for the sake of simply being in power.  These actions are in line with military junta's and dictators in the third world.  Following through with will forever taint Canada's reputation as a champion of democracy.  It is obvious none of you or your parties have any qualms, with being labelled as hypocrites, but as a Canadian Soldier it deeply troubles me.  I have volunteered several times for overseas deployment to Afghanistan, where right now, I have several friends and colleagues who are risking their lives, so the people of Afghanistan may have the chance one day to enjoy the simple democratic freedoms, I enjoy today.  But how can the people and the Government of Afghanistan, take us seriously, when the oppostion parties ignore the results of a federal election, and seize power for themselves.  As of right now I am ashamed to be a Canadian, and ashamed to be a Canadian Soldier.

Cpl 
48th Highlanders of Canada"


----------



## TCBF (1 Dec 2008)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I for one, and happy. We need proportional representation in this country, and with the proposed coalition government, more Canadians will have the parties they voted for in power.



- Just like old Soviet Union.  You always vote for party that win!  Everybody happy.  After while, why vote at all?


----------



## danchapps (1 Dec 2008)

This "deal" makes me want to vomit. This crap smells like coup to me. I know it's not, but that's what it feels like. Makes me sick.


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Dec 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What irritates me the most is that the NDP started negotiations immediately after the election. This clearly shows that the issue has less to do with the so called fiscal update, and more to do with a pure grab for power. The talk radio out west is full of similar sentiment. If the Liberals and the NDP want to loose all their seats in the west, then this is the best way to do it.



71 to 21

That's 71 Conservative MP's to 21 Lib/NDP MP's.  

The west already spoke, loud and clear during the election.  

A couple of days ago I said that the west will not take this lying down.  You want to know the difference between Western separation and Quebec separation?  The west has the financial ways and means to do it and they won't piss about trying to strategically vote themselves favours and riches, they'll just do it.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Dec 2008)

Just found this on another forum:

Jack and Gilles,
Went up the Hill,
To build a Coalition.
And, with Dion
They shoved the Cons,
Back into Opposition.

Three lunatics,
Whose stupid tricks,
Will leave us all in Debt.
Thus, I note,
When you don't vote,
This is the sh*t you get! 

Sums it up to me!


----------



## Gimpy (1 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> 71 to 21
> 
> That's 71 Conservative MP's to 21 Lib/NDP MP's.
> 
> ...



So then after this coalition government has run its course for better or for worse would you be fine with allowing those "$%# separatist(s)" from the West back into parliament?


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Dec 2008)

The GG has one more option that has gotten little air time... she can simply refuse to grant either Mr Harper or Mr Dion their requests. She can send them both back to the House of Commons with instructions to sort themselves out.


And another thing... When Mr Dion says the House has lost confidence in Mr Harper, what confidence does he think they have in him? After all, his own party is forcing him to step down as leader. The GG could well argue that point in her decision.


----------



## TCBF (1 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> 71 to 21
> 
> That's 71 Conservative MP's to 21 Lib/NDP MP's.
> 
> ...



- I think this site is NOT the site to promote Western or Eastern or any other 'ern separation.  A lot of the young and gullible lurk here and the last thing we want are some refugees from their mother's basements blowing out the bank seats of the Nipigon River bridge and saying they were inspired by Army.ca.

- Same-same for those comments bordering on armed insurrection.  Army.ca is no place for Wheatfield Jihadists.


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Dec 2008)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> So then after this coalition government has run its course for better or for worse would you be fine with allowing those "$%# separatist(s)" from the West back into parliament?



No, for all intents and purposes as far as I am concerned Canada would already be dead.  

The very second that this coalition is permitted to dispose of the elected government on the permission and with the blessing of an unelected figurehead Canada, ceases to exist as a real democracy for me.

Pragmatism isn't my strong suit.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2008)

Ok, Mod Hat on.

Anymore talk of armed revolt or violence against Parliament, and it'll be an outright ban - full stop.  This site will not support illegal activity.  Just because your party of choice is losing out doesn't mean you get to break the law.  Refer to this:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec46.html

As well, lets cool it with the talk of "coup".  What the left coalition is pushing is:

a)  All legal and constitutional; and
b)  Nothing near a coup d'etat.

If you are having trouble digesting the current political situation, maybe Constitutional Reform should be on your issues card next vote....

The Staff


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2008)

Ok, Mod Hat back off.

Shades of 1926?!?  Maybe Dion will follow Meighen into obscurity?

I'm not really put off by any of this.  All though I'm not to keen on having this collection of politicians at the helm when things are swirling around the toilet bowl, it is all on the level.  Maybe we should take the fact that our system is an anachronism seriously next time we talk of Constitutional Reform?

An office of the PM that exists in Convention only and has an unprecedented amount of power consolidated into one position?

A House of Commons not built for, but yet dominated by, Party Politics?

A Senate and a Governor General which have Constitutional "counterweight" roles to play but have been relegated to obscurity through convention?

I've had issues with these since I started voting - it's on a long thread in this very forum.

We reap what we sow.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ok, Mod Hat back off.
> 
> Shades of 1926?!?  Maybe Dion will follow Meighen into obscurity?
> 
> ...



Best comment I've heard in a long time.... Infanteer for PM !! (Though why any sane person would want the job is beyond me)


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As well, lets cool it with the talk of "coup".  What the left coalition is pushing is:
> 
> a)  All legal and constitutional; and
> b)  Nothing near a coup d'etat.



I wonder what the tone of this thread would be like if the Liberals had won a minority and the Conservatives were now planning a coalition with the NDP and working on a non-confidence vote.

Hmmmm .....


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> I wonder what the tone of this thread would be like if the Liberals had won a minority and the Conservatives were now planning a coalition with the NDP and working on a non-confidence vote.
> 
> Hmmmm .....



Do you perchance mean such as happened in 2004?


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Do you perchance mean such as happened in 2004?



No, I mean right now.  What if the Liberals had formed a government and there was a chance of a power grab by the "military friendly" Conservatives?  Would there be any talk on this board of it being "marally wrong" or this rending of clothes over the possibility of an upset in Parliament?


----------



## observor 69 (1 Dec 2008)

Actually I like it when I see the coalition leaders acting like the Obama administration :

"The Liberals, NDP and Bloc have agreed on a massive economic stimulus package if they can snatch power away from the Conservative minority government. The tentative Opposition coalition has a $30 billion economic stimulus package, an economic advisory panel with Liberal heavyweights Paul Martin, John Manley Frank McKenna, and Roy Romanow."

http://www.news1130.com/news/topstory/article.jsp?content=20081201_124453_10524

And like Obama Dion has a  large amount of experienced and qualified talent in the Liberal caucus to build a cabinet from.


----------



## Drag (1 Dec 2008)

Wow, I mean wow.  Dion, Layton and Duceppe forming a government?  At least Chretien and Martin could be trusted to behave like adults.  The aforementioned trio, I don't know...


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Dec 2008)

Deja vu all over again.

For us right-leaning political junkies this reminds me of one of those situations the army used to throw at candidates on leadership courses; we would arrive at the place where we were going to be fed, or picked up and taken back to camp, or whatever. Just as we arrived, the vehicle that had been waiting for us would drive off, or we would be told the kitchen vehicle had been ambushed or . . . The instructors were watching to see who whined and winged and rolled up and quit, and who got up, shrugged, hoisted their rucks and started down the road. I am getting too frigging old to hoist my ruck, but I am going to do it. Before I do, however, I  am going to engage in some good, old fashioned  bitching. And maybe a bit of boozing!! I've earned it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2008)

My biggest concern..............putting snow tires on my truck.

This tempest in a teacup is only made worse by all the idle speculation surrounding it. It's the kind of crap that makes that rumour monster grow and take on a life of its own. The other parties are loving the legs everyone and the MSM is giving this, because it takes the spotlight off of the blatant attempt they made to hang on to their funding.

I'll wait and see what kind of anti climatic bafflegab comes out of this fart in a windstorm, watch the chips fall where they may and continue on as I've always done.

Because there is absolutely nothing else I can do about it. I've cast my vote, and anything else these 'politicians' wish to do is beyond my control.

This is way, way down on my list of things to worry, or even waste conversation, about.


----------



## kratz (1 Dec 2008)

It has become vogue for the MSM to do a write up on Facebook protest groups. Just for fun, I did a search on FB under groups for “government, coalition, liberal, NDP, Canada”

From the moment news of a coalition hit the streets to this point, there are 11 groups supporting this proposed coalition, with 2859 members. 

Those who do not want a coalition government or another election have 18 groups, with 611 members.

This informal look at the average person’s views is already getting people to voice their thoughts on the issue. Not to mention all the posts at online newspapers/television news sites.


----------



## Blakey (1 Dec 2008)

I find it extremely aggravating that none of the "Coalition" party heads will talk about this "deal" and what they have signed. 

What have the Liberals and NDP sold out to the BQ, it must have been some deal in order to get the BQ on board, I mean, they will hold the balance of power, won't they? 

I'm sure it will come out when *THEY* are good any ready to release it.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (1 Dec 2008)

Look on the bright side:

Stephane Dion screwed up worse than anybody ever in the Liberal party, and he still gets to be PM. Think of the object lesson for anyone else in Canada that screws up colossally. Maybe if they don't immediately give up, they can be PM someday too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> It has become vogue for the MSM to do a write up on Facebook protest groups. Just for fun, I did a search on FB under groups for “government, coalition, liberal, NDP, Canada”
> 
> From the moment news of a coalition hit the streets to this point, there are 11 groups supporting this proposed coalition, with 2859 members.
> 
> ...



Those numbers should tell them that nobody really cares. 11 groups - < 3000, 18 with 611? Go look at the numbers that McGuinty is facing on FB for his draconian driving rules. There's numbers you can bank on at the polls.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Dec 2008)

There will be 24 cabinet postings. 18 Liberal and 6 NDP. The BQ have none, but there must be something cooking there as the coaltion cabinet would not dare to do anything without consulting them.

Speculation- Get ready for Dawn Black as MND, as the Libs want nothing to do with defence.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Dec 2008)

Here's another interesting option:

The GG could declare that as the Liberal/NDP document does not contain the signature of Gilles Duceppe, then the coalition does not have enough seats to govern. If you look at the document, you can clearly see there is no Bloc signature on it:  LINK


----------



## danchapps (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> I wonder what the tone of this thread would be like if the Liberals had won a minority and the Conservatives were now planning a coalition with the NDP and working on a non-confidence vote.
> 
> Hmmmm .....



I'd still be royally ticked. There is a reason we have elections, to elect a government. If I wanted a coalition gov't. then they should have proposed this PRIOR to me voting. It lacks democratic integrity and smells like the bathroom stall in an arena locker room.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I'd still be royally ticked. There is a reason we have elections, to elect a government. If I wanted a coalition gov't. then they should have proposed this PRIOR to me voting. It lacks democratic integrity and smells like the bathroom stall in an arena locker room.



So, what you're saying is that you're "royally ticked" over a political manoeuvre that is entirely permitted within the Canadian system, but you just didn't know about it until now?


----------



## Sonnyjim (1 Dec 2008)

I just finished reading a few articles on this topic throughout the web and I am formally infuriated. I cannot pull my head around the thought that somebody would form a coalition because they are that eager to get in power, that's all it is really in "my" mind, a freakin power grab. Having a government in office that I did not even get a chance to vote for, or anybody else in this country for that matter also really infuriates me to no limit. Then to put the icing on the cake...... Stephan Dion, that dirty rat bastard, representing my country without even having being voted in......... I think my ears are bleeding and I need a shot of morphine.


----------



## Blakey (1 Dec 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Here's another interesting option:
> 
> The GG could declare that as the Liberal/NDP document does not contain the signature of Gilles Duceppe, then the coalition does not have enough seats to govern. If you look at the document, you can clearly see there is no Bloc signature on it:  LINK



He has signed.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html


> Duceppe, Layton and Dion signed this document securing a coalition deal among their three parties. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)


----------



## danchapps (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> So, what you're saying is that you're "royally ticked" over a political manoeuvre that is entirely permitted within the Canadian system, but you just didn't know about it until now?



If I wanted a coalition gov't. they should have proposed prior to the election. It is akin to a member being elected as a Liberal, then 2 weeks after the election he suddenly decides he wants to be a Conservative. I know that's happened, and I don't support that either. It may be in the rules, but I don't like it. If they don't want the Conservatives in power, they should have another election, and see what the people want. That's why we have elections. I'd hate to see another decade of darkness come from this.


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

Sonnyjim said:
			
		

> I just finished reading a few articles on this topic throughout the web and I am formally infuriated. I cannot pull my head around the thought that somebody would form a coalition because they are that eager to get in power, that's all it is really in "my" mind, a freakin power grab. Having a government in office that I did not even get a chance to vote for, or anybody else in this country for that matter also really infuriates me to no limit. Then to put the icing on the cake...... Stephan Dion, that dirty rat *******, representing my country without even having being voted in......... I think my ears are bleeding and I need a shot of morphine.



Did you vote on any ballot for Stephan Harper as Prime Minister? The only way that you may have voted for Mr. Harper, is if he directly represented your riding. Messer's Harper and Dion were both duly elected within their respective riding's.


----------



## Koenigsegg (1 Dec 2008)

Holy moses. Has Layton been taking lessons from John Hancock?

JACK LAYTON


----------



## geo (1 Dec 2008)

Well.... I think that all political parties have some blame to take for where this political situation is going to take us.....
The PC decided that they were to jam some policies down Parliament's throat.... as if they were a majority - when they know they are a minority.

For the rest.... it's a coalition government - do you guys realise how many coalition government have been formed in Italy since 1945 ???  something like 65.

Will be seeing you guys at the urns sometime soon.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> If I wanted a coalition gov't. they should have proposed prior to the election. It is akin to a member being elected as a Liberal, then 2 weeks after the election he suddenly decides he wants to be a Conservative. I know that's happened, and I don't support that either. It may be in the rules, but I don't like it. If they don't want the Conservatives in power, they should have another election, and see what the people want. That's why we have elections. I'd hate to see another decade of darkness come from this.



Sorry, I misunderstood, you simply wanted all aspects of Canadian governance abolished that you haven't personally approved.

Right, I'll go back to my corner now.  Please let us know when the country achieves a state you are comfortable with.


----------



## Sonnyjim (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Sorry, I misunderstood, you simply wanted all aspects of Canadian governance abolished that you haven't personally approved.
> 
> Right, I'll go back to my corner now.  Please let us know when the country achieves a state you are comfortable with.



I have to agree with Chapeski on this one and think that he is simply voicing 'his' opinion on the matter, not listing demands. If they want to form a coalition government then I would be willing to go to the polls again and vote.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2008)

It's no worry. They won't last after tabling their first piece of legislation. :boring:


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

The possibility of a coalition forming a government following a non-confidence vote is always an option.  It shouldn't have to be explained with each election.


----------



## jimc (1 Dec 2008)

Just throwing out a thought so be gentle in the responses  

 Not saying he should, but *what if Harper stepped down*? . We know from the text of the letters from Dion to the Governor General that the opposition is stating they lost confidence in this new government. If Harper stepped down and the Deputy Prime Minister stepped up would it not in fact be a new government?  Given that the Tories have more seats then a Liberal/NDP coalition it would be interesting if the Governor General didn't ask a Harperless Tory party to attempt Government again.  Now keep in mind I am not asking or suggesting Harper step down. From purely a constitutional point of view could it be a filibuster blocking move to keep the Tories in power?


----------



## danchapps (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Sorry, I misunderstood, you simply wanted all aspects of Canadian governance abolished that you haven't personally approved.
> 
> Right, I'll go back to my corner now.  Please let us know when the country achieves a state you are comfortable with.



When I voted, it was a Conservative vote. My riding wound up a Liberal riding. I could deal with that, as that is how democracy works. However, a Conservative Government was formed, due to them winning the most seats. If it had been a Liberal Government, I would have supported it, an NDP Government, I would have put in my release, but I would have supported it, because it would have been what the people wanted. This political "maneuvering" makes me feel as though the election was a sham, and my voice is falling back to the shadows. The least they could have done was waited to see how the Conservatives were going to steer through this economic downturn. 

I'm sorry if my opinion displeases you.


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's no worry. They won't last after tabling their first piece of legislation. :boring:



Considering that the coalition holds more seats in parliment than the opposition would, how can you justify the above statement?


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> The possibility of a coalition forming a government following a non-confidence vote is always an option.  It shouldn't have to be explained with each election.



True however, this is not about the liberals/ndp's displeasure with a piece of legislation, and registering their non-confidence in the best interests of Canadians.  This is a blatant power grab, by petulant sore losers.  That is what people are upset about.  If this had happened a few months down the road after say they presented a budget, then there wouldn't be such an uproar.  But (if it turns out to be true), the NDP have been plotting this since the election.  And that reeks of the same power mad ideology that plagues many of the third world countries.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if my opinion displeases you.



Frankly, I am more amused than displeased in any degree.

The parties are using the existing system to achieve their goals, or some compromise on their collective goals.  Does this not reflect the flexibility of our democracy even more so than locking in a minority government with a survive or fail (i.e., automatic new election) dilemma.  Decrying the parties use of the existing system of governance is akin to baying at the moon, no amount of noise will change anything as far as the current situation is concerned.

If this is such a tragedy (with regard to the structure of our political system), then I await the movements badgering Members of Parliament to ensure this option is stricken in future?


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> True however, this is not about the liberals/ndp's displeasure with a piece of legislation, and registering their non-confidence in the best interests of Canadians.  This is a blatant power grab, by petulant sore losers.  That is what people are upset about.  If this had happened a few months down the road after say they presented a budget, then there wouldn't be such an uproar.  But (if it turns out to be true), the NDP have been plotting this since the election.  And that reeks of the same power mad ideology that plagues many of the third world countries.



So, they should have won a non-confidence vote, and then started negotiations to see if they could form a government?

Doom on them for planning and preparation.


----------



## meni0n (1 Dec 2008)

Given the Bloc won't have any seats in the new government, Lib + NDP = 113 seats. How is a working coalition with two parties leading the government, having less seats than the conservatives be functional. Putting together a coalition right after they lost the election is wrong and hopefully would backfire at the parties involved big time.


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Given the Bloc won't have any seats in the new government, Lib + NDP = 113 seats. How is a working coalition with two parties leading the government, having less seats than the conservatives be functional. Putting together a coalition right after they lost the election is wrong and hopefully would backfire at the parties involved big time.



While the Bloc will not have any portfolios within the coalition, they have signed an agreement accord to support the coalition until sometime in 2010. Given that the Bloc have 50ish seats, that gives the coalition the majority of seats.


----------



## danchapps (1 Dec 2008)

If the opposition is so worried about the economy they could table a private members bill and work in that fashion to come to a suitable solution to the economic woes.

I also doubt that any change will come of this.


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> If the opposition is so worried about the economy they could table a private members bill and work in that fashion to come to a suitable solution to the economic woes.
> 
> I also doubt that any change will come of this.



What you say is very true, however private members bills very seldom make it to the third reading.


----------



## meni0n (1 Dec 2008)

So people voted for different parties because they liked the platform they ran on and now basically the three parties decide to form a coalition and represent a single platform and that is fair for the people that voted? Why didn't they do this six weeks ago when we had an election, everyone can see it for what it is, a power grab and sore losers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Considering that the coalition holds more seats in parliment than the opposition would, how can you justify the above statement?



........and you seriously think that they'll govern, for the next four years, like a majority government? :rofl:  With  :king:'s Dion or Layton?

Sorry. I shouldn't be here anyway. I just can't seem to take what is being proposed, with all the doomsday scenarios, serious enough. Knowing Canadian politics, it doesn't matter the outcome, cause whoever ends up on top, they'll fuck it up anyway.


----------



## geo (1 Dec 2008)

ummm..... soo - the Conservatives suddenly become sore losers because they tried to play hardball politics - without the majority to jam it down everyone's throats with.

If we do not agree with what our elected officials have done, we'll have our chance at the voting urns soon enough.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Dec 2008)

Costa Rica is sounding better by the day.


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ........and you seriously think that they'll govern, for the next four years, like a majority government? :rofl:  With  :king:'s Dion or Layton?
> 
> Sorry. I shouldn't be here anyway. I just can't seem to take what is being proposed, with all the doomsday scenarios, serious enough. Knowing Canadian politics, it doesn't matter the outcome, cause whoever ends up on top, they'll frig it up anyway.



I didn't state anything about them governing for any length of time, I was merely questioning the validity of your statement regarding the first piece of legislation. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the coalition frigging it up, I would agree, as I cannot see them agreeing on a course of action for more than a year, if that.


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> So, they should have won a non-confidence vote, and then started negotiations to see if they could form a government?
> 
> Doom on them for planning and preparation.



No they should have at least put on the pretense of trying to work together.  Instead the NDP/Bloc have been cooking this little scheme up the moment they lost.  THAT is undemocratic.  I know your trying to play devils advocate, and encourage debate, but you have to admit that even those these shenanigans while "permitted" in our system, that does not make them less repugnant. I stand by my opinion, planning to topple the government, and set your self up in the seat of power the moment you lose a free, election is UNDEMOCRATIC.


----------



## Rodahn (1 Dec 2008)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Instead the NDP/Bloc have been cooking this little scheme up the moment they lost.



You have irrefutable proof of this?


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> No they should have at least put on the pretense of trying to work together.  Instead the NDP/Bloc have been cooking this little scheme up the moment they lost.  THAT is undemocratic.  I know your trying to play devils advocate, and encourage debate, but you have to admit that even those these shenanigans while "permitted" in our system, that does not make them less repugnant. I stand by my opinion, planning to topple the government, and set your self up in the seat of power the moment you lose a free, election is UNDEMOCRATIC.



Ok, so legally elected representatives in the Canadian Parliament are using the existing system of governance to challenge a minority government - and this this suddenly "undemocratic"?



> dem⋅o⋅crat⋅ic
> 
> 1. 	pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
> 2. 	pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
> 3. 	advocating or upholding democracy.



If it's not democratic, then what is is?


We're not exactly talking about a "bloody coup" here.


----------



## onecat (1 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> You have irrefutable proof of this?



Listen to the tape... NDP planned this way before last thursday and we just waiting to something to push the Liberals over the edge.  And Harper did that on Thursday.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Dec 2008)

There's nothing wrong with the mechanics of forming a coalition, and the opposition powers have been able to do this since the 2006 election.  If they can agree to spend enough money on each other's pet projects, there's no reason they can't govern indefinitely unless their base fraction of voters tires of receiving the benefits of those projects.

But:

1) Dion did, during the election, speak against forming a coalition with the NDP.
2) Whatever the "voters of Canada" said, they did not affirm the leadership of Dion.  They did return a House structured much like the previous one.
3) Dion has already been scheduled for departure.
4) Nevertheless, Dion is to be installed as PM.
5) His replacement will not have to face an election.  It has already been stated that the coalition intends to govern for at least 30 months if it can, and has also already been stated that the Liberals expect to select a new leader in 6 months or so.  Even Chretien had the decency to wrongfoot the opposition by calling a premature election after they selected a new leader.
6) Despite calls from all quarters of their supporters and among themselves for a fiscal stimulus, none have even attempted to show why it is necessary.  I am unaware of even one half-serious attempt to demonstrate why sudden and massive intervention is necessary. It continues to be an assertion.  With a complete absence of proof and despite all economic indicators to the contrary, we are to believe disaster must be around the corner and react accordingly.
7) In addition to the case for sudden economic intervention not being demonstrated, I am unaware of a single instance of a plan.  I don't mean a list of objectives supporting a statement of aim (X for manufacturing in general, Y for automakers specifically, Z for forestry); I mean a plan.  What specific amounts are to be expended, and where?  How is $30B to be divided; who will receive it?
8) Corporations and markets will react to signals.  Right now the signal is that $30B is up for grabs.  Experience shows that those who devote the most energy to lobbying tend to receive the most rewards.  Time and effort devoted to lobbying is time and effort not devoted to the business at hand.
9) If the market for low-yield government bonds turns out to be rather dry, will they print what they need (deflating, of course, the value of savings and fixed incomes).
10) Does the pension protection they have talked about include my private one, or is it just for public sector and large corporation defined benefit funds?
11) After years of accusing the Conservatives of having a weak bench and no serious heavyweight policy minds, and thus being unfit to govern even during economically stable times, the opposition parties:
a) Turn to their parents to arrange the marriage.
b) Ask their uncles to hold their hands, fiscally.
Obviously the NDP lack experience in federal government.  Is this an admission by the Liberals that they, too, are weak?  Am I alone in thinking this is not the best time to be putting training wheels on the economy so the NDP can get a little cabinet OJT?  They accuse the Conservatives of incompetence and demonstrate self-doubt of their own competence to the degree that the elected politicians are not leading or manifestly seen to firmly lead.  No amount of Jack Layton's self-congratulatory lists of positive-sounding adjectives can paper that glaring hole over.

$300M, the supposed cost of an election, is 1/100th of $30B.  It is reasonable to invest 1% of the proposal to ask what, in the face of all this new information, the voters wish to affirm.  And during the campaign, the prospective coalition members can take the time to explain how they intend to divvy up $30B worth of largesse, what amount will be added to the federal debt, what amount will be raised from new revenues, and how those revenues - in light of expectations of falling take from various taxes - are to be obtained.  Then the chosen winners can await the election outcome, and those not selected can get on with working through the credit crunch.  At least there will be an answer to a large, unanswered question.

>An economic stimulus package will be the new government's top priority, while other policies include a commitment to improve child benefits and childcare "as finances permit." 

Priceless.  That was first on my list of "things they really want to do if the fiscal stimulus is a smokescreen".  Look forward to more spending programs on which the Bloc, NDP, and Liberals can agree.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

radiohead said:
			
		

> Listen to the tape... NDP planned this way before last thursday and we just waiting to something to push the Liberals over the edge.  And Harper did that on Thursday.



Damn them for having a strategy.  What's wrong with simple old knee-jerk politickin'?


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Ok, so legally elected representatives in the Canadian Parliament are using the existing system of governance to challenge a minority government - and this this suddenly "undemocratic"?
> 
> If it's not democratic, then what is is?
> 
> ...



Something can be perfectly legal and undemocratic, hell there is 27 page thread about the "legal" actions of the CHRC, and the general sentiment and statements of this board, has been their actions are wholly undemocratic.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Dec 2008)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Something can be perfectly legal and undemocratic, hell there is 27 page thread about the "legal" actions of the CHRC, and the general sentiment and statements *of this board*, has been their actions are wholly undemocratic.



But of course: "of this board."  Because we all know how graciously the Liberals were handled "on this board" in the interests of open *democratic* discussion.  I suppose as long as you keep your arcs narrow, you can focus on any definition you prefer.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Dec 2008)

>Instead the NDP/Bloc have been cooking this little scheme up the moment they lost.  THAT is undemocratic. 

The scheme is not undemocratic.  What can be argued to be "undemocratic" is that they may have withheld an extremely significant piece of information from voters.  The Liberals and NDP have, after all, been baying for days about how wrong it was of the Conservatives to cut public campaign funding without mentioning it during the campaign.

When the conference call brouhaha broke, I came to three conclusions:
1) It sounds illegal.
2) It's definitely unethical.
3) Canadians have a right to know those intentions, and had a right to know during the election campaign if those intentions existed then.

If you disagree with (3), I point out that the whole principle of whistleblowing is that it reveals privileged/confidential information which is in the public interest.  And that, very few in the "progressive" camps have ever disputed; indeed, they look to that principle to help keep the scary Conservatives with the hidden agenda in check.

The reason I assert voters have a right to know is that it is a significant shift in electoral custom if the opposition can set out with no good faith whatsoever to allow a minority to govern, seeking only to overturn it at the first available confidence opportunity.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> I wonder what the tone of this thread would be like if the Liberals had won a minority and the Conservatives were now planning a coalition with the NDP and working on a non-confidence vote.



+1

Nobody here should be right ticked - any belief that they voted for a specific party or leader is a misunderstanding of how the dynamics of our system work.  Yes, I voted in support of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party this time (although in reality I actually voted for neither) but they didn't get a majority so I guess my vote didn't go to a "winner".

It's funny how people lose so much faith in democracy when their team loses - I saw this on forums with a heavy American membership during their Presidential race.  If we recognize the legitimacy of a system that will put our team to power, then in order to stay consistent we must recognize the legitimacy of the other team should they win through the same system.  Anything less is hypocrisy.

Alas, I digress - in the end, I think Recceguy has the right of it.  This isn't anything to lose sleep over as it is beyond our control (we've voted).

My final observations before signing off for the night:

1)  Methinks Stephen Harper blundered and may pay for this.  He's pretty much been able to push the opposition parties around for years resulting in one of our most successful minority governments.  I suspect that the other parties would only take the "schoolyard bully" tactics for so long.  Apparently, they knew this was coming, set this up and -WAMMO-, the Conservatives walked into this.  Watching them try to avoid it is like someone squirming in the killzone of an ambush....

2) I wonder if Stephane Dion has done more long-term damage to the Liberal Party?  Jeffrey Simpson made a comment about this in today's G&M.  Many have long supported the Liberal Party as a reasonable centrist option to governance.  Many Canadians stuck with the idea of a "Centrist Liberal" party as a way of voting against what they perceived was a bit of conservative excess in the CPC.  Boy - I bet you these types are surprised to wake up and find that their vote has now put the Unionist/Socialists and the Socialist/Seperatists at the helm!  "Hey, I didn't vote for those guys!!!" - did Dion push the Liberal Party irrevocably to the left with his deal with the devil(s) and drive a core either to the Conservatives or away from politics all together?

I await the commentary of the more in-tune around these parts (ER Campbell, where are you?)


----------



## Greymatters (1 Dec 2008)

I think this has little to do with legality or ethics, and certainly nothing to do with national stewardship.  

It is merely a greater example of what politics have devolved into - taking any opportunity to acquire power and dropkick the opposition in the vulnerable area at any cost, without regard for what is best for the people, the country, or the economy. 

At a time like this, we should be seeing a dropping of stances as all parties pull together in order to enhance national economic stability and recovery.  Instead we see a split government, and an unknown power structure coming forth, which will not neccesarily be a good thing when seen from the international investment point of view.    

The only two positive things to come out of this are: 
1) The former losing (but now winning) parties actually kept a campaign promise - preventing the conservatives from staying in power (not that I agree with it, but it is certainly a landmark).
2) The new coalition likely has a better chance of cozying up to and having good relations with Obama, who has similiar concepts and objectives.  Benevolent US Presidents are always better for negotiating cross-border issues.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...if the opposition can set out with no good faith whatsoever to allow a minority to govern, seeking only to overturn it at the first available confidence opportunity.



Therein, I think, lies the root of many people's anger. There is a justifiable expectation by the electorate, that a minority government will actually get the chance to govern. With the NDP and Bloc colluding immediately after their loss at the polls, that expectation has been annulled.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2008)

Ugg...I said I was signing off but I'm a political junkie....

Brad, your last few posts are pretty poignant.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 2) Whatever the "voters of Canada" said, they did not affirm the leadership of Dion.  They did return a House structured much like the previous one.
> 3) Dion has already been scheduled for departure
> 4) Nevertheless, Dion is to be installed as PM.
> 5) His replacement will not have to face an election.  It has already been stated that the coalition intends to govern for at least 30 months if it can, and has also already been stated that the Liberals expect to select a new leader in 6 months or so.  Even Chretien had the decency to wrongfoot the opposition by calling a premature election after they selected a new leader.



This goes to my point above about long-term damage to the Liberal Party.  I may be wrong, but I suspect many people who voted Liberal are not happy with what is transpiring.



> 6) Despite calls from all quarters of their supporters and among themselves for a fiscal stimulus, none have even attempted to show why it is necessary.  I am unaware of even one half-serious attempt to demonstrate why sudden and massive intervention is necessary. It continues to be an assertion.  With a complete absence of proof and despite all economic indicators to the contrary, we are to believe disaster must be around the corner and react accordingly.
> 7) In addition to the case for sudden economic intervention not being demonstrated, I am unaware of a single instance of a plan.  I don't mean a list of objectives supporting a statement of aim (X for manufacturing in general, Y for automakers specifically, Z for forestry); I mean a plan.  What specific amounts are to be expended, and where?  How is $30B to be divided; who will receive it?
> ...
> Obviously the NDP lack experience in federal government.  Is this an admission by the Liberals that they, too, are weak?  Am I alone in thinking this is not the best time to be putting training wheels on the economy so the NDP can get a little cabinet OJT?  They accuse the Conservatives of incompetence and demonstrate self-doubt of their own competence to the degree that the elected politicians are not leading or manifestly seen to firmly lead.  No amount of Jack Layton's self-congratulatory lists of positive-sounding adjectives can paper that glaring hole over.



Ahh - the details - details I bet the Opposition (Government-in-Waiting) is uncomfortable with at the moment.  I suspect that they are so gleeful for winning a game of chicken with Harper that they've forgotten what they're actually stepping up to the plate to do.  An OC of mine once said that a Platoon Commander gets real good when he starts thinking about the Company (and, up to OCs and the Battalion, etc, etc).  Clearly, these politicians - backtracking on past statements - aren't adhering to this ideal.  There probably is no real plan to pull Canada out of the turd-spiral; rather the economic plan for them is "Get Harper!!!"....



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 3) Canadians have a right to know those intentions, and had a right to know during the election campaign if those intentions existed then.
> 
> If you disagree with (3), I point out that the whole principle of whistleblowing is that it reveals privileged/confidential information which is in the public interest.  And that, very few in the "progressive" camps have ever disputed; indeed, they look to that principle to help keep the scary Conservatives with the hidden agenda in check.
> 
> The reason I assert voters have a right to know is that it is a significant shift in electoral custom if the opposition can set out with no good faith whatsoever to allow a minority to govern, seeking only to overturn it at the first available confidence opportunity.



I guess this goes to the whole principle of what a Representative truly is?  Does he act as a representative for his riding, applying his opinions and expertise for the good of the whole - or does he represent the wishes of his constituents, meaning he has an obligation to bring his platform into line with his electors?  I would think a view to the former would give the politician a little more latitude in his policies (crossing the floor, voting against the party line, etc, etc).  The latter would demand more of a prescription before an election and some adherence to it.

I'm more prone to the former view.  I'm inclined to accept political deviation or "maverick" plays if my representative presents sound logic for the good of the whole in making his decision (another reason I despise Party Discipline).  I don't take election promises seriously as they are essentially a grand display of posturing and arm-chair quarterbacking....


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think this has little to do with legality or ethics, and certainly nothing to do with national stewardship.
> 
> It is merely a greater example of what politics have devolved into - taking any opportunity to acquire power and dropkick the opposition in the vulnerable area at any cost, without regard for what is best for the people, the country, or the economy.



As my post above states, I'm right with you on this one Greymatters.  I think we can all admit that the CPC is also guilty of this....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Dec 2008)

Yes, Where is Mr Campbell?  His commentary on these events would be most illuminating.

My thoughts- Mr Harper is a political dead man.  The best thing that he can do, now that he has so graciously "united the Left" in Canada, is very quickly resign, accepting all responsibility for this mess.  It quickly clears the deck for a leadership convention that can be done even before the Liberals get their convention done.

If anyone thinks that the....what the hell are we going to call this thing?  The NewLibloc?  Anyway, if anyone thinks they are going to get a free ride over the next 6 months- think again.  The Conservatives have over 140 highly disciplined MPs- many sitting on Committees.  Many have been cabinet ministers for two years and know where all the bodies are buried- Question Period will be a real hoot as rookie Cabinet Ministers get grilled, regularily.

I, too, think that the Liberals may have scored an important and sizeable tactical victory that may yet turn into a strategic defeat for them.  They still have money problems; they still have Mr Dion (which cannot please either Rae or Iggy- public protestations to the contrary)- they may be in danger of disappearing into the NDP- which will not please a bunch of core Liberals.  Oh yeah- and the NDP, Liberals and Bloc have to agree on everything.  Think about that for a second.  How is Afghanistan going to get handled around the Cabinet table?  Or Green Shift?  Or Corporate taxes?

On a final note- everything that has (apparently) been done so far is within the rules.  Harper got out played.  He should man up.  And...this is worth saying...even if you do not agree with NDP or Liberal or Bloc policys, they were duly elected by their own constitutents.  You don't like what they do...vote against them next election.  And an election will come.  It always does.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2008)

Good post SKT.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My thoughts- Mr Harper is a political dead man.  The best thing that he can do, now that he has so graciously "united the Left" in Canada, is very quickly resign, accepting all responsibility for this mess.  It quickly clears the deck for a leadership convention that can be done even before the Liberals get their convention done.



For some reason, my spidey-sense smells this as well....



> If anyone thinks that the....what the hell are we going to call this thing?  The NewLibloc?  Anyway, if anyone thinks they are going to get a free ride over the next 6 months- think again.  The Conservatives have over 140 highly disciplined MPs- many sitting on Committees.  Many have been cabinet ministers for two years and know where all the bodies are buried- Question Period will be a real hoot as rookie Cabinet Ministers get grilled, regularily.
> 
> I, too, think that the Liberals may have scored an important and sizeable tactical victory that may yet turn into a strategic defeat for them.  They still have money problems; they still have Mr Dion (which cannot please either Rae or Iggy- public protestations to the contrary)- they may be in danger of disappearing into the NDP- which will not please a bunch of core Liberals.  Oh yeah- and the NDP, Liberals and Bloc have to agree on everything.  Think about that for a second.  How is Afghanistan going to get handled around the Cabinet table?  Or Green Shift?  Or Corporate taxes?



Very good points.  It should be interesting watching Frankenstein's Monster thrash about the Lower House.  Too bad the stakes are pretty high right now....



> And an election will come.  It always does.



Amen.

Well, now I'm really signing off as 9erDomestic is forming a coalition against me.  Out.


----------



## Greymatters (2 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> For some reason, my spidey-sense smells this as well....



Although I would prefer not to, I would agree with this as well.  The 'New Kids and the Bloc' whipped their parties into a frenzy with their slogan of 'anyone but Harper', and leaving Harper as the leader allows them to trot out the same prize pig (this time wearing a tight red miniskirt instead of a gingham dress).   Taking away the point that united them would be a major blow to any campaign strategy...


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Dec 2008)

>I guess this goes to the whole principle of what a Representative truly is?

In our current system, he represents a unit of influence wielded by the PM or someone in the PMO on the PM's behalf.

It's helpful to calm ourselves down by reminding ourselves how the system is structured and distinguishing what is permitted from what we think is right.  But if the structure can't achieve what is right, it will be replaced - peacefully or violently - but it will be replaced.

What I think is "right" is that the country needs to be able to have at least one, preferably two, full 4-5 year terms of majority Conservative government for every 8-16 years of Liberal government.

I'm a bit of a blog junkie, and while I comment pretty much only in the part of the political map in which I feel at home, I read widely enough to get a feel for what the other factions are thinking.  I read to understand their attitude towards my home turf.  And I avoid the fever swamps.

What I perceive of their attitude, stated concisely, is this - and remember, I'm not writing about the fever swamps: that my "faction" (hence I) is unfit to govern.  They simply have not tolerated loss of control gracefully, not for even a brief interval, and notwithstanding that the party in control is on a short leash.  Since the voting pattern in Canada seems to place a hard ceiling of about 40% or low 40s on the Conservative vote, I'm wondering where that leaves my interests in the short term.  I've already observed a significant write-down in my private pension funds; I know that my investments will not be protected and expect that I will be asked to use some of my top-up money to top-up someone else's.  Apparently I am expected to stand by gracefully - because that's the only way the system works - while people who claim to be objective rationalists - the "reality based community" - undertake a massive experiment for reasons they can not or will not explain in detail, using methods about which they have set down nothing except their name in the top left corner of the paper.  Forgive me if I find that arrogant.

From where I sit, they are preparing to fuck with my future - the course as charted by the current government looked extremely reasonable and promising and was based on what was observed and measured.  The only reason I can discern for it is a pure sense of entitlement: they can, so they will.


----------



## MAJONES (2 Dec 2008)

FWIW, there is a protest group on facebook:

*People to Call a general election, say no to the BQ in power!
*

Joining may not seem like much, but it is better than just grumbling about it here on Army.ca

(Just to be safe, I recall that there is a QR&O against signing a petition about policy in the CF, but I don't think that this would fall under that)


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2008)

From the National Post:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/01/kelly-mcparland-liberal-coalition-could-make-canada-a-coony-of-quebec.aspx



> *Kelly McParland: Liberal coalition could make Canada a colony of Quebec*
> Posted: December 01, 2008, 11:50 AM by Kelly McParland
> Full Comment, Kelly McParland, Canadian politics
> 
> ...


----------



## Lil_T (2 Dec 2008)

Agreed.

There is also another FB group that just started up.  *Canadians AGAINST a Coalition Government*.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with the mechanics of forming a coalition, and the opposition powers have been able to do this since the 2006 election.  If they can agree to spend enough money on each other's pet projects, there's no reason they can't govern indefinitely unless their base fraction of voters tires of receiving the benefits of those projects.
> 
> But:
> 
> ...



+1 to you Brad.

I'm starting to wonder if, in fact, there wasn't a greater issue than party financing, that caused the Socialists (Lib, Dem, Bloc) to act.

How about a fear that a "crisis" was NOT responded to by government and people came to see that given time crises resolve themselves.

If I follow Stephen Haper's logic this is an ideal outcome.  As a "minimalist" it suits his personal inclination and his longterm agenda to demonstrate that "Government is not necessary".

For the Interventionists this is not just anathema but a terrifying prospect.  What will they do with themselves if people realise that they are not necessary?  That, in fact, crises do resolve themselves - often messily, sometimes because of intervention, sometimes despite intervention.

They could not allow this crisis to resolve itself without somebody being seen to be doing something - even if, like those toy steering wheels kids play with that are connected to nothing, the actions are totally unrelated to the resolution.

This would bolster the case for that demmed Anglo-Saxon Laissez-faire school of economics - By the way how did that nasty system get tagged with both an Anglo identity and a French epithet?  


Unfortunately for Harper, who might have preferred that the problem was solved proactively and under the radar, this doesn't leave him much ammunition to argue to a panicking public that wants to be assured that someone has a plan and is working it, that everything will be alright in the morning.

So Harper expects the crisis to resolve itself and hopes to be seen to be doing nothing so as to convince Canadians in the future that nothing need be done.

But Canadians are used to Interventionists flailing theatrically and sharing their pain.

The Interventionists give Canadians what they want - in large part because they fear a successful NON-intervention.

Eh - probably overthinking this thing.  Those beers are starting to have an impact.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2008)

Reading some of the rest of the posts 

I find myself agreeing with Brad again on the necessity/legality of the tapes.  It is not necessarily unethical or immoral to break the law.  However it is probable that the justified culprit may still have to "do the time", all in a good cause.  Of course that is why we have Jury Trials by peers which get to gauge whether or not it is appropriate to exempt the culprit from the laws in place.  A bunch of Green Peace activists in Britain just got off a trespass (vandalism?) charge at a Coal Fired Generator Plant by arguing that their lesser crime was necessary to prevent the greater crime (environmental - CO2 yadda yadda) that the plant would commit.

The taping may have been illegal (although Canadian law says that only one party to a conversation needs to know that taping is occuring and as long as the Tory MP came by the phone number honestly I think the legality issue at least open for debate), but it was necessary.

I also agree with SKT - Harper's done - at least as the front man.  Jim Prentice has got a good shot at being the "kinder, gentler" face of Toryism.  And I think he may find the going a bit easier next time because, like Infanteer and Simpson, I think that this will ultimately be  a case of winning the battle but losing the war.

Next time out I can't think the Tories are going to lose many votes.  Their base is going to be more energised than ever.  Liberals and Dippers will have great trouble gaining seats in the West or 519 or 705 or 905 where the Tories were just elected.

Can't speak to the Maritimes or Quebec.  I don't have a handle on their politics and attitudes.

But I do think that this will just deepen the urban-rural split and and confine the Dippers and Liberals to Downtown Ridings of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.   As to the Blockheads - bugger 'em.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2008)

Actually Kirkhill, I think you are right on the meta level. After all, the Labour government of the UK just pissed away 20 billion Pounds Sterling on a stimulus package which did nothing. Perhaps Stephan Dion and Jack Layton could generate the same effect by putting the $30 billion of their "stimulus" package in an old quarry and _*set it on fire*_.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090707/Fears-tax-rises-election-Darling-says-20bn-spending-spree-enough.html#



> Mail Online
> 
> *Fears of tax rises after next election as Darling says £20bn spending spree was not enough*
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2008)

Thanks Thucydides, I was starting to think I was talking to myself again.   



> ...What’s more, he’s being deputed to lead the country during what may be the most critical six months in living memory, after which he would be dumped for someone else. His would-be successors could very well be sitting in his Cabinet, passing judgement on critical issues, while simultaneously campaigning to unseat this leader as inadequate....



That quote from McParland goes to that very issue.  It could be read as an implicit recognition that the "heavy-hitters" know that there is nothing significant that can be done, either positively or negatively, in the next 6 months so they may as well let Dion Strut and Fret for his 15 minutes.  Especially if it gets him out the door more easily.

The real big impact of this crisis, financially speaking, is the inflationary impact of expectations.

Before if a government introduced a 2 Billion Dollar programme the press and pundits were all over it.   If a government produced a, for example, 25 year defence programme for 60 Billion Dollars, the shrieks and wails were manifold.

Now however, after people chucking around 700 Billion here, a Trillion there, 600 Billion the other side of the Pacific the "Theater Goers" won't be satisfied with a paltry 10 Million Dollar "laser show".  They'll demand, and get more extravagant Lalapaloozas of shows.

Back to the Bullion ,,,,, er the Beer.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2008)

For our progressive friends:

http://kerplonka.blogspot.com/2008/12/distinguishing-on-facts.html



> *Distinguishing on the facts*
> 
> There seems to be a lot of glee from the pro-Coalition side about recalling what Stephen Harper said in 2005 when Martin flat-out ignored Parliamentary resolutions demanding he step down ... until they went his way. Well, two points on this:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kevin_M (2 Dec 2008)

I don't even see how this is democratic.

Canada voted for the conservatives to be in power, yet the parties can form a coalition and get the tories out of power. Who are we, Russia?


----------



## Infanteer (2 Dec 2008)

After watching the news tonight, I'd think we shouldn't be too quick to count Stephen Harper out of the fight yet.  If we've learned anything the last couple years, it's that he is a pretty cunning politician himself.  With the Frankenstein Party attempting to pull out some Parliamentary rules to take power, the notion of prorouging the House (the PM's power to do so) may be a technicality he can use to run the Opposition out of steam.  When you got everything to lose, the knives will come out - but is his Party ready for the fight?

P.S.  Is anyone else enjoying the irony that the Liberals, with none other than Stephane Dion, are relying on the Bloc Quebecois to prop them up right now?  I don't think Ribbentrop and Molotov could have pulled that off!!!


----------



## McG (2 Dec 2008)

I am not a fan of the Liberals, NDP or Bloc. However, I think there is an overwhelming wave of hypocritical BS filling up this thread. This board is full of old posts bemoaning the horrors of rule by minority from times when Liberal governments reigned under a plurality.  Now, I'm reading exaggerations of how the opinion of Canadians is being trod upon by those who might challenge the plurality.  If you truly believe in rule by plurality, then stick with that regardless of the party in power.  For those of you flip-flopping your opinion based on how plurality benefits "your party" or not, I accuse you of being every bit as blindly & dangerously partisan as you like to accuse the party which is not yours ...  and I am pointing fingers to both sides of the spectrum.



			
				Kevin_M said:
			
		

> Canada voted for the conservatives to be in power...


No.  Only a minority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives to be in power: http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx

Many in this thread seem to be framing the situation as some violation of the will of the majority.  It is not.  It is the reality of our system that the group able to put together a plurality of the seats is the group that will hold power.  Sometimes we (individually) are happy with who holds that plurality, and sometimes we are not. Rarely does the group in power represent the majority of the voters.  That is our democracy.



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> The west already spoke, loud and clear during the election.


It's only loud & clear if you decide not to look past the seat count.  The Conservatives did earn the majority of the popular vote, but only by 2.4% (see http://enr.elections.ca/Provinces_e.aspx ).  I would not call that a "loud and clear" .  It is ambiguous leanings in favour of.



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> It's a shock to see just how easy it is for all of our votes to become meaningless and ...
> 
> The plurality of Canadians elected the Conservatives,


You are like a stone wall as I've already taken apart the notion of "all our votes".  In the case of our current government, the plurality is a minority.  A coalition government would not overturn all Canadian votes.  It would simply shift us from one group with a plurality to another group (one which actually reflects an ambiguous majority of the voters).


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (2 Dec 2008)

I take a quote from (Rex Murphy) on the national last night when he said.

*"Either Mr. Harper is to dumb to know what he's doing, or he's to arrogant to care"*

 Harper said Dion was a national embarrassment, well as far as Mr Harper is concerned, what he has succeeded in doing over the past week with his divide and conquer tactics, makes him an even bigger embarrassment to his own party. Instead of concentrating on whats important, he persistently continued to poke the hornets nest. He poked the nest once to many times and he got stung. I really think the man can't help himself. This persistence to always be confertational must be in his DNA, because he continuesly goes for the jugular even when there's no reason to and this time he was held to account. The man obviously doesn't like opposition and that has become much more evident is this session of Parliament. Its either his way or the highway. He's a one man show and I really believe he thinks he can just go of and do what he pleases without having to answer to anyone.

Watching question period on CPAC yesterday, when the opposition stood up while Tony Clement was speaking and shouted "new leader", well when Prentice sat back down next to Harper, Harper threw him a look that if looks could kill Prentice would probably be dead. Harper didn't look at all to impressed by the gesture.

I think If the coalition can pull it of, more power to them, because at this point anything is better than Harper. I'd even take a conservative party without Harper at the helm.

Wheres the Rhino party when you need them!


----------



## meni0n (2 Dec 2008)

MCG, the conservatives got the most votes of any of the other parties, sure if you combine all of the other party votes, they got less than all together but, those parties ran on different campaign platforms and that is why people voted for the ones that appealed to them and now you're saying that it doesn't matter and they will all have the same platform now? How does that makes sense? Why didn't they all present one common platform and ran under a coalition banner? Since they all differed opinions in their campaigns six weeks ago, how is this going to be a functional government if they start to be divided on an issue? Last we heard the Liberals want out of Afghanistan in 2011, Bloc 2009 and NDP now. And when they start to in-fight and not able to make a decision, or not support each other in the House then the conservatives will just do to them what they just did.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (2 Dec 2008)

In other forms of government,  in minority situations, nothing gets done.  For example in the States if they can't pass a budget,  people don't get paid.  Our system is set up so that if the people who are 'in charge' can't get stuff done they;re not in charge anymore.  Typically an election is called if the government can't pass its bills, but there are other options,  one is the GG can ask the opposition if they are able to get stuff done.  


It is rare that the other parities would have enough in common,  but both the bloc and NDP gave up ALOT to make it work.  (yes I'm talking in the past tense,  they've reached an agreement and they have enough they want to do to keep busy for the next year and a half) I think it is a very Canadian solution - a bully pushing everyone around thwarted by people with radically different backgrounds, ideals and visions coming together in compromise to say "That's enough of that thank you very much".


----------



## helpup (2 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I was working in Kingston recently, and their city council tried to get $8 million in federal "infrastructure" money for their vast and uneconomic multi-use downtown arena. London Ontario receives *121% more from the federal and provincial governments than the average of 30 similar Canadian cities*, yet refuses to actually spend that money on infrastructure (they budget @ $8 million/year vs the @ $30 million /year actually needed). A large "Stimulus" package will only trigger inflation and devalue any accumulated savings and wealth you might have (compounding the global financial crisis to boot, which is caused by a vast imbalance between wealth and accumulated debt.)
> 
> It looks like a multi prong counterattack against inept and "progressive" city councils, Provincial governments and programs wherever they exist and national level "Progressive" parties is needed to end the madness.



That is why I added the line about " any takers".  Most of the packages allot of the parties are talking about ( ok so make that two of the parties) involve infrastructure as a large source of putting Govt cash.  Once you factor in the little kingdoms back scratching that goes on there will be a large percentage of funds going to questionable projects and or just being boneheaded.  Still I do think there will be a major increase.   Will it help the "Global Crisis"  I have my doubt's but we are going to have to do some serious upgrading and repair to the infrastructure.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Dec 2008)

OK, for those who think that they voted for Harper for PM, you are all full of beans.  As for me, I voted the same way I always vote: by secret ballot.
My options were for a number of people (5 or 6, as I recall) who all wanted to represent Prince Edward-Hastings in Parliament.  As it turned out, the candidate who is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada was elected to represent my riding.  As it stands now, he is on the government side.  Come next week, he may be in opposition.  Whatever.  
I do realise that Messrs Dion, Layton and Duceppe were more upset about losing out the federal monies for votes "thingy" than anything else, but politics do make strange bedfellows.
Whoever said that Canadian politics are boring were, in my opinion, a bit off!


----------



## helpup (2 Dec 2008)

I don't have too big of an issue with the Coalition.  I don't like it, but as it has been pointed out in our system and in many others it is fully allowable and does have it's own benefits ( perceived or real ) It also has it's drawbacks.  That this one will be supported by the Bloc being one of the big ones.  Yet the Bloc for the time being have stepped back from the " lets separate".  They know that Quebec's are not into that (  at that moment ) So they are doing what they think is best for their province.  And to keep the coalition going you just know they will get a "fair share" of keep the Bloc happy amendments.  The moment they don't this coalition will fall. 

It still remains to be seen if this horse will even get out of the Gate.  There is the Proroguing by the PM, the choice of the GG, the voicing of the Canadian people that still need to be felt out.  And for those who feel it is illegal and undemocratic.  Well my take on that is there are people in Posn who sole job revolves around seeing what is legal and non legal with the way the Govt does things.  I will trust their judgement to the legality.  My liking it is a differant matter and I can fully understand why people will HATE and LOVE this political move.  

Personally I am embarrassed by the Conservatives pushing the Opposition into a corner, I am embarrassed at the NDP', Liberal's Get Harper view.  I actually understand the Bloc's view it is pretty simple what is best for Quebec and our view.  ( Although you could argue they would get similar perks with out too much effort with the Conservatives in power. )

I am amused at the situation and the realization that "History is being made".  I am also looking forward to seeing the aftermath of this stunt in 4.....-18 months from now when as pointed out we will go to the Polls again.   

What I would rather be seeing though is a Country that has a Calm leadership that is not rushing to spend it's way out of a situation. Especially since the US has not completely announced its own plan until Obama is in.  And Since the Liberals gave us a number of good budget years we can afford to sit on the fence for a bit longer and see what works and what doesn't work.  

Democracy in action never promised you would get what you wanted, liked or even thought of.  It does allow you to have a say though.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2008)

This event may or may not be democratic.  Laws may on may not be right.  The courts may or may not be just.  Life may or may not be fair.

Rugby - League, Union and Sevens, Soccer, Aussie Rules, Gaelic,  American and Canadian ....... all purport to be Football.

The game is being played by our local rules.  

If we don't like the rules, as Infanteer points out, we should, within those same rules, work to change them.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2008)

> It is rare that the other parities would have enough in common,  but both the bloc and NDP gave up ALOT to make it work.  (yes I'm talking in the past tense,  they've reached an agreement and they have enough they want to do to keep busy for the next year and a half) I think it is a very Canadian solution - a bully pushing everyone around thwarted by people with radically different backgrounds, ideals and visions coming together in compromise to say "That's enough of that thank you very much".



Zell - you and I are never going to perceive political situations from the same viewpoint I fear.  

First off - "people with radically different backgrounds, ideals and visions coming together in compromise to say "That's enough of that thank you very much"."

Jack, Gilles and Stephane do not have "radically different backgrounds, ideals and visions" except by comparison to Stephen Harper.  In that, those that argue that Canadians are closer in spirit to the socialists than the Tories, have a case.  Jack, Gilles and Stephane all agree on the nature of a national economy, the importance of being Right, social integration and the power and necessity of coercion.   This sets them apart from Stephen Harper and many of the Conservatives.

One group tries to stem and contain and direct the tides of history and marshalls the greater community to achieve their ends.  The other group tends to see the tides of history as a surfing opportunity which challlenges the individual.

Jack and Gilles don't surf.

The only difference between Jack and Gilles (Stephane is a non-entity along for the ride) is a disagreement on who is going to be in charge.

Demonstrably both of them, given an opportunity to demonstrate their democratic credentials in the way they run their parties, have proven to be vastly more undemocratic, controlling and intolerant than Stephen Harper has ever been.

And, with respect to bullying.......need one mention Le P'tit Gars and the chokehold?  Or Pierre Trudeau (War Measures, Imposed Constitution, Desecration of Institutions, NEP, Reversal on Wage and Price Controls.....)?  Or even William Lyon MacKenzie King (and no it doesn't help that he is part Scots).

We do agree, as I noted above, this is just the game being played by Canadian rules...... But as a born again cynic, don't try and convince me that there is some higher purpose all this serves.  Keep that for the teenagers and those of the stunted ilk of Carleton's Poli Sci department.  It is a fairy tale.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Dec 2008)

What if some of these coalition MP's decide they dont like this arrangement and cross the aisle ? Is this scenario possible ?


----------



## Seyek (2 Dec 2008)

I suppose it is, could be when the vote comes up if (12 I think?) members of the opposition cross the floor, then Harper could have a majority. I don't like this coalition idea in the slightest, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the concept of Prime Minister Dion, and the fact that this coalition is built upon the support of the Bloc who will be receiving god only knows what at this point for their support. They won't officially be the government, but they'll be the foundation thats keeping the government standing. 

 Speaking of which, how many people here are going to don the uniform, look in the mirror, and still be able to feel the same sense of pride knowing that their government's strings are now being pulled by the bloc?


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

How many billions of our dollars were promised to go Quebec's way? How many contracts will be awarded to Quebec companies?

That is the whole debate isn't it? How much is it going to cost the rest of Canada to ensure Mr. Duceppe's support for this coalition? 
Mr. Duceppe and the BLOC are out to separate Quebec from Canada. As a matter of principle, the Liberals and NDP should not be cooperating with this party. 
I know Harper did, and he should not have either.

The tail is wagging the Canadian dog.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

Seyek said:
			
		

> Speaking of which, how many people here are going to don the uniform, look in the mirror, and still be able to feel the same sense of pride knowing that their government's strings are now being pulled by the bloc?



Good point. You can bet if the coalition does manage to toss the government, how long will it be before we are told to pack up our kit and get out of Afghanistan?


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> It's only loud & clear if you decide not to look past the seat count.  The Conservatives did earn the majority of the popular vote, but only by 2.4% (see http://enr.elections.ca/Provinces_e.aspx ).  I would not call that a "loud and clear" .  It is ambiguous leanings in favour of.



2.4% of the vote nationally would most likely have handed the Conservatives a majority 37.65% + 2.4% = 40.05%  The percentage may sound small but the liberals had a strong majority with 38.46% nationally in 1997. 2.4% in a multiparty democracy using FPTP *is* significant hence the seat count 71 seats for Conservatives 21 for the rest.



> You are like a stone wall as I've already taken apart the notion of "all our votes".  In the case of our current government, the plurality is a minority.  A coalition government would not overturn all Canadian votes.  It would simply shift us from one group with a plurality to another group (one which actually reflects an ambiguous majority of the voters).



Yes, I'm a stone wall.  No one voted for a coalition, it wasn't on the ballot.  The idea that this plan was hatched before the speech from the throne is repugnant to me and should be repugnant to anyone who values their vote and what it stands for.

Yes it's all very politically possible and well within the rules.  That doesn't make me like it and won't make me approve of it.

Since you want to take me to task I'll conclude with this.  *I* don't like it.  *I* don't consider this democratic.  *I* hate the thought that the decision on this falls to an unelected figurehead. *I'd* rather spend 300 million on another election than spend a single red cent on a stimulus package that no one has demonstrated a need for. *I* hate the thought that Quebec separatists will have their thumb on Canada's jugular for 30 months if this abortion goes through. *I* will not pragmatically look on the bright side of this bastardization of process by claiming that it will grease the wheels with Barack Obama, or otherwise look good to the rest of the planet for that matter.

Just in case anyone had the mistaken impression that anything I said was anything other than my opinion.


----------



## geo (2 Dec 2008)

Let's face it.... the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc have major divergent views on government.
If the three parties can make it work ... fine - they will be a slightly larger minority government than what we have right now BUT, will it be stable ???

time will tell - if it is unstaqble, it will topple - sooner than later & then we,ll have another chance at selecting a government that truly represents us.... or we'll deserve whatever it is that we get - once again.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

T





			
				geo said:
			
		

> Let's face it.... the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc have major divergent views on government.
> If the three parties can make it work ... fine - they will be a slightly larger minority government than what we have right now BUT, will it be stable ???
> 
> time will tell - if it is unstaqble, it will topple - sooner than later & then we,ll have another chance at selecting a government that truly represents us.... or we'll deserve whatever it is that we get - once again.


This "coalition" will survive as long as Quebec gets what Mr. Duceppe asks...no,  tells Parliament what to give to Quebec. As soon as their is a balk from the Liberals/NDP, that coalition will fall.
There is no coalition in power right now, as far as I know. It may not even happen.


----------



## geo (2 Dec 2008)

Ummm... that's my point +/-

There are limits to what Mr Duceppe can "demand" & he knows it.
So long as there are no chages (as proposed by Mr harper), Mr Duceppe has agreed to come along for the ride - for the next 18 months anyway.  If they deviate, the house of cards will fall and we will be given a chance to vote once again.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (2 Dec 2008)

I find this entire situation very unerving.  We are in a situation, where acurately or not, people are beleiving our economy to be in a state of crisis (I happen to think its not that bad).  On top of that, a deficit is approaching and now we are faced with the prospect of a left wing coalition.  I think that if this does come to pass and the deficit gets worse the most appealing budgetary target for cuts will be the military.  We have seen this before.  This is Canada, we are the first to get the big chop.  We are finally getting to a point of positive momentum after the damage that was done to our military in the 90s.  What will our military look like when this new coalition is done with it?  I think alot of the bigger spending announcements that we have seen in recent years will be reversed and worse.  I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Flip (2 Dec 2008)

The damage done in the short term is what bothers me.

Now that we have a confluence of danger and opportunity ( I hate the word crisis )

Will Alberta be forced out of the energy business and into non-existent  "green jobs"?

Will our position as a relatively healthy economy be forfeited for "values" sake?

Will Canadas' potential role change in Afghanistan benefit the Taliban?

Markets hate uncertainty. Now we've got bags of uncertainty....... If only we could sell 'em.


----------



## geo (2 Dec 2008)

Umm... the economies of all the other G8... possibly the economies of the other G20 are all headed south & you think we have somehow miraculously managed to blunder through it with nothing more than some of singed feathers ???


----------



## Flip (2 Dec 2008)

> Umm... the economies of all the other G8... possibly the economies of the other G20 are all headed south & you think we have somehow miraculously managed to blunder through it with nothing more than some of singed feathers



There's no point in making it worse...

If Canada indeed, has the healthiest economy, Canada becomes an investment haven.
If the new coalition taxes and spends us into a hole........our goose gets a little cooked.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Let's face it.... the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc have major divergent views on government.


....

But that is my point.  They Do NOT have major differences on governance.   The NDP and the Bloc only disagree on who is to be in charge and where.  They would both run their separate countries the same way.

As to the Liberals.  In the course of building their now very ragged big tent they actively recruited many "Socialists in a hurry".  Those socialists have now absconded with the rags and are flailing them about like a banner.  Leaving the rest of what used to be the Liberals sitting on the bleachers wondering what happened.

The Bloc, NDP and Socialist Liberals, the Internationalists, the Interventionists are all very much of a common mind.


PS and yes, I agree with Flip, we have "blundered through".  Don't make a bad situation worse.


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

IMO, a referendum wouldn't be a bad idea. We just had an election, so in theory there's not much point in having another one (although I think if we did, the Conservatives would have a majority because of all this ruckus), but a referendum of "Who would you rather govern? The coalition or the Conservatives" would work fine. No campaigning crap, just set up the damn polls and let the people decide (again). I think it would be overwhelming support for the Conservatives.

Anywho, I'm off to write my (Liberal) MP for the 3rd time. Is there anyway you can be sure he receives these? I gave it to his assistant and asked what it was regarding, I said "the coalition gov't" and she chuckled... I got the impression that it wasn't going to make it past her...


----------



## Celticgirl (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm a stone wall.  No one voted for a coalition, it wasn't on the ballot.  The idea that this plan was hatched before the speech from the throne is repugnant to me and should be repugnant to anyone who values their vote and what it stands for.
> 
> Yes it's all very politically possible and well within the rules.  That doesn't make me like it and won't make me approve of it.



Agreed, 100%. No one voted for this manage-a-trois. The Three Amigos are all cheshire kitty grins now, but what does this really mean for our country? 

What really scares me - even more than having an unpopular leader like Dion at the helm - is the Bloc's involvement in this mess and what kind of backroom deal was made to get his party on board. The Canadian people were left in the dark about that, weren't we? I heard Duceppe last night saying he is protecting the interests of "the nation of Quebec". Does that not scare the bejeesus out of anyone else? Dion and Layton are so power-hungry that they haven't truly thought through the consequences of their actions for Canadians and our country, not just for themselves and their parties.

IMHO: The only good thing that can come of this is if the GG sends us back to the polling stations and the Conservatives get a majority.


----------



## Flip (2 Dec 2008)

> Anywho, I'm off to write my (Liberal) MP for the 3rd time. Is there anyway you can be sure he receives these?



Tie it around a brick with some string and........never mind. >

Last night I found myself getting surveyed by phone.
The survey was poorly constructed and pretty obviously was commisioned by the liberals.
Oddly, Paul Martin was offered as an option!


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> IMHO: The only good thing that can come of this is if the GG sends us back to the polling stations and the Conservatives get a majority.



Unfortunately, the one time the GG actually has a job to do, she's going to sit there and take it. Why are we paying her anyway? I was never a supporter of having a GG, and this is just evidence that the whole "if" scenario ever did occur, she wouldn't do anything anyway.


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Tie it around a brick with some string and........never mind. >



I'm way ahead of you... I already had that done but when I got down to his office at 1am, I realised it was on the 4th floor of the building haha


----------



## Harley Sailor (2 Dec 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Although, every Canadian does get full control over who will get thier $1.75.  That aspect at least seems relatively democratic.



Another reason not to vote.. If no one votes then no one gets your $1.75


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Dec 2008)

Just perusing this story on this forum (and elsewhere), and was I correct in seeing that one aspect of the deal (to appease the Bloc) was to make it "French Only" for federal institutions within Quebec?  Or was that the rambling of some crotchety old commentator?


----------



## Blindspot (2 Dec 2008)

Here's a suggestion that I've heard has been running around western radio stations today:

All Conservative MPs should resign their seats en mass should the GG allow the coalition to form a government. This might force the GG to call a general election.


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Just perusing this story on this forum (and elsewhere), and was I correct in seeing that one aspect of the deal (to appease the Bloc) was to make it "French Only" for federal institutions within Quebec?  Or was that the rambling of some crotchety old commentator?



Nope, that's exactly what you saw/heard.



			
				Blindspot said:
			
		

> Here's a suggestion that I've heard has been running around western radio stations today:
> 
> All Conservative MPs should resign their seats en mass should the GG allow the coalition to form a government. This might force the GG to call a general election.



Hmmm... Interesting for sure... any idea of the details in that? What would be the sequence of events? Surely it wouldn't simply be "we resign" and then "election time"?


----------



## CountDC (2 Dec 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Nope, that's exactly what you saw/heard.
> 
> Hmmm... Interesting for sure... any idea of the details in that? What would be the sequence of events? Surely it wouldn't simply be "we resign" and then "election time"?



I believe it would be election time - by-election time.  Wouldn't it just be those seats vacated up for grabs?


----------



## rampage800 (2 Dec 2008)

This whole thing is "Bush League" (not a ref to the US President) Canada looks more like a third world country pulling this stunt, the only thing missing is Dion wearing DEUs with medals hanging off all over the place like some of the leaders in those countries. Its hard to believe that the new PM might be someone that most Canadians wouldn't follow out of a burning house !

Junk


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I believe it would be election time - by-election time.  Wouldn't it just be those seats vacated up for grabs?



If one or two seats resigned then yes, but 147 (I think... whatever it is, it's pretty damn close to half the seats)? I can see why the GG might decide to call a federal election then...


----------



## Blindspot (2 Dec 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Interesting for sure... any idea of the details in that? What would be the sequence of events? Surely it wouldn't simply be "we resign" and then "election time"?



I imagine it would go something like this:

GG: Steven, sucks to be you but Steph and Jack are the boys now.
SH: Oh yeah? Well, we quit this gongshow.
GG: We? What do you mean, 'we'?
SH: I mean all 143 on this side of the house, 'we'.
MacKay: Oh SNAP!


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

I know it's not a very legit poll, but on msn.ca, 62% would rather the Conservatives govern, compared to only 20% who want the coalition to run. 18% chose "neither"  :

Again, not a scientific poll, but it's pretty decisive so I think it deserves mention.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Dec 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Just perusing this story on this forum (and elsewhere), and was I correct in seeing that one aspect of the deal (to appease the Bloc) was to make it "French Only" for federal institutions within Quebec?  Or was that the rambling of some crotchety old commentator?



That's going to be a gaping self inflicted wound on the Liberals in Quebec next election; there are many yellow dog ridings in English Montreal that will see that as a the ultimate sell-out.

However, that condition does not appear in writing anywhere, but I suspect it will come out if the coalition is seated on the government benches.  Then the constitutional challenges to any such initiative will begin.

At least constitutional lawyers and scholars are gettig some work right now - a form of low-level economic stimulus.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> He has signed.
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html



That document is not the one proposing a coalition, that is a letter to the GG asking her to take a look at the other letter.  The one proposing a coalition only contains the signatures of Layton and Dion.

That may seem trivial but I dare say that without a formal coalition that can *guarantee* enough votes in parliament (i.e. one that explicitly includes the Bloc) to defeat the Conservatives the GG isn't going to entertain Larry, Moe and Curly's coalition.

Election 2008 redux here we come.


----------



## Greymatters (2 Dec 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Just perusing this story on this forum (and elsewhere), and was I correct in seeing that one aspect of the deal (to appease the Bloc) was to make it "French Only" for federal institutions within Quebec?  Or was that the rambling of some crotchety old commentator?



Effectively isolating them and creating a series of shadow insitutions.  How can they talk to each other if they dont speak the same language.  Answer, they wont.  At least with bilingualism there is a conduit for communication...


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

Trivia: in terms of absolute vote count, Stephen Harper received more votes in 2008 (5.21 million) than Paul Martin did in 2004 (4.98 million) or Jean Chretien received in his 1997 election (4.99 million) which earned him a majority. Harper’s 2008 count roughly tied Chretien’s 2000 majority result, too (5.25 million).

Thanks to Ezra Levant for doing the leg work.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/the-day-the-bloc-quebecois-joi.html


----------



## Teflon (2 Dec 2008)

Sad 

But I don't remember seeing The New Democratic Libreal Separatist Party as an option on my last ballot

Guess none of them ran in my riding?


----------



## Blakey (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> That document is not the one proposing a coalition, that is a letter to the GG asking her to take a look at the other letter.  The one proposing a coalition only contains the signatures of Layton and Dion.
> 
> That may seem trivial but I dare say that without a formal coalition that can *guarantee* enough votes in parliament (i.e. one that explicitly includes the Bloc) to defeat the Conservatives the GG isn't going to entertain Larry, Moe and Curly's coalition.
> 
> Election 2008 redux here we come.



They must have read your post  
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf

EDIT, sorry Zip, I could have sworn I had the same .pdf doc w/ the BQ leader on it, Wait out, I'll se if I can find it again...


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> They must have read your post
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf



I don't get what you are saying CK,  I'm pointing out that the document you just linked, the one that spells out the actual coalition only contains the signatures of Dion and Layton.  The one you linked to earlier as proof of Ducepes involvement was nothing more than a "please governor General look at our proposal" letter.

The Letter has nothing politically to offer the GG when she makes up her mind.  She will casually do the math and realize that the real coalition partners (excluding the gun the BQ are holding to their heads in the backroom) don't have more seats in their proposed minority than the government has in the current one.


----------



## Blakey (2 Dec 2008)

Sorry Zip, here is the document that I wanted to post
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Policy%20Frame_en.pdf

Would this have any bearing on what you had proposed?

Or is this more akin to a "Party Platform"?


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> Sorry Zip, here is the document that I wanted to post
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Policy%20Frame_en.pdf
> 
> Would this have any bearing on what you had proposed?
> ...



It's interesting but it has absolutely nothing to do with the way the coalition was constructed and how it was presented to the GG. 

Funny that the same parties that lambasted the Conservatives for a thin policy document during the election think that they can replace the Conservatives plan with what amounts to a socialist call to arms scrawled on a single piece of foolscap.


----------



## geo (2 Dec 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the one time the GG actually has a job to do, she's going to sit there and take it. Why are we paying her anyway? I was never a supporter of having a GG, and this is just evidence that the whole "if" scenario ever did occur, she wouldn't do anything anyway.



Umm... why are you prejudging her actions.... before she has taken them ???
you don't support her appointment ??? gawd - so $hit Sherlock! you've certainly made that clear.

To date the GG has done extremely well by my books - living up to the expectations of the country.
I would expect her to inform herself of all the options that are open to her in the role of the GG - consulting parliamentary experts here (and possibly back in the UK) before taking any action.


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Umm... why are you prejudging her actions.... before she has taken them ???



I haven't heard one political analyst say that there's even a slim hope in hell that she will call an election rather then allow the coalition. According to the many analysts and experts and blah blah blah, if the coaliton presents something with weight, she'll accept it rather then calling another election 8 weeks after the last election. 

This is what her advisors will "advise" her to do. I don't expect her to make the decision at all. I expect her to do as she's told, which is what a GG does.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> I haven't heard one political analyst say that there's even a slim hope in hell that she will call an election rather then allow the coalition. According to the many analysts and experts and blah blah blah, if the coaliton presents something with weight, she'll accept it rather then calling another election 8 weeks after the last election.
> 
> This is what her advisors will "advise" her to do. I don't expect her to make the decision at all. I expect her to do as she's told, which is what a GG does.


We can see you don't like the office of Governor General. I've met the last two and they are all that is good with Canada. 

When you become PM, then you can work to have the office abolished.


----------



## Greymatters (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Funny that the same parties that lambasted the Conservatives for a thin policy document during the election think that they can replace the Conservatives plan with what amounts to a socialist call to arms scrawled on a single piece of foolscap.



Even more concerning is the intelligence and wisdom of who is going to supposedly make the call.  Does the GG, the current or any person plucked out of nowhere because they look good, really have the political experience and education to make this kind of call?  The GG wasnt appointed because she won a nobel prize.  And is the GG truly impartial, considering the current incumbent was appointed by a Liberal PM?


----------



## Blindspot (2 Dec 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Just perusing this story on this forum (and elsewhere), and was I correct in seeing that one aspect of the deal (to appease the Bloc) was to make it "French Only" for federal institutions within Quebec?  Or was that the rambling of some crotchety old commentator?



More rumours from Mike Duffy regarding backroom deals of the coalition:

- One billion more for Quebec in equalization payments.
- *6 Bloc senators!*
- Elizabeth May a senator.

Democracy in action.


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Even more concerning is the intelligence and wisdom of who is going to supposedly make the call.  Does the GG, the current or any person plucked out of nowhere because they look good, really have the political experience and education to make this kind of call?  The GG wasnt appointed because she won a nobel prize.  And is the GG truly impartial, considering the current incumbent was appointed by a Liberal PM?



Now now, don't go questioning her competance or anything of the sort, after all, she's a nice lady from what I hear :



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I've met the last two and they are all that is good with Canada.



Sorry to be a smart @$$ but I really don't see how them being a good person justifies making them a monarch. Jack Layton seems like a nice fellow too...


----------



## TCBF (2 Dec 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Even more concerning is the intelligence and wisdom of who is going to supposedly make the call.  Does the GG, the current or any person plucked out of nowhere because they look good, really have the political experience and education to make this kind of call?  The GG wasnt appointed because she won a nobel prize.  And is the GG truly impartial, considering the current incumbent was appointed by a Liberal PM?



- Irrelevant.  She has the position and the position has it's responsibilities.  Too late to sort out any issues NOW.  Nothing new here.  King/Bing et al.


----------



## Flip (2 Dec 2008)

For better or worse the GG *will* make history.

I hope (having no idea of course) that she simply tells the coalition to piss off and get back to work in the current parliment.
That's what this deserves, I think.

It appears to me (out west) that there is little popular support for this.
Out here, people are vibrating with anger. 

Well, I am anyway....


----------



## TCBF (2 Dec 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> ...after all, she's a nice lady from what I hear ...



- She is.  Want to go back to the old days of Madame Sauve?  Spare me.


----------



## geo (2 Dec 2008)

So you're making your decisions by what analysts best guess the options she has open to her.

No point in pre judging her actions - As a newsreporter, she's been quite capable of digging for ALL the options.

Let's face it, Stephen started behaving like he had his majority & got exactly what he deserved - a bloody nose.
From what I've seen & heard, most Conservative MPs aren't one bit happy with the road Stephen is taking them down


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

Well ballz then don't be a smart a$$. All I was trying to say was thay they are gracious and just all around nice people.

Jack Layton IS NOT a nice person. He is a weasel, in socialist clothes. A limosine liberal.

The position of GG is largely ceremonial. It is a holdover from the days when we were governed by Great Britain. In fact,you don't even need to be particularly smart to be the GG, although Adrienne Clarkson certainly is very intelligent.
It was Ms Clarkson who established the Commander In Chief's Unit Commendation. I wear that with pride.
You'll excuse me, ballz, but this is a sore spot with me.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - She is.  Want to go back to the old days of Madame Sauve?  Spare me.



Yeah, she (Sauve) stabbed me with a pen at Vimy Ridge!  ( :warstory: True story)


----------



## geo (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Yeah, she (Sauve) stabbed me with a pen at Vimy Ridge!  ( :warstory:True story)



You probably got too close


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> It appears to me (out west) that there is little popular support for this.
> Out here, people are vibrating with anger.



i suspect this has fueled a bit more western seperatism



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Well ballz then don't be a smart a$$. All I was trying to say was thay they are gracious and just all around nice people.
> 
> Jack Layton IS NOT a nice person. He is a weasel, in socialist clothes. A limosine liberal.
> 
> ...



Understood... I don't mind having her as a figurehead... And for the most part, that's all she is... But in reality, Canada is still a parliamentary MONARCHY, and she truly does have power. Keep her around, fine and dandy, we've wasted money on worse things... But we shouldn't have a monarch there, no matter how powerless she might *seem*


----------



## GAP (2 Dec 2008)

Canadians need to make their thoughts regarding the current political dilemma facing this country known. 

Contact Canada's Governor General, Michaelle Jean and vocalize your opinion:
E-Mail: info@gg.ca
PHONE: toll-free long distance 1-800-465-6890
PHONE : long distance 1-613-993-8200
FAX: 1-613-998-8760


----------



## observor 69 (2 Dec 2008)

OK I'll meet ya in the middle. Scrap the coalition but also scrap Harper. 
 Jim Prentice comes to mind as a replacement.  Good ex-Progressive Conservative and recognized by most Conservatives as a man of ability.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

Don't hold your breath waiting for this coalition of the three very strange amigos to take power. Politics does make strange bedfellows,  to be sure.

The PM has other options.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2008)

And now, a word from Steven Staples:



> Anything is possible! But we have to make it happen.
> 
> 
> Dear Ceasefire.ca supporter,
> ...



And a reminder of why we have this situation in the first place:



> The problem is that once the scope of government is vast and sweeping, and the power of the office is enormous; once you get to where you must have vast sums to get the office, and you must win because otherwise you are ruined by your borrowing, and possibly up for prosecution for criminalized policy differences -- *then you are where the Roman Republic was, and it is worth everything to win.*
> 
> http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view507.html#scope


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Dec 2008)

Um No. Harper was Leader of the PC when we went to the polls in October. So people voted for a PC MP in their riding, they knew they were getting Harper as PM.

This coalition? Who went to the polls and ticked off the NDP member running in their riding with a hope of seeing Dion as PM? Or how about someone nominating a BQ member and getting a liberal as their party leader? That is the part to me that seems undemocratic.

This coalition may follow letter of the law but it does not follow the spirit of the law IMO.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Um No. Harper was Leader of the PC when we went to the polls in October. So people voted for a PC MP in their riding, they knew they were getting Harper as PM.
> 
> This coalition? Who went to the polls and ticked off the NDP member running in their riding with a hope of seeing Dion as PM? Or how about someone nominating a BQ member and getting a liberal as their party leader? That is the part to me that seems undemocratic.
> 
> This coalition may follow letter of the law but it does not follow the spirit of the law IMO.



CPC right, not PC.  Warm fuzzy and oh so happy progressiveness is what got us to this point in the first place.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Um No. Harper was Leader of the PC when we went to the polls in October. So people voted for a PC MP in their riding, they knew they were getting Harper as PM.
> 
> This coalition? Who went to the polls and ticked off the NDP member running in their riding with a hope of seeing Dion as PM? Or how about someone nominating a BQ member and getting a liberal as their party leader? That is the part to me that seems undemocratic.
> 
> This coalition may follow letter of the law but it does not follow the spirit of the law IMO.



Agreed. The Libs/NDP are always taking someone to task about the "spirit of the law". Too bad they, and MR. Staples (IMO an agent provacateur) couldn't be taken to the woodshed for some good old fashioned "spiritual" counselling.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

Anyone still think that this is a good thing for the country... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081202/quebec_coalition_081202/20081202?hub=Canada



> "If the Bloc Quebecois can get things for Quebec while Jean Charest is on his knees. . ." Marois said, her voice trailing off.
> 
> "It's Quebec that will come out the winner," she continued.



And Canada the loser.


----------



## Teeps74 (2 Dec 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> i suspect this has fueled a bit more western seperatism
> 
> Understood... I don't mind having her as a figurehead... And for the most part, that's all she is... But in reality, Canada is still a parliamentary MONARCHY, and she truly does have power. Keep her around, fine and dandy, we've wasted money on worse things... But we shouldn't have a monarch there, no matter how powerless she might *seem*



Well, you know. Aside from the OATH most of us took and take very seriously, I suppose there is a point there. At this point, I am very glad I took an oath, because that oath is NOT to serve the Bloc, or any other particular party, but rather the Queen of Canada and Her rightful heirs and succesors.


----------



## helpup (2 Dec 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> More rumours from Mike Duffy regarding backroom deals of the coalition:
> 
> - One billion more for Quebec in equalization payments.
> - *6 Bloc senators!*
> ...



Bearing in mind you said Rumours That is hilarious in a very BAD WAY    ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Anyone still think that this is a good thing for the country... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081202/quebec_coalition_081202/20081202?hub=Canada
> 
> And Canada the loser.


Agreed.

This is not a good thing. To the woodshed with Dion, Layton, Duceppe and Steven Staples~~~ :rage:


----------



## Prariedawg (2 Dec 2008)

In my opinion we need someone with the power to do this if this coalition takes power.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DygRpOO5kt0&feature=related

As was already stated in this thread just because of legalise doublespeak used by the current opposition parties to pull off this little coup makes it legal, it in no way makes it right. The GG should tell them all to pound salt and get back to governing the nation.


----------



## TCBF (2 Dec 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> More rumours from Mike Duffy regarding backroom deals of the coalition:
> 
> - One billion more for Quebec in equalization payments.
> - *6 Bloc senators!*
> ...



- I think it fairly safe to assume that PM Harper will not leave office before filling all Senate and Supreme Court vacancies.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

Prariedawg said:
			
		

> In my opinion we need someone with the power to do this if this coalition takes power.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hear! Hear! Well said!!


----------



## Blindspot (2 Dec 2008)

Just a thought...

What if Duceppe is playing everyone for the fool? All he has to do early in this coalition, should it take shape, is to make some unruly demand or refuse an "unreasonable" request for support of a Liberal action. The whole thing comes down and what's left of the Liberals is destroyed in the next election. The Bloc really wouldn't be any worse off. Dion and Layton are blamed... The Conservatives are still in relative disarray in Quebec.


----------



## Teflon (2 Dec 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Just a thought...
> 
> What if Duceppe is playing everyone for the fool? All he has to do early in this coalition, should it take shape, is to make some unruly demand or refuse an "unreasonable" request for support of a Liberal action. The whole thing comes down and what's left of the Liberals is destroyed in the next election. The Bloc really wouldn't be any worse off. Dion and Layton are blamed... The Conservatives are still in relative disarray in Quebec.



One can truely hope that is the case


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Just a thought...
> 
> What if Duceppe is playing everyone for the fool? All he has to do early in this coalition, should it take shape, is to make some unruly demand or refuse an "unreasonable" request for support of a Liberal action. The whole thing comes down and what's left of the Liberals is destroyed in the next election. The Bloc really wouldn't be any worse off. Dion and Layton are blamed... The Conservatives are still in relative disarray in Quebec.



And what if Harper is doing the same? What if he's betting that the GG will rebuff the coalition?


----------



## Blindspot (2 Dec 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> And what if Harper is doing the same? What if he's betting that the GG will rebuff the coalition?



It would be nowhere near as damaging for the Liberals. The coalition government means time wasted in putting together a cabinet and transition. The Liberals are telling Canadians they're acting in the best interest of the country and virtually side-stepping the separatist question. If Duceppe goes Brutus shortly after the Liberals take power, the Conservatives will be all over that in the next election and the electorate will have actually seen the proof.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> It would be nowhere near as damaging for the Liberals.



I'm not sure, I can think of about a dozen damning ads the conservatives could run.  Imagine  a picture of Cerberus with the three heads of Dion Layton and Duceppe?  How about one of the three of them ripping a map of Canada apart?  Layton and Dion singing kumbaya while Duceppe cuts Quebec out of a map of Canada?  How about Layton and Dion handing out money to the provinces but giving the majority to Quebec?..  Dion as Layton's ventriloquists dummy and Layton as Duceps at the same time. I could go on and on...  And I'm not nearly as devious as those guys that get paid for it at Torry party HQ.


----------



## GAP (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> I'm not sure, I can think of about a dozen damning ads the conservatives could run.  Imagine  a picture of Cerberus with the three heads of Dion Layton and Duceppe?  How about one of the three of them ripping a map of Canada apart?  Layton and Dion singing kumbaya while Duceppe cuts Quebec out of a map of Canada?  How about Layton and Dion handing out money to the provinces but giving the majority to Quebec?..  Dion as Layton's ventriloquists dummy and Layton as Duceps at the same time. I could go on and on...  And I'm not nearly as devious as those guys that get paid for it at Torry party HQ.



I love those ideas.....get busy, I want to see them!!  ;D


----------



## helpup (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> I'm not sure, I can think of about a dozen damning ads the conservatives could run.  Imagine  a picture of Cerberus with the three heads of Dion Layton and Duceppe?  How about one of the three of them ripping a map of Canada apart?  Layton and Dion singing kumbaya while Duceppe cuts Quebec out of a map of Canada?  How about Layton and Dion handing out money to the provinces but giving the majority to Quebec?..  Dion as Layton's ventriloquists dummy and Layton as Duceps at the same time. I could go on and on...  And I'm not nearly as devious as those guys that get paid for it at Torry party HQ.



Those would be amusing adds but I am also getting sick of the Attack Adds from pretty well all parties.  What finally did it for me was the Liberals " guns in Canadian Cities"  one.  The Conservatives did no better this time around either.  Yes I know they work and the trouble is they work with half truths if there is any truth in it at all.  Most of them were geared for fear and less on fact.  Being a realist though I do know they work. If Psy Ops and propaganda were not effective on civilizations it would of died out a long time ago.  

I don't expect it to be a gentlemans campaign but slow down on the attack adds present the facts and let the people decide. (Rant almost done) and since I know what planet I live on and what particular corner it is............... where is my Benevolent Dictator when I need him.... ???


----------



## Slim (2 Dec 2008)

I already found the Liberals to be a truely noxious bunch...And now, since they can't take power in an honest fashion they're plotting and scheming to take it by stealing it from the PC's.

Is there a better way to illustrate what sort of party they are than by this act?!

It's almost as though they have this sence of entitlement...as though they should be running the country regardless of how they behave.

And in the current economic crisis the Liberal's actions are just helping to destablize the whole mess...not fix it.

IF they really had the best interests of Canadians at heart they should desolve the Liberal party and learn how to be honest citizens.

My 2 pennies.

Slim


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Agreed. The Libs/NDP are always taking someone to task about the "spirit of the law". Too bad they, and MR. Staples (IMO an agent provacateur) couldn't be taken to the woodshed for some good old fashioned "spiritual" counselling.



 :rofl:



			
				Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Well, you know. Aside from the OATH most of us took and take very seriously, I suppose there is a point there. At this point, I am very glad I took an oath, because that oath is NOT to serve the Bloc, or any other particular party, but rather the Queen of Canada and Her rightful heirs and succesors.



I'm not sure I understand completely what you're saying, but the oath you swear to the "queen" is only symbolic of the country. The "queen" is just a personification of the country. The country also swears an oath to us, but of course this is done by the GG, since she is the personified version of the country, and the country can't actually grab a bible and say a few words on it's own behalf. It's not meant to be sworn to an individual monarch, but rather to our country which is the actual monarch.

I took the oath as well btw, and I took it seriously.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

I'm becoming resigned to there being another election in weeks not months.  It's going to be ugly.  

I will dust off my support for the Cons, in spite of the fact I was so disgruntled with their performance in the last one that I did not help out as I had in the previous two.

This is action _*against*_ all the rest of them, their crawling sniveling grab at power, their threat to my country, their backroom deals and most of all for sleeping with the enemy.


----------



## GDawg (2 Dec 2008)

Even Elizabeth May wants in on the power grab. She wants to be a Senator, though I cannot imagine what she brings to the table for the axis of the far left...


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2008)

GDawg said:
			
		

> Even Elizabeth May wants in on the power grab. She wants to be a Senator, though I cannot imagine what she brings to the table for the axis of the far left...



Well; it won't be comic relief.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well; it won't be comic relief.



I'm hearing that she already asked PM Harper to "not put tanks on Parliament Hill to prevent the coalition" so comic relief seems to be her job after all.


----------



## helpup (2 Dec 2008)

GDawg said:
			
		

> Even Elizabeth May wants in on the power grab. She wants to be a Senator, though I cannot imagine what she brings to the table for the axis of the far left...



Has that been confirmed yet or is it still rumour?  If true then I will be Gobsmacked, further proof that we need to do some serious senate reform and start Electing the " Illustrious" Upper Chamber.  Oh wait we have been trying but the <insert any party> like to keep the most power possible in the PM's hands.


----------



## Slim (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> I'm hearing that she already asked PM Harper to "not put tanks on Parliament Hill to prevent the coalition"



Can't say I'd blame him if he did.

Hmmm...Martial Law or the Liberals....It's a tough one! :argument:

Later; upon further reflection...

Didn't this whole thing start when the Tories wanted to cut back the amount of public funding that the political parties use during elections...Good Heavens, no wonder the Libs got upset. Telling them that they can no longer steal  take as much from the public and must raise their own capital funding...Like everyone else does. Truely horrible! :


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> I'm hearing that she already asked PM Harper to "not put tanks on Parliament Hill to prevent the coalition" so comic relief seems to be her job after all.



And your trusted source for this "information" is?


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> And your trusted source for this "information" is?



Apparently it was during a press conference.  I didn't see or hear it myself or I'd have provided proof positive.  Being quoted on SDA


----------



## Blakey (2 Dec 2008)

As others have mentioned...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081202/dion_may_081202/20081202?hub=Canada



> Green party throws support behind coalition
> Updated Tue. Dec. 2 2008 2:06 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


 :

"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble"


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Dec 2008)

OK, reference "French only in federal institutions in Quebec", isn't that contrary to the constitution, the one that states that Canada has _two_ official languages, and that business conducted at the federal level may be conducted in _either_ official language?  For example, if I go to a Canada Border Services Agency in Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland, I can do said business in French, if I so desire?

Just asking, is all...


----------



## ballz (2 Dec 2008)

of course May supports something undemocratic. the only reason they ever had an MP in the House was because he jumped off a whale ship and landed in the green party's rubber dingy. :


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

May's comments reported here http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/262947



> “It’s not a parliamentary crisis, unless Mr Harper rings Parliament Hill with tanks and tries to stop the opposition members.”



Her very own troops in our cities moment


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Her very own troops in our cities moment



I'd love to go on that call out!


----------



## Huzzah (2 Dec 2008)

Question:  If Jack Layton will be playing Curly in this "Coalition",will Dion be Larry or Moe? The Three Stooges
                 in Parliament,now I've seen it all.


----------



## Old and Tired (2 Dec 2008)

I have been watching, reading and trying to digest this whole thing.  While I must say that this whole thing leaves me in a cold fury, from everything I can find it is permissible.  I have been able to find that according to "Roberts Rules of Parliamentary Procedure"  (http://www.rulesonline.com/) that the house of commons follows, all this is above board.  That being said, the preamble work that Layton was involved in is questionable.  According to the rules, those discussions are supposed to talk place after the Governing Party "Looses the confidence of the house and members".

As to the phone call taping stunt; unethical probably, immoral, likely. Illegal, unlikely given that:

A) the CON that recorded it was invited to participate. (Unintentional though it may have been)
B) was conducted in part by cell phone, which in Canada are considered radio transmitters.
 (the Department of Justice, Criminal Code: The Current Criminal Code definition of “private
communication” provides that a communication is private when
it is made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the
originator to expect that it will not be intercepted by any other
person than the person intended by the originator to receive it.)
I may be out of date here, (I'm still researching) but on an open transmitter there cannot be an expectation of privacy as you are utilizing public domain "Airwaves".

From what I can see, the vast majority of us are pretty much outraged that something like this can happen.  It can and it's legal.  Is it "RIGHT", I don't know, I'm not smart enough to riddle that out.

I don't really like any of the options, I do find the CON's to be the least offensive of the whole crew.  The Coalition that has been formed is perhaps the single most offensive thing I have seen come out of politics in Canada.  I think it's the mindless stupidity that the three Opposition leaders are spouting that turns me off the most.  If it weren't for the fact that I cannot in good conscience not vote, I'd just throw up my hands and say oh well, nothing I can do about it.

What pray tell is SDA?  I'd love to read, see, or hear this quote.  Makes me wonder what those people on the hill are up to.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

Here you go O&T
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/010166.html#comments


----------



## Old and Tired (2 Dec 2008)

Thanks for that.  How did she ever get 12,600 (+/-) people otherwise sane rational human beings to vote for her. (not the million she said on CTV when she said she'd be the only senator that received a million votes)


----------



## Blakey (2 Dec 2008)

Just released today, new radio ads by the Cons.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/12/02/new-conservative-radio-ads-reject-coalition-push-for-election.aspx
Here is one:
Listen: http://nationalpost.com/documents/081202-no-coalition-separtists.mp3


Transcript


> Last election, Stephane Dion gave his word, he said his Liberals would never form a coalition with the NDP.
> 
> [Dion's voice] "Cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period."
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Dec 2008)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.  How did she ever get 12,600 (+/-) people otherwise sane rational human beings to vote for her. (not the million she said on CTV when she said she'd be the only senator that received a million votes)



It's a disturbing look into her psyche.  Every single vote the Greens got was "for her"...  that's scary.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Dec 2008)

Hope is not a strategy, and there is no reason to "hope" the Bloc will pull the plug suddenly.

The Bloc has demands now, and will doubtless have more in the future.  This is their chance to get goodies for their constituents/province.

The Bloc is not "in support" to a Liberal-NDP coalition; that's just spin for those who need to believe it in order to reconcile cognitive dissonance.  People who believe that line should shake off the dreamy partisan fog and regain common sense.  The Bloc is a partner, not even a silent one, notwithstanding that Duceppe negotiated fewer privileges.  He was up there handshaking with all the rest; his signature features in this alongside the other key players.  It stretches credulity a little too far to try to believe that Duceppe walked into a meeting with the NDP saying something along the lines of "Before you say anything, I don't want any cabinet positions."  Negotiations took place.  If Duceppe chose to not have any cabinet positions for the sake of a principle the Bloc adopted long ago, that's fine, but it doesn't negate his stake.  I suggest people drop the "in support" misdirection and stick to the other two lines of information operations: that the Bloc are, after all, MPs like the rest (despite not having repudiated certain key principles); and the makeoverthat is intended to reposition the Bloc as a kind, gentle, NDP-like party that just happens to confine itself to Quebec by choice.

And the Liberals are right in there with them.  They may have used the NDP as a "chinese wall", but it's a three-way deal.  The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are, as the lawyers like to say, jointly and severally going to wear - for several years - everything that happens, especially the three-way backscratching deals and other sweetheart arrangements that aren't really related to vital interests of Canada in a time of uncertainty.  This might matter to the Liberals in the future if the aforementioned information operations don't succeed.  But they will wear it.


----------



## Blindspot (2 Dec 2008)

This is getting really weird now. Oliver Stone should be tapped to write and direct the movie:

Jacques Parizeau (remember him?) is expected to come out in support of Dion. Why? Because Duceppe is suffering from a backlash of hardcore separatists who are unhappy with throwing himself in with the Liberals. The only thing more unholy than an alliance involving Dion, Layton and Duceppe is an alliance of Chretien, Broadbent and Parizeau. Who the hell is running this show?


----------



## Infanteer (2 Dec 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Jacques Parizeau (remember him?) is expected to come out in support of Dion. Why? Because Duceppe is suffering from a backlash of hardcore separatists who are unhappy with throwing himself in with the Liberals. The only thing more unholy than an alliance involving Dion, Layton and Duceppe is an alliance of Chretien, Broadbent and Parizeau. Who the hell is running this show?



No kidding.

I will again reiterate that anyone who is angry at the parties involved in the coalition has misplaced their angst.  Despite the fact that you feel you voted for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, you didn't.  You sure as heck voted in support of them, but that support only goes so far in the way the system is currently organized.  I restate my belief that this, if nothing else, should have people directing their angst at the system itself and force the public to ask "Why isn't the system working?  Why are we only getting pluralities and minorities?  Why are the other branches of government so ineffective and the House and the PMO so powerful?

These politicians are only playing monopoly with rules we gave them.

On another note, Question Period was something else to watch today.  I think we were a few words short of one of those Taiwanese government punch-ups.  The Conservatives have reacted quickly (as we should expect when the back is against the wall) and have put all their weight into the Liberal-Bloc link.  Layton is basically a sideshow; nobody cares what he has to say while Duceppe will pipe up from time to time to defend his honor.  He doesn't really seem to care because he's enjoying his status as Kingmaker right now.  But Harper and Dion are getting downright catty.  I still contend that this may hurt the Liberals more than it hurt the Conservatives.  

Do we have a pool yet on what's going to happen?  I put 5 internet dollars on Harper proroguing Parliament in order to allow the excitement of the coalition to wear off amongst its members and the obvious sores of this Frankenstein to fester in public for a few months.  By then, the Liberals may be too caught up in their next leadership race.


----------



## TCBF (2 Dec 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> This is getting really weird now. Oliver Stone should be tapped to write and direct the movie:
> 
> Jacques Parizeau (remember him?) is expected to come out in support of Dion. Why? Because Duceppe is suffering from a backlash of hardcore separatists who are unhappy with throwing himself in with the Liberals. The only thing more unholy than an alliance involving Dion, Layton and Duceppe is an alliance of Chretien, Broadbent and Parizeau. Who the hell is running this show?



- If you want the truth, then follow a dollar bill.  Dollar bills never lie.  All of these super-annuated has-beens traipsing around Ottawa like they will own the place again?  Who is paying their hotel bills and per diem?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2008)

Agreed Brad.

The Bloc is In Government, if this thing comes to fruition, but prefers not to be SEEN to be In Government.  Cardinal Richelieu, the original Eminence Grise, would be proud.

By not taking a seat in cabinet, doubtlessly on the principle that they can't swear fealty to Her Majesty, they also are not capable of being held accountable during Question Period.  They are no longer directly responsible to the House or the Canadian public.  

There goes Responsible Government.  Either they are in or they are out.  Either they swear fealty and are held accountable or else they don't in which case they have no standing in Her Majesty's eyes and can't be seen to be supporters of Her Majesty's Government.  That alone should rule out the notion that Dion can cobble a majority coalition.  The Bloc can never be part of the Government's support base and thus should be irrelevant to this discussion.

The Bloc is looking for a position in the Government that the Queen herself hasn't enjoyed since the days of the Stewarts.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...
> Do we have a pool yet on what's going to happen?  I put 5 internet dollars on Harper proroguing Parliament in order to allow the excitement of the coalition to wear off amongst its members and the obvious sores of this Frankenstein to fester in public for a few months.  By then, the Liberals may be too caught up in their next leadership race.



I'm in a Hot Iron mood just now.  I would prefer to see the GG put it back in the hands of the public - expense be damned.  If ever there were a time to have an election on issues now is the time.


----------



## Lil_T (2 Dec 2008)

> I'm in a Hot Iron mood just now.  I would prefer to see the GG put it back in the hands of the public - expense be damned.  If ever there were a time to have an election on issues now is the time.



I'm right there with you.  This has gone beyond the realm of the ridiculous.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Dec 2008)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> As to the phone call taping stunt; unethical probably, immoral, likely. Illegal, unlikely given that:
> 
> A) the CON that recorded it was invited to participate. (Unintentional though it may have been)
> B) was conducted in part by cell phone, which in Canada are considered radio transmitters.
> ...



Interesting question. According to Section 184 (1) of the CC of C:

*"Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."* Which sounds pretty serious, however, Subsection (2) has this to say:

_*"Saving provision

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it;"*_ (My emphasis)

In the previous section "intercept" is defined as: 
"*includes listen to, record or acquire a communication or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof;"*

If I read that correctly, and if the Conservatives are telling the truth, I don't think the knee-dippers have a leg to stand-on. If they are to stupid to check the telephone numbers before sending them out, well tough titty. And further to my argument I remember a while back the Conservatives sent an email to an opposition staffer by mistake (can't remember which party) who then published it for all to see. That email would have been considered as private communication, but no one was prosecuted. However, I'm not a lawyer so I could be talking through my hat.



> What pray tell is SDA?


 SDA=Small Dead Animals, is a blog run by a young lady out of Saskatchewan. Its one of the top conservative blogs in Canada. [/quote]


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Dec 2008)

>Chretien, Broadbent and Parizeau.

Look, the kids asked (needed?) the parents to arrange the marriage, but it doesn't mean the in-laws are all going to get along.


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Dec 2008)

I have held off posting for a while since I first jumped into this. It just keeps getting worser and worser . . .

How could any two rationale human beings with PhDs, which if nothing else demonstrates diligence and energy, ever sign a pact with the devil? What we are faced with is transferring command from George S Patton to Gomer Pyle.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Dec 2008)

>expense be damned. 

What expense?  $300M is 1% of $30B, and the latter is just the starting figure.  By the time the whole economic downturn blows over, the cost to go to the voters to confirm who we want on the Big Boy Benches will just be a rounding error.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> *Either they are in or they are out.  Either they swear fealty and are held accountable or else they don't in which case they have no standing in Her Majesty's eyes and can't be seen to be supporters of Her Majesty's Government.*



That's my point exactly. I think that the GG will be advised of the same facts. The agreement between the three parties means nothing because Duceppe did not sign it. That being the case, the Liberals and NDP can not form a government given that they would be in an even weaker position seat wise than the Conservatives. So from my limited understanding the GG has the following choices, all of which are within her reserve powers:

1. grant a request for an election; (if Mr Harper advises that course);
2. invite the Lib/NDP/Bloc coalition to govern;
3. deny the opposition their goal and recommend an election; or
4. send them back to the house with instructions to sort themselves out.

Of course Mr Harper can prorogue parliament, introduce a budget on Jan 27th, and invite the opposition parties to an election.

I'll bet 100 imaginary dollars on the last eventuality, because it will give the Conservatives the time to rebuild their finances while hammering the Lib/NDP during the break.


----------



## Lil_T (2 Dec 2008)

So, with the Bloc not really being in or out does that mean they'll be playing parliamentary ping pong?  With the coalition and Consevatives playing a game of tug-o-war over the Bloc this crap could in essence go on forever.  I mean, what's to say that it won't?  It seems to me that either way the Bloc is the wildcard that is going to be played over and over again.   Why are they even in Parliament again?

I am thoroughly disgusted with this whole mess.


----------



## Occam (2 Dec 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The agreement between the three parties means nothing because Duceppe did not sign it.



I was under that impression as well, but it appears Duceppe did sign it.  See here.


----------



## Rodahn (2 Dec 2008)

I have a question for all the posters on the forum.

How many of you were this incensed when Mr. Harper tried this same stunt in (I believe) 2004?


----------



## meni0n (2 Dec 2008)

So Rodah, and which party did the conservatives tried to form a new government with without elections?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Dec 2008)

Hmm, looks like cracks are appearing in the coalition before the ink is even dry. Apparently, Iggy is starting to have doubts about the whole thing. Actually, I was surprised by recent reports that he would head the coalition, because last week he was on record as saying any deal with the Bloc was a "poisoned chalice." This may be what  Warren Kinsella  was hinting at on his blog yesterday. For those who don't know, Kinsella is a long time Liberal strategist and has been working for Ignatieff. 

I can imagine that NDP MPs are also getting an earful from their constituents, especially from those out west. Of the 37 NDP MPs, fifteen are from Ontario, one each from NB, NL and NS and one of Quebec.  The rest are from out west. The fact that Layton would take the chance at alienating his western supporters is baffling. Okay, may be not so baffling; in my opinion, for what its worth, Layton is one of the most arrogant and smarmy politicians in Canada today and that he would do anything to get into power. Even, selling his party down the drain.


----------



## Rodahn (2 Dec 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> So Rodah, and which party did the conservatives tried to form a new government with without elections?



Copy of the letter below; now we all know that an election was called, however this is no different than the current coalition requesting the opportunity to govern.

September 9, 2004 

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, 
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D. 
Governor General 
Rideau Hall 
1 Sussex Drive 
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1 

Excellency, 

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program. 

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice 
has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. 

Your attention to this matter is appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. 
Leader of the Opposition 
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada 

Gilles Duceppe, M.P. 
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois 

Jack Layton, M.P. 
Leader of the New Democratic Party


----------



## Occam (2 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> I have a question for all the posters on the forum.
> 
> How many of you were this incensed when Mr. Harper tried this same stunt in (I believe) 2004?



You mean sign an accord with the NDP and the BQ in an attempt to form a coalition government?  I don't recall that happening.

Harper did send a letter to the GG in 2004 suggesting that she "consult the opposition leaders and consider all of [her] options before exercising [her] constitutional authority".

There's a difference - not a big one - but there's a difference.  Kinda like the difference between threatening to drop a nuke, and actually doing it.

Back then, Harper suggested it.  Now, Dion, Layton and Duceppe have actually signed an accord.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2008)

Occam said:
			
		

> I was under that impression as well, but it appears Duceppe did sign it.  See here.



That's the document they intend to serve the GG with. This is the instrument creating the coalition government LINK As you can see... no Duceppe signature. A government constituted solely by the Liberals and NDP.


----------



## meni0n (2 Dec 2008)

I don't see anything in that letter saying, we are the coalition, declare us new government.


----------



## Rodahn (2 Dec 2008)

Occam said:
			
		

> You mean sign an accord with the NDP and the BQ in an attempt to form a coalition government?  I don't recall that happening.
> 
> Harper did send a letter to the GG in 2004 suggesting that she "consult the opposition leaders and consider all of [her] options before exercising [her] constitutional authority".
> 
> ...



So having the accord just adds strength to their position. Being as all three of the opposition leaders signature blocks were on the letter sent to then GG I submit that an accord had been reached, just not formalized.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2008)

Here's an interesting thought... What if Mr Ignatieff were to cross the floor? He could easily rise to the leadership of the Conservatives given the chance. His defection could also very easily trigger a tsunami and create a Conservative majority.


----------



## Occam (2 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> So having the accord just adds strength to their position. Being as all three of the opposition leaders signature blocks were on the letter sent to then GG I submit that an accord had been reached, just not formalized.



You could presume that, but we'll probably never know how far the three parties had progressed negotiations.


----------



## Occam (2 Dec 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That's the document they intend to serve the GG with. This is the instrument creating the coalition government LINK As you can see... no Duceppe signature. A government constituted solely by the Liberals and NDP.



I'm confused.  It appears to me that the document with Duceppe's signature refers to other accords - perhaps to the accord that you've linked to between the Libs and the NDP.  If that's the case, wouldn't Duceppe's signature on the main document amount to an agreement between the three parties?


----------



## meni0n (2 Dec 2008)

The fact of the matter is, Libs + NDP will have 113 seats. If the Bloc all of a sudden decided to stop supporting them, it will become a non working government.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Dec 2008)

Here is an interesting (well to me, anyway) thought...

I've noticed that in the agreement that the Bloc signed, they agreed not to defeat the Government until 2011.  They did not say they would not get caught, enmasse, in one of those freak June snowstorms on Autoroute 20 and "miss" an important vote, leaving their newfound friends vastly outnumbered and outgunned in the House of Commons.  Dion and Layton could not have possibly missed something as basic as that in the negotiations, right?

Just saying...


----------



## Love793 (2 Dec 2008)

Here's a scenario, what if the current PM, was to ask the GG to disolve Parliment on the gorunds of this circus just becoming one never ending cycle of non confidence votes? The ball is now in the PMs court. I say call their bluff.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Dec 2008)

A letter sent to the Governor General of Canada (and copied to quite a few others):



> Your Excellency,
> 
> Under the British parliamentary tradition a government must have the confidence of the House of Commons.  But should a coalition Liberal/NDP government--dependent upon support by the Bloc Québécois--be proposed for Your Excellency's consent, I argue most vehemently that the existing convention is no longer relevant.  Unwritten conventions necessarily evolve to fit changing circumstances; otherwise they would not be "conventions".
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Dec 2008)

>How many of you were this incensed when Mr. Harper tried this same stunt in (I believe) 2004? 

Ah, yes; that's been a popular letter lately, making the rounds everywhere including reputable media columnists who are supposed to be able to comprehend what they read.

To be precise: "you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program...should a request for dissolution arise..."

Are there any thinking adults left in Canada who understand the difference between the opposition asking the G-G in advance to be consulted if the PM pulls the plug, and the opposition making a deal and then politely demanding the G-G that they be consulted because they intend to pull the plug?


----------



## Blakey (2 Dec 2008)

I'm going to ante up with $10 saying that we will be heading back to the polls.
http://www.conservative.ca/index.php?section_copy_id=107784&section_id=4579


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2008)

The price of power:

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/the-truth-starts-to-leak-out/canada-election



> *The Truth Starts To Leak Out*
> December 2nd, 2008 Posted in Canada Election
> 
> theft deterrent
> ...



After watching Prime Minister elect Stephen Harper perform for the last two years, it seems a bit unlikely that he did not anticipate something like this happening, and it may even be possible that he was aware of the backroom deals either during or shortly thereafter they happened (@ six weeks ago). I am certainly not smart enough to know what is under his sleeve (maybe Edward Campbell can figure this out) but I am willing to see your five internet dollars and raise you a box of Timbits that he has a horrible surprise to spring on one or all of the plotters in the near future.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Dec 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That's the document they intend to serve the GG with. This is the instrument creating the coalition government LINK As you can see... no Duceppe signature. A government constituted solely by the Liberals and NDP.



Duceppe and the Bloc may not be there in body, but they are in soul. As previous posters have stated, the NDP-Liberal cannot form a viable coalition by themselves, they don't have enough seats. They have to have the Bloc support. All lot of people, including many media outlets, have reported this as a NDP-Liberal coalition with Bloc support. That's a bunch of crap!! It is a menage-trois of the three opposition parties. No Bloc, no coalition. And you can bet that the Bloc will have demands (money) to continue their support.

BTW at present there is no such thing as a "coalition government." As things stand the Conservatives still form the government, not the NDP-Liberal-Bloc troika. Again, as previous posters have stated there are a multitude of scenarios which may take place in the next few days.

My prediction; when it comes the vote of confidence next Monday, there are going to be more then a few empty seats on the Liberal side (and possibly the NDP) of the House. Having some Liberal cross the floor to the Conservatives, or more likely to sit as independents is also possible.

Interesting times indeed.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2008)

If only this is true, then there are still a few adults in the room:

http://bourque.org/



> *EXCLUSIVE: IGGY RETHINKS COALITION*
> CRACK IN THE COALITION
> Finally, a sign of sanity. Better late than never. A first serious sign of leadership from the presumptive leader-in-waiting. Senior Ignatieff insiders are tantalizingly whispering to Bourque that the Toronto MP is having grave doubts about supporting the shocking Dion coalition bid, now labelled by many as the "Separatist Coalition", given the defining support it has from both the BQ's Gilles Duceppe and former PQ Premier Jacques Parizeau. One longtime senior Ignatieff backer, under condition of anonymity, confided that "Michael is in a tenuous situation and he is feeling a lot of heat from caucus colleagues and constituents alike. Frankly, we think we got snookered by Bob Rae on this one". It nets out to this, according to this longtime Liberal and echoed by many other key backroom players: ordinary Liberals across the country, the card-carrying bbq-ing door-knocking envelope-stuffing phone-banking kind who make up the backbone of the party and who would need to be counted on to support his leadership aspirations, are vehemently rejecting the Dion argument that a deal with the separatist Bloc Quebecois is in the best interests of Canada. "Bullshit", said one Liberal power-broker, who was quick to point out Dion is tilting at Liberal history for the sake of a short stint at 24 Sussex. "Dion is nuts", he told Bourque, "I am ashamed he is leading the party of Laurier, Pearson, Trudeau, and Chretien - my God, Chretien, the guy who poured out his federalist heart against Rene Levesque's country-killing forces so long ago - I am ashamed Dion is selling us out." He and the others are right, of course. Add to that a comment from one of Canada's leading media personalities, who told Bourque this evening that "the Liberals can never again say that they are the guardians of National Unity". He has a sobering point, unfortunately. Ignatieff, in turn, would be right to heed the growing chorus of advice from his own braintrust and to distance himself from this embarrassing marriage of expedience fueled by nothing more than the personal egos and ambitions of a relatively few desperate 'inside-the-beltway' political personalities, both elected and otherwise, the 'chip-on-their-shoulders' type who can't see beyond their disdain for Harper. In short, no act of clarity whatsoever. Meanwhile, Bourque can confirm that despite recent media reports to the contrary, former NB Premier Frank McKenna is not planning to be part of any Dion coaliton 'wise men sounding board'.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Dec 2008)

Occam, you're right to be confused.

Gilles prefers it that way.

What Jack and Stephane signed is properly understood to be a Memorandum of Understanding.  When and if a government is formed by them this is what they have agreed to do.

The document with Gilles signature suggests that he wants to be a non-voting member in a limited liability partnership.

They say explicitly that the partnership pertains to accords they have signed.  The public is left to infer that this refers to the accord that Jack and Stephane have agreed on.  

However there is nothing there that says that Gilles et les autres gars don't have a private accord, written, verbal or understood for which the Government is accountable but us unknown to the public.

Gilles is NOT becoming part of the Government and thus accountable.  He is merely offering his support for a Government in return for an inducement.  In effect he is selling his party's votes.

He cannot and will not become part of Government.


----------



## TCBF (3 Dec 2008)

- Busy weekend ahead - how many of those eighteen vacant senate seats will still be vacant on Monday?


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Dec 2008)

The Lib-NDP-Bloc leaders are making a strategic blunder by trying to take power at this time of economic uncertainty. If they wait and despite Harpers best efforts the economy tanks then the Libs should be able to win a majority next election. IF they take power now and the economy tanks Harper will certainly have a majority after the next election. This move by the Libs is an attempt to reward their friends with stimulus money at the expense of the taxpayer.


----------



## TCBF (3 Dec 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Lib-NDP-Bloc leaders are making a strategic blunder by trying to take power at this time of economic uncertainty. If they wait and despite Harpers best efforts the economy tanks then the Libs should be able to win a majority next election. IF they take power now and the economy tanks Harper will certainly have a majority after the next election. This move by the Libs is an attempt to reward their friends with stimulus money at the expense of the taxpayer.



- The economy won't tank - and they know it.  This is their only hope to 'scare' the voters into a big stimulus package that the economy does not need.  Oh, it is also a big socialism package as well.  So, even if you didn't vote Commie-Lite, your tax dollars just might be peed away in a Commie-Lite fashion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2008)

I've been whining at great length for someone to present a plan; as it turns out, there is at least an outline.  Herein my snide fisking:

>The new Government is supported by parties that share a commitment to fiscal responsibility, a progressive agenda and a belief in the role of Government to act as a partner with Canadians and Quebecers.

Interesting way to divide the world: Government, Canada, Quebec.  In the spirit of fairness and in line with what I am confident are their principles, First Nations should really be on that list.

>All three parties agree that the Canadian economy and the fiscal framework of the federal government have severely weakened since the last federal budget.

"Severely".  This is why I have trouble taking their cheerleaders seriously; the pop stars themselves can't stop from overeditorializing the state of the nation.

>...with a shared commitment to return to surplus within four years.

Timetable noted.  In the "Economic Stimulus Package" we have some bullet points:

>• transit, clean energy, water, corridors and gateways...include addressing the urgent infrastructure needs of First Nations, Métis and Inuit;

I'm not a big fan of concensus, but in this case the concensus is accurate: infrastructure in the modern era isn't something you can suddenly jump start, and is not a timely means of fiscal stimulus.  The infrastructure needs of those in rural and remote areas are a social problem which will necessarily soak up a lot of money to provide services; there will not be any economic synergy.  To give Paul Krugman his due, the infrastructure which is useful as stimulus is that which supports the big shakers in the economy.  No specifics here.  BC, I note, already has about as much construction going as there are firms to do it, and I don't just refer to 2010 construction.  I would guess the same is true in AB.  This must be a program intended to benefit certain other parts of the country.

>• Housing construction and retrofitting

They must be kidding.  I would have supposed that the problem isn't that new home construction can't meet demand; the problem is that there has been a modest reduction in demand (slight fall or levelling of prices).  Subsidizing the construction of homes should be expected to further deflate home prices.

>• Investing in key sector strategies (like manufacturing, forestry and automotive)

Ontario, Quebec (and BC, except the firms here in BC have already mostly shaken out from the last downturn), and Ontario.  I'm especially interested in the part about the investment being contingent on "a plan to transform these industries and return them to profitability and sustainability."  They're expecting what no-one has done or believes can be done without an incredible amount of displacement: a miraculous rebirth of the Big 3.  Still missing: company names, dollar amounts.

In the social safety net list we have:

>• facilitate skills training

Nothing really to say.  Presumably they mean tuitions and expenses.  How big will the pot be?

>• Amend the current law establishing a new crown corporation for [EI] in order to guarantee that all revenue from EI 
premiums provides benefits and training for workers. Eliminate the two week waiting period;

Will the new crown corporation operate at zero cost?  I doubt it.  Nothing helps the long-term picture like a larger public service.  No specific mention of increases in benefits.  I expect that to happen also, but maybe we will be pleasantly surprised.  I'd still like to see a true insurance program.

>• Lower the minimum required RRIF withdrawal for 2008 by 50 per cent

This is just asinine.  People who happen to be caught by the recent sudden writedown of equity and other asset values just had the back luck to be old.   If we're going to cut them a break, let them skip the year entirely and hold on to try and gain back some of their portfolio if they wish.

>• Reform bankruptcy and insolvency laws to better protect pensions; and

Specifics needed.  Could be as simple as putting pension funds at the head of the line to carve up the corpses.  This will send some interesting secondary market signals where companies are connected to pension funds: not only to be wary of investing in a weak company, but to be wary of companies with large pension liabilities.  No mention of support for people whose retirement plans don't fall within certain parameters.

>• Implement an income support program for older workers who have lost their jobs in order to help them make the transition from work to receiving retirement benefits.

More money.

With the exception of the RRIF grace period, those all sound like social programs which would be here to stay, not bridges to cover an exceptional time.  The "economic crisis" is basically the smokescreen for advancing social spending.

>• Support for culture

Some people's aesthetic preferences are a matter of federal privilege.  The rest of you, SOL.  That $10 for your movie ticket is needed to pay a Really Important performance artist.  How much money, I wonder, and who receives it.  And why can't we choose to tighten our entertainment belts to set other spending priorities without either being taxed, placed in deficit, or having other federal programs cannibalized for this?

>• Support for Canadian Wheat Board and Supply Management

Some farmers win, others lose.  Supply Management is generally pernicious.  I'm not even sure this issue is really more significant now than it is at any other time; it's an ongoing soap opera.

>• Immigration Reform

Presumably they don't mean flooding the employment-seeking community with more immigrants.

>• Reinstate regional development agency funding

Sounds like something the provinces and regional districts should be handling.

Other stuff.

>As finances permit, we are committed to moving forward with improved child benefits and an early learning and childcare program in partnership with each province, and respectful of their role and jurisdiction, including the possibility to opt out with full compensation.

This is the federal daycare the Liberals and NDP have been chasing as their next big public spending program (employees, infrastructure, standards. bureaucrats to oversee everything - all that good stuff).  It's not clear given the current situation how "finances" will "permit".  Quebec has been finding their $7-a-day program expensive to bear (that happens when you underprice something; demand exceeds supply and places a strain on the public coffers which make up the difference).  So, this will be one of the Bloc's big wins: Quebec will of course opt out, and take the "full compensation", if anything is enacted.

>...pursue a North American cap-and-trade market with absolute emission targets, using 1990 as the base year.

They can pursue all they want; it's undoable.  How much they'll spend in the effort is our problem, unfortunately.

>...particularly with G-20 partners, in pursuit of an effective new global financial architecture.

Despite everything that indicates how deeply government management contributed to the current meltdown, the solution is inevitably more of it.  The problem is never that we overcorrect going into the skid; it's that we don't overcorrect enough.  I am very skeptical of any initiative which lends more weight to supernational institutions and regulations.

There is a section of boilerplate which commits them to not requesting dissolution except following a loss on any of the usual non-confidence issues.  Interestingly, I suppose in theory it prevents them from pulling the plug on themselves if they decide the climate is ripe for a favourable election before the agreement term runs out - unless they vote against their own measure.

The Bloc is committed to vote for them, and not oppose them, on any non-confidence issue for its term of the agreement.  This leaves the Bloc free to object to the enabling legislation for all the social spending.  Expect instances of the Bloc opposing the Coalition to be very infrequent - almost without exception if it's good enough for the NDP, it'll be good enough for the Bloc.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (3 Dec 2008)

Never trust an unemployed dogmatic prof who lives in a bubble - his spouse the assymetric warfare instructor from CMR must be pulling out her hair - her hubby will not listen and his bio that I know says he's been that way since young lad as he wanted to be accepted by his father - this is a common condition - Pres Clinton has it - and was successful but he had a haw haw how are ya personality ----- which masks his insecurity due to he never had a good relationship with his father - now M Dion has no public persona of a guy who can reach out to the wide range of the public - M Duceppe beats him hands down on acting like he "gets it" - and we know GD's father was a famous actor.

So - my analysis for whats its worth

Liberal Catastrophe about to happen as no one wants to push you know who under the bus

For more on the Clinton Condition read "A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan" Incredible book.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Dec 2008)

Brad, I think you missed one that stuck out for me.

I can't find the link just now but it seems to me I saw words to the effect that the Government would consult with the Provinces and Territories as it saw fit.  It struck me as more paternalism that was likely to get the goat of more than one Premier.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (3 Dec 2008)

> I have a question for all the posters on the forum.
> 
> How many of you were this incensed when Mr. Harper tried this same stunt in (I believe) 2004?



Good question.

Harper is no better than the rest of the politico's when it comes to lying and cheating. He's done his share of underhanded backroom bamboozling also, but it seems people conveniently have short memories. He has been in bed with the bloc a few times himself in the past, but suddenly that's different from whats happening now."Really?. The big difference here is the NDP and liberals announced it publically, when Harper did it is was done in secret meetings behind closed doors were the conservatives do their best work, because he was to afraid to bring it out in the open for fear it would smudge his image and the rest of us would find out what he really was up to. But now he's crying fowl to the very sort of unhanded dealings he's guilty of doing himself, coalesing with a separatist. And for the ones who say that a coalition wasn't spoken of back then, well I'd say take of your rose coloured glasses, because if given the chance he would have done the same thing to the martin government if the opportunity had presented itself. 
I would have liked very much to have been a fly on the wall in those meetings between Gilles and Steven, because I suspect the dialog would have been very similar to whats going on at the moment. But hey that' just conjecture, after all the Liberals didn't sneak their way in and tape a private conversation, so I guess we'll really never know. But I think most of us can connect the dots and come out with a pretty accurate assumption....


----------



## meni0n (3 Dec 2008)

retiredgrunt, so you got no proof but just conspiracy theories. Amazing.


----------



## canuck101 (3 Dec 2008)

Well I say we should just wait and see what happens when Mr. Harper visits with the GG.  I can not be bothered with speculating anymore I have better things to do.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Dec 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> after all the Liberals didn't sneak their way in and tape a private conversation, so I guess we'll really never know. But I think most of us can connect the dots and come out with a pretty accurate assumption....



If the NDP are careless enough to invite someone to their meeting, it hardly qualifies as sneaking in. You can bet if the Torries had made such a mistake the Opposition would be claiming they were justified in obtaining the information.


----------



## helpup (3 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The price of power:
> 
> 
> 
> After watching Prime Minister elect Stephen Harper perform for the last two years, it seems a bit unlikely that he did not anticipate something like this happening, and it may even be possible that he was aware of the backroom deals either during or shortly thereafter they happened (@ six weeks ago). I am certainly not smart enough to know what is under his sleeve (maybe Edward Campbell can figure this out) but I am willing to see your five internet dollars and raise you a box of Timbits that he has a horrible surprise to spring on one or all of the plotters in the near future.



That has been brought up earlier in this post and I hope not.  What we are going through now is garbage enough even with forsight of backroom deals it wouldn't of come to this point with out a mindset that had the conservatives acting like a majority. I am not referring to the " lack of action on" the economy. but the heavy handed Election funding and some other Caveats that although would be popular for a good chunk of Canadians did not need to be thrown at the Opposition during this time.  I have no respect for the Coalidiots for going this route either but in my mind I really hope that the PM did not allow it to get this far as a "chess move"  And from watching this and the reactions to it.  I would bet against your Timmies.  They were caught flat footed by the reaction.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2008)

>I saw words to the effect that the Government would consult with the Provinces and Territories as it saw fit. 

The accord which outlines the structure of the government might, but after a quick re-read (ie. maybe I missed it) the policy framework only mentions provinces/territories in a couple of places, and then to affirm that the coalition will respect provincial jurisdiction.  Any sign of paternalism toward the provinces would tend to grate on the Bloc.  The major fault line in the coalition is the Bloc's commitment to provincial autonomy, with the Liberals and NDP historically committed to centralized federalism.


----------



## Reccesoldier (3 Dec 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> That has been brought up earlier in this post and I hope not.  What we are going through now is garbage enough even with forsight of backroom deals it wouldn't of come to this point with out a mindset that had the conservatives acting like a majority. I am not referring to the " lack of action on" the economy. but the heavy handed Election funding and some other Caveats that although would be popular for a good chunk of Canadians did not need to be thrown at the Opposition during this time



This is one of the things I can’t understand about people’s positions.  The PM is supposed to be responsible to Canadians, not to the political pork barreling of the opposition parties.  When the economy starts tanking the first thing we hear from government is that we (individual Canadians) are going to “have to tighten our belts.”  Well we have a government that for the first time in my memory has begun the process by practicing what it preaches.  

The Conservative government has had auditors going through the various departments for quite some time, rationally identifying places where cuts could/should be done.  This is the kind of forward thinking I would expect from a government that sees trouble on the economic horizon.   I do not believe that our government should follow the rest of the world lemming like into huge stimulus packages, especially when we have been told by organizations like the IMF that we are head and shoulders above the ROTW.  

Is Canada in for a recession, I don’t know, probably, but if you talk to anyone who has studied economics the huge projects and billions in “stimulus” undertaken during the Great Depression prolonged that crisis.  In addition the “New Deal” (of which we are being offered a watered down version by the three stooges) didn’t end that crisis, WW2 did. Besides this what is $30 Billion to the world?  This is a global slow down, with trillions and hundreds of billions being thrown around by the heavy hitters what if anything will our paltry sum do?

So to me when I hear people blaming the Conservatives for cutting pork during the most significant economic downturn in almost 100 years it makes me shake my head in bewilderment, and when I hear people screaming for a bailout/stimulus package without any demonstrable proof that Canada needs it or that it will do anything it makes me ill.

This kind of blind, pragmatic followership will create more problems than it will solve in my opinion.


----------



## Neill McKay (3 Dec 2008)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> B) was conducted in part by cell phone, which in Canada are considered radio transmitters.
> (the Department of Justice, Criminal Code: The Current Criminal Code definition of “private
> communication” provides that a communication is private when it is made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the
> originator to expect that it will not be intercepted by any other person than the person intended by the originator to receive it.)
> I may be out of date here, (I'm still researching) but on an open transmitter there cannot be an expectation of privacy as you are utilizing public domain "Airwaves".



The _Radiocommunication Act_ provides: 

9 (2) Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept and make use of, or intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it.


----------



## GAP (3 Dec 2008)

But the CPC member that was invited, has the right to tape the conference call....he didn't sneak in, he was invited.


----------



## Rodahn (3 Dec 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> But the CPC member that was invited, has the right to tape the conference call....he didn't sneak in, he was invited.



While he was "invited", the invitation was sent to him in error, due to a similarity in names of members. The following link to an earlier post states the CC of C , and I believe that the operative wording in part 2 is *intent*.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81661/post-785106.html#msg785106

I rather doubt that the knee dipper intended to invite the Conservative member into the conference call, however this is something that lawyers and the court will have to resolve.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Dec 2008)

Personally I don't care about anything except that two parties have now started an intimate relationship with another party who's eventual goal is the destruction of Canada......full stop.

The arguement that Mr. Harper was contemplating it a few years ago means nothing, I have mentioned many times that I would jump into bed with Joyce Dewitt but until I actually bump uglies with her than I have not.

If the Liberals and the NDPs could muster enough support on their own than I would say 'Alrighty then', but to kiss the ass of traitors?    Bite me.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (3 Dec 2008)

One of my colleagues at _The Torch_ received a passionate expression of opinion on this political situation of ours in an e-mail from a retired VAdm.  We've published it with that gentleman's permission:



> Regretfully, I am too old now to serve Canada in any political capacity. However, I did serve faithfully for 38 years in the RCN and the Canadian Armed Forces - including in NDHQ, as a Rear Admiral and Vice Admiral, where I had the honour to serve both under Liberal and Conservative Ministers of National Defence. In every instance they received my complete respect and loyalty regardless of Party.
> 
> My father also served in Canada's Navy for 37 years from 1909 to 1946. He commanded several RCN ships and both coasts, and was ultimately the Commanding Officer Pacific Coast during the last three years of World War II.
> 
> ...



That's just part of it - RTWT here:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/service-and-country.html


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (3 Dec 2008)

> retiredgrunt, so you got no proof but just conspiracy theories. Amazing.



Did I say I had proof? I said assumption, there is a difference between assumptions and conspiracy theories, so don't go of and mince words I never said. Look up the word assumption in the dictionary.

_assumption - *a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn*; _

 I don't see any reference to conspiracy, do you?


----------



## jeffb (3 Dec 2008)

And here comes the May-Dion deal to roost... 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081202/dion_may_081202/20081202?hub=Politics 



> At a press conference in Ottawa, she suggested she would be open to the possibility of becoming a senator or cabinet minister, but the discussions with Dion were not specific.



I'm disgusted.  :


----------



## dapaterson (3 Dec 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I have mentioned many times that I would jump into bed with Joyce Dewitt but until I actually bump uglies with her than I have not.



That's just disturbing on so many levels...

To carry this analogy further, I guess that makes John Ritter = Stephan Dion; Suzanne Somers (with a 'stache) = Jack Layton; and Joyce Dewitt = Gilles Duceppe.  And Stephen Harper must be Barney Fife.


----------



## leroi (3 Dec 2008)

A powerful letter that hit me right in the solar plexis--with a profound grief for what this country is becoming.


----------



## GAP (3 Dec 2008)

Hmmmm....is it just me, but do the characterizations actually work?


----------



## gaspasser (3 Dec 2008)

I think he has voiced what some of us can not. He obviously speaks from years of experience of himself and his family.  
Well done... Sir.


----------



## geo (3 Dec 2008)

There have been some COs I have served under whom I would follow to the gates of hell.

This straight shooter coulda been one of them - too bad he's retired - he's a lot more sane than most of the politicians doing a donybrook


----------



## dapaterson (3 Dec 2008)

On a serious note, today we are seeing two national political parties conspiring in shadows with the moral children of the FLQ (today's BQ).  Let us stop and remember:


Wilfred O'Neill,  Leslie MacWilliams and Alfred Pinisch, Thérèse Morin, Jeanne d’Arc Saint-Germain, and Pierre Laporte.


And perhaps we should ask M Dion and Mr Layton their thoughts on these six.  And meaning of their conspiring with those who continue the FLQ's efforts through other means.



Je me souviens!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Dec 2008)

PM to address the country about political crisis
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 | 9:45 AM ET CBC News 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will address the country at 7 p.m. ET on Wednesday to talk about the political crisis that could topple his Conservative minority government.

Harper will make a 10-minute pre-recorded statement in English and French to rally support to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition from taking power.

The networks have agreed to a coalition response. The NDP has also asked for equal airtime but it is unknown if that request has been granted.

Harper's address comes as Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean is expected to arrive Wednesday in Ottawa, where she will immediately be thrown into a political crisis that she will have to resolve by deciding the fate of the federal government.

Jean has cut short a two-week visit to Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Hungary to return to Ottawa Wednesday night. On Thursday, she is expected to meet with Harper, whom many believe will ask her to suspend Parliament to avoid a confidence vote next week that could oust his government.

The Conservative government has already signalled it is considering all legal options to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition. That increases the chances that Harper will ask Jean to prorogue Parliament, which would suspend the current session until January, when his government would present a budget.

But the Governor General faces other political options as well. She could decide to call an election should the Conservatives lose a confidence vote set to take place Monday or allow the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition to govern.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, who would head the proposed coalition, said on Monday that he has sent the Governor General a letter stating he has the confidence of the House of Commons to form the government should the Conservatives be defeated.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said he has had private conversations with friends in the Official Opposition caucus who he said are looking for a way to resolve the situation.

"My colleagues are willing to work with those folks. I’ll tell you, having a time out may be what the doctor ordered — lower the temperature in this place."

He said he didn't know of reports that Liberals have been made offers to join the Conservatives to avoid the crisis. But Liberal MP Bryon Wilfert told CBC's Don Newman that one of his colleagues was called and offered a cabinet position.

The Tories have already begun a public relations blitz to discredit the pact, which the Bloc Québécois has agreed to support for at least 18 months.

Radio and TV ads have already rolled out and countrywide rallies are planned for the weekend. The Tories have characterized the agreement as an undemocratic coalition beholden to a separatist party.

But opposition members have denied the charges. They fired back with charges of hypocrisy, citing a letter to former governor general Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, signed by then opposition leaders Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, that discussed the prospects of dissolving Parliament if the government of Paul Martin, the prime minister, was to be defeated.

The letter stated that the opposition parties, which constituted a majority in the House, have "been in close consultation" and that if Clarkson was asked to dissolve Parliament, she should "consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

The Tories counter that that agreement was different because it didn't include a formal coalition.

The opposition parties said they made their move to form a coalition after Harper "did nothing" to address the current economic crisis. Their accord includes a proposed multibillion-dollar stimulus package with support for the auto and forestry sectors.

Proponents of the proposed coalition also announced planned rallies across Canada to show support for the plan, using social networking websites such as Facebook to spread word of the events.

The coalition has also launched a series of radio ads and appeals to supporters, asking them to call or write to their local radio stations and newspapers.

With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## helpup (3 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> The PM is supposed to be responsible to Canadians,


Agreed, and part of that would be to work with the other parties on a solution, especially in a minority Govt during this " economic crisis" ( and I am beginning to hate that term )
[/quote]


			
				Zip said:
			
		

> The Conservative government has had auditors going through the various departments for quite some time, rationally identifying places where cuts could/should be done. This is the kind of forward thinking I would expect from a government that sees trouble on the economic horizon.



Agreed and have stated that I fully supported the " lets not panic here " attitude and also with where they have been identifying where the waste is. It was one of the points he scored on the debates. 



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> I do not believe that our government should follow the rest of the world lemming like into huge stimulus packages, especially when we have been told by organizations like the IMF that we are head and shoulders above the ROTW.



Agreed we are in better shape and had started to address allot of those issues before the house of cards came down in the states and went on from there.  I am not a fan of the spend your way out of this.  But do think if your going to then infrastructure that badly needs it should be a starting point. And I believe that is the direction the conservatives were going.



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> Is Canada in for a recession, I don't know, probably, but if you talk to anyone who has studied economics the huge projects and billions in stimulus undertaken during the Great Depression prolonged that crisis.


you forgot that it was also the protectionist attitude and looking at their own economies that contributed to its length.  



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> In addition the “New Deal” ( didn't end that crisis, WW2 did. Besides this what is $30 Billion to the world? This is a global slow down, with trillions and hundreds of billions being thrown around by the heavy hitters what if anything will our paltry sum do?


Agreed and it will mainly get us back to where we were a decade ago in the debt department.  But if you must then do it smartly in growth not Laytons slap business approach or the Green Sh$T



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> So to me when I hear people blaming the Conservatives for cutting pork during the most significant economic downturn in almost 100 years


I stated earlier on this post that the optics of doing the cash per vote program was bad, ill timed and not a smart thing to do. that opinion will not change. There may be better ways of ensuring what party gets what in donations and you would be right in saying that it should be from people volunteering their money to a party. ( put your money where your mouth is in other words) But the fact remains we didn't have that and what the Libs brought, right or wrong was something that could be looked at as fairer then relying on business and special intrest groups "buying themselves a politician".  Should it be changed?probably give me a better program that is fair, and I would more then likely approve of it.  But to try and change the funding formula when you know it would bankrupt or seriously hurt all the other parties except one.  During this time when you have a minority Govt.......... Nope that was not smart and brought up during the worse possible time.  And despite recent revelations of the NDP looking into things with the bloc about bringing down the Govt.  I firmly believe that little party financing package was what started this whole mess and leading to the head shake laugh as it hurts situation that we are in now. 



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> it makes me shake my head in bewilderment, and when I hear people screaming for a bailout/stimulus package without any demonstrable proof that Canada needs it or that it will do anything it makes me ill.


Agreed with the Caveat that if your going to spend it spend it right not to just look like your doing something. 



			
				Zip said:
			
		

> This kind of blind, pragmatic followership will create more problems than it will solve in my opinion.


I don't consider myself to be blind nor a blind follower.  However there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic. 


Having said that I don't think we are really that far apart on most things outside of Harper doing the right thing about getting rid of the financial packages


----------



## reccecrewman (3 Dec 2008)

Due to the nature of our occupation, serving members are in a tricky spot when it comes to making statements in a public forum...... however, it's always a joy when you see something like this in print from an ex-serving member. It's a well spoken piece that comes from many years of experience and knowledge and isn't something that was pulled out of an a**....... Well said Sir.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2008)

So, just as an aside and probably simplistic. The NDP engineered this coalition, led by Taliban Jack. Taliban Jack and the NDP exists largely today because of the CAW. The CAW and the Big 3 want us to bail them out. 

So they want to use my money to keep their jobs and keep the NDP and TJ in place.

Hmmmm. I don't think I'll ever buy a North American vehicle again in my life.

Perhaps if enough auto workers saw their jobs go down the tubes, because of their party affiliation, we may see an end to the Dippers.

Just idle musings from someone down here in the blue collar, lunch bucket wasteland.

*Edit to add:*

*Ken Lewenza, national president of the CAW, has said today that they stand behind the coalition and that it will be a good thing for Canada.*

BTW, for those that don't know, the CAW doesn't just represent auto workers. They also represent hotel, casino, fisheries and other units outside the auto industry.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Dec 2008)

On CTV news last night, they showed a clip of Dion.  He was foaming at the mouth, real tough guy,  I thought for a moment that he'd developed a spine at last.  On closer inspection however, he was standing more upright than usual because Layton's hand was up his arse making the dummies mouth move.


----------



## Reccesoldier (3 Dec 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> On CTV news last night, they showed a clip of Dion.  He was foaming at the mouth, real tough guy,  I thought for a moment that he'd developed a spine at last.  On closer inspection however, he was standing more upright than usual because Layton's hand was up his arse making the dummies mouth move.


And Duceppe was behind Layton...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> On CTV news last night, they showed a clip of Dion.  He was foaming at the mouth, real tough guy,  I thought for a moment that he'd developed a spine at last.  On closer inspection however, he was standing more upright than usual because Layton's hand was up his arse making the dummies mouth move.


When I saw him I was just about to break out laughing when my normally quiet wife with her disinterest in politics saw him and described him as a raving lunatic. Any person on the street acting like that would likely be tazed and forcefully sedated. I find his righteous indignation hypocritical, staged and laughable. Somewhat like those tirades you see in old WWII newsreels of Hitler or Mussolini. Lots of fist pumping, desk banging, spitting and red faced yelling.................but no substance. At least they could work up a crowd. Not this loser.

Make no mistake Duceppe will be the puppet master at this Punch & Judy show.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2008)

The Coalition


----------



## Reccesoldier (3 Dec 2008)

To Layton, Duceppe and Dion...

_"Is there not some chosen curse, Some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven, Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man who owes his greatness to his country's ruin?"_
Joseph Addison


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Dec 2008)

Good summary Helpup.

Pretty much in agreement across the board.

With respect to Harper himself - I am going to have to Wait Out on him in this case.

As Thucydides said Harper has demonstrated a great degree of tactical skill in the past and has often seemed able to recover successfully, or at least take advantage of opportunities that present themself when he "wrong foots" himself.  

That has happened often enough that at times I am encouraged to wonder how many of those errors are in fact errors.  Are they instances where he let his temper get the better of himself and he has been bright enough to recover?  Or are they instances where he allowed his temper free rein knowing that his histrionics would have a particular effect?  

I don't know.

He could be incredibly smart, or incredibly smart and fatally flawed.

Again, I don't know.

I do know this.

The amount of poking he did in the run up to this he had to know he would provoke a reaction.   And given that any prudent combatant would have a reaction plan in place.

I find it difficult to accept that he didn't see this coming......but I do know other people who occasionally pop the cork and let loose and, in the words of a Hoosier hero of mine:" There ain't nuthin Ah kin do abaht it".

So, as I said, I am on listening watch as far as deciding whether or not Harper is a Machiavellian Genius or merely a man that has difficulty controlling his impulses.

In the meantime, regardless of how we got into this mess, we are in it and I sure don't want to see the alternative running the government.

To those that are concerned about hypocrisy:  I could argue that the difference is that while Stephen discussed a deal with Jack and Gilles and everybody walked away from it, Stephane consummated a deal (apparently the terms were more favourable to all parties concerned).

I could argue that, but I won't.

No.  The key difference is I think Stephane, Jack and Gilles are "Bad".  Stephen is "Less Bad".  Faute de mieux Stephen's actions are justified.  Stephane's actions are not.  Punkt.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (3 Dec 2008)

When we received the e-mail, we asked the author's permission to publish it.  When that was given, we published the letter in its entirety, holding back the names of those to whom it was addressed as well as the author's name, at his request.

It seems that CP also got a copy of the letter, and decided to handle things differently:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081203/national/parliament_crisis_brodeur

Classy.  :


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill:  Not a great situation for the country, eh?  I doubt the "Faute de mieux" justifies the gratuitous swipes by the PM that got us here.  But if Mr Harper really is the political genius, who will end up pulling a rabbit and two hares out of the hat,
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012287.html
I still think he will have made a major contribution to the stench of already putrid Canadian politics.  Quoting Parizeau during Question Period without mentioning that the quote is from 1991? Come on.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/12/03/question-period-theme-of-the-day-pm-protecting-only-his-own-job.aspx
http://www.conservative.ca/FR/2459/107805

Bah. Humbug. Fie, fie, fie on all of them :rage:.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kratz (3 Dec 2008)

That was a short >5min address to Canadians that the PM made.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (3 Dec 2008)

Nothing new.


> "I've got a plan,  just let me present it,
> those disgusting separatists can not be good for Canada
> they are trying to take away your vote
> we will do everything legal we can to stop them"


1) they had their chance to present it
2) the Tories used the bloc in the exact same way
3) they want to take the results of the election and simply use the assigned seats in a different way
4) it is an abuse of power,  to use the power of your office only to stay in office


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2008)

I think there's still a sliver of possibility that Harper intended to provoke something, but usually the simplest explanation is correct.  He overreached, his expectations being based on prior behaviour of the opposition (all noise, but eventually refusing to pull the trigger).

After reading more commentary and seeing more facts exposed, I understand the Liberal position less and less.  After a few solid years of majority Conservative government, we'll need an exchange of parties.  I'd prefer the Liberals to take their turn back in the seat, preferably with a majority government not beholden to the NDP or BQ.  Neither the Liberals nor Conservatives can reasonably hope to be a permanent government majority.  Each party must be realistic: it will be in opposition some of the time.  Better to choose that time, accept it, and use it to prepare for the next fight.

Dion may have sold that out.

By what I understand so far, this is Layton's deal.  He went to the Bloc, then he went to Dion.  The Bloc should have no aversion to cutting a deal with anyone: all three of the other parties have declared the Bloc's principles anathema.  All Duceppe would have to care about is: what does this deal obtain for Quebec?  Whatever Layton's reasons, he's the initiator.  Advantages are obvious: control of the parliamentary agenda; sell the image of the NDP as a mainstream party and a practical alternative to the Liberals; move in on the Liberal turf; cut short the Conservative agenda.

The Liberals occupy the traditional centre-left/centre/centre-right ground.  The Conservatives are broad enough to cover the centre/centre-right/right.  The NDP covers the left/centre-left.  If the Liberals move too far in the Conservative direction, they yield ground to the NDP and split votes with the Conservatives.  If they move too far toward the NDP they yield the exact centre to the Conservatives and split votes with the NDP.  Their ideal position is exactly where the pundits usually claim it is: the centre.  The Conservatives are already one of the two pre-eminent parties.  Why allow the NDP to become a third?  Is there a long-term advantage for the Liberals in blurring the distinction between them and the NDP?  Is there a short-term advantage other than "PM Dion" and the sheer single-mindedness of being the government, whatever cost to the future?  Is their ego that fragile?

I believe Dion has committed the Liberals to several strategic errors:
1) Taking what the enemy (Layton) offered.  Also: entangling alliances.
2) Fighting an unnecessary battle*.  Harper has backed down on political funding cuts (a necessary battle); the opposition has proved it can win a face-off.
3) Fighting a battle not on ground of their choosing.  Layton chose the ground.
4) Starting a fight looking for victory, rather than seeking the fight after victory is all but assured (waiting to refill the war chests and select a new leader).
5) Believing that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
6) Not looking beyond the current fight to the consolidation/exploitation phase.
7) Lacking internal accord (unity of purpose).

It stretches reason for me to believe that some sane heads in the Liberal ranks will not find a way to avoid disaster.  It will take at least 12 votes the other way, or double the number of abstentions.  Supposedly Ignatieff already controls the loyalty of 50-odd members for the leadership contest.

*I doubt the Liberals seriously believe that Conservative control of the finances is any worse for the country than Liberal control would be.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Nothing new.1) they had their chance to present it
> 2) the Tories used the bloc in the exact same way
> 3) they want to take the results of the election and simply use the assigned seats in a different way
> 4) it is an abuse of power,  to use the power of your office only to stay in office



So, it's okay to use legal means to wrest power from the elected government, and in the process put a party whos sworn mission is to dismantle confederation into the catbird seat, but not okay to use legal means to prevent it?  Interesting take on things you've got there.


----------



## reccecrewman (3 Dec 2008)

WHY on earth does Dion or Layton seem to think THEY can put the brakes on a global recession and have Canada alone in the world as a Country that has economic growth and creating more jobs? Do they not realise that the actions of one Country cannot shield them from a global fiasco? Let the government that the Canadian people have elected go ahead and do the job they were asked to do. All this is doing is causing damage to the Country as a whole. Bloc MP's in a federal cabinet is a travesty..... Is Dion that desperate to get into power that he's willing to climb into bed with a group whose main goal is separation from the Country? It was interesting to note that on his broadcast to the Country tonight, he said the Liberals were forming a coalition with the NDP but he failed to mention the Bloc althogether. So, I guess Dion will get his gas tax online if he succeeds..... just as prices were becoming tolerable.


----------



## danchapps (3 Dec 2008)

recceguy, I think that picture of the 3 Stooges is offensive and an insult to 3 incredibly smart, talented and well loved men. Now, if you found a picture of 3 rats, or 3 snakes, I feel that may have been more suitable.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2008)

>it is an abuse of power,  to use the power of your office only to stay in office

At this point, with all the helpful history refreshers provided in attempts to shore up one side or the other, it would be worth taking a deep breath and admitting the following: *No legal or customary parliamentary manoeuvres is an abuse.*

We can argue to persuade others that one action or another should be taken (eg. I desire an election, not prorogation or dissolution/new government), but at this point *all hands* are counting on one infrequently used gambit or another to achieve their end states.

Hence:
- prorogation is OK
- a request by the PM to dissolve, without a non-confidence motion, is OK
- denial by the G-G with a directive to go back and sort it out is OK
- persuading members to cross the floor, vote across party lines, or abstain is OK- a request from the PM for an election is OK
- denial by the G-G with an offer to someone else who can command the confidence of the House is OK
- etc


----------



## Sonnyjim (3 Dec 2008)

My personal main concern: Will my FOA I've been banking on be affected if this sloppy joe of a coalition comes to power?


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2008)

Although our friend Jack Layton may have been the initiator in all this, look how well he is rewarded. This coalition of the unwitting is demonstrating their total inability to operate as a government before they even get their sweaty hands on the door, much less the levers of power:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wPOLlayton1203/BNStory/politics/home



> *Layton denied own airtime tonight*
> 
> JOSH WINGROVE AND GAYLE MACDONALD
> 
> ...




edit for spelling


----------



## Flip (3 Dec 2008)

> As Thucydides said Harper has demonstrated a great degree of tactical skill in the past and has often seemed able to recover successfully, or at least take advantage of opportunities that present themself when he "wrong foots" himself.
> 
> That has happened often enough that at times I am encouraged to wonder how many of those errors are in fact errors.



Kirkhill, Due to the odd circumstances of the plot to bring down the government and the invitation to hear the planners boast of their plans....I'm inclined to see Harper as having responded to an extortion attempt by the minority. With the now infamous "update", Harper tipped their hand prematurely. Better now than with Iggy at the reigns.

All of that being said, the opposition may be in a position to take ownership of the recession..... ;D

Just keep reminding people that support for the coalition = support for the Taliban and =  support for seperatists everywhere, and some of the smarter less, emotional liberals will reconsider their parties' position ....... Well, I hope anyway.....  :


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I think there's still a sliver of possibility that Harper intended to provoke something, but usually the simplest explanation is correct.  He overreached, his expectations being based on prior behaviour of the opposition (all noise, but eventually refusing to pull the trigger).


 I agree with you. If his plan was to kneecap the opposition he wouldn't have caved in last weekend.



> After reading more commentary and seeing more facts exposed, I understand the Liberal position less and less.


 Me, you, and a few million other Canadians, including quite a few Liberals.



> After a few solid years of majority Conservative government, we'll need an exchange of parties.  I'd prefer the Liberals to take their turn back in the seat, preferably with a majority government not beholden to the NDP or BQ.  Neither the Liberals nor Conservatives can reasonably hope to be a permanent government majority.  Each party must be realistic: it will be in opposition some of the time.  Better to choose that time, accept it, and use it to prepare for the next fight.
> 
> Dion may have sold that out.


 All the Liberals had to do was regroup, rebuild and increase their warchest. Yes, it would take years, but it was doable. Just look at the trails and tribulations of the Conservatives (PC-Reform-Canadian Alliance-CPC). In 1993, the PC party was left with two seats in the House. Today they have 143. It took them 15 years, but they did it. The Liberals could have done the same thing. But instead, Dion, allowed himself to be talked into this unholy alliance and in doing so, may have doomed the party. Its almost like Dion said, _"the hell with it, if I'm going down, the party goes with me_." A Liberal version of Wagner's  Götterdämmerung  if you will.



> By what I understand so far, this is Layton's deal.  ......  Whatever Layton's reasons, he's the initiator.  Advantages are obvious: control of the parliamentary agenda; sell the image of the NDP as a mainstream party and a practical alternative to the Liberals; move in on the Liberal turf; cut short the Conservative agenda.


 I posted earlier that I couldn't believe that Layton would seriously consider alienating his western base (half of his MPs are from out west). However, on reflection I think I was wrong. Layton has spent his whole life in central Canada, so the west (the traditional birthplace of the CCF-NDP) is foreign territory for him.  He couldn't care less what they think out west.  

One interesting thing that I found while looking at the Wiki article on Layton was this: 

_"Further controversy followed as Layton suggested the removal of the Clarity Act, considered by some to be vital to keeping Quebec in Canada and by others as undemocratic, and promised to recognize any declaration of independence by Quebec after a referendum." _

Maybe Jack and Giles have more in common then we think??



> I believe Dion has committed the Liberals to several strategic errors:
> 1) Taking what the enemy (Layton) offered.  Also: entangling alliances.
> 2) Fighting an unnecessary battle*.  Harper has backed down on political funding cuts (a necessary battle); the opposition has proved it can win a face-off.
> 3) Fighting a battle not on ground of their choosing.  Layton chose the ground.
> ...



Agree with most of the above comments ( 1 -7) for the most part, except for 2) - By the time Harper backed down it was to late. Like those troop trains in August 1914, once they left the train station they couldn't be recalled. The same with the coalition.

All for now, I'm tired and out of beer. Bedtime. Ciao!!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Dec 2008)

For those that missed it.

Statement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper
3 December 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

   
Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the following statement:

“Good evening,

Canadians take pride in our history as one of the world’s oldest continuous democracies.  During the past 141 years, political parties have emerged and disappeared, leaders have come and gone, and governments have changed. 

Constant in every case, however, is the principle that Canada’s Government has always been chosen by the people.  And following the light of this democratic tradition, Canadians have built one of the most peaceful and prosperous countries the world has ever known – a land of hope and opportunity that inspires others around the globe, and has drawn millions as new immigrants to our country.

On October 14, for the 40th time since Confederation, Canadians voted in a national general election.  We are honoured that you returned our Government to office with a strengthened mandate to lead this great country through the most difficult global economic crisis in many decades.  Canada’s Government is acting to deal with the crisis, right now.


Further personal and business tax reductions are coming into effect;


We are doubling spending on infrastructure;


We are ensuring credit for businesses and consumers by injecting liquidity into financial markets;


We are helping seniors who rely on RRIR income;


And securing pension plans.

We are implementing the Automotive Innovation Fund and, working with the Government of Ontario, we are undertaking due diligence on any further requests for assistance from the auto industry.  We are increasing support and incentives for manufacturers, the forestry sector, and others to pursue business opportunities.  We are implementing agreements with the provinces to enhance labour mobility.  And, next month on January 27, we will bring in a budget which will contain additional measures to boost Canada’s economy, while making sure we avoid a long term structural deficit in Canada’s finances.

In preparation for that budget we are consulting widely with Canadians, meeting with premiers of our provinces and territories, and working in collaboration with our international partners in G20.  The Minister of Finance will be consulting with the business community and interest groups.

We are consulting with, and expect to hear more from, the opposition parties in Parliament.  We hope they bring forward specific proposals - we have invited them to do so.  In fact, we have already changed some of our proposals to meet their concerns.  Unfortunately, even before the Government has brought forward its budget, and only seven weeks after a general election, the opposition wants to overturn the results of that election.

Instead of an immediate budget, they propose a new coalition which includes the party in Parliament whose avowed goal is to break up the country.  Let me be very clear:  Canada’s Government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with a separatist party.  

At a time of global economic instability, Canada’s Government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together.  At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada.  And the Opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen.

The Opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent, and without your vote.  This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists; it is the time for Canada’s government to focus on the economy and specifically on measures for the upcoming budget.  This is a pivotal moment in our history.

We Canadians are the inheritors of a great legacy, and it is our duty to strengthen and protect it for the generations still to come.  Tonight, I pledge to you that Canada’s Government will use every legal means at our disposal to protect our democracy, to protect our economy, and to protect Canada.

Thank you, and goodnight.”


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Dec 2008)

And the Liberal one.

December 3, 2008 
Address to the Nation by the Leader of the Official Opposition
House of Commons, Ottawa 

Canada is facing the impacts of the global economic crisis. Our economy is on the verge of a recession. Canadians are worried about losing their jobs, their homes, their savings. Every economist in the country is predicting increased job losses and deficits for the next few years. 

The federal government has a duty to act and help Canadians weather this storm. 

Stephen Harper still refuses to propose measures to stimulate the Canadian economy. His mini-budget last week demonstrated that his priority is partisanship and settling ideological scores. 

The Harper Conservatives have lost the confidence of the majority of Members of the House of Commons. In our democracy, in our parliamentary system, in our Constitution, this means that they have lost the right to govern. 

Canadians don’t want another election, they want Parliamentarians to work together. That’s our job. Canadians want their MPs to put aside partisanship and focus on the economy. 

The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are ready to do this. Jack Layton and I have agreed to form a coalition government to address the impact of the global economic crisis. The Bloc has agreed to support this government on matters of confidence. The Green Party has also agreed to support it. 

Our system of government was not born with Canada. It is ancient. There are rules that govern it and conventions that guide it. 

Coalitions are normal and current practice in many parts of the world and are able to work very successfully. They work with simple ingredients: consensus, goodwill and cooperation. Consensus is a great Canadian value. In this spirit, we Liberals have joined in a coalition with the NDP. We have done so because we believe we can achieve more for Canadians through cooperation than through conflict. We believe we can better solve the challenges facing Canada through teamwork and collaboration, rather than blind partisan feuding and hostility. 

Our coalition is a consensus to govern with a well-defined program to address the most important issue facing the country: the economy. It is a program to preserve and create jobs and to stimulate the economy in all regions of the country. The elements of the program need to be spelled out and this is what we will do if we are allowed to present it to the House of Commons. 

We share the frustration Canadians have about a political crisis that has been allowed to take prominence over the more important economic challenges we face. Elsewhere in the world, leaders are working to cope with the recession, to bring forward the kinds of investments that will help their people and their economies. Politicians are working together. Rivals are working together. 

Mr. Harper’s solution is to extend that crisis by avoiding a simple vote. By suspending Parliament and continuing the confusion. We offer a better way. We say settle it now and let’s get to work on the people’s business. A vote is scheduled for next Monday. Let it proceed. And let us all show maturity in accepting the result with grace and the larger task of serving Canadians in mind. 

Within one week, a new direction will be established, a tone and focus will be set. We will gather with leaders of industry and labour to work, unlike the Conservatives, in a collaborative, but urgent manner to protect jobs. 

To stimulate the economy and create good well-paid jobs we will not only accelerate already planned investments, but invest significantly more in our country’s infrastructure. Helping our cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal or Halifax build modern, efficient public transit systems. 
Investing in our rural communities so that cherished ways of life are protected for future generations. We can stimulate our economy through investments in clean energy, water and our gateways. 

We will invest in our manufacturing, forestry and automotive sectors to protect and create jobs. We believe that in these tough economic times the government has a role to play to ensure that those who are doing their share for the prosperity of our country can continue to provide for the wellbeing of their families. 

In times like this our compassion as a country is tested. We believe it is imperative that the government offers Canadians who have already lost their job, whether in the factories of South Western Ontario or the forests of Eastern Quebec and British Columbia, the support they need to live in dignity and develop new skills. 

That is precisely what we intend to provide. 

Earlier today I wrote Her Excellency the Governor General. I respectfully asked her to refuse any request by the Prime Minister to suspend Parliament until he has demonstrated to her that he still commands the confidence of the House. 

If Mr. Harper wants to suspend Parliament he must first face a vote of confidence. 

In our Canada, the government is accountable for its decisions and actions in Parliament. 

In our Canada, the government derives its legitimacy from an elected Parliament. 

Allow me to end tonight on a personal note. If I am entrusted with the role of Prime Minister for the next months that I have left to serve, I will work day and nights to combat this economic crisis, to do what it takes to minimize its effects on Canadians, to protect jobs and to create jobs. 

I will serve my country until my time to serve is at an end.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I think there's still a sliver of possibility that Harper intended to provoke something, but usually the simplest explanation is correct.  He overreached, his expectations being based on prior behaviour of the opposition (all noise, but eventually refusing to pull the trigger).



True, but only if we are looking at the immediate problem. Since we do not know the "commander's intent" we do not understand the expected endstate. In the short to mid term, the CPC _ma_y find itself out of power, but:

1. As many in the blogosphere have noted, that might be a good thing during a global recession.

2. The Liberal Party suffers serious damage as the current leadership is exposed as a gang of unprincipled opportunists. The NDP doesn't fare much better.

3. Canadian politics is dramatically reformed on "Left/Right" lines and simplified as multiple parties disappear one way or another. A goodly fraction of centerist Liberal voters (and possibly MP's) move into the CPC fold.

4. The unengaged Canadians suddenly get their faces shoved into the political cesspool. How do you like your introduction to Stephnan Dion, Jack Layton and Giles Ducceppe so far?

5. Stephen Harper has suggested in the past that he would like to see Canadian society shift to the right. After this how attractive will the "Left" look to most voters (especially the new and formerly unengaged voters)?

And I might even be looking in the wrong direction (since I do not know the "commander's intent")


----------



## Bane (4 Dec 2008)

Heading and byline of Globe and Mail article.  Linked Below. 

*Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance:*
_A document obtained by The Globe and Mail shows that the scheme would have propelled then Alliance leader Stockwell Day to power in the coalition. A lawyer who was described then as being close to Day, says he didn't discuss the matter with the MPs _ 



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wquebec1203/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081203.wquebec1203


----------



## Bane (4 Dec 2008)

...and the response.

*Day denies report of 2000 coalition plot with Bloc:*
_Former Alliance leader once told reporters, 'I'm not big on labels'_




http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/day-bloc.html


----------



## midget-boyd91 (4 Dec 2008)

Maybe someone with more knowledge about the legalities involved with federal politics can help me with this one.

A referendum.

We had a general just weeks ago, so it has been decided which party represents which riding already. 
But that was for all parties, and now that the left have merged, albeit temporarily, I believe that we should, rather than have another general election, cast a vote in a national referendum to decide if we want the Conservatives to stay at the wheel, or allow the Coalition to take the keys, all the while keeping the seats in the House Of Commons as they are now.
I think that rather than have a government chosen by those seeking to get into power, WE should choose.

A ballot with two choices, something like this:
------------------------------ --------------------------
Who do you wish to have as your government?

l  l    Stephen Harper: Conservative
l  l    Stephan Dion: Liberal/NDP Coalition   

------------------------------ Ƞ--------------------------
 Keep the House as it is, but vote for who we want to lead it.

Midget


----------



## Armymedic (4 Dec 2008)

Its being reported that Layton went whining to the media requesting time in prime time to speak to the people. Correctly (IMHO), the media said no, we are giving time to the PM and the leader of the Coalition.

Layton reportedly whined that as a party leader in the "proposed" coalition he was due his time to speak.

The less this guy gets to talk....the better it is for all of us.


----------



## tank recce (4 Dec 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And the Liberal one.
> 
> In our Canada, the government derives its legitimacy from an elected Parliament.



Am I the only one who finds this a combination of hilarious, baffling, and infuriating? This man is in the process of attempting to circumvent the legitimacy of the elected Parliament.

I'm shaking the bones and burning incense, hoping Her Excellency will call them both before her for a short 'n' sweet:
"Mister Harper, I will not prorogue Parliament. Monsieur Dion, I will not accept your coalition as the Government of Canada. Thank you, gentlemen; that will be all."


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Dec 2008)

tank recce said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who finds this a combination of hilarious, baffling, and infuriating? This man is in the process of attempting to circumvent the legitimacy of the elected Parliament.
> 
> I'm shaking the bones and burning incense, hoping Her Excellency will call them both before her for a short 'n' sweet:
> "Mister Harper, I will not prorogue Parliament. Monsieur Dion, I will not accept your coalition as the Government of Canada. Thank you, gentlemen; that will be all."



In line with the above comment AND Brad's list of what's OK:

Given that it is Her Excellency's Government (acting in lieu of Her Majesty) 
and that it is only "convention" that she must pick her Government from the Lower House
and that it seems the we are in the process of chucking convention out the window here

What is to prevent the GG nominating some existing Privy Counsellor, or for that matter Senator, as her PM?  

I mean, if we are going to speculate we may as well keep the speculation lively.


----------



## tamtam10 (4 Dec 2008)

It scares me to think that the Liberals and NDP would join the Bloc, a separitist party, in order to form a coalition. What does that say about their integrity?


----------



## Scratch_043 (4 Dec 2008)

I think that there is one good question that should be posed by the PM to the GG, and then in turn by the GG to the 'New Libs on the Bloc':

If the GG decides to allow the Coalition to govern as a single entity, the NDP and the Liberals (and Bloc) together, right? BUT if she elects to send Canada back to the polls instead, will this 'Coalition' run as a single entity then (seeing as they have already finalized their 'coalition' uniting them until 2011), or will they break their *sacred bond* to work together until 2011, and run against each other in the election?

The answer to that question alone should be a very good indicator of how serious this coalition is. They say 'no' shows they're not serious about wanting to work together 'for the good of Canada'. They say 'yes' they're a bunch of liars, and betray their constituents trust, thereby damning their prospects of re-election in. Kind of a catch 22, isn't it?

*I think that after asking the question, and getting a 'yes' answer from the leader(s) of the coalition, and if she determines that the new coalition should not be allowed to assume power without being voted in on their new, changed, combined platform (which is neither here nor there, where each of the parties past platforms is concerned), she should send us to the polls, with CPC and (insert name for coalition here) on the ballot, rather than the individual parties.

Nic


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (4 Dec 2008)

*"My DNA would never allow me to form a coalition with the socialists and my heart would never allow me to associate with separatists."  * 

Mr. day your DNA and heart certainly didn't stop you a few years back when you and Mr.Harper couldn't get to Gilles office fast enough to sign that agreement for the Bloc's support in the house against the Martin Liberals. 

Please try telling the truth once in a while, its actually quite liberating and you never have to think about coming up with a new version to tell people everyday. Forest Gump was mentally challenged. What's your excuse? 

And that wasn't the only one, not by a long shot, there were many others who got up and just outright lied about their past dealings with the Bloc or the NDP. My God people most of this stuff is already public knowledge. why would they lie about it?. What they think that we're all blind, deaf and dumb? They must!

I've never seen so much BS coming from the governments side of the house as I seen during question period these past few days. Some one should have offered the poor speaker of the house a shovel, because he almost needed it to shovel himself a path to the door and If there had been a crap-o meter on the wall it would have excused itself and headed for the door, out of sheer embarrasment.

And these are the same people who are running our country. Shamefull and quite disturbing. I have become totally and utterly disgusted with these clowns. Hypocrites, every last one of them! They say children learn their behaviours from adults, well I think this time, these so called adults should take the example from the children, because children for the most part, don't even act this badly or outright lie to you while keeping a smile on their face.

I think the people in Thailand had it right.


----------



## tamtam10 (4 Dec 2008)

It's unforunate Canada could go through another election, especially when the left is all about doing what's right for our economy. Spending another $300+ million on an election is NOT right for our economy. The Canadian public spoke a few weeks ago and decided to go with a Conservative minority.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2008)

Sweet Jumping Ch***t!

The CPC gathered the other parties together to agree to pass a non confidence motion, bring down the Martin government and FORCE AN ELECTION. The circumstances were also quite clear (and different) as the sitting government was being exposed by the Gomery Inquiry as harbouring a nest of corruption and abuse of the public trust. IF you really want to talk about hypocrisy and double dealing, how was it the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance during the Adscam period could claim with straight faces they were unaware of the diversion of millions of taxpayer dollars from public funds to companies with very close ties to the Liberal Party? (And the Canadian MSM never investigated this odd state of affairs?)

The current coalition of the inept wants to bring down a sitting government and assume power without an election (and to prevent an election until 2011 if they can get there without imploding), and the sitting government has not been revealed to be corrupt or abusive of the public's trust; only people with rather different ideas about who actually controls the taxpayer's wealth (hint, unlike the coalition this government's answer is *you* and *me*).


----------



## TCBF (4 Dec 2008)

tamtam10 said:
			
		

> It's unforunate Canada could go through another election, especially when the left is all about doing what's right for our economy. Spending another $300+ million on an election is NOT right for our economy. The Canadian public spoke a few weeks ago and decided to go with a Conservative minority.



- When Joe Clark's PCs lost the vote on John Crosbie's budget on 13 Dec 1979, it triggered another federal election and Trudeau was once again PM.  Seems the Canadian people changed their mind on the status quo.  Might happen again.

- Think of the $300,000,000 election cost as an economic stimulus.


----------



## Scratch_043 (4 Dec 2008)

Some new numbers from Facebook groups:
(I am posting both the for and against groups from the first 6 pages of results I got on a group search for coalition)

For:
Canadians for a Progressive Coalition - Coalition Progressiste Canadienne
14,702 Members

For a Coalition Government in Canada/ Pour un Gouvernment de Coalition
4,165 Members

I'm in favour of the Liberal/NDP Coalition Government
3,562 Members

Canadians For a Liberal-NDP Coalition
2,685

Canadians for a coalition government.
1,692 Members

Make Parliment Work: Coalition government now!
1,556 Members

I Support Canada's Liberal-NDP Coalition Government
1,524 Members

We Want Canada to Have a Progressive Coalition Government
1,192 Members


Against:
Petition to say "NO" to a Coalition Government
3,484 Members

AGAINST a coalition government / CONTRE un gouvernment de coalition
2,553 Members

Canadians Against the Left Coalition
2,479 Members

Kill the Coalition
1,722 Members

Canadians Against a Liberal/NDP Coalition Gov't
85,384 Members

Canadians against coalition government
10,344 Members

Canadians Against (a) Coalition Government
5,156 Members

Protect Our Democoracy, Stop the NDP-Liberal-Bloc Coalition
4,911 Members

Protest the Liberal coalition - petition the Governor General
16,145 Members

Coalition Against The Coalition Government
1,775 Members

No to Coalition Government - Yes to Democracy in Canada
1,708 Members


*Totals:*
31 078 For
135 661 Against

I know it's not an official pole, but if this is any indication of how Canadians in general feel about it, the Conservative government still has the majority of support in this country.

(edited to fix typo)


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (4 Dec 2008)

I was referring to all parties when I said "these clowns" no just the CPC. 

I'm actually a Liberal and I do support my party, but there has to be a better way for everyone involved to resolve this matter, other than what is transpiring right now in the house. It's completely ludicrous and idiotic they way the parties are behaving and I don't like were this is going.

If the GG grants Harper a parogue tomorrow, which she mostly likely will, it will only get messier over the next six weeks and we'll all be knee deep in it come January 26Th and at the end, unless the budget has clusters of diamonds and gold attached to it, Harper will be facing a non-confidence vote again, so we're right back we're we started. 

Like I said ealier, The people in Thailand had it right.


----------



## john10 (4 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> IF you really want to talk about hypocrisy and double dealing, how was it the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance during the Adscam period could claim with straight faces they were unaware of the diversion of millions of taxpayer dollars from public funds to companies with very close ties to the Liberal Party? (And the Canadian MSM never investigated this odd state of affairs?)


 Paul Martin was responsible for managing a budget of $160bn+. Do you really expect him to have known how every increment of tens of millions was spent or mis-spent? It's a pretty silly allegation.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (4 Dec 2008)

Posted with all the usual caveats.



> Canadians divided on toppling government: poll
> Posted: December 03, 2008, 11:02 AM by Julie Smyth
> Canadian Politics
> An new Angus Reid poll suggests the public is divided on the possibility of an opposition coalition throwing the Conservatives out of power.
> ...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Dec 2008)

I love political opinion polls. It is generally good information to know.  However,  the only opinion poll that matters happens on election day.  

The conservatives got a minority government.  They chose to act in a belligerent manner and lost the confidence of the house.  When the non confidence vote happens, and it will,  the GG by tradition will ask the collation to form the government.  

The PM speech had a few errors of fact.  This does have historical precedent.

As an aside,  I get e-mails from the conservatives in it they spoke about PARIZEAU 
In English:
Hard line separatists like Jacques Parizeau have only one objective: the establishment of a weak, unstable and disoriented federal government that will forever be incapable of acting in the national interest.

In French:
Les souverainistes convaincus comme Jacques Parizeau n’ont qu’un seul objectif : la mise en place d’un gouvernement fédéral faible, instable et désorienté qui sera toujours incapable d’agir dans l’intérêt national.

I respect the time honoured tradition of saying one thing to one group and saying a slightly different thing to another group.... but please try not to do it on the same page.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Dec 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - When Joe Clark's PCs lost the vote on John Crosbie's budget on 13 Dec 1979, it triggered another federal election and Trudeau was once again PM.  Seems the Canadian people changed their mind on the status quo.  Might happen again.
> 
> - Think of the $300,000,000 election cost as an economic stimulus.


Plus what the political parties would spend.  I know five people who work on election day for elections Canada.  It isn't great money,  but I like it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - When Joe Clark's PCs lost the vote on John Crosbie's budget on 13 Dec 1979, it triggered another federal election and Trudeau was once again PM.  Seems the Canadian people changed their mind on the status quo.  Might happen again.



Like the last election changed the parliamentary landscape so very much from the previous iteration?   ;D

My guesstimate (coaxed by some FAR wiser than me in these things):  PM'll ask for prorogation, and because _technically_ he still has the confidence of Parliament (because there's been no vote), the GG will have to give him what he seeks.  The opposition SAYS they have no confidence in the current gov't, but they have not VOTED to that effect - like the difference between surveys/polls/divining and an election.  That, and $1, won't get you a Timmie's large double-double, but I cast it out there...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Dec 2008)

I have a song stuck in my head.  It goes,  "what a difference a day makes,  just 24 little hours" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1r6GcPqFSo (A favorite movie of mine  Lola Rennt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffv8I7AELqA if you have the time Unlike Lola, Harper can't simply insist that he will not go away, declare a stop and start over.) 

What a difference a week makes.

One week ago the conservatives kicked this whole thing into motion.  One week ago they went to present their economic update, and had the attitude of "we're in charge,  you can just take it or suffer the consequences".  They jammed it with stuff that the opposition couldn't tolerate, stripping some workers of their right to strike, the poisin pill of campain funding, and of course the lack of any stimulus.

Now we have the PM adressing the nation, pleading for public support to help him keep his job, even though he has done very little to help them keep theirs.  He is now going to play procedural tricks to stay in power longer;  using the power of his office for his own benifit to the detriment of the people by simply delaying what will happen.  Canadians want action now,  actions the conservatives are unwilling or unable to take.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> They jammed it with stuff that the opposition couldn't tolerate, stripping some workers of their right to strike, the poisin pill of campain funding, and of course the lack of any stimulus.
> 
> Now we have the PM adressing the nation, pleading for public support to help him keep his job, even though he has done very little to help them keep theirs.  He is now going to play procedural tricks to stay in power longer;  using the power of his office for his own benifit to the detriment of the people by simply delaying what will happen.  Canadians want action now,  actions the conservatives are unwilling or unable to take.



Who the f@%& are you to tell me what I want?

I don't want a stimulus package, we somewhat saved our economy by not being lemmings and following the rest of the world into eventual financial chaos over the last few years.

If we have to save cash than I couldn't think of a better way than to stop wasting it on political parties.

.and lastly, and they can take back my right to strike in a friggin' heartbeat, I always did just about as well at contract time without having to give back 8 weeks pay to finance that raise.

Did I miss anything Zell?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Dec 2008)

Nope you you hammered at almost all my points.

Canadians spoke for themselves when they elected a Parliament that had a majority of members that subscribe to Keynesian economics.  Even the conservatives said they would come forward with a stimulus package.

The reasoning for public funding of political parties is actually sound,  with good reasons for and against.  Independent of ones position on the issue, knowing how the opposition would be affected by its removal,  one can see there was no way it was going to pass.  This was a factor that started off this 'crisis'. Provoking the wrath of others,  expect wrath.  

I'm glad you feel comfortable with giving away your rights,  funny thing,  rights are allot easier to give away than to get back.  They're also the kind of thing that seems silly, until you need them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Dec 2008)

Had both [to strike/ can't strike] in the same job, prefered not to have them. An opinion from one who had BTDT and knows most of his civil servant co-workers would rather not finance our own raises with the saved money from us not getting paid for months....


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Dec 2008)

Just to play devils advocate here......Suppose Dion succeeds in getting to power with Bloc and NDP support......... what's to say in 8 or 10 weeks, this marriage of the damned breaks up? The Liberals would be then caught in one massive predicament as they don't command anywhere near enough seats to get anything passed in parliament on their own. Let's face the facts.... the Liberals, Bloc and NDP are all saying here and now that they can work together to run an efficient government that will help this COuntry through this tough crisis..... but these are the SAME people who just 6 weeks ago passed the throne speech to let the Conservatives run with the ball.

Now why should anyone for one second believe that they'll all be pulling in the same direction as a coalition party? The 3 parties united all have VERY different agendas and the 3 of them running government together is not going to work. How many Canadians would want Jack Layton as PM? If this coalition is allowed to take power, Jack Layton and the NDP party will now have power that far exceeds what their seat representation suggests they should have.

Hopefully, this coalition doesn't get into power, because if they do, this circus is just going to continue.


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Dec 2008)

As a side note.... glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking of how this could directly affect me......... If this coalition takes power, can they decide that the new FOA allowance and retroactive backpay is a waste of money and s***can it? Or is that a guarenteed thing?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (4 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> When the non confidence vote happens, and it will,  the GG by tradition will ask the collation to form the government.



How can that be a tradition? It's never happened.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Dec 2008)

This  certainly doesn't exactly instill confidence, IMHO

My fave from this story:


> Jean Lapierre, broadcast journalist and former Liberal MP, mocked the party's video address.
> "This was the cheapest video. I don't know if the Liberal party has financial problems, but they *didn't have to go to a high school kid to get their video made*," he said on CTV's Mike Duffy Live. "You ask people to forget about their normal TV show tonight. We did that on TVA. We had a million people waiting for a show call 'Le Poulet' -- 'The Chicken.' We didn't even get the egg!"


----------



## the_girlfirend (4 Dec 2008)

I find it funny... I can't believe Harper is trying to scare everybody with the "separatist" thing... 
I live in Quebec and I have to say that Harper talks about the separation of Quebec more than anybody here.
This is an old idea that has expired a long time ago (1995) and the social and political situation in Quebec has changed and I can guarantee that if there is another referendum (and I don't think that there is going to be another one ever) the yes would get maximum 30% and I am being generous.

Things have changed and I feel that the separatist movement is limited to a circle of politicians, artists and some citizens (but not every proud Québécois is a separatist)
But I am very disappointed that Harper is using this to influence Canadians, because lately we have heard very nasty things about Quebec from the rest of Canada, and unfortunately that is one thing that could feed the separatist movement.

my 2 cents


----------



## CountDC (4 Dec 2008)

john10 said:
			
		

> Paul Martin was responsible for managing a budget of $160bn+. Do you really expect him to have known how every increment of tens of millions was spent or mis-spent? It's a pretty silly allegation.



Yes I do.  I did budget reports and the people I reported to were aware of where every penny went.  The amount of the budget doesn't matter - 1 billion or 160 billion if you are responsible then you should know where millions of dollars are going.


----------



## Haletown (4 Dec 2008)

In making her decision, the GG must place the priority of Canada above school yard shenanigans of Parliament.

As Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, at a time when we have troops under fire in combat in Afghanistan, she must evaluate the morality of having a Separatist Party operating in a de facto coalition government of  the country the troops serve.

Bad move.


----------



## Rodahn (4 Dec 2008)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> How can that be a tradition? It's never happened.



Canada has had two coalition government in it's history, though never quite under circumstances like this. 

During the defeat of the Joe Clark government the GG of the time stated he was waiting to hear if the opposition had a plan to for a coalition government.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081204/gg_schreyer_081204/20081204?hub=TopStories


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Dec 2008)

the_girlfirend said:
			
		

> I find it funny... I can't believe Harper is trying to scare everybody with the "separatist" thing...
> I live in Quebec and I have to say that Harper talks about the separation of Quebec more than anybody here.
> This is an old idea that has expired a long time ago (1995) and the social and political situation in Quebec has changed and I can guarantee that if there is another referendum (and I don't think that there is going to be another one ever) the yes would get maximum 30% and I am being generous.
> 
> ...


What then, is the goal of the PQ and the BQ?  Promoting Quebecois values?  I would argue that though they don't currently speak of "sovereignty", it's never far from their minds.  If Quebecois don't mind sitting in perpetual opposition (the proposed coalition notwithstanding), then go ahead and vote BQ.


----------



## the_girlfirend (4 Dec 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter 

Actually, the PQ is not so popular these days, I am anxious to see the result of the election on December 8th.  ;D
But I can tell you that a lot of people vote PQ because they hate the liberals, and because they think it is the only other valuable option. 
Many people who voted for the PQ would be against another referendum.

And the Bloc Québécois is only defending the interests of Quebec in Ottawa and again many people vote Bloc because they think it is their best option, it is far from being a vote for l'indépendance du Québec.

And yes these parties promote l'indépendance, but I can tell you that the population is not for it... it is an old politician's dream, can you imagine how proud Pauline Marois would be if she succeed where everybody else failed!!!

L'indépendance is an old dream that is just not relevant anymore, and it is only a matter of time before we all forget about it.


----------



## Rodahn (4 Dec 2008)

the_girlfirend said:
			
		

> Mortarman Rockpainter
> 
> Actually, the PQ is not so popular these days, I am anxious to see the result of the election on December 8th.  ;D
> But I can tell you that a lot of people vote PQ because they hate the liberals, and because they think it is the only other valuable option.
> ...



I think that the people of Quebec vote for the Bloc, as it is seen to represent their interests as a distinct society within Canada, rather than as an entity to separate from Canada (even though that was the initial mandate when the party formed). 

I believe that Mr. Harper with his talk of the separatists, is alienating what support he had in the province. But this is just my opinion.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2008)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Just to play devils advocate here......Suppose Dion succeeds in getting to power with Bloc and NDP support......... what's to say in 8 or 10 weeks, this marriage of the damned breaks up? The Liberals would be then caught in one massive predicament as they don't command anywhere near enough seats to get anything passed in parliament on their own. Let's face the facts.... the Liberals, Bloc and NDP are all saying here and now that they can work together to run an efficient government that will help this COuntry through this tough crisis..... but these are the SAME people who just 6 weeks ago passed the throne speech to let the Conservatives run with the ball.
> 
> Now why should anyone for one second believe that they'll all be pulling in the same direction as a coalition party? The 3 parties united all have VERY different agendas and the 3 of them running government together is not going to work. How many Canadians would want Jack Layton as PM? If this coalition is allowed to take power, Jack Layton and the NDP party will now have power that far exceeds what their seat representation suggests they should have.
> 
> Hopefully, this coalition doesn't get into power, because if they do, this circus is just going to continue.



This coalition of the inept seems set to self destruct even before it starts:

Micheal Ignatieff will not sit in the cabinet of a putative coalition government. One only wonders what the estimated 30-50 MP's who support him think.

At least one Liberal MP has openly condemned this action (Frank Valeriote)

Jack Layton comes to the networks demanding equal time to the other party leaders (without telling the leader of his own coalition), believing he is an equal partner rather than the junior one (and has the fewest seats to contribute to the coalition to boot).

The public is reacting in fury and disbelief as the price the BQ demanded is being revealed ($1 Billion immediate transfer to Quebec, killing the national securities regulator, preventing the adjusting of electoral boundaries and seat assignments due to population changes etc.)

Rumors abound that 12+ MP's will quit their caucus and sit as independents to quell the crisis. I'm pretty certain none of these are CPC MP's. Will they be welcomed back into their Party caucus later?


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2008)

Just in from Canadian Press - highlights mine.....


> *Prime Minister Stephen Harper has asked the Governor General to shut down Parliament until January.*
> 
> It's a bid to avoid Monday's non-confidence vote that would bring down his minority Conservative government.
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (4 Dec 2008)

While the BQ does have Indépendentiste roots, they've been in ottawa for so long that, to say their root reason for being there is the secession of Quebec from the rest of Canada - must be rethought.

In 1990 the party was initially intended to be temporary and was given the goal of the promotion of sovereignty at the federal level.  Given that we are closing in on being around for some 20 years now, I believe that they should be considered a regional party pure and simple - they are in Ottawa looking after their constituents interests, pure and simple.  They figure they can align themselves with either the party in power OR with the party(ies) in opposition as a means to an end.... I personally consider that by doing so they are marginalizing themselves - but that's their choice.


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Dec 2008)

At least some MPs are truly representing the interest of their ridings by taking a stand agaisnt coalition. 

This whole coalition smacks of being morally wrong. Enough of the Harper did this and did that. His part had the more seats then the other parties and he was elected Prime Minister.

There is no way to put window dressing on this coalition, it is ugly and a filthy grab for power.

People who are saying that the majority of Canadians wanted this are right out to lunch. 

The people who voted NDP, wanted Jack layton and the NDP.

The people who voted Grenn Party, wanted Elizabeth may and the green party.

You get the picture?

People who are saying that Harper brought this on are not using ANY logic at all (Zell, I am calling you on!)


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2008)

A former GG speaks out. His Excellency was (according to rumor) prepared to use his reserve powers in the event of a constitutional crisis surrounding the repatriation of the constitution, so his opinion carries weight. On the other hand, the final half of the article is clear partisan hackery. Pay attention to what His Excellency has to say:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wparlmartin04/BNStory/Front



> *One governor-general to another: Don't aid in evading Parliament's will*
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> December 4, 2008 at 12:09 AM EST
> ...


----------



## Lil_T (4 Dec 2008)

So, did anyone notice this on Stephane Dion's address?

Middle book title top shelf.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/speaking-to-the-people/#clip118464


----------



## Flip (4 Dec 2008)

Sorry Lil T - can't see it - what book is it?


----------



## Haletown (4 Dec 2008)

Brian Peckford (ex Premier NFLD) sent a letter to the GG

"the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois and his party do not believe in the continuation of this country as presently constituted. So it is a contradiction in terms to have a Government of this country whose very existence depends on people who do not believe in this country.

I would submit, therefore,  that the coalition proposal is outside the constitution of this country. Our constitution is based on the Country as it presently exists. Given that you are to consider your options in light of the Constitution, the Coalition proposal does not qualify for consideration.

I contend that there is no provision in writing or convention which permits consideration of a proposal which sees the formation of a Government of this country which is dependent for its existence upon those who do not support the country as it presently exists."


----------



## Lil_T (4 Dec 2008)

It's titled "Hot Air"


----------



## geo (4 Dec 2008)

Ummm... friend just passed this one on to me & what can I say - it the shoe fits......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm... friend just passed this one on to me & what can I say - it the shoe fits......



 see reply#415 by recceguy.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Dec 2008)

CBC NEWSWORLD and CTV NEWSNET are both reporting that Parliament has been Prorogued.

More to fol


----------



## geo (4 Dec 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> see reply#415 by recceguy.


Mine puts it into context.... ya gotta be drunk as a skunk for it to make sense.


----------



## Celticgirl (4 Dec 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> CBC NEWSWORLD and CTV NEWSNET are both reporting that Parliament has been Prorogued.
> 
> More to fol



I'm rather surprised that the GG granted the prorogue. What now? Hopefully an election in the new year. Not that anyone wants to pay another $200 million for an election so soon after the last one, but at least the people of Canada will have a voice if we do. Let the people decide!


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2008)

From CTV.ca....


> Gov. Gen Michaelle Jean has approved Prime Minister Stephen Harper's request to suspend Parliament, agreeing to put the government on hold until the end of January, CTV News has learned.
> 
> CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported the development from outside Rideau Hall.
> 
> Harper met with Jean on Thursday morning for more than two hours and asked her to support his plan to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid a confidence motion scheduled for Monday that would have likely toppled his government....



_More on link_


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Dec 2008)

I can definately see the coalition parties losing votes if there is another election, especially with the NDP stepping aside from some of their main policy ideals. We don't need another $200 million election, but if that's what it takes to finally get some work done and go to shoring up the economy, I'm all for it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Dec 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I'm rather surprised that the GG granted the prorogue. What now? Hopefully an election in the new year. Not that anyone wants to pay another $200 million for an election so soon after the last one, but at least the people of Canada will have a voice if we do. Let the people decide!



Celtic I think given her history (supporting the separatists in Quebec) she had no other choice.


----------



## Celticgirl (4 Dec 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Celtic I think given her history (supporting the separatists in Quebec) she had no other choice.



It's a very interesting time for Canadian politics, that is for sure. I hope this puts an end to the Stooges' plans for a power grab.


----------



## Greymatters (4 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A former GG speaks out. His Excellency was (according to rumor) prepared to use his reserve powers in the event of a constitutional crisis surrounding the repatriation of the constitution, so his opinion carries weight. On the other hand, the final half of the article is clear partisan hackery.



Doesnt read like a very neutral article, and the former GG is merely presenting an argument from the Lib-NDP side: if this possible action were actually illegal or politically unethical, the Conservatives would not be allowed to suggest it be done.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Dec 2008)

GG agrees to suspend Parliament: Harper
Meeting gives Tories reprieve from possible no-confidence vote Monday
Last Updated: Thursday, December 4, 2008 | 12:05 PM ET CBC News 

Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean has granted a request from Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament, the prime minister announced on Thursday, a move that avoids a confidence vote set for Monday that could have toppled his minority government.

"Following my advice, the governor general has agreed to prorogue Parliament," Harper said outside Rideau Hall after a two-hour meeting with Jean.

"When Parliament resumes Jan. 26, the first order of business will be the presentation of a federal budget."

Harper would not discuss the content of the discussion with Jean, citing constitutional traditions.

But he added in French: "The economy is the priority now and the public is very frustrated with the situation in Parliament. We're all responsible for that."

A no-confidence vote could have precipitated the rise of a Liberal-NDP coalition. If the Governor General had refused the prime minister's request, she could have called an election had the Conservatives lost the no-confidence vote. Or she could have allowed the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition to govern if the no-confidence vote was successful.

But the decision to suspend Parliament only gives the Tories a reprieve until late January, when they plan to table a budget that could set them up for a no-confidence vote.

Harper waved to onlookers after his limousine arrived at Rideau Hall at 9:30 a.m ET Thursday. He was greeted by about 40 chanting supporters, including Conservative staffers. A single anti-Harper demonstrator stood waving a sign reading "Harper Must Go."

Harper has pledged to use "every legal means" to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition government, backed by the Bloc Québécois, from taking power.

Making his case
Harper's visit comes a day after he took to the airwaves to make his case that his government should remain in power.

In a five-minute, pre-recorded statement Wednesday night, Harper spoke bluntly against a proposed Liberal-NDP coalition backed by "separatists," saying the federal government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together in the face of the global economic crisis.

Jean returned to Ottawa on Wednesday after cutting short a two-week trip to Europe.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, who would head the proposed coalition, said he sent a letter to Jean on Wednesday, urging her to reject any attempt by Harper to prorogue Parliament.

Dion responded to Harper's address with his own taped rebuttal in which he defended the notion of a proposed coalition government "as normal and current practice in many parts of the world."

The Conservatives have lost the confidence of the majority of members of the House of Commons — largely because of their, in the opposition's view, inadequate reaction to Canada's financial crunch — and thus, "have lost the right to govern," Dion said.

Economic statement lambasted
The coalition sprang up after the Tories released an economic statement that was lambasted by the opposition parties.

They accused Harper of doing nothing to address the current economic crisis and slammed what they saw as ideologically driven measures such as the proposed elimination of subsidies for political parties, a three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike and limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity.

Harper has since backed down on those contentious issues, but the opposition has pushed forward with the coalition.

The coalition — which would have a 24-member cabinet composed of six NDP and 18 Liberal MPs — has vowed to make an economic stimulus package a priority, proposing a multibillion-dollar plan that would include help for the auto and forestry sectors.

With 77 Liberal MPs and 37 New Democrats, plus the support of 49 Bloc members, the three parties have more seats than the 143 held by the Tories.

With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Dec 2008)

GG approves PM's request to suspend Parliament
Updated Thu. Dec. 4 2008 12:06 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean has approved Prime Minister Stephen Harper's request to suspend Parliament, agreeing to put the government on hold until the end of January. 

Harper addressed the media at just before noon after about two-and-a-half hours of meetings at Rideau Hall. 

The Governor General agreed to prorogue Parliament following his advice, Harper said.

He said the decision reflects the will of Canadians. 

"Last Friday I asked Canadians to give us their opinion on the parliamentary situation. That feedback has been overwhelming and very clear. They want the Canadian government to continue to work on the agenda they voted for -- our plan to strengthen the economy." 

Harper also said that when Parliament resumes, the first item on the agenda will be the Conservative budget. 

Harper was seeking a suspension of Parliament in order to avoid a confidence motion scheduled for Monday that would have likely toppled his government. 

The Liberals and NDP have agreed to form a coalition, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, and have signaled their intention to bring down the government over the fiscal update that was introduced last week and would have come before Commons for a vote on Monday. 

They had hoped Jean would deny the prorogation request and let the confidence motion go ahead. If it did, and the government fell, Jean would have to decide whether to send Canadians to the polls for another election, or grant the coalition the chance to win the confidence of the House of Commons and possibly take over government. 

Jean returned home early from a central European tour on Wednesday to deal with the political crisis that has gripped the nation. 

The decision Thursday followed a rare nationally televised address by Harper on Wednesday night. 

In the five-minute pre-taped broadcast Harper said the opposition plans to oust his government and seize power would cripple the country's economy. 

"The opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent and without your vote," he said. 

Harper also signaled he would be willing to work with the opposition parties in order to deliver an economic plan that will help Canada navigate perilous economic times. 

"Canada's government is acting to deal with the crisis right now," he said, adding that the opposition parties should "bring forward specific proposals. 

"In fact, we have already changed some of our own proposals to meet their concerns." 

Later on Wednesday, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion took to the airwaves after a major delay that saw national networks filling time as they waited for the tape to arrive. 

He said the Conservatives have done little to help Canadians cope with the global economic crisis. 

"Stephen Harper still refuses to propose measures to stimulate the Canadian economy," said Dion. "His mini-budget last week demonstrated that his priority is partisanship and settling ideological scores. 

The NDP's Jack Layton said Wednesday that while other countries have been working to stimulate their economies, the Conservatives have been wasting time with partisan politics. 

"Stephen Harper simply refused to act," he said, adding the Conservatives also attacked the rights of workers and women. 

The opposition began to cobble together their coalition after the Tories proposed last week to cut public funding for political parties as a part of their fall economic update. 

The update also lacked a sufficient stimulus package, the opposition has said.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Dec 2008)

Dion, Layton and Duceppe have not demonstrated they have the confidence of their parties.

Until there is a stand up vote on confidence they are merely offering their opinions on what their members will do.

They can claim that Harper has lost the confidence of the House until the cows come home.  That doesn't make it so.

Until that confidence vote happens the GG, by convention, only has one advisor:  The person who has most recently demonstrated through a vote in the house that he has the confidence of the House.  The House was of that mind as recently as 2 or 3 weeks ago when it rose to support the Throne Speech.

With respect to Her Excellency's past separatist proclivities:  Apparently both Her Majesty and the PM found her to their tastes.  I don't think it needs to go beyond that.

PS to Zell, I noted that you mentioned that you got paid to Volunteer for your party of choice.  Just curious, are you getting paid now?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Dec 2008)

Oh joy "Taliban" Jack is flapping his mouth now........


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With respect to Her Excellency's past separatist proclivities:  Apparently both Her Majesty and the PM found her to their tastes.  I don't think it needs to go beyond that.



As it should Kirkhill, was just trying to answer Celtics question.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Dec 2008)

The Governor General has made a decision that is, simultaneously:

•	Good for the country, in the here and now; and

•	Bad for the Constitution in the near, mid and long terms.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, leader of the party of which I am a member and to which I am a substantial contributor, made a grossly *stupid* political miscalculation* that opened the way for a coalition of the separatists, the economically illiterate and the politically inept.

Constitutionally, Governor General Jean should have made him face the music: defeat and political disgrace. He richly deserves both for being a bloody idiot. She should then have invited M. Dion to gather his band of dimwits and misfits and form a government. Instead she has broken a Constitutional _convention_ – something far more important than any law – and, by so doing, she has further weakened an already _retarded_ democracy (unequal representation in the elected chamber and an appointed chamber are sad vestiges of a mid 19th century _system_ that mistrusted mass democracy).

Practically, Mme. Jean has saved us from what would, almost certainly, have been a (Monty) _Pythonesque_ economic situation in which the Liberals and NDP would have spread unnecessary, even damaging, financial _bail outs_ around all their _clients_ in Ontario, Québec and Atlantic Canada.

It *may be* that Harper will regain some of his strategic sense over the holiday period and face parliament with a new throne speech and an almost immediate budget aimed at providing stimulus by funding infrastructure and procurement projects that are ready to break ground/start production right now. Any stimulus that cannot be begun until 2010 is, probably, going to backfire by fuelling inflation during the recovery process – quick reaction is needed and any project that has not already cleared all the various national, provincial and local approval hurdles must be let to wait in the queue. Provinces and cities that can expedite approval should get money, now; others: nothing new. Defence spending, especially some DND infrastructure, may be a good candidate for funding – In my day every base, command and group in NDHQ had millions and billions of ‘approved’ projects in the desk drawers – just waiting for money.

In the short and mid term the Conservative Party needs to reconsider Mr. Harper’s leadership value; I think he has debased his own, political currency – perhaps so badly that he will cost his party the next election if he is still leader.


--------------------
* By proposing a policy that I wholeheartedly support but that could not pass in the current situation.


----------



## Celticgirl (4 Dec 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Oh joy "Taliban" Jack is flapping his mouth now........



He's basically saying that regardless of the amendments Harper will most certainly make to the budget in January, he [Layton] will forge ahead with a non-confidence motion and opposition coalition anyway. He's basically showing the people of Canada what many of us have known all along - this is a POWER GRAB. Layton and Dion are not acting on our behalf or in our best interests, but are selfishly pursuing their own personal agendas. As for Duceppe, he has never minced words. He fully admits to his separatist agenda. At least he is honest.  :


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2008)

> In the short and mid term the Conservative Party needs to reconsider Mr. Harper’s leadership value; I think he has debased his own, political currency – perhaps so badly that he will cost his party the next election if he is still leader.



Find one other competent leader to replace Harper. There isn't any.


----------



## T19 (4 Dec 2008)

Just a note... watch the DION tape.
1.  Its out of focus
2.  Its colour is wrong
3.  It looks like it was shot with a Web Cam
4.  It was late for the broadcast

and the book behind Dions head was titled.... wait for it......  Hot Air... I kid you not 

One Liberal MP from London Area has declaired he will not support it... the cracks have started


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Dec 2008)

Let's take a look at the time and space of the defeat of the government by the coalition around the first of February. If the Governor General asks Dion to form a government, and he takes over about 15 February, will the parties have time to do the battle procedure to prepare a budget before the Liberal convention and transfer of leadership on 2 May? Probably, but only by a few weeks.

If the GG opts to dissolve Parliament on 1 February, the earliest an election could be held would be 7 March. The new goverment would be in place in a week or so after that, and therefore could not prepare a budget until after the changeover. 

Crisis, what crisis? If the national aim is to get a budget in place as soon as possible, then the best course would be for the parties to cooperate on a consensus budget.


----------



## Privateer (4 Dec 2008)

I think that the Governor General made the wrong decision, purely from a constitutional perspective.  Our parliamentary system is based on responsible government - in which the government is responsible to Parliament.  When a prime minister (of whatever party) seeks to prorogue Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote, it is a subversion of that principle.  The question of whether or not an election should have been called after the non-confidence motion is a different issue.  I am concerned that a prime minister in future can take comfort from the idea that he or she can simply dissolve Parliament and continue to govern if he or she is faced with a loss of confidence in Parliament.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Dec 2008)

Privateer said:
			
		

> I think that the Governor General made the wrong decision, purely from a constitutional perspective.  Our parliamentary system is based on responsible government - in which the government is responsible to Parliament.  When a prime minister (of whatever party) seeks to prorogue Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote, it is a subversion of that principle.  The question of whether or not an election should have been called after the non-confidence motion is a different issue.  I am concerned that a prime minister in future can take comfort from the idea that he or she can simply dissolve Parliament and continue to govern if he or she is faced with a loss of confidence in Parliament.



Had the government fallen your point would be correct, but that is exactly why Harper did it before there was any confidence vote.  With no formal confidence vote the GG's hands are restricted if not completely tied, she has to follow the direction of the sitting Prime Minister.


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Dec 2008)

From Privateer
"When a prime minister (of whatever party) seeks to prorogue Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote, it is a subversion of that principle"

Pardon? You want subversion? How about parties getting together to defeat a government less than two months after an election and lying to the public that it was about the budget? IT WAS A STINKING POWER GRAB!!! END STORY!!!  

I think there will be some serious battle damage done to the liberals and the NDP after this whole mess is over.


----------



## T19 (4 Dec 2008)

I find it interresting that the Three Stooges want us to do what other countries are doing.... at a time when most countries are trying to play catch up with Canada.

how could anyone suggest $30Billiion in spending now, when you (we) have no idea until Jan what if any money will be spent by the US to bail out the US economy?

As for constitutional stuff.... The GG has taken the advise of her PM to cool things off, which is legal and based on presidance (sp)

The GG has the responsibility to ensure the smooth working of the Govt and insure she protects the rep of the Gov't.  It is being reported that the email servers at the GG's place are working overtime to handle the letters form Canadians wanting a vote.

The PM needs to turn 12 votes.  2 are independant... 1 Liberal has already said he will not support the three stooges.

BTW it appears that fundraisers for the Liberal Iggy, have reported that the money dried up when he said he supported the three stooges

Cheers


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Dec 2008)

Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail is no friend of the PM or the CPC, never has been, never will. The media format, from which he is quoting Ed Schreyer, is CTV’s Canada AM. Who is a very frequent quest of that program? Bob Rae. Who has been stating that all the rallies/petitions against the coalition are CPC computer generated? Bob Rae.

Don’t forget that Bell Globmedia, CTV, Macleans, and the Globe and Mail have the same beneficial ownership.

The media judge all events solely in terms of their ability to make (manufacture) headlines, their reporting reduced to an ambition to be on page one.

I have attended several functions in the last few years where Ed Schreyer was a guest rambler or a recipient. You wonder if he has totally lost it, and lost it some time ago. A good candidate to interview on Canada AM and to quote in the G & M if you want to smoke screen the issue to the left wing loons.

In my reasoning, the GG had no choice but to follow the advice of “her” first Minister. e.g. If the PM was going to declare war on Germany in Sept 1939, was the GG at that time in a position to say no? Whose Speech from the throne is read by the GG.

Instead of being called the Three Stooges, they should be called Huey, Dewey, and Louie who would often behave in a rambunctious manner, sometimes committing retaliation or revenge on their uncle Donald Duck for something he did to them. Seems to fit.

This Parliament is dead, dead dead. No matter what the CPC do, Huey, Dewey, and Louie will never accept it, not now, not in Jan 09.

When the election comes, let’s remind Quebec of this:

Federal equalization payments:

Quebec - $8.35 billion 
Manitoba - $2.1 billion 
New Brunswick - $1.69 billion 
Nova Scotia - $1.57 billion 
Ontario - $247 million
P.E.I. - $340 million


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Dec 2008)

Here's what I think is the most important part of Mr Harper's comments:

"It's the opportunity to work in the next six weeks on these measures, and I invite all the opposition parties, especially those that have a responsibility to the whole of Canada, to work with us, to inform us of their detailed position and we will be there to listen."



The olive branch is extended, who among the "ThreeKings Stooges" will accept it. I wonder if they will continue to claim that Mr Harper is closed to cooperation.

It will be interesting to see what the preamble to the budget is. I think now there will be an expectation among Canadians that this is an all party document. If the other parties don't participate, and vote non-confidence in the budget, they will have sealed their fate. The GG will not be able to grant them the opportunity to form the government as the Liberals are in turmoil, and the Bloc is not a signatory. The Bloc's implicit support is not nearly as secure as their explicit support would be. If I were the GG, then that would be the salient point for me. I would require that all three parties form the government with representation in cabinet. Anything less, and there are still too many opposition seats to reasonably presume an NDP/Liberal government will retain power.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Dec 2008)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> When the election comes, let’s remind Quebec of this:
> 
> Federal equalization payments:
> 
> ...



Using 2003 populations, per capita they work out to:

Quebec - $1115
Manitoba - $1806
New Brunswick - $2252
Nova Scotia - $1677
Ontario - $20
P.E.I. - $2467

So, by the metric of per capita transfers, Quebec's share is the second lowest, while PEI is grossly over-funded.


----------



## STONEY (4 Dec 2008)

What do you think of Jack Layton as the new Minister of NATIONAL Defence.  Shudder !!!


----------



## Rodahn (4 Dec 2008)

My sole hope is that now all of the respective leaders will stop behaving like petulant children, and get on with the serious business of running the country.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Dec 2008)

STONEY said:
			
		

> What do you think of Jack Layton as the new Minister of NATIONAL Defence.  Shudder !!!



It wouldn't matter, because in the end that's how their going to fund their agenda. We all know that the Libs will take from Defence and spend elsewhere. During the decade of darkness DND's budget fell 23% where all other departments saw an increase.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2008)

Some pretty harsh words from UK's _The Economist_, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*A most un-Canadian caper*
Canada’s prime minister clings on to office, for the moment
Dec 4th 2008 | OTTAWA

THERE are no tanks in the streets or protesters occupying the airport, but Canada is in the midst of political turmoil the like of which this normally placid country has rarely seen. Only seven weeks ago Stephen Harper, the prime minister, won a second term for his Conservative government, but once again without winning a parliamentary majority. Now the three disparate opposition parties—the centrist Liberals, the socialist New Democrats (NDP) and the separatist Bloc Québécois—have ganged up in order to oust the Conservatives and replace them with a centre-left coalition. That left Mr Harper scrabbling for survival.

On Thursday December 4th he asked Michaëlle Jean, who as governor-general acts as Canada’s head of state, to suspend Parliament until January. After a two-hour meeting, she agreed to do so. That means that for now Mr Harper has dodged a confidence vote scheduled for December 8th that the opposition parties, provided they stick together, were bound to win. The opposition holds 163 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons.

Their alliance is an unlikely one. Stéphane Dion, the Liberal leader, is an academic from Quebec who came into politics a decade ago expressly to oppose the French-speaking province’s separatists, represented by Gilles Duceppe and his Bloc Québécois. Jack Layton, the NDP leader, has spent his career savaging previous Liberal governments.

Yet on Monday the three leaders wrote to the governor-general offering to form a Liberal-NDP coalition government. The Bloc will not join in but its 49 MPs will back it for the next 18 months. The letter prompted Ms Jean, a former refugee from Haiti, to cut short a trip to Europe to rush back to Ottawa. Under the constitution, it is the governor-general’s prerogative to invite a party leader to form a government, with or without an election.

This sudden decision to stage a political coup was prompted by a government economic statement on November 27th. The ostensible reason for opposition outrage was that Jim Flaherty, the finance minister, offered no new measures to stimulate the economy. But that smacks of a pretext: despite alarmist headlines, for now the economy remains in relatively good shape.

What really provoked the opposition parties was that, having said there was no need for extraordinary measures, Mr Flaherty threw in some highly partisan ones: a big cut in public funding for political parties; a ban on strikes by public-service unions; and measures making it harder for women civil servants to complain if they are not paid the same as men.

A joke doing the rounds in Ottawa holds that Mr Harper, credited with having united two feuding right-of-centre parties to form the Conservatives in 2003, has now done what was thought impossible and united the left too. The government quickly dropped the measures on political funding and the right to strike. But it was too late to stop the opposition’s plans to seize power.

The opposition’s putative coalition is beset with flaws. Its problems start with its leader. Mr Dion piloted the Liberals to their worst-ever showing in the election. He is due to be replaced as Liberal leader at a party convention in May. Then there is policy, which has required some difficult compromises. Mr Dion has agreed to drop his unpopular carbon tax (he now backs a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions). Mr Layton has dropped his previous opposition to cuts in corporate taxes. A further awkwardness concerns reliance on the votes of the Bloc, whose raison d’être is the break-up of Canada.

All this means that Mr Harper may yet manage to cling to power. He has defiantly raised the political temperature. He has accused the Liberals of selling out the country to separatists (in fact, in his first term he sometimes relied on separatist votes and when in opposition the Conservatives similarly offered to replace a Liberal minority government with help from the Bloc and the NDP). The Conservatives are repeating that message in a blitz of radio and television advertising, as well as planning rallies across the country. He has vowed to “use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power”.

Nevertheless, the prime minister is damaged. Although there is no open revolt in Conservative ranks, several ministers pointedly failed to applaud the prime minister in the House of Commons this week. But Mr Harper shows no sign of contrition. Now he has bought himself time. He will use it to prepare a January budget that will doubtless include some measures to stimulate the economy. He will also hope that the opposition’s ardour for unity may cool. But the parliamentary hiatus might allow the Liberals to bring forward their leadership vote and replace the lacklustre Mr Dion. Mr Harper may have merely won a stay of execution.

Whatever happens, this week’s events may change Canadian politics for ever. Only the Liberals or Conservatives have governed in Ottawa since 1926, but Canada now has four significant parties (a fifth, the Greens, won nearly 7% of the vote but no seats). Coalition politics may be inevitable. Even so, Canadians have little idea who might be governing them after Christmas.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2008)

john10 said:
			
		

> Paul Martin was responsible for managing a budget of $160bn+. Do you really expect him to have known how every increment of tens of millions was spent or mis-spent? It's a pretty silly allegation.



Jean Chretien as Prime Minister initiated the program(s) which collectively fell into the corruption pit known as ADSCAM, while Paul Martin Jr was not only the Minister of Finance, but also the Minister responsible for Quebec, and therefore the *one* minister *most* attuned to the day to day activities of the Liberal Party in that province.

Stephan Dion was also a Minister of the Crown in those days, but judging from his performance to date, it is pretty clear he would not have a  clue as to what was going on during the Sponsorship Scandal (AKA ADSCAM). Makes you wonder what sort of oversight the PMO or the government in general would be getting if he was to actually become Prime Minister.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Dec 2008)

Just off the Presses:

*GG agrees to suspend Parliament*

*House prorogued until Jan. 26, budget expected Jan. 27*

By Meagan Fitzpatrick, David Akin, Andrew Mayeda, and Juliet O'NeillDecember 4, 2008 1:44 PM


----------



## Marinero2008 (4 Dec 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> As for Duceppe, he has never minced words. He fully admits to his separatist agenda. At least he is honest.  :



Yep, you have to give him that. As for the other two: they are already at each other's throat. This "threesome" will probably not last very long.  >


----------



## geo (4 Dec 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Celtic I think given her history (supporting the separatists in Quebec) she had no other choice.



Bull$hit on that one my friend - she has absolutely no such history
I can guarantee that if she did have such a background AT ALL, she would never have gotten accepted or retained in the position.


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2008)

Has everyone so quickly forgotten the controversy generated over the GG's appointment?


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Dec 2008)

The link probably won't work for long, but here's a clever mock-up I found: LINK


*edit for grammar.


----------



## geo (4 Dec 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Has everyone so quickly forgotten the controversy generated over the GG's appointment?


You talking about the documentary prepared by her husband... a French national


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Has everyone so quickly forgotten the controversy generated over the GG's appointment?


I don't think we've forgotten about the husband's issues, but as others have suggested, the PM could have just as easily appointed a new G-G/Commander in Chief if he thought there was THAT much of an issue.


----------



## john10 (4 Dec 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Yes I do.  I did budget reports and the people I reported to were aware of where every penny went.  The amount of the budget doesn't matter - 1 billion or 160 billion if you are responsible then you should know where millions of dollars are going.


 The Minister of Finance is not responsible for overseeing every contract taken out by the government. It was not up to Paul Martin to know that contract #3874293740 should have been worth $80,000 instead of $115,000. If there was mis-spending and fraud, there are oversight mechanisms in place staffed by experts to deal with it. Do you think he should have known what the ad companies did with the money once they were paid, too? Like giving money to party officials?


----------



## john10 (4 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Governor General has made a decision that is, simultaneously:
> 
> •	Good for the country, in the here and now; and
> 
> ...


 I think the most important constitutional convention is that the GG has to do basically what the PM asks her to, and that's what she did. Personally, I don't think it's up to her to say "I don't like you did, so you should face the music and face a confidence vote." That would have been a constitutional outrage in my opinion. Proroguing was right.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Dec 2008)

In my opinion the coalition resembles the Norwegian Blue Parrot. The local news from Ottawa at 1500 local or less than three hours after the announcement reported calls from a Liberal MP to drop the idea and for Dion to speed up his resignation. Another Liberal suggested now is the time to cooperate in making parliament work.


----------



## ettibebs (4 Dec 2008)

Agree with john10. The GG has no place to say if she think the PM as done good or bad.  She is there only to sign wathever the PM bring to her.  I have seen many constitution expert at TV today saying just that.


----------



## john10 (4 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Jean Chretien as Prime Minister initiated the program(s) which collectively fell into the corruption pit known as ADSCAM, while Paul Martin Jr was not only the Minister of Finance, but also the Minister responsible for Quebec, and therefore the *one* minister *most* attuned to the day to day activities of the Liberal Party in that province.
> 
> Stephan Dion was also a Minister of the Crown in those days, but judging from his performance to date, it is pretty clear he would not have a  clue as to what was going on during the Sponsorship Scandal (AKA ADSCAM). Makes you wonder what sort of oversight the PMO or the government in general would be getting if he was to actually become Prime Minister.


 Thucydides, there is no serious expectation that the minister of finance should be aware of whether every contract and dollar spent is done so correctly. There is no evidence that he knew about the mis-spending and fraud, and nobody seriously expects that he should have known.

Oversight is more a function of the mechanisms already in place (like the Auditor General) than of whichever party is in power.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (4 Dec 2008)

> Some pretty harsh words from UK's The Economist, shared with the usual disclaimer....



At least someone from the outside view's this for what it is, a mess of grand proportion...

This has divided the country right down the middle, with west vs east and over the next six weeks, its going to get uglier and may even succeed in raising the ugly head of the separation question all over again, this time not only in Quebec but now also in Alberta. 

The question we have to ask ourselves now is, do we go back to the poles and elect a government that will govern or do we continue down this path and allow these parties to play partisan politics. Whatever has to be done, must be done sooner than later because once the full force of this economic tsunami hits our shores, we need a government that will act quickly and not continue on playing Russian roulette with our countries future.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Dec 2008)

DAP, you are correct of course re per capita. The point is the billions given to Quebec, plus billions in other government programs. People in Quebec must be indoctrinated to the what is put into the province by the federal government.  No wait, it does not matter what party is the federal government, Quebec gets it anyway.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Dec 2008)

Dion is incompetent and would be unable to unite the coalition into an effective governing body.
The NDP is probably not economically smart enough to handle a national economy during these difficult times.
Hopefully the coalition will collapse so the Bloc won't get any of the gifts offered to get there support.
Harper is a bully and has proven his tin ear to the public, a liability to a political leader. But as an economist and our presently elected prime minister he is the best bet to lead the country on the short term.

Roll on the Liberal leadership convention.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Dec 2008)

As I drive by the Post Office and see all the workers on "Information Lines", and I listent to the radio announcing that the City bus drivers have voted to go on Strike, and the Public Civil Service Unions are talking about the "No Strike" clause enacted on them, and all the other Unions that plan to go on Strike during these "Economic Times", I wonder if we will have a country left to govern in a few weeks.  Who really cares about the Three Stooges, if there is nothing else working in the country?  Who dealt out all the "Stupid Pills" at Halloween?


----------



## geo (4 Dec 2008)

Baden Guy,
Officially, from what I have heard, the Bloc per se has been offered / has received no gifts.
There is no doubt that, once in the driver's seat, the coalition would always be is a position of being toppled by the bloc ... so the coalition would be at risk of toppling at any moment ...

HOWEVER, I don't see either Mr Dion or Layton ever conceeding anything to the Bloc that had anything to do with national unity


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Dec 2008)

Politics of Procrastination?
I really wish PM Harper had asked the GG to call an election instead or suspending parliament.

He said the other three were trying to put one over on Canadians, he said Canadians didn't vote for the TIC's (Three Idiots Coalition) but then he pulls the one stunt in the parliamentary bag of tricks that gives the opposition ammunition for their "it's only about his job" propaganda.

Prime Minister Harper should (In my opinion) have asked the Governor General for an election to clear the air, scheduled for about the same time frame (26Jan) as that granted by the prorogation. Then he should have kicked the living crap out of the TIC's on the basis of their dirty tricks and forcing another election through backroom deals and collusion before the fiscal update was even issued.

From what I've been reading it's my guess that here are enough people on all sides of the political spectrum that are angry enough about this coalition to swallow a bit of partisanship and hand the Torries a small majority.

Combine those ones with the ones that are just sick and tired of minority gong shows, and are looking rationally for the party that has it together enough to offer to form a majority and end the misery and I think the Cons would have won a majority by the end of January and we as a nation could get to the business of really seeing the forest through the trees.

As it is I believe that the Conservatives have only postponed the inevitable.

Neither Layton or Duceppe sounded like they would even consider PM Steven Harper again, and Dion's weak insistence on "monumental change" which the opposition (all three of the heads of this incarnation of Cerberus) have previously shown means the unequivocal abandonment of conservative ideals and policy in favor of socialist and progressive ones.

Welcome to groundhog day. See you all right back where we started on January 26th. 

(Cross posted at: http://uncommonsensecanada.blogspot.com/2008/12/politics-of-procrastination.html )


----------



## geo (4 Dec 2008)

Zip,
I believe, considering we've just come out of a federal election, I believe that, it if was at all possible, the GG would have been obliged to ask the coalition if they could......


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Zip,
> I believe, considering we've just come out of a federal election, I believe that, it if was at all possible, the GG would have been obliged to ask the coalition if they could......



Not if Harper had asked today, while he was still "legally" enjoying the support of parliament.  The same reason the GG's hands were tied to prorogue would have applied.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> I really wish PM Harper had asked the GG to call an election instead or suspending parliament.



The three minority party leaders form a coalition and offer to form a government, within legal and acceptable parliamentary regulations, and people *****.

The Prime Minister asks for and receives permission to suspend Parliament, within legal and acceptable parliamentary regulations, and people *****.

Is there anything a Canadian politician can do that won't excite indignation in someone?  Indignation doesn't make their decisions wrong/"undemocratic"/illegal/etc., it only expresses the individual's dislike of the decision taken.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Dec 2008)

john10 said:
			
		

> I think the most important constitutional convention is that the GG has to do basically what the PM asks her to, and that's what she did. Personally, I don't think it's up to her to say "I don't like you did, so you should face the music and face a confidence vote." That would have been a constitutional outrage in my opinion. Proroguing was right.




This is one of those infamous and sorely misunderstood _reserve powers_ of the Crown that belong to the governor general.

She had two choices: follow the advice of her first minister; or do her first _constitutional_ duty which is to ensure that there is, always, a prime minister who can offer her advice that will reflect the will of parliament. (See _Constitutional Conventions_, Geoffrey Marshall, p. 40. Referred to here.)

Now, Mme. Jean may be right in her _election_; perhaps it is time for our, essentially ceremonial, head of state to stop playing an active role in politics; but who then can check a prime minister bent on using and abusing the royal prerogatives to govern even when he has, quite clearly, lost the confidence of the House of Commons? If we are going to cede the royal prerogatives to the head of government then we need, quickly, to move to a new form of government – one with an elected head of state.

Mme. Jean may have painted herself into a corner – or Harper may have forced her into one. Most (nearly all) of the commentators I have read over the past few weeks, even months and years, have agreed that six months is about the minimum time that a minority government should endure before another general election can be called - that was the key to Lascalles' advice to King George VI cited above. Our last general election was held in mid Oct. Parliament was recalled in Nov and prorogued in early Dec. It will meet again in late Jan. If the government is to be defeated it will be in early to mid Feb – probably during either the throne speech or, more likely, a budget debate. That’s four months. Shorter than what most commentators consider necessary but, after a long, say 42 day, election campaign we would be at nearly 5½ months – maybe just enough to justify, in her mind, another general election which might promise a majority government. She may be guided by the thought that an election that would produce a majority would be worth it in these dangerous economic times.


----------



## Rodahn (4 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> He said the other three were trying to put one over on Canadians, he said Canadians didn't vote for the TIC's (Three Idiots Coalition)



How is it that you know what the PM discussed with the GG?

I agree that we probably will be no further ahead on the 26/27Th Jan than we are today. At least he has extended the olive branch to work with/discuss the countries needs rather than pursue partisan policies.


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2008)

I gather the Quebec polls are changing slightly from Charest's 12 point lead in favor of the PQ....he still leads, but Harper's attack on the Bloc has helped the PQ...

I guess this is payback for what Charest did to him during the federal election.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Dec 2008)

john10 said:
			
		

> There is no evidence that he knew about the mis-spending and fraud, and nobody seriously expects that he should have known



Actually, that may not be true. I can remember back in the summer of '04 one the national newspapers (or it could have been the Kingston Whig) publishing a letter from a senior Liberal official, to Paul Martin expressing concern about reports of fiscal mismanagement going on in Quebec. Now whether Martin received it, or not is not known, but the letter does indicate that people in the Liberal party knew that something fishy was going on in Quebec.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Dec 2008)

The G-G's decision is simultaneously good for the country and no harm to the constitution, which no one asserts has been violated in any way.  Convention and customary practices originate and evolve.

Harper's provocative miscalculation appears, on the evidence, to be entirely orthogonal to this crisis - a convenient but coincidental smokescreen which the coalition and its supporters have attempted to sustain vigorously.  The coalition's chief spokespeople have, however, repeatedly claimed this primary excuse: that the government does not propose to spend enough (aka fiscal stimulus).  The implication: if Harper had merely proposed a budget with very modest spending increases, the coalition would have voted non-confidence.  It is illogical to blame Harper for opening the way to a coalition which was determined to proceed and had the votes to do so.

Separately, while the coalition claims it can command the confidence of the House and has so advised the G-G, the coalition has not shown that it is also ready to govern.  Even had Harper truly been blameworthy and deserving of the music, the G-G would still have to consider whether the coalition is ready.  While an accord has been signed and a shortlist of aim and supporting objectives published, much of the rest of the drama militates against the likelihood the coalition is not floundering like Keystone Kops.  The various proposals floated and withdrawn and the ridiculous comic opera of the council of economic advisors illustrate so.

It matters not whether Harper had the wisdom to request prorogation to give emotions time to subside, or merely requested it out of self-preservation and the G-G considered a time-out to be a good idea.  The G-G exercises the power to summon Parliament; I do not fear we are in any danger of frequent and frivolous requests to prorogue that can not be terminated when they become unreasonably long, unless the G-G's summoning power is truly ceremony with no substance in law or custom.

Harper's provocation has had this effect: it may have goaded the opposition to act prematurely.  I would be pleased to believe Harper divined the machinations - there were prior open musings, albeit none received much media attention - but on balance (until proven otherwise) one should still conclude he acted irrationally.


----------



## Flip (4 Dec 2008)

> Harper's provocative miscalculation appears, on the evidence, to be entirely orthogonal to this crisis



Miscalculation? I never thought so.  A conservative is "invited" to listen and record the not so veiled threat that the government will be brought down ASAP.

Harper knows that It's better to be challenged sooner rather than later as Dion is still the potential rival.

Flaherty could have stood to order lunch on the day of the update and the knives would be out. 

I think the update message was intended to insure that the conservative government could not be extorted and that the coalition would not yet have their gears greased.

crisis = danger + opportunity    ;D



> but on balance (until proven otherwise) one should still conclude he acted irrationally.



He acted aggresively, would be (I think) more consistent with our PM.
I also think that the "coalition" has had it's moment and will be a sad memory by the time the budget is read.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> How is it that you know what the PM discussed with the GG?



You misunderstood me.  He said that in and out of parliament in reference to the three idiots.  I of course, have no idea what he said to Mme Jean.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> The three minority party leaders form a coalition and offer to form a government, within legal and acceptable parliamentary regulations, and people *****.
> 
> The Prime Minister asks for and receives permission to suspend Parliament, within legal and acceptable parliamentary regulations, and people *****.
> 
> Is there anything a Canadian politician can do that won't excite indignation in someone?  Indignation doesn't make their decisions wrong/"undemocratic"/illegal/etc., it only expresses the individual's dislike of the decision taken.



What does this have to do with my post?

Indignation?  I said (and you even quoted me) that I wished he'd called an election.  Please don't ascribe emotional excess to my posts where I don't write it in myself. thanks

Perhaps if your offended that I've offered my opinion you should create a site where only you get to do that.


----------



## vangemeren (4 Dec 2008)

I think it was a combined conspiracy to get an extra long Christmas Recess, but that's because I'm that cynical.

If I were the Liberal party I would turf Dion ASAP because come the end of January if an election is called or a chance for a coalition comes up they would need a leader that will last more than 3 months.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Dec 2008)

I too think that the miscalculation belongs to the opposition. Proceeding from the perspective that the best defence is a strong offence, Mr Harper has very quickly embarrassed the opposition and virtually eliminated any chance of a coalition come January 26th. Mr Flaherty could have introduced a modest spending increase, devoid of partisanship, and the opposition would still have attempted to bring the government down. It will be interesting to see what the new budget holds. If I were Mr Harper et al, I would make a record (not necessarily a recording) of every offer of assistance made by the opposition over the break. If he can show that they have no intention of cooperating, or that he has cooperated with them, then he will have taken away their last argument.

As I said before, I think the Canadian public expected that a minority government would be given the chance to govern before being defeated. The timing of the arranged marriage shows us that this was never intended. As the public now knows, the three stooges conspired immediately after the election to bring down the government, and the NDP tape is the smoking gun. Those on the left who cry hidden agenda would be best suited to looking in the mirror. I distinctly remember hearing Mr Dion say that he would never form a coalition with the NDP [liNK]. Talk about lying to the public.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Dec 2008)

Although a political funding cut is a good measure to hamstring the other parties, it makes more sense to imagine it was chiefly aimed at the Bloc, which obtains the greatest fraction of its funding from the per-vote subsidy.  Quebec is where the Conservatives really came up short, and their primary antagonist is the Bloc.  Unfortunately, with the NDP and Liberals near broke, there is too much potential collateral damage for them to tolerate the measure.  In any other circumstances, the three national parties might cooperate to throttle the separatist party.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Dec 2008)

Brad,

That is an interesting proposition- that Harper intended to go after the Bloc's life blood - federal campaign funds- and ended up goading the other two parties unintentionally.  Is it possible that the Liberal and NDP financial situations are many orders more precarious than has been publicly admitted and Harper stumbled into the middle of a bad situation which the opposition then projected onto him?  It would explain the reaction.

Of course it could have been deliberate, too.  Removing the public service right to strike seemed deliberately aimed at triggering a stroke amongst the NDP.

I am swaying between thinking that Harper is a "cold and deliberate genius" and that "stupidity got him into this and blind luck and oppositional ineptitude got him out".

Anyway, I think the prorogation is a good thing.  It lets everyone cool off and learn how to be an adult again; it lets Canada see if the "coalition" can actually hang together 6 weeks.  If figure if they can muster the votes at Budget time to defeat the Conservatives- fair enough- they can govern.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Dec 2008)

What Harper proposed, any reasonable person could have guessed would poke all three of the opposition parties, hard - ideologically, if not fiscally.  Even if the financial statements of parties are not public knowledge, there are enough educated guesses floating around as to costs of campaigns, conventions, leadership bids, etc for a decent estimate of the situation to be made (donations and per-vote funding must be well-known).  The other measures were guaranteed to set off the NDP, if not the Liberals and Bloc.

I can still see only three reasons:
1) Harper failed to see what a reasonable person should have.
2) Harper expected at least one party to go along, having guessed that none could afford another election.
3) Spoiling attack.

The last can be risky and messy, but is better than allowing your opponent to pick his time as well as his ground.


----------



## ballz (4 Dec 2008)

The coalition, mainly the Liberals, are in shambles right now. Liberal MP Jim Karigiannis was just on TV tearing Dion a new one, and made a pretty crude (and I say that with love) remark about the whole French/English thing & Dion's poor english all at once. The reporter asked something along the lines of whether or not Karigiannnis told Dion this (stuff that he was telling the media) or something, and good ol Jim replied along the lines of "I guess my french isn't good enough." I can't remember the exact quote because I was scribbling down the MP's name, but I have a feeling it will be replayed over and over again anyway.

Also, 2 seconds before that on another channel, I was watching Bob Rae get hammered by somebody about the Liberal caucus being very divided, to which Rae sat there and basically said they are all 100% on the same page and that any suggestion otherwise is just plain wrong.

All in all, Karigiannis is my new favorite MP and I suspect he'll be an independant tomorrow ;D


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Dec 2008)

I could also see Harper doing it because the optics are something one could fight an election on.  And knowing as they did that the NDP and Bloc were up to dirty tricks, they needed that one issue to ride in on.   Look for a conservative, but generous budget in January.  And watch the pieces fall in the Conservative corner.

Edited to add.  It looks like my previous post might have been close to the mark as far as public opinion is concerned.  though the why's for the leap in support are anyones guess.   A PDF of the Ekos poll can be found here.  http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/CBC4Dec2008.pdf


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Dec 2008)

Reading this article on citynews.ca

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_29797.aspx



> Coalition Leaders Angry That Harper Has Temporarily Won The Game of Survivor: Ottawa
> Thursday December 4, 2008
> CityNews.ca Staff
> In the game of Survivor: Ottawa, Stephen Harper hasn't been voted off the island.
> ...



I bolded that line from Taliban Jack, as it's quite releaving.  If that doesn't spell out loud and clear for those left leaner's around here that Layton is only looking to grab power, I don't know what will.


----------



## ballz (5 Dec 2008)

Yeah Jack can definately taste it by now. He's way too thrilled to finally be more then some background noise, he's not going to be the reason the coalition fails thats for sure.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2008)

Thanks for that lead Hatchet Man.  It pointed out this link which may be even more revealing.

Here seems to be another proximate driver of events - The Unions are more than mildly agitated.



> Unions Infuriated By Governor General's Conservative Lifeline
> Thursday December 4, 2008
> CityNews.ca Staff
> They heard about the decision from Ottawa and they hung their heads.
> ...



Big 3 - Money - Workers - Money - Unions - Money - NDP - Money - Jack - Gilles - Stephane - LPC

Without the Big 3 there is no CAW (Buzz Hargrove's Alma Mater).  Without the CAW, where is the NDP.  

Not to mention Taliban Jack spent heavily and promised greatly.  Having laboured mightily he ultimately delivered a mouse.....  Stephane isn't the only pol with his neck in a wringer.

Gawd, I do luv my mixed metaphorical cliches.     Heh, it speeds up communication.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2008)

And that, and the info that Toyota is opening a plant  in Ontario, led me to this: (From Back in May)



> Machinists file for union vote at Toyota Canada
> 
> The International Association of Machinists says it has enough support to represent workers and gain union recognition for the first time at Toyota in Canada.
> Tony Van Alphen
> ...



In May the CAW had 35,000 dues paying members.  Today it has fewer and is staring at still fewer in the near future.

Meanwhile Toyota and Honda are positioned to pick up the slack if we can't buy GMs, Fords or Chryslers - AND - there will still be jobs for autoworkers and mechanics and salesmen and marketers and advertisers - BUT - the CAW will have still fewer members -  and the NDP will have no prospect of reversing campaign financing laws allowing Unions to fill their coffers....


The Machinists did not have the support  to Unionize Toyota ..... Toyota built a new plant. Which was noticed by the International Herald Tribune.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2008)

And another comment before I call it quits for the night:

Jane Taber reports  that Bob Rae grabbed the mike from Dion in caucus to say that he hadn't pushed hard enough and that the Libs needed to get behind the Coalition.

Meanwhile Ignatieff, displaying prudence/cowardice/anything-but-leadership, almost couldn't bring himself to sign the document that supported the Coalition, but ultimately did..... as the very last member.

Edward - There you have the rags of the tent covering the two wings of the LPC.

Laurier, St-Laurent, Turner, Ignatieff (not exactly a progression of increasing strength)

King, Trudeau, Chretien, Rae......  With the note that Trudeau and Rae and Jack and Duceppe all shared and share a common socialist world view.



> ....At the LSE a Canadian classmate regarded him as "a little rich left-winger – but enormously interesting" and "an intellectual dilettante." The same classmate also recalls that "there was always a slight aura of the playboy about him."
> 
> At the LSE Trudeau studied under, and was greatly inspired by, the great socialist economist Harold Laski. Trudeau soon became known to his friends as a Fabian socialist. From Laski he adopted (and maintained through the rest of his life) the strategy of advancing socialism via the ballot box, which was the much better road to power in established democracies rather than revolutionary Marxism. The strategy is summed up by Laski as being "permeation [by socialists] of existing political parties rather than the creation of a separate political party." In later years Trudeau and his Quebec associates followed this strategy to the letter when they "permeated" the Liberal Party, were elected to power, and then implemented their socialist policies through the machinery of the federal government for some sixteen years....


 Source


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (5 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What Harper proposed, any reasonable person could have guessed would poke all three of the opposition parties, hard - ideologically, if not fiscally.  Even if the financial statements of parties are not public knowledge, there are enough educated guesses floating around as to costs of campaigns, conventions, leadership bids, etc for a decent estimate of the situation to be made (donations and per-vote funding must be well-known).  The other measures were guaranteed to set off the NDP, if not the Liberals and Bloc.
> 
> I can still see only three reasons:
> 1) Harper failed to see what a reasonable person should have.
> ...



Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.  In the last house the Tories put through bill after bill and measure after measure because the Liberals refused top trigger an election.  The thought that just after the election would be the best time to push through the measures the opposition would despise the most.  They bet that they could keep playing the same game,  the same way.  

The NDP expected this and Layton made arrangements do that the Liberals would have an option other than getting rolled by the Tories.  This arrangement,  while fairly well known in Bloc was kept quite secret in the NDP,  (dippers can't keep a secret )  So when it was announced Layton had to inform his party of what deals have been made.  (I think the PMO's office released a secret tape of one of those calls)  

There is a split inside the Liberals.  Some are angry that Dion, who performed so poorly, still gets to be Prime Minister  Others are caught between Ray and Ignatiff.  Remembering the damage done by Martin to those who backed the wrong horse,  many are scared.  Ray I think sees this as an opportunity to help prevent or at least lessen the pain many Canadians will feel.  (Most don't feel it yet,  but a storm is coming)  Ignatiff... I have no idea what he is thinking.  Having read some of his publications I am glad he is being quiet.  

Now as for the precedent of a Prime Minister being allowed to Progue Parliament to avoid a confidence vote.  I think that this power is now open to even more abuse than we have seen.  The structure and history of our legislative/executive Branch is designed so that there wont ever be any impasses or stale mates.  By allowing the prime minister to effectively hit the pause button and then go and do whatever he wants,  we create a situation where the government is not answerable to Parliament.

It is dangerous,  and a waste of time and money.  When Prime Minister Dion speaks with the GG he should advise her that her decision was contrary to the spirit, traditions of the Canadian government and advise her that the another Governor General might better serve Canada.  Yes,  I know I sound way out there, but it is my honest opinion.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2008)

I heard on the radio that Jack Layton said, with no hyperbole, of course, that the PM had taken away his right to vote in the house.  I think that Jack forgot that on occasion, he had done the same to members of the NDP in the House of Commons.


(One occasion in particular was on the same-sex marriage vote in the House.  One NDP MP voted against it, and she was promptly punished by Mr. Layton for not voting along party lines.  She countered that her constituents' voices were contrary to this one piece).

Anyway, Hyperbole is an awesome thing.


Now, back to your corners! ;D


----------



## Reccesoldier (5 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Now as for the precedent of a Prime Minister being allowed to Progue Parliament to avoid a confidence vote.  I think that this power is now open to even more abuse than we have seen.  The structure and history of our legislative/executive Branch is designed so that there wont ever be any impasses or stale mates.  By allowing the prime minister to effectively hit the pause button and then go and do whatever he wants,  we create a situation where the government is not answerable to Parliament.
> 
> It is dangerous,  and a waste of time and money.  When Prime Minister Dion speaks with the GG he should advise her that her decision was contrary to the spirit, traditions of the Canadian government and advise her that the another Governor General might better serve Canada.  Yes,  I know I sound way out there, but it is my honest opinion.



Since this "precedence" myth has been summed up so well by another much bigger brain than mine I'll just quote it



> the GG did what every GG in the history of Canada has done before, prorogued parliament at the request of the Prime Minister of the day.  It is not, by custom, a prerogative of the Crown to refuse a suspension of a sitting of the House.  There is no precedent set because there is no precedent to set.  The radical departure, here, would be in handing power over to a political leader, Stephane Dion, who had been thoroughly repudiated by the electorate less than two months before.


  http://godscopybook.blogs.com/gpb/2008/12/begin-the-beguine-.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The G-G's decision is simultaneously good for the country and no harm to the constitution, which no one asserts has been violated in any way.  *Convention and customary practices originate and evolve*.
> ...



That's quite true but I still agree with Zell_Dietrich who said: _"... as for the precedent of a Prime Minister being allowed to Progue Parliament to avoid a confidence vote.  I think that this power is now open to even more abuse than we have seen.  The structure and history of our legislative/executive Branch is designed so that there wont ever be any impasses or stale mates.  By allowing the prime minister to effectively hit the pause button and then go and do whatever he wants,  we create a situation where the government is not answerable to Parliament."_

The Sovereign's first duty is to ensure (with the odd exception, such as a general election) that she (the country) has a prime minister who has the confidence of parliament. Mme Jean has not done that. From mid Oct to end Nov we had a PM with a *presumptive* vote of confidence. Now we have a situation where the only _reasonable *presumption*_ must be that PM Harper does not have the confidence of parliament and, therefore, his capacity to advise the sovereign (govern in her name) is missing.


----------



## karl28 (5 Dec 2008)

I hope that if we as Canadains have to go back to the poles in the next couple of months cause of the current situation .  That the next Government will have the strength to form a majority so that way we can avoid this mess and get on to running the country .


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2008)

Despite my Constitutional reservations, I think (and indeed, I hope) Stephen Harper can win this based on two items from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

This article tells about a very recent Strategic Counsel poll that _“suggests a majority of Canadians preferred keeping a Conservative government over getting a new Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc Québécois support.”_ But there is bad news, for Harper, in Québec; perhaps - hopefully - not enough to offset the gains he can, likely, make in Ontario and Atlantic Canada in an spring general election; and

This bit about a Stéphane Dion/Bob Rae exchange in caucus appears to give proof to Mr. Harper’s contention that the Liberals are fighting for unearned power rather than principle:



> Mr. Dion appeared to be open to changing his mind about defeating Mr. Harper's government, saying that a “monumental change” on Mr. Harper's part would alter that.
> 
> That phrase angered some Liberals, who began shouting at Mr. Dion, accusing him of not going far enough, according to a caucus insider. That is when Mr. Rae approached the microphone, telling Mr. Dion that even “monumental change” was not acceptable.
> 
> Mr. Dion appeared shocked, the insider said.



Nothing, it appears, not even “monumental change,” can keep the Liberals from stealing power they could not win. The Conservatives can make hay with this.


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nothing, it appears, not even “monumental change,” can keep the Liberals from stealing power they could not win. The Conservatives can make hay with this.



Honestly, did anyone really figure this was about the economy or the "good of Canada"? : From day one after the election, this has simply been an attempt to unseat the Conservatives using Parliamentary "loopholes". Both parties know that they could never form a government if they went back to the polls, so this was their only "legal" option. 

I think over the next few weeks you will see more Liberal MP's start speaking out against either the co-alition, Dion, or both! I also wouldn't be surprised if there are calls passing between the CPC and certain members of the Liberal caucus about support for the budget come January. After all Stephen Harper only needsaround a dozen or so.(My bad, I can't remember the exact amount right know :-[)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Dec 2008)

Now that's an interesting thought........your saying maybe sweeten the pot for the 3 Maritime province's Liberals support?

As it seems an extra billion dollars will somehow make party lines not so visible these days.


----------



## helpup (5 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.  In the last house the Tories put through bill after bill and measure after measure because the Liberals refused top trigger an election.  The thought that just after the election would be the best time to push through the measures the opposition would despise the most.  They bet that they could keep playing the same game,  the same way.


I think you hit the nail on the head, The PM is smart, a good political chess player however who in their right mind would of wanted this mess or even planned for it.  The strike legislation, party funding scheme's sure they are things that most people on this site would agree to.  But doing it during this time period, with a minority Gov't...... "wouldn't be prudent" is a understatement, as the current events have proved.  


			
				Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> The NDP expected this and Layton made arrangements do that the Liberals would have an option other than getting rolled by the Tories.  This arrangement,  while fairly well known in Bloc was kept quite secret in the NDP,  (dippers can't keep a secret )  So when it was announced Layton had to inform his party of what deals have been made.  *(I think the PMO's office released a secret tape of one of those calls*)


They did, now the timeline of this and the introduction of the legislation points would be debatable cause and effect points.  Personally I think the Conservatives didn't really understand what that would mean to them at the time and or the resolution of the Libs to follow through on it. The timeline was just too short for any grand planning by the CPC, PMO or the PM.


			
				Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> There is a split inside the Liberals.  Some are angry that Dion, who performed so poorly, still gets to be Prime Minister Others are caught between Ray and Ignatiff.  Remembering the damage done by Martin to those who backed the wrong horse,  many are scared.  Ray I think sees this as an opportunity to help prevent or at least lessen the pain many Canadians will feel.  (Most don't feel it yet,  but a storm is coming)  Ignatiff... I have no idea what he is thinking.  Having read some of his publications I am glad he is being quiet.


This makes me wonder what the coalition ( mainly libs were thinking) the majority even with the bloc support would not be that great.  The leader (Dion) is not credible, a leadership convention is due soon and all it would take is a few people to sour on it. The Lib party is split between the two front runners and it must of been obvious ( or should of been) that enough MP's have been getting a earfull from their constituents to put pause to them supporting this coalition.  


			
				Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Now as for the precedent of a Prime Minister being allowed to Progue Parliament to avoid a confidence vote.  I think that this power is now open to even more abuse than we have seen.  The structure and history of our legislative/executive Branch is designed so that there wont ever be any impasses or stale mates.  By allowing the prime minister to effectively hit the pause button and then go and do whatever he wants,  we create a situation where the government is not answerable to Parliament.


 I disagree. The situation for this Progue is if not unique something that will come up a bit more often due to the forcast of lack of majorities to be elected.  But the crisis that is enabling it will not be seen that often.  There is enough of a uproar for the PM being allowed to use this tool is such that will ensure its use will not be contemplated too often ( my opinion ) if at all in the future.  The Porogue ( my understanding of it ) is being treated by most Canadians ( rightly so ) as a TIME OUT that Nanny 911 would use on a petulant child.  The use of it in the future to delay the inevitable colapse of a Govt on a confidence motion is something I don't see happening often if at all. 

To add there is very little the Gov't can do during this Time out.  It still has to table a budget ( or should table one ) that will be a confidence vote.  During this time feelers/ olive branches will be handed out.  What happens to them during the break is looking like they will be grudgingly accepted to make this Parliament work at least until the Liberals get a new leader and shore up their house.  I do hope that on the resumption of Parliament that the Conservatives don't take it to be a time to hammer through more tough to swallow pills.   By all means go with a Conservative budget, they have the mandate for that.  But keep the Partisanship brinkmanship out of it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2008)

Just got this from one of my _'regimental nets'_:



> Leafs win Stanley Cup!!!
> 
> Canada was stunned Monday when it was announced that The Stanley Cup will be awarded to the Toronto Maple Leafs, possibly as early as December 6th. The cup will be stripped from from 2008 playoff champions the Detroit Red Wings and be awarded to the Leafs, who didn't even make the playoffs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Dec 2008)

Just playing on this site,    http://www.electionresources.org/ca/
and wanted to ask a question of those who use the argument that because 62 % of voters didn't vote Conservative that they actually don't have the support of the people,

October 14, 2008 General Election Validated Results - Canada Totals
 Conservative Party of Canada   	  5,209,066  	 37.7%   	143 

and yet, none of these same people it seems, wish to dispute the fact that the Bloc represents Quebec voters, however


October 14, 2008 General Election Validated Results - Quebec
 Bloc Québécois   	  1,379,991  	 38.1 %  	49 


Just sayin'........


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a column by Jeffery Simpson dealing with how Québec and the Bloc Québecois _gain_ from the current situation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wcosimp05/BNStory/politics


> And the winner is ... the Bloc
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...




Simpson returns to a periodically recurrent theme: Québec as a _”foreign element”_ within the Canadian body politic – either as an irresponsible _demandeur_ or as being only _”half in”_ the coalition or, indeed, Canada, itself.

The Conservatives need to find a way to hang on to at least four or five seats in Québec – enough to retain their claim to be a (the only true?) fully _national_ party. I have shown how the Tories *might* win ‘without Québec’ and the Strategic Counsel poll I cited earlier this morning indicates that, if the numbers hold until end of a late winter/very early spring election, that could happen in 2009.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Dec 2008)

The best Tory inroads into Quebec next time the writ is dropped will likely be made into the yellow dog liberal ridings of Montreal's west end / West Island.  Dion's "deal with the devil" may well be what drives those safe Liberal seats into Tory hands, particularly as more details of what promises were made to the Bloc leak out.

Harper has managed to steer the Liberals out of the centre; that is what will be their downfall.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Just got this from one of my _'regimental nets'_:



Mr. Campbell: that was probably the FUNNIEST thing I have seen all day!  Thank you!


----------



## vangemeren (5 Dec 2008)

I thought I would stir the pot, (bolding and yellowing my emphasis)




Harper wrong on democracy claims: experts

Updated Thu. Dec. 4 2008 5:59 PM ET

Jim Brown, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- If there's one point on which Stephen Harper has been adamant, it's his claim that the opposition politicians trying to strip him of power are undermining democracy.

"The Canadian government has always been chosen by the people," the prime minister declared in his mid-week televised address to the country.

But now, he told viewers, a coalition of opposition parties is trying to oust him through a backroom deal "without your say, without your consent and without your vote."

Just how valid is Harper's claim that changing governments without a new election would be undemocratic?

*"It's politics, it's pure rhetoric,"* said Ned Franks, a retired Queen's University expert on parliamentary affairs.* "Everything that's been happening is both legal and constitutional."*

*Other scholars are virtually unanimous in their agreement. They say Harper's populist theory of democracy is more suited to a U.S.-style presidential system, in which voters cast ballots directly for a national leader, than it is to Canadian parliamentary democracy.

"He's appealing to people who learned their civics from American television," said Henry Jacek, a political scientist at McMaster University.*

Harper signed similar document in 2004

In Canada, there's no national vote for prime minister. People elect MPs in 308 ridings, and a government holds power only as long as it has the support of a majority of those MPs.

"We have a rule that the licence to govern is having the confidence of the House of Commons," said Peter Russell, a former University of Toronto professor and adviser to past governors general.

"I'm sorry, that's the rule. If they want to change it to having a public opinion poll, we'd have to reform and rewrite our Constitution."

*Harper himself signed a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, claiming the right to form a government if Paul Martin's minority Liberals could be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons.

His ostensible partners would have been NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe -- now derided by Harper as the "socialist" and the "separatist" in Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's coalition.*

"I was just as much a sovereigntist then as I am now," Duceppe sniffed Thursday in a reference to Harper's new-found aversion to any deals with the Bloc.

Such facts are conveniently forgotten by some members of Harper's cabinet who have been even more vocal than their boss in the current crisis.

Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn has characterized the opposition effort to bring down the Tories as a "coup d'etat."

Transport Minister John Baird spoke Thursday of the need for the Conservatives to go "over the heads" of both Parliament and Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to take their case straight to the people.

There's no doubt the central Harper claim -- that he can't legitimately be dumped from office without a new election -- is dead wrong, said Jonathan Rose, a Queen's University political scientist.

But as a communications strategy it has the virtue of being simple, direct and powerful.

"He's using this bludgeon of an argument (but) most people just see the word democracy and have some intuitive connection to it," said Rose.

By contrast, the theory and practice of parliamentary confidence and responsible cabinet government take some explaining.

But Harper may have undermined his own effort Thursday with his visit to the Governor General to get permission to shut down Parliament for seven weeks.

It was the only way he could dodge a confidence vote that would have toppled his government next Monday. But it also presented the Liberals, NDP and Bloc with a ready-made response to the prime minister's claim of democratic superiority.

"You need something visceral and simple," said Rose. "The opposition metaphor of locking the doors to Parliament does it. I think people understand that." 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/harper_undemocratic_081204/20081204?hub=Politics


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2008)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> *Harper himself signed a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, claiming the right to form a government if Paul Martin's minority Liberals could be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons.
> 
> His ostensible partners would have been NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe -- now derided by Harper as the "socialist" and the "separatist" in Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's coalition.*



Actually, that letter said nothing of the sort.  

Here is what Harper said:


> We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority


Here is the letter the Coalition sent: link


----------



## geo (5 Dec 2008)

interesting,
in 2004
seat distribution as follows Lib 133 VS PC 98 + NDP 18 = 116 + BQ 53 = 169

in 2008 
seat distribution as follows Cons 143 VS Lib 77 + NDP 37 = 114 + BQ 49= 163

regardless of how Mr Harper may have said it... he was pert much in the same position in 2004 as Mr Dion was this month.  without the bloc, neither had a leg to stand on.

IMHO, the only thing Mr Harper has managed to do is completely burn his bridges within Quebec.  Existing PC members from Quebec might as well start writing their CVs between now and january cause, it'll be a hell of a fight to get reelected.


----------



## Rodahn (5 Dec 2008)

If our "Leaders" were to receive a report card at this particular time I would hope that they all had the following comment.

"Does not work/play well with others".


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> IMHO, the only thing Mr Harper has managed to do is completely burn his bridges within Quebec.  Existing PC members from Quebec might as well start writing their CVs between now and january cause, it'll be a hell of a fight to get reelected.


I guess hyperbole exists in here as well...


----------



## helpup (5 Dec 2008)

Good call Rhodan, and each bears some blame for the whole mess, lets hope the "Time Out" causes some pause all around.  I will give the bloc this much, they at least have been consistant and the most honest party out there when it comes to the Spin.  I honestly don't blame them for their position, they got voted in on their platform ( that I disagree with vehemently) and are acting accordingly.  I am not a fan of the anti Quebec sentiment that is being brought up but do understand where it is coming from.  For the people of Quebec they are leaning against separatism ( or were ) and are voting Bloc as they realize that they are getting the best deal out of the bloc being in power.  Frankly I dint blame them for that.  This country is very much a what is in it for me federation.  

It was looking not too long ago as if the Bloc's powerbase was going down the drain, all the animosity going along now though will just cause that to entrench for the for-seeable future. ( much to my dismay ) And before I get jumped on let me add I dint believe in what the Blocs goals are but they are doing it with in our framework.  Since they do not swear allegiance they will never be able to hold a Cabinet Post ( my understanding of it) but they are fully entitled to vote as they see fit and they will continue to see fit anything that benefits Quebec.  I do think there is some serious issues with a party that wont swear allegiance being allowed to prob up a coalition but it is well with in our rules. 

I also am getting a chuckle out of the Spin from all parties,  Of course the opposition can vote it down and have it be a democratic process, the forming of a coalition is also allowed.  The way they went about it though is suspect.  especially this close to the last election and each was running on vastly differant platforms.  To change their own platforms out of thin air is a concern to me and many others, but not illegal. Pointing out the PM tried to do the same thing is wrong. He was espousing voting with the block to cause the fall of the govt and did encourage the GG to go through all her options but did not form a coalition with the block or NDP prior. That would of been similar but not the media premeditated circus this one was. 

Hypocrites abound as this is politics and honestly who here would not rather they smarten up grow up and govern at least for a year before bringing us to the brink again.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Dec 2008)

>The Sovereign's first duty is to ensure (with the odd exception, such as a general election) that she (the country) has a prime minister who has the confidence of parliament.

She did.  A vote which was a matter of confidence was recently held, and the government was not defeated.  Subsequent to that vote, the PM requested prorogation.  Most of us believe we know why he requested it and what was thought to lie further down the timeline, but that doesn't escape the chain of events the G-G must respect.  A letter from the opposition leaders is not a vote of non-confidence and they don't indisputably hold the proxies of their parties - in view of the poll numbers, it is conceivable that Liberal MPs unwilling to defeat the government might have allowed the government to survive.  As of the time Harper went to the G-G, we assuredly did *not* have a situation where the only reasonable presumption was that PM Harper did not have the confidence of parliament.  Therefore, his capacity to advise her was *not* missing.

The G-G would have set a much worse precedent by ignoring a PM's request for prorogration for the first time, on the mere say-so of three party leaders that the government could and would be defeated.

[Edit: to add more visible emphasis]


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is another ‘take’ on the coalition:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/04/john-ivison-dark-days-get-darker-for-dion.aspx


> John Ivison:
> Dark days get darker for unloved Dion
> 
> Posted: December 04, 2008, 6:20 PM by Kelly McParland
> ...



So, all is not sweetness and light inside the big, red tent ... again ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
still.

The coalition may collapse even before it is formed because some senior Liberals are beginning to understand that Canadians will punish them for forming it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Dec 2008)

>IMHO, the only thing Mr Harper has managed to do is completely burn his bridges within Quebec.  Existing PC members from Quebec might as well start writing their CVs between now and january cause, it'll be a hell of a fight to get reelected.

That seems likely.  If the Conservatives lose all their Quebec seats, they need to gain about 20 to obtain a majority.   What happens on election day in Quebec if the last sets of numbers shows the Conservatives trending in majority territory even without a seat in Quebec?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The Sovereign's first duty is to ensure (with the odd exception, such as a general election) that she (the country) has a prime minister who has the confidence of parliament.
> 
> She did.  A vote which was a matter of confidence was recently held, and the government was not defeated.  Subsequent to that vote, the PM requested prorogation.



You are quite correct.

I was totally ignoring the vote on the Throne Speech debate and it does, indeed mean that Harper *has demonstrated that he, currently, has the confidence of parliament* and the three opposition leaders' letters are, Constitutionally, just idle chatter from the cheap seats.

My mistake; and I withdraw my comments at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81648/post-785691.html#msg785691 and at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81648/post-785956.html#msg785956  Constitutionally Mme. Jean could have made Harper pay, dearly, for his miscalculation but she acted properly and on proper advice.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2008)

SO?  With the Final Air Farce being broadcast on New Years, and the final firing of the Chicken Canon, is it time to start a campaign to have the Three Amigoes Stooges whatever, nominated as the primary target........for their Cooperative Convoluted Conceptional Conspiracy Coopting Conservatives from power.  6 "C's" from P.   >


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2008)

They would be excellent fodder for the Chicken Cannon....


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Dec 2008)

I voted:

Suggested Ammunition:

Trifle: for the way in which they trifled with the Canadian voters

Yesterday's Lunch: because that's how fresh their ideas are

Sour Grapes: self explanatory


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Dec 2008)

Apparently 680 news is reporting that Dion will step down by christmas, however the dang DND firewall is blocking my attempts to read the whole article.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2008)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Apparently 680 news is reporting that Dion will step down by christmas, however the dang DND firewall is blocking my attempts to read the whole article.



Online, they're puling stuff from the _Toronto Star_


> Federal Liberals say that Stéphane Dion's leadership role could be coming to an early end as the party gears up for the next round of political conflict with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.  Dion, who stayed on as interim chief after the Liberals suffered a disappointing loss in the October election, is under pressure from his caucus to rethink his current commitment to remain at the helm until a leadership convention to replace him is held in May....



and CTV.ca


> Liberal MP Bob Rae will undertake a national campaign to sell the new Grit-NDP coalition, pre-empt his leadership rivals and outflank his current boss Stephane Dion, who could step down as early as next week, insiders tell CTV News.  While leadership contender Michael Ignatieff has taken a more subdued stance on the coalition - which also requires the support of the Bloc Quebecois - Rae has been a vocal proponent of the alliance.  "I hope we can just really engage in a discussion with Canadians about what's at stake here," Rae told CTV Newsnet Friday....




Here's the _National Post's_ take


> There is fresh pressure on Stephane Dion to resign, making way for a new Liberal leader to head the coalition with the New Democratic Party and head into a potential federal election in the New Year.  Liberals are in a quandary, however, about what to do if Dion does step down early - whether to appoint a caretaker leader or try to install one of three leadership candidates who are campaigning to replace Dion at a scheduled May 2 convention.  "He has to make a decision that he thinks is in the best interests of the party, the best interests of the country," Toronto MP Bryon Wilfert, a strong Dion loyalist, said in an interview Friday....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Dec 2008)

What?  Dion step down now?  He can't do that!  Things are just starting to get interesting.  Canada needs him to stay as leader of the Liberal Party until the last possible second in May.  Write your (remaining) Liberal MP and demand that he be allowed to stay!   >


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2008)

geo, on the evidence this statement of yours



> IMHO, the only thing Mr Harper has managed to do is completely burn his bridges within Quebec.  Existing PC members from Quebec might as well start writing their CVs between now and january cause, it'll be a hell of a fight to get reelected


.

doesn't yet seem to have the advantage of being reflective of Quebec at large.

This poll, reported today, seems to suggest the opposite.  In fact the Tories have pulled back up to 32%, overtaking the Liberals at 19%.



> By a more than 2:1 margin, Canadians call for another election if the choice faced by the Governor-General were between inviting Stephane Dion to form a government and hold a fresh general election weeks after the most recent one. That is the key finding from a national representative poll completed December 4, 2008.
> If an election were held today, Stephen Harper would win a large majority based on nation-wide support of 51% compared to 20% for the Liberals, 10% for the NDP, 6% for the Greens, and 8% for the Bloc. *Harper* would sweep seat-rich Ontario with 53% of the vote compared to 24% for the Liberals and 10% for the NDP in that province and *would surpass Dion in Quebec with 32% of the vote compared to 19% for the Liberals and 35% for the Bloc.*
> 
> 
> ...



Compass as reported on Mike Duffy Live.

With these numbers Harper would be looking at a Mulroneyesque win with a large Quebec contingent.


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2008)

I don't think anybody's numbers are accurate until everything has had a couple of weeks to fade the gut reactions most are feeling...figure early to mid January for a more accurate  take.....that's without some other minor crisis/scandal stirring the pot....


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2008)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> What?  Dion step down now?  He can't do that!  Things are just starting to get interesting.  Canada needs him to stay as leader of the Liberal Party until the last possible second in May.  Write your (remaining) Liberal MP and demand that he be allowed to stay!   >



Tsk, tsk, tsk - so young to be so cynical  ;D



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> I don't think anybody's numbers are accurate until everything has had a couple of weeks to fade the gut reactions most are feeling...figure early to mid January for a more accurate  take.....that's without some other minor crisis/scandal stirring the pot....



If you're going to believe the polls-as-tea-leaves, this makes sense...


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Dec 2008)

I just finished reading the articles in the Start and on CTV. If anyone thinks that this is anything other than a power grab, then Bob Rae as "Captain Coalition" will quickly convince them otherwise.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I don't think anybody's numbers are accurate until everything has had a couple of weeks to fade the gut reactions most are feeling...figure early to mid January for a more accurate  take.....that's without some other minor crisis/scandal stirring the pot....



True enough GAP.  But, as noted, at this time, Harper doesn't seem to have been particularly harmed by this week.  Who knows what will be done with the ammunition this week supplies for future debates.  But as of this instant, it seems that Stephen has outplayed Stephane and Jack.   He is probably down one to Gilles.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Dec 2008)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> What?  Dion step down now?  He can't do that!  Things are just starting to get interesting.  Canada needs him to stay as leader of the Liberal Party until the last possible second in May.  Write your (remaining) Liberal MP and demand that he be allowed to stay!   >



Actually, I think that would be the best thing for the Conservatives. Just think how isenced the public would be an unlected Liberal leader attempting to form the government. How ironic.


----------



## Reccesoldier (5 Dec 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I just finished reading the articles in the Start and on CTV. If anyone thinks that this is anything other than a power grab, then Bob Rae as "Captain Coalition" will quickly convince them otherwise.


Iggy must be laughing his ass off.  Rae has destroyed any possibility of becoming the next Liberal leader.

As someone who has supported the Conservative in this fight I think that's too bad though


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Iggy must be laughing his *** off.  Rae has destroyed any possibility of becoming the next Liberal leader.
> 
> As someone who has supported the Conservative in this fight I think that's too bad though



I don't know about Rae's chances. He could still pull it off, and in doing so, sent the Libs on an even more leftward trajecory. It would not surprise me to see Mr Ignatieff cross the floor.


----------



## Reccesoldier (6 Dec 2008)

One thing is for sure.  Stephan Dion is a dead body looking for a train to be thrown under after this latest "leadership" debacle.


----------



## john10 (6 Dec 2008)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, that may not be true. I can remember back in the summer of '04 one the national newspapers (or it could have been the Kingston Whig) publishing a letter from a senior Liberal official, to Paul Martin expressing concern about reports of fiscal mismanagement going on in Quebec. Now whether Martin received it, or not is not known, but the letter does indicate that people in the Liberal party knew that something fishy was going on in Quebec.


 Of course people knew. Party members and associates were actively taking part in fraud, mismanagement and whatever else. Paul Martin called the Gomery Commission in February of 2004 to investigate these allegations.

The notion that Paul Martin, as Minister of Finance, should have known what was going on, is nonsense, usually advanced by hyper-partisan conservatives who have little clue about ministerial duties.


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Dec 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't know about Rae's chances. He could still pull it off, and in doing so, sent the Libs on an even more leftward trajecory. It would not surprise me to see Mr Ignatieff cross the floor.



I can't see that happening (Ignatieff crossing the floor), Rae self destructing his own chances with liberals, I can definately see, partly based on his latest antics, add that with his prior baggage as Ontario Premier, and I can see him eventually dissappearing.


----------



## FastEddy (6 Dec 2008)

Moralizing Nonentity's, now theres a expression I've been looking for.

Now theres a Gentleman and a Officer.

Cheers.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (6 Dec 2008)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I can't see that happening (Ignatieff crossing the floor), Rae self destructing his own chances with liberals, I can definately see, partly based on his latest antics, add that with his prior baggage as Ontario Premier, and I can see him eventually dissappearing.



Ignatieff was elected in his riding despite his 'issues', and there are many, because he was carrying the liberal banner.  His riding is as liberal red as it gets (or needs to to be a safe seat) Ignatieff crosses the floor, knowing the riding association there as I do he would be the one disappearing.  (I meant that as a joke, I am not actually suggesting they'd "send his family a bill for the bullet" but he wouldn't win the next election,  which would be just fine by me.)

Ray on the otherhand is using this collation to advance himself inside the party ranks.  This is extremely popular for the grits,  who frankly are calling for blood.  Dion in the meeting suggested that if the Tories started acting nicely he'd reexamine the options,  that is when Ray stood up and whipped up the crowd with a "strike while the iron is hot" speech.

Ray is in the safest Liberal seat in the country.  Bill Graham didn't even campain here and he got solid 60%+ of the vote.  He isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  Besides Liberals like to alternate between an Anglo leader and a francophone leader,  they haven't really added 'American intellectual dilettante' into the rotation,  so I think Ray being the Anglo is the better bet to win.

But I am still looking forward to hearing "Prime Minister Dion"  And frankly seeing the news Clip on the Daily show.


----------



## Rodahn (6 Dec 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Actually, I think that would be the best thing for the Conservatives. Just think how isenced the public would be an unlected Liberal leader attempting to form the government. How ironic.



Actually Dion was elected, as were Layton and Duccepe, now if it were May on the other hand. What people seem to forget is that the PM's office is filled by the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament (for the most part). The Canadian system does *not* elect a PM.

I must admit though, that there is a tendency for people to vote along partisan lines.


----------



## Hibbsie (6 Dec 2008)

I think what frustrates me the most about this entire ordeal is how little Canadian's understand about their own political system. People seem to think that we vote for a certain party or Prime Minister to gain office and that it thwarts our "freedom of speech" if the coalition forms. Both these show that Canadians know more about the American system of government than our own; In our form of government, The Westminster system, you do not vote for a PM but the individual MP's in your riding and to rule house you need the majority of seats and/or the confidence of the house. In a minority government (Like the Cons have now) that has lost the confidence of the house it is unconstitutional to continue.
All the people claiming that the coalition is unconstitutional, they are dead wrong! Not only is there a precedent for a Coalition (By Bordon who was himself conservative) Harper himself almost attempted to form an under the table coalition under the Liberal minority government.

What shocks me the most about this entire thing is it is showing our nations true colours and it hurts. Canadians need to start getting educated about our own system, we are not Americans. We do not vote like they vote and we do not have "Freedom of speech"

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081201/politics_constituion_081201/20081201?hub=QPeriod


----------



## dapaterson (6 Dec 2008)

Perhpas a little remeidal constitutional law would be in order:



			
				Archilochus said:
			
		

> we do not have "Freedom of speech"



2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 
a) freedom of conscience and religion; 
b) *freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication*; 
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
d) freedom of association.


----------



## Hibbsie (6 Dec 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhpas a little remeidal constitutional law would be in order:
> 
> b) *freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication*;



Thank you for proving my point. We do not have the Freedom of speech. We have expression, opinion, and thought, but we do not have speech. When Canadian's state that we have the freedom of speech it makes me shiver a little inside about how much Canadian's have learned about our country's system from American television.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Dec 2008)

Speaking isn't a form of expression?

 ???


----------



## Infanteer (6 Dec 2008)

Archilochus said:
			
		

> Thank you for proving my point. We do not have the Freedom of speech. We have expression, opinion, and thought, but we do not have speech. When Canadian's state that we have the freedom of speech it makes me shiver a little inside about how much Canadian's have learned about our country's system from American television.



Freedom of expression is a more broader term that encompasses freedom of speech.  It has the same spirit as the Article in the American Bill of Rights.

Nice try though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2008)

Here, for those with a historical turn of mind, is a pretty fair brief summary of the _constitutional convention_ issue, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wcoessay1206/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Peace, order and good government
> 
> GERALD OWEN
> 
> ...



It is quite true, as many here have opined, that a coalition could be a wholly legal and proper alternative to the current Conservative minority government and _Constitutional convention_ allows Her Excellency Michaëlle Jean to call on Stéphane Dion to try to form a government before she drops the writs for yet another general election. But, as Owen pointed out, the essentially American view that the voters must have the final say is gaining strength in Canada – perhaps enough strength that no governor general will dare to appoint a new government that has not been _selected_ by the people at a general election.



> Most Canadians now expect the party with the largest number of MPs to form the government, and many think that this is required by democracy; that belief may eventually take strong enough hold to become a convention of the Constitution.



An interesting question becomes: how long is long enough? How long must a government manage to stay in power before another general election is a reasonable option – no matter the costs?

It *seems* pretty clear to me that the time for coalition making is during the first few weeks of a new parliament. When, as now, there is a minority government there is an opportunity for the opposition parties to defeat the government early on: after the Throne Speech – which this parliament did not do this time, or on the first budget or spending bill , and then form a coalition and take power. But most observers, I think, envision that process occurring in the first few (less than ten) weeks of a new parliament, not after, say, three and a half or four months.

It seems to me that if the Conservatives offer a _reasonable_ budget, with some, *immediate* stimulus - a budget that gets general approval from the informed economic _commentariat_, and it is then defeated on the budget vote, having been in office for, say, nearly four months (the budget debate requires four (not necessarily consecutive) days) then the GG may, reasonably, decide that a coalition is unlikely offer much of anything better and she may, therefore, call another election – one with a campaign running from early Feb until mid Mar.

 In my view it is time for Canadians and their governor general “expect the party with the largest number of MPs to form the government” unless opposition parties can offer a clear and viable alternative during the first few weeks of a new parliament. This may mean that we will have more elections for a while – until Québecers decide to accept a fair share of their responsibility for governing their country or, if they ever grow some backbone, decide to form a new one – but it will be the most _democratic_ solution and _Constitutional conventions_ do evolve so it will also be legal and proper.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Actually Dion was elected, as were Layton and Duccepe, now if it were May on the other hand. What people seem to forget is that the PM's office is filled by the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament (for the most part). The Canadian system does *not* elect a PM.
> 
> I must admit though, that there is a tendency for people to vote along partisan lines.



Perception is reality, as the aphorism has it.

The people perceive that the "democratic" solution is to allow the party with most seats to form government.
The people perceive that the "democratic" solution is have another election when the government falls.

Just as the people perceive (according to Bagehot's observation in Owen's piece that Edward posted) that the monarch no longer has the power to dissolve parliament on her own whim.
Just as the people perceive that the monarch was subservient to the wishes of the Barons, and later the Commons and ultimately the Populace.

You cannot lead where the mob will not follow and just because you have a piece of paper or the advice of a lawyer, does not make it so.

PS, sorry Edward, forgot to thank you for posting that.

Cheers.


----------



## eurowing (6 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Actually Dion was elected, as were Layton and Duccepe, now if it were May on the other hand. What people seem to forget is that the PM's office is filled by the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament (for the most part). The Canadian system does *not* elect a PM.
> 
> I must admit though, that there is a tendency for people to vote along partisan lines.


Pehaps so, however, all the national advertizing was geared to electing party leaders...  Strong leader, Poor Leader yada yada.  I saw no TV adverising for my local candidate.  So I suspect most voted along party lines.  You know "Anything but Harper".   

Just because a coalition is legaly possible doesn't mean it is the moral or ethical thing to do.  A weird analogy here, but bear with me.  I am 50, it is "legal" for me to have sex with a 16 year old girl.  Is it ethical or moral?


----------



## dapaterson (6 Dec 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Speaking isn't a form of expression?
> 
> ???



"Freedom of Interpretive Dance" didn't scan so well, so we got "Freedom of Expression" instead.

Mind you, on a personal level, I find enumerative lists of freedoms philosophically troubling, as they suggest that freedoms are granted; I prefer to view the social contract as limits being imposed - those impositions should be enumerated.  Or, in simpler terms, tell me what's prohibited, not what's permitted.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Dec 2008)

eurowing said:
			
		

> Just because a coalition is legaly possible doesn't mean it is the moral or ethical thing to do.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral


> *mor⋅al*
> 
> –adjective
> 1. 	of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
> ...





> *eth⋅i⋅cal*
> 
> –adjective
> 1. 	pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
> 2. 	being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.



Setting aside outright illegal acts, which these are not, morality and ethics are defined by the individual.   Your choosing to describe these acts as "immoral" and "unethical" does not make them so.

What if the tables were reversed and the Conservatives had formed a coalition to overturn a minority Liberal government.  Would it still be "immoral" and "unethical"?  Or would a Liberal act of pro-roguing then get those labels from you?


----------



## eurowing (6 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral
> Setting aside outright illegal acts, which these are not, morality and ethics are defined by the individual.   Your choosing to describe these acts as "immoral" and "unethical" does not make them so.
> 
> What if the tables were reversed and the Conservatives had formed a coalition to overturn a minority Liberal government.  Would it still be "immoral" and "unethical"?  Or would a Liberal act of pro-roguing then get those labels from you?


  I agree, morals and ethics are somewhat defined by the individual, however culture and upbringing play a part in determining those.  

Yes, I would still feel the opposition Tories (in the hypothetical scenario) would not have the "moral" authority to seize power so soon after an election.  Which I suspect is the problem many people have with the idea of the coalition.  It was too soon.


----------



## Flip (6 Dec 2008)

Another nit to pick...This issue of "the confidence of the house".

While it may the legal and traditional term are we really speaking of "confidence" at all?
It was ( i think ) very self serving of the opposition parties to invent a crisis attitude about the economy and to then declare ( to the effect that ) the Prime Minister doesn't grasp the reality of the situation. 

This act has external consequences - markets go down - people become fearful - a less than optimal situation is made worse - to the detriment of Canadians.

This deliberate and cynical act removes any confidence I had in the liberal party of Canada. I think you could argue that this is the root of the erroneous  accusation of treason.

How could Canadians have confidence in a minority government so small that they need the support of a separatist party.

In my opinion the Bloc exists to distort the Parliament toward a separatist end.
It's regionalism distorts the action of Parliament.  It's ethnic nationalism distorts Parliament.
While not bending the letter of parliamentary tradition it certainly bends the spirit of our tradition. Ergo - to me - The Bloc is not an equal party to the other three.

Just because the opposition's actions conform to parliamentary tradition, they are not necessarily purely democratic.


----------



## Reccesoldier (6 Dec 2008)

> b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;



I don't want to side track this thread too much but lets look at this in practice for a second.

Freedom of thought - Ok, no one from the government has figured out how to stop us thinking what we want. 

Freedom of belief - unless you happen to believe (as you are told by your religion) that homosexuality is a disease, then like Rev Boisson you can be ordered to never speak or write about your beliefs

That also takes care of freedom of opinion, and expression.

Oh, you also can't print certain opinions because they have been deemed to be "hate speech".  

In short we enjoy some of the above freedoms but enjoying some freedoms and calling that a demonstration of our "rights" in society is a farce.

Are they rights?  Perhaps in a limited sense.  Maybe the word that should be removed is freedom, we need a more restrictive word to convey the true nature of those "rights".  Perhaps permission, yeah, that's it..

b) granted permission for thought, belief, opinion and expression, including permission which has been granted for the press and other media of communication;


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> This act has external consequences - markets go down - people become fearful - a less than optimal situation is made worse - to the detriment of Canadians.
> 
> This deliberate and cynical act removes any confidence I had in the liberal party of Canada. I think you could argue that this is the root of the erroneous  accusation of treason.



Why yes, the Oppostion's actions certainly caused a nice crisis in the Canadian Stock markets with their little plan announcement didn't it? Seems to me that they created the very crises they claimed existed - or at least their own actions are what sent it to "crisis" level.

A crisis of their own making. Thank you Opposition Parties for that!! Bunch of dweebs.


----------



## Flip (6 Dec 2008)

> Why yes, the Oppostion's actions certainly caused a nice crisis in the Canadian Stock markets with their little plan announcement didn't it? Seems to me that they created the very crises they claimed existed - or at least their own actions are what sent it to "crisis" level.



Vern! I haven't read anything of yours in ages! Nice to see!

A bit of a highjack I know.....
I think the correct message for a government to send would be;

Interest rates are low = good for manufacturing and productivity in general.
The dollar is low = good for manufacturing.
Energy costs are low = good for manufacturing.
Unemployment hasn't jumped too high just yet.

I think the conditions for Ontario's recovery are starting to emerge......In spite of the opposition!  >

The last thing the opposition can tolerate is an economy that recovers without government meddling!   That Canada is in better shape than the rest of the G20 must be horrifying... ;D

As for "crisis"? Crisis = Danger + Opportunity


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (6 Dec 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> How could Canadians have confidence in a minority government so small that they need the support of a separatist party.
> 
> In my opinion the Bloc exists to distort the Parliament toward a separatist end.
> It's regionalism distorts the action of Parliament.  It's ethnic nationalism distorts Parliament.
> ...



I don't remember to many conservatives complaining about that when they used the bloc to get their previous budgets through.  (with a little extra for Quebec of course) Nor did I hear them complain about regionalism when people from the west started voting for them because "the west needs a strong voice".    

In fact the Conservatives tried to do everything  this government ... err collation ... is planning to do. The only difference is that the collation is better at it.  I stumbled on collation because in fact the collation is now the majority force in Parliament.  This force should be allowed to take over the ministry positions and be allowed to actually get things done - because they can and the tories can't.


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I don't remember to many conservatives complaining about that when they used the bloc to get their previous budgets through.  (with a little extra for Quebec of course) Nor did I hear them complain about regionalism when people from the west started voting for them because "the west needs a strong voice".
> 
> In fact the Conservatives tried to do everything  this government ... err collation ... is planning to do. The only difference is that the collation is better at it.  I stumbled on collation because in fact the collation is now the majority force in Parliament.  This force should be allowed to take over the ministry positions and be allowed to actually get things done - because they can and the tories can't.



If they were better at it ...they'd be doing it now no?

Or at least Canadians would have put them in power to do it a mere 6 weeks ago ...

Funny thing is ... that didn't happen.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> In fact the Conservatives tried to do everything  this government ... err collation ... is planning to do. The only difference is that the collation is better at it.  (The effort is under way.  Success has not yet been achieved)
> 
> I stumbled on collation because in fact the collation is now the majority force in Parliament.   (Yet to be demonstrated in a stand-up vote in Caucus, let alone the House).
> 
> ...



Actually, to your last point, I am not convinced that even if the Tories wanted to "do" things, that they would be allowed.  

Jack wants money for the Big Three automakers and the Forestry industry to keep dues flowing into the CAW and the IWW which historically have funded his party.

If GM/Ford/Chrysler go belly up cars will still be made, autoworkers will still be employed, but in NON-union Toyota, Honda and Hyundai shops.  The only people that will ultimately be subject to longterm pain are the unions, the NDP and Jack.

And the Liberals if they continue following the drum of Jack's fellow socialist, if in the Fabian mode, Bob Rae.

Edited for legibility of colour. 

And to add this comment to back up Vern.....

A couple of days ago I found myself laughing at Jack telling Harper to accept this with grace and not to create a fuss.....

I find this whole situation akin to Brutus demanding that Caesar stop squirming as he is getting blood on everybody's clothes.

Given the trend in the polls you lot seem to be in the unenviable position of having screwed the putsch and find yourselves running down the street after a bloodied Caesar with the mob angrily looking at you as to why you are disturbing the peace.

You now need to figure out how to catch him, and kill him, in plain view and blame him for non-existent troubles.

Best of luck with that.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (6 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill,

Thank you for adding orange explanations for those who might have ESL issues.  "Planning to do" is 'future tense'.  

While I do understand your point about can/will can't/won't and do things/get things done I would like to point out that the Tories did try to do things - RIFF min withdraw reduction,  funding cuts,  removing right to strike for civil servants etc....  They tried and they would have failed.  

And if the big three go down,  there will be job losses and if people are unemployed how will they buy cars?  If they're not buying why build them?


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2008)

This photo should send chills up and down the spines of centrist liberals everywhere:


----------



## tabernac (6 Dec 2008)

That looks like a 2005 Veterans pin on Jackie's coat...


----------



## Flip (6 Dec 2008)

> While I do understand your point about can/will can't/won't and do things/get things done I would like to point out that the Tories did try to do things - RIFF min withdraw reduction,  funding cuts,  removing right to strike for civil servants etc....  They tried and they would have failed.


What they "tried" to do was to force the opposition's hand prematurely............



> And if the big three go down,  there will be job losses and if people are unemployed how will they buy cars?  If they're not buying why build them?



If Canada throws a bunch of cash into the "save detroit fund" and our freinds to the south throw in proportionately less or no money at all - We've goofed.
Huge investment for no possible return. Harper's "wait and see" was and is the only responsible move.


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2008)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> That looks like a 2005 Veterans pin on Jackie's coat...



Indeed it is. Good eye on you. Perhaps the RSM should now tell Jack that he is out of dress & about 3.5 years behind the times?


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> What they "tried" to do was to force the opposition's hand prematurely............
> 
> If Canada throws a bunch of cash into the "save detroit fund" and our freinds to the south throw in proportionately less or no money at all - We've goofed.
> Huge investment for no possible return. Harper's "wait and see" was and is the only responsible move.



OR ... here's a thought ---

Perhpas, instead of doling out more taxpayer's money t them ...

The big three should ask for a loan from Mr Iacocca? Or even any of their currently high-priced stuffy little CEOs with homes on every coast? Or even ask their "union" employees to take a pay cut down down to a mere $66.00 per hour vice the $67 they're getting now. 

Crises averted. Problem in auto-sector solved.


Nah - it'll never happen ... they always want someone else (ie the government) up to ante up rather than bite the bullet themselves and do what they have to do to save their own butts.


----------



## Flip (6 Dec 2008)

> That looks like a 2005 Veterans pin on Jackie's coat...



Who's jacket did he boost, and has he gone through the pockets yet?  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Actually Dion was elected, as were Layton and Duccepe, now if it were May on the other hand. What people seem to forget is that the PM's office is filled by the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament (for the most part). The Canadian system does *not* elect a PM.
> 
> I must admit though, that there is a tendency for people to vote along partisan lines.



I accept that all MPs were elected. What I meant was an interim Liberal leader... one who wasn't elected to the office. I don't think the public would stand for a PM who has not faced election by the party or by the public.


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Who's jacket did he boost, and has he gone through the pockets yet?  ;D



He obviously boosted it from somewhere though ...

Not a streak of red (or flaming orange for that matter) in it anywhere .. it's NOT his!!


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I don't remember to many conservatives complaining about that when they used the bloc to get their previous budgets through.  (with a little extra for Quebec of course) Nor did I hear them complain about regionalism when people from the west started voting for them because "the west needs a strong voice".
> 
> In fact the Conservatives tried to do everything  this government ... err collation ... is planning to do. The only difference is that the collation is better at it.  I stumbled on collation because in fact the collation is now the majority force in Parliament.  This force should be allowed to take over the ministry positions and be allowed to actually get things done - because they can and the tories can't.



Do you seriously equate the systematic federal neglect of Western Canada for nearly a century, and the desire for a voice, to the systemic federal ass kissing, since Confederation, of Quebec, with essentially a third of the voice of the entire nation?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> In fact the Conservatives tried to do everything  this government ... err collation ... is planning to do. The only difference is that the collation is better at it.  I stumbled on collation because in fact the collation is now the majority force in Parliament.  This force should be allowed to take over the ministry positions and be allowed to actually get things done - because they can and the tories can't.



Sorry for being a nitpicker, but its* "coalition"* not _*"collation."*_


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2008)

If the junior jackasses in the Liberal Party of Canada promoting the cabal coalition can get their heads out of their arses for a minute they might open their eyes and read some good advice from one of the few respectable Liberals left. It is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wcomanley06/BNStory/specialComment


> The first Liberal step: Replace Dion
> 
> *JOHN MANLEY*
> 
> ...




If the Liberals press ahead with Celine Stéphane Dion’s plan to ally his party with _Taliban Jack_ Layton and rely upon the support of the BQ then the party will pay a fearful price at the next general election; Stephen Harper will accomplish his aim of demolishing the Liberal Party, capturing the whole _centre_ and leaving the NDP as supreme on the loony left wing fringe – which, while larger than in some countries, will never be big enough to be anything but a nuisance in Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> ...
> And if the big three go down,  there will be job losses and if people are unemployed how will they buy cars?  If they're not buying why build them?



Did you ever wonder how Henry Ford's employees managed to afford cars when he started up?

To quote from Field of Dreams "If you build it, they will come."

There is a replacement market for automobiles that needs to be filled.  Automakers can count on that market over time.  Now the current market may be saturated.  The current recession may be discouraging people from buying.  The price of gas may have discouraged people from buying SUVs.

But there will be an ongoing need for personal transportation.... somebody will supply that need.  Over time.  

Not necessarily right now.

On the other hand, there is an ongoing international need for BTUs (or GigaJoules) if you prefer, we have them but we need the infrastructure to harvest them and transport them to market.  Supplying that infrastructure will create opportunities for people to build pumps and compressors rather than motors, pipes and controls rather cars.....


As to the exact nature of the crisis - it is hard to divine



> UPDATE 2-Car buyers drive up Canada September retail sales
> Tue, Nov 25 2008, 16:21 GMT
> http://www.afxnews.com
> 
> ...



Canadians seem to have been doing their bit for CAW and Country.   It is hard to see how the Canadian Government can stimulate the auto industry anymore than it is in Canada.  

The problem appears to be that our Yankee brethren have come to believe their is a crisis (in time for the usual "its the economy stupid" election) and have shut down the taps .

How exactly is the Canadian Government going to persuade the American Consumer to buy more American Cars from American Companies so that the American Companies that are producing American Cars that American Consumers don't want  and  (in the short term at least) don't need, will keep Canadian Branch Plants open?

Also, given that the recession is widely believed to be a short term, (6-9 month) and shallow (1-2% of GDP) phenomenon, what type of stimulus might one propose that would take effect immediately and only last for one year?

Infrastructure spending is good but unless the drawings have already been done and the bills of material prepared you won't get an infrastructure project off the ground before the recession cures itself.  The only people that are likely to see "stimulus" dollars in the near term are likely to be engineering firms and, based on my current observation as a project manager, the engineering firms are not yet hurting for jobs.  They are still trying to catch up with the oil boom backlog.

PS, Retired AF Guy - he's trying to be clever.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2008)

Damme Edward, 

If it was a run-off between John Manley and Stephen Harper I'd be hard-pressed not to vote for Manley.

Head and shoulders above both Ignatieff and Rae.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill,

Interesting observation. They are both right of centre and have the charisma of a dish of day old neaps.

Their opponents however are vibrant and enthusiatic and, well everything, like a bowl of day old green jello snuck out of the local hospital. My old Scottish granny, if she were alive, would insist I substitue rice pudding for jello.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2008)

Winter's the season for "champit neaps".  A wee bit salt and pepper and vinegar.  Almost makes the haggis palatable.

As to the Jello or Rice Pud:

I think your closer than your Granny.  There is at least some substance to the Pud.  As my Granny used to say "It sticks to your ribs".  Jello is nothing but coloured sugar water.  It looks good.  It tastes sweet. But ultimately there is nothing to it.

Hmm...

Interesting characterizations there -

Manley - Rice Pudding
Harper - Mashed Turnips
Iggy - Lime Jello
Rae - Orange Jello

Dion - Perrier (over-priced fizzy water that gets up your nose).


----------



## Flip (6 Dec 2008)

Hmm...Kirkhill
You've got me a little confused.

I prefer Stephen Harper, but I also prefer rice pudding. A la carte perhaps?

I believe Manley is an anti-monarchist, not sure.  That sticks in my craw....


----------



## TCBF (7 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Winter's the season for "champit neaps".  A wee bit salt and pepper and vinegar.  Almost makes the haggis palatable. ...



- Having been raised on oatmeal (I remain a lifelong addict), I thought haggis just dandy plain - once.   Vinegar is for fries, pepper goes on lettuce and potatoes, and salt goes on everything else - the more, the merrier.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2008)

john10 said:
			
		

> Of course people knew. Party members and associates were actively taking part in fraud, mismanagement and whatever else. Paul Martin called the Gomery Commission in February of 2004 to investigate these allegations.
> 
> The notion that Paul Martin, as Minister of Finance, should have known what was going on, is nonsense, usually advanced by hyper-partisan conservatives who have little clue about ministerial duties.



So what are the duties of the *Minister* responsible for Quebec?


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (7 Dec 2008)

First order of business. If you want to put some Legitimacy behind this coalition. relace Dion, which will probably be done sooner than we think, most likely before Christmas. Second order of business is to conduct a Harper style cross country good old barn storming campaign for the coalition. Third order of business is to beat Harper at his won game, which means becoming as callous, cold and calculating as Sad am Hussein and don't let up. 

The old analogy "You always beat a bully when you confront him" always works. A bullies facade is all smoke and mirrors. Take a way the smoke and all you have left is the mirrors, which reflect the true character of a bully, which is usually a very insecure individual, who uses fear tactics to hide their own shortcomings.

The Coalition may or may not hold together until January 26Th, but it's gratifying to know that neither will Mr.Harper come away unscathed. He may still be PM, but he will be in a much diminished capacity. He has succeeded in dividing the country on three fronts, politically, regionally and economically and he is now assured a place in Canadian history as one of the most narrowminded, dubious PM's ever to have sat in the PM's chambers. If there was a grand prize for stupidity, Mr. Harper would have been front runner for it last week. 
Canada is the only G-20 country to have gone in reverse from an economic crisis backwards into political crisis and I think that shouts volumes as to the ability or lack of, of Mr. Harper's leadership. You know when a PM is not paying attention to whats important, when he has to be threatened by a haphazard coalition to come up with a "real" plan to ward of the worst global economic crisis we've seen in 79 years.

This crisis has effected all of us, not just the auto industry or the manufacturing sector. I'm in the information technology sector and there's already talk of large layoffs were I work, because it's no longer business a usual, anymore. So 09 could be a very lean year for many of us. We would have liked to see changes promised to us in the EI act, addressing the two week waiting period, before we received benefits. Now that probably won't be addressed unto sometime in 2010 if at all. Way to go Mr. Harper, Thank you again, for those insightfull words "Don't panic" our fundamentals are sound. If your referring the banks and the rich, yep there extremely OK, after all we you gave them $20,000,000,000 to just sit on, of course their OK, their laughing all the way to the bank, oh almost forgot, "they are the bank"! Meanwhile the people who actually make up the backbone and matter in this country have to wait until next near for the few scraps that will be left if anything. Something very wrong with this picture. 

I may as well say what's on my mind while I still enjoy my right to "freedom of speech" in this country. To the reform conservative party. Your leaders lack of respect and utter disdain for anything opposing him is quite relevant and he has demonstrated that disdain time and again over this past week in the house commons, through his vocabulary and his actions or whats more is his "inaction". What he has repeatedly failed to realize, or has realized, is that you hold a minority government and are accountable to the wishes of the house, not the latter. Don't you get that Mr. Harper didn't obtain the big prize of a "majority" again or are you still under the illusion that you had, because your actions reveal that your still very much in denial to that affect. Wannabe's don't count!

For those of us, you joining the ranks of the unemployed soon and expect help from the Reform conservatives, goodluck, because it seems it's already to late for many of us. Mr. Harper, I'm very glad I didn't invest in the stock market when you advised there was great deals to be had, because the very same week that you said that, the market plumeted and shed some 600 of its index marking one of it's worst losses ever. It seems everyone who listens to you comes out on the losing end.


Am I pissed of, yes I'am!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2008)

Despite being a card carry member of and regular contributor to the Conservative Party of Canada, I have a lot of sympathy for retiredgrunt45’s position.

I have said before that one of Harper’s weaknesses – and he has emphasized a few over the past couple of weeks – is his _dislikeability_; he certainly burnished (or further tarnished) that attribute recently.

His miscalculation showed all who may have doubted that he is quite ready, willing and able to put his own long term and highly _*partisan* political_ agenda ahead of the needs of parliament and the country. The fact that I agree with his objectives and with the tools he chose does not alter the fact that now is not the time and a minority government is not the place.

We do, indeed, face a wholly unnecessary political crisis created entirely by Stephen Harper’s bad judgement.

The only things acting for Harper are:

•	Dion’s _dislikeability_ is at least as high as Harper’s;

•	_Iggy_ and Rae are both almost as _dislikeable_;

(Parenthetically, I sat beside Belinda Stronach at a recent (quite apolitical) occasion and very near to _Iggy_ and wife. Despite my admiration for much of what he has said and done and for his ability to ‘work a room’ and so on, I found myself, unexpectedly, _cold_ towards him – he does come off as arrogant, in the extreme. He tries to be charming but it is clearly a false front. Ms Stronach gave hints (I guess that's the right word for a periodic head toss, etc - I may be reading _waaaay_ too much into a few frowns and gestures) that she too found him politically 'phony' although she appeared to like him (and his wife - to whom I did not speak) personally.) and

•	Most Canadian neither like nor trust Jack Layton and most Canadians detest the BQ. Dion has made a strategic error.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Dec 2008)

Editorial cartoons:


----------



## GAP (7 Dec 2008)

.


----------



## Yrys (7 Dec 2008)

I don't think military people will liked the last picture...

(But you can contadict me ...)


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Dec 2008)

>Setting aside outright illegal acts, which these are not, morality and ethics are defined by the individual.

Whether to be moral and follow ethical rules is decided by the individual.  The rules aren't mutable, otherwise everything is always allowed and the limits are set by tyranny: the ruling class or majority forces people to behave certain ways.

The coalition is neither immoral nor unethical.  Ethics is introduced when we ask whether certain members of the coalition violated their prior given word, and ask to what extent politicians should be expected to follow through on their campaigns.

Criticizing Harper for being a poor PM is suddenly in vogue.  People should distinguish whether they refer to his character or his government.  I don't think Harper has been involved in any questionable aircraft or hotel deals.  Regarding the latter, many people have been lobbying very hard for the Conservatives to be thrown out by the opposition since the 2006 election.  It is always difficult to govern when a significant number of people can and do push back and pull in other directions at every step.


----------



## GAP (7 Dec 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> I don't think military people will liked the last picture...
> 
> (But you can contradict me ...)



consider yourself contradicted.....military people enjoy humor as much as anybody, especially black humor....


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> I don't think military people will liked the last picture...
> 
> (But you can contadict me ...)



By me, too.

The picture appears to be of the _three amigos_' heads juxtaposed onto the bodies of the members of some Latin American or Greek or Spanish military _junta_ - very apt, in my view.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Setting aside outright illegal acts, which these are not, morality and ethics are defined by the individual.
> 
> Whether to be moral and follow ethical rules is decided by the individual.  The rules aren't mutable, otherwise everything is always allowed and the limits are set by tyranny: the ruling class or majority forces people to behave certain ways.
> 
> ...



With all that being said, I can only add my thoughts as a "normally centrist" individual and a card-carrying member of NO party. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have been the beneficiaries of my votes in the past.

As it stands right now, and as it was on October 17th past, the Liberal Part does NOT represent my "centrist" mentality these days. The thought of actually "voting vibrant red  left" (as that is what I would have been doing had I cast my vote for the Liberal candidate running in my riding) --- made my skin crawl; the thought of voting Conservative ... did NOT make my skin crawl. Ergo, PM Harper et al got my vote.

The thought of this bright red attempt at a coup d'etat - for that is exactly what it was an attempt at - makes my skin crawl once again. All this chaos over 1.95 per vote funding that the Conservatives were proposing to cut off. Make no mistake about it ... THAT is the factor that caused this little coup of a coalition deal. It wasn't about anything except those parties wanting to ensure their party funding by taxpayers remained intact for them to use/abuse as they forever deem necessary; not that any of those parties or leaders will ever admit that *that* was the factor all this hinged upon. 

I am a centrist who voted Conservative because I had no other option - the Liberal Party having given up on any semblance (or perception) of "centrist" representation. Me, and many other Canadians, helped elect a MINORITY CONSERVATIVE government. *NO* Canadians elected a BRIGHT RED COALITION - not a single one.

Good job PM Harper. Canadians elected you to head a minority conservative government. That is your mandate. Certainly no party was given given a mandate to attempt a coup.


And, for the Liberal Party --- get your heads out of your collective asses. Get back to representing the Centre viewpoint where you belong and quit wallowing in the the bright red scum. It is not becomming ... and it has and will continue losing votes for you from people like me. And, as soon as your heads are upright again and the haze has cleared ... toss the big fella you've got up front - his sense of entitlement and narcissism does not bode well for your parties future.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Dec 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, for the Liberal Party --- get your heads out of your collective asses. Get back to representing the Centre viewpoint where you belong and quit wallowing in the the bright red scum. It is not becomming ... and it has and will continue losing votes for you from people like me. And, as soon as your heads are upright again and the haze has cleared ... toss the big fella you've got up front - his sense of entitlement and narcissism does not bode well for your parties future.



With Bob Rae leading the call for the coalition, and steering the Liberal party on a hard left course, I'm not sure that's possible. It appears to me that the Liberals are conceding the middle ground to the Conservatives. Watch for a reasonably palatable budget and the inevitable outcome of a non-confidence motion. Layton has already staked his position, as has the Dion/Rae faction. The wild card will be the Bloc and Mr Ignatieff. It's worth remembering that as the Bloc didn't actually sign the instrument creating the coalition, their commitment to the coalition is worth the paper it's written on. Their support is implicit, not explicit. Mr Ignatieff might find his continued presence within the Liberal party untenable, but he has to weigh that against the likelihood of re-election as a Conservative or Independent.

He could, of course, absent himself and his supporters from any vote thereby leaving the government intact and the coalition in shambles.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...
> And, for the Liberal Party --- get your heads out of your collective asses. Get back to representing the Centre viewpoint where you belong and quit wallowing in the the bright red scum. It is not becomming ... and it has and will continue losing votes for you from people like me. And, as soon as your heads are upright again and the haze has cleared ... toss the big fella you've got up front - his sense of entitlement and narcissism does not bode well for your parties future.




I had hoped, briefly, that John Manley would seek the Liberal leadership. If he were leader he *might* have satisfied enough of my sole precondition for voting Liberal again (that the party wring the (several) extreme vestiges of that pompous, petty, pseudo-intellectual poltroon Trudeau out of itself) so that I might have considered a Liberal candidate - as I used to do. He isn't standing so I cannot see a single prominent Liberal who can salvage this once proud and still important party.

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: the Conservatives *will* screw up, we *will* want to _throw the rascals out_ and so we *will* *need* a competent, centrist 'government in waiting.' _Taliban Jack_ is never going to offer us that. We need a 'good' Liberal Party of Canada - something we haven't had for 30 years.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (7 Dec 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ergo, PM Harper et al got my vote.
> 
> .....
> 
> I am a centrist who voted Conservative because I had no other option - the Liberal Party having given up on any semblance (or perception) of "centrist" representation. Me, and many other Canadians, helped elect a MINORITY CONSERVATIVE government. *NO* Canadians elected a BRIGHT RED COALITION - not a single one.


I've heard quite a few people say things that shows they don't understand the parliamentary system)

There are allot of people who think "We elected Harper to be PM".  But when one votes,  one votes for a representative for your area (riding).  That is it. The Govener General then well set up a government (PM and every other minister) from the members of Parliament.  If the government she sets up can't pass a bill through Parliament,  she can ask others to form the government or she can ask for an election.

In practice the GG goes to the leader with the most seats and asks him who his wants in his cabinet.  This became the tradition for many reasons, but mostly because the party with the most seats SHOULD  be able to get their agenda through the house.  

Now that the Tories can't do that,  and since we just has an election and since there is a strong indication that the collation could survive a confidence vote it is another tradition that another party would be asked to form the government.

Now there is allot of people pointing out how the Liberals got fewer votes this time than last time.  Fair enough.  But please underand the conservatives were running against a guy who couldn't speak English that well while proposing increasing taxes and the Tories sill couldn't eek a majority.  

Now as for who we'd like to see for Liberal Leader,  John Manly woul;d be cool.  I'll toss out another name - Scott Brison.  I'm heading a call to return to the 'centre'  you can't get much more "blue liberal" than Mr Brison.  I'm told his french is just fine and he can raise money (kinda what they want now).


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Dec 2008)

I may be speaking through my posterior, but I suspect we may have three federalist parties when all this shakes out. The Liberals may slide left and merge with the NDP, but this will position the combined party a bit too close to the centre for the real rabid leftists in the NDP. They well could break away to form an organization of 'true believers' which will gradually move the main group towards the centre. The Grits could also lose some centrist supporters to the Conservatives. The realignment will give us three parties, two near the centre which will have a legitimate prospect of forming a government, another on the far left which will be quite happy being the conscience of Canada, the Bloc and perhaps the Greens.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Dec 2008)

You're right Zell, but we must also acknowledge that the system you just described also has a Political Party system conventionally grafted on.  This system includes Party discipline, Party Campaigning, and the notion of a Party Leader.

This de facto system that most Canadians recognize as valid does not seem to really fit with the "layout" of Parliament - this is why we have so much fuss over this matter that is a de jure correct and constitutional measure.

Square pegs and round holes.  I'm willing to bet that there is enough frustrated Canadians right now to guarantee the passing of written changes to the Constitution Act 1982 that deal with things like the Senate, election timings, confidence motions, the role of the Governor General and all those other good things we like to chat about here.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Dec 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The realignment will give us three parties, two near the centre which will have a legitimate prospect of forming a government, another on the far left which will be quite happy being the conscience of Canada, the Bloc and perhaps the Greens.



Let's call them Republicans, Democrats and Ralph Nader.... :rofl:


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Dec 2008)

Zell, you miss the point that most people are angry about. Both the Liberals and NDP campaigned on the promise of not forming a coalition with each other, and then immediately after the election, did just that. To that effect, they disenfranchised their supporters. Conservatives are angry about the action on the face of it, and Liberals because Dion gave his word and subsequently broke it. NPDers are giddy with joy.

I'm not arguing the legality of forming a coalition, but the ethics are suspect. I think we all expect our politicians to break a promise now and then, but to outright lie to your constituency... that's over the top.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2008)

And to add to Modlrmike's comments Zell -

Infanteer is correct:  We have a de facto Party System, grafted on a de jure Representative System.

As much as I would like all parties to disappear so that we could have a true representative (not to mention libertarian) parliament, that is neither going to happen, nor is it what the public at large wants or expects.

They are comfortable with the party system and the notion of electing a Leader.

It has the value of simplicity.  It allows them to exercise their vote once every few years with minimal effort. 

For the system to work as the laws are written then we wouldn't have general elections at all.  We would have a permanent cadre of representatives, elected locally on an intermittent basis as the representatives died, quit or lost the confidence of their electors, and that would be called to parliament occasionally to vote on Government proposals.

But that isn't the parliament that we have.

Just as the Prime Ministers from Pitt, through North, Gladstone & Disraeli, Lloyd George and MacKenzie King have progressively usurped the powers of the Monarch, with little formal acknowledgement of the fact, so have the parties usurped the legitimate powers of the Members of Parliament.

For good or ill.

I return to a continuing theme - life is not about laws.  Laws exist solely to manage conflict.  Sometimes the laws are inadequate to the conflict and a pragmatic solution is required. At that point the Anglo-Saxon system of pragmatism with precedence as a GUIDE is, IMHO, far superior to the Constitutionalist system that binds the participants within a rigid framework.

Right now, I am betting that many Liberals rather wish that their party was based on Pragmatism and Precedence as it is their Constitution that is preventing them from replacing their current incompetent leader with someone else.


----------



## mjc_1812 (7 Dec 2008)

> Harper has crushing poll lead on crisis
> 
> OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Harper has mounted a crushing polling lead as the result of a political crisis in which an opposition coalition sought to take power, three polls released over the past two days showed.
> ADVERTISEMENT
> ...



Interesting development. So if the G-G doesn't allow for a coalition government and dissolves parliament, it could make for an interesting election. So in essence, forming the coalition (which may not even happen anymore with the prorogue and Dion stepping down) could end up _weakening_ the Liberals i nthe long run.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Dec 2008)

I say that the Liberal Party and the NDP ought to make it official and form the "Liberal Democratic Party of Canada".  Canada is, after all, a liberal democratic nation, right?

It would be interesting to see the results of the previous election and how it would have turned out had the Liberal Candidate and the NDP candidate had combined votes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...t this will position the combined party a bit too close to the centre for the real rabid leftists in the NDP. They well could break away to form an organization of 'true believers' ...



Ah, yes! I remember a young Jim Laxer and the Waffle; they almost tore apart the unnatural coalition of the CCF and the Canadian Labour Congress.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Dec 2008)

I was thinking of the Waffle movement when I posted my remarks. Cripes, they were far to the left of Lenin.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> *I've heard quite a few people say things that shows they don't understand the parliamentary system)*
> 
> There are allot of people who think "We elected Harper to be PM".  But when one votes,  one votes for a representative for your area (riding).  That is it. The Govener General then well set up a government (PM and every other minister) from the members of Parliament.  If the government she sets up can't pass a bill through Parliament,  she can ask others to form the government or she can ask for an election.
> 
> ...


I've now seen you post quite a things that shows that there is a refusal to understand and read an etire post ... in essence to ignore the "bits" so that you can claim the other one is the "ignorant" one. My original post - all of it ... note the "bits" I certainly understand my parliamentary system.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> With all that being said, I can only add my thoughts as a "normally centrist" individual and a card-carrying member of NO party. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have been the beneficiaries of my votes in the past.
> 
> As it stands right now, and as it was on October 17th past, the Liberal Part does NOT represent my "centrist" mentality these days. The thought of actually "voting vibrant red  left" (as that is what I would have been doing had I cast my vote for the Liberal candidate running in my riding) --- made my skin crawl; the thought of voting Conservative ... did NOT make my skin crawl. Ergo, PM Harper et al got my vote. (<---ie the Conservative candidate in my riding got my vote ... ergo up it went onto Harper - that* is  * the way it works in 1st past the post)
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Sun_ is another view of the ongoing nonsense in Ottawa:

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2008/12/07/7657591.html


> Merry Xmas, eh?
> *Ottawqa politicians deliver an early gift of chaos*
> 
> By Greg Weston
> ...



Pretty much says it all; a serious tactical miscalculation by Harper brings forward a _solution_ few Canadians find acceptable, and the separatists enjoy an outcome that is, _ipso facto_, bad for Canada.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (7 Dec 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I've now seen you post quite a things that shows that there is a refusal to understand and read an etire post ... in essence to ignore the "bits" so that you can claim the other one is the "ignorant" one. My original post - all of it ... note the "bits" I certainly understand my parliamentary system.



If I implied I though you were ignorant I apologise.  It certainly wasn't my intention.  

I do want to say that no one elected a government.  One only sends one person to Parliament for the riding.  The government is then formed from the elected members. The party that is able to get its agenda through is appointed to the ministries.  If the party with the most seats can't do it,  and another party, or alliance, can then our tradition says they get a kick at the can before we hold more elections.  We elected the people we elected,  Parliament and our MPs have the right and duty to persue the mandate they were sent to persue.

Minority governments mean no one party gets its way.  Compromise and deal making is the name of the game.  The Tories acted in a belligerent manner,  and consequently all three have united against them.  Now they'll be shut out while the other three decide amongst themselves what to do and then in Parliament vote as one.


----------



## Flip (7 Dec 2008)

wait a minute there......





> The Tories acted in a belligerent manner,  and consequently all three have united against them.



We're being a little fast and loose with history.
Seems to me Dion was first to oppose everything the first Harper government did because the opposition was expected to oppose everything.

Before Dion there was the issue of Chretien. A pretty feisty guy......
And before him there was this thing called the National Energy program.
Dollars travelled East and the devastation in the west was real and profound.
The federal liberals refused to solve the softwood lumber dispute to the detriment of the west. And then the federal liberals did their best to do nothing about the mad cow debacle. 

1.The three amigos hatched a scheme to grab power.
2.The Conservative government forced their hand.
3.Then the Conservative government offered to withdraw the offending articles from the update!  

Now we're talking about Conservatives refusing to cooperate and being belligerent!!
From where I sit (out west) you seem to be filtering the issue through something rose coloured.... 

 If the liberals and NDP controlled enough seats on their own I would just si and take it.
That a major distortion of the will of the people is required for this coalition to work makes the idea seem untenable at least. Out west, it seems like looming disaster.


----------



## geo (7 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Minority governments mean no one party gets its way.  Compromise and deal making is the name of the game.  The Tories acted in a belligerent manner,  and consequently all three have united against them.  Now they'll be shut out while the other three decide amongst themselves what to do and then in Parliament vote as one.



Not a bad assessement as far as it goes but, 
All parties return in late January.
Day 1 - speach from the throne
Day 2 - presentation of a new budget
Days beyond..... discussion & vote on the budget.
If the Conservatives present desirable goodies that are voted down -  there will be an election -  Liberals will be handed their a$$ in a handbasket with good ole Stephane still in the drivers seat - still intending to leave in May
The Bloc.... they'll be going into a new election with "proof" of what those other politicians think of Quebec - and they will come back stronger - taking seats that Stephen had retained last election.
The NDP.... who cares about the NDP


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Minority governments mean no one party gets its way.  Compromise and deal making is the name of the game.  The Tories acted in a belligerent manner,  and consequently all three have united against them.  Now they'll be shut out while the other three decide amongst themselves what to do and then in Parliament vote as one.



Wrong again. The Tories did what an elected minority is supposed to so.

They put a propostion onto the table, even if it were one that the Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Green parties find belligerant. They voiced their displeasure as the Opposition is supposed to do. Then, the minority pulled the bit that they all found "belligerant" (the 1.95 per vote bit) from that propostion in return ... just as a governing minority is supposed to so. Parliament then carries on compromising and deal-making like normal. NOT.

Then, instead of making some proposals for the budget, the three flaming flamingos announced their little "coalition of the fuktards" and announced that it had been pulled together because the PM hadn't an inkling what to do abut the economy. What a load of no-longer-being-distilled scotch that is. The little dictators had been planning it well before Mr Harper gave them the opportunity to use "the lack of addressing the economic crisis" as an excuse.

Nope, instead they cooked up their little coup plot waiting for an excuse to jump onto the still warm flesh of a freshly elected minority leader. Turns out it didn't work out too well for them though. I am still convinced that both Mr Harper and Her Excellency the Governor General did the right thing by giving us some bacon & cheese perogies for the next 6 weeks to chew on. Canadians spoke with their votes a mere short seven weeks ago. Those votes showed that Canadians preferred Tories to govern, but in a minority capacity. That's what they asked for and that is what they should have.

They shouldn't have a couple of narcissts deciding that they actually are entitled to run the country instead; Canadians had just told those people with their votes that they were NOT entitled to head the nation. 

Now, as for the "belligerancy" ... is that really Harper's fault? I mean really ---- the funding cut would have applied to Tory coffers as well. Whose fault is it that the Liberals and other opposition parties would have found themselves bankrupt, but the Tories not? That's not the Tories problem - the proposal was applicable to EVERY party. It's those parties who find it "belligerant" own damn faults that Canadians just aren't opening up their purse strings to them anymore. Wonder why that is? See my original post ... the Liberal party has gone _waaaay_ left of centre .... and because of_ that_, they've lost my vote until they sort their shit out ... de facto - that means - they've also most certainly have lost any moolah I would have anted up in their direction as well.

Instead of whining and blaming the Tories for their plight and ills, perhaps they should grow the hell up, take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror ... and sort themselves out. Maybe then, their fortunes would once again rise - both on the popular vote front and on the monetary front. Until then, don't blame the Tories ... they can blame their own silly elitist agenda pushing of the past decade or so for their own undoing. The blame for this all lies squarely on their own shoulders.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Dec 2008)

From the reports I have read/seen, at the LPC caucus meeting, Rae took over the microphone from Dion and demanded that the LPC defeat the CPC at the very earliest opportunity. Rae was to travel cross Canada to lead the demonstrations for the coalition (and campaign for the LPC leadership). The caucus was fully behind Rae.
The LPC is fully committed to defeating the government. The NDP is fully committed to defeating the government. No matter what the Budget contains, the LPC and the NDP WILL vote against it. No question, none.
The Bloc meanwhile, just to show the world, Canadians and Quebec, that they, the Bloc, are the party that is really in control of Canada's destiny, will vote for the Budget. This is assured as the CPC will sweeten the pot AGAIN for Quebec in a sorry attempt to retain and/or gain the LPC's Quebec's seats. The Bloc will say that the Budget is good for Quebec, thumb it's nose at the LPC and the NDP, and vote with the CPC. This will set off the LPC/NDP to say who's in bed with the Bloc now. Chaos continues. The TSX and the Cdn $ contines to go down.
If I am wrong, and the election results in the BLOC in a position to be the Official Opposition, I plead with the CPC to not do this. I do not know how but do not repeat a mistake and have a separatists party as the Loyal Opposition.


----------



## observor 69 (7 Dec 2008)

God I'm getting eye strain following all these lengthy responses.

I want a Progressive Conservative Party, socially progressive and fiscally conservative. But what I have to chose from is two leaders neither of whom I and many Canadians feel are putting the countries interests first.
Most probable outcome...Dion gets dumped, through some mechanism Iggy become Liberal leader and drops the coalition idea.
Harper presents his budget, adopting most of the ideas advocated by the opposition ie. pumping money into the economy as per most other world governments.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2008)

Sober second thought on how constitutional convention is evolving (and if I were a Liberal, I would also have second thoughts about pulling the plug Jan 26; the electorate will turn you into oatmeal...):

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=1039585



> *Ignoring our constitutional tradition*
> 
> As Mulroney did with Meech Lake, the 2008 coalition architects are overstepping their bounds
> 
> ...


----------



## Jed (7 Dec 2008)

At this point in this whole fiasco, the only remaining good option for the quickest benefit to Canada, economically speaking, is that the liberal party postpone any coalition talk until after they select a new party leader. Surely some of the remaining intelligent liberals can see this and will be content to wait their turn for a run at it again in an election a couple of years from now.

Any other actions just further divide this great country. My wish is that some intelligent liberals can see the country's need.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Dec 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> First order of business. If you want to put some Legitimacy behind this coalition.


 First off, the coalition has no legitimacy.  Here  is a good write-up by Micheal Bliss on the coalition. In it he says any idea that the coalition can govern without calling an election is crap. He uses the example of the Meech Lake Accord where politicians thought they could do a deal without going to the people and got shot down for thier troubles.   



> The old analogy "You always beat a bully when you confront him" always works. A bullies facade is all smoke and mirrors. Take a way the smoke and all you have left is the mirrors, which reflect the true character of a bully, which is usually a very insecure individual, who uses fear tactics to hide their own shortcomings.


 Interesting theory and that's what it is - a theory. From personal experience unless you are as good as a fighter as the bully, you end-up with a black eye and a fat lip. It applies to both politics and the school yard. 



> The Coalition may or may not hold together until January 26Th,


 It will be lucky if lasts until Xmas.



> but it's gratifying to know that neither will Mr.Harper come away unscathed. He may still be PM, but he will be in a much diminished capacity.


 Probably. However, a lot depends on what the fallout from the Jan 27 budget is. If the government falls and a election is called there is a good chance that he could come back with a majority. Lets face it, by forming this coalition with the Bloc as a major player, the NDP-Liberals have shot themselves in the foot. However, I don't think it will come to that. I'm willing to bet there will be a few Liberals missing if it comes to that. Looking at the results from the last election you notice that there quite a few seats the Liberals won by the hair-of-their-teeth. The last thing these guys want is to have another election with this coalition hanging over theirs heads like the Sword of Damocles (In all fairness I must say the Conservatives also won a few seats by a narrow margin, so they could cancel themselves out, however, I think the Liberals have the most to loose).



> He has succeeded in dividing the country on three fronts, politically, regionally and economically


 Personally, I don't see any political divisions that don't already exist. The only difference is that the three opposition parties formed themselves a coalition. Regionally, yes the west is peeved off and the separatists are stronger, but that's not Harper's fault. That lies strictly with Dion and Layton for entering into a deal with the Bloc giving them more legitimacy and for peeving off the west in what they saw as another Toronto-Quebec deal. Economically?? Yes, the economy is doing bad, but that has more to do with what's happening overseas and especially in the U.S. Which brings up another point. There is not a heck of a lot that the government can do until we find out what Obama is going to do; and, he's not sworn in until Jan 20th. So it doesn't make sense to send billions to say, the auto industry, when the Americans may decide to let them go into Chapter 11.   



> he is now assured a place in Canadian history as one of the most narrowminded, dubious PM's ever to have sat in the PM's chambers. If there was a grand prize for stupidity, Mr. Harper would have been front runner for it last week.


 "In Canadian history??" That's a pretty loaded statement!! Yes, he miscalculated the reaction from the opposition parties and plunged Canada into a unnecessary crisis. However, if you are going to assign blame, leave some for the NDP-Bloc who sat down together and started scheming. They then convinced Dion into joining this coalition and to try to topple the government. And lets be honest with ourselves, the coalitions statements about this being about the lack of a Conservative economic stimulus is crap; its not, its about the loss of the funding subsides - nothing more, nothing less. 

Okay, its getting late, and I have to get up early. Yes, I understand that RTG45 is peeved off, especially when looking at loosing your job is on the horizon. Yes, Harper and the Conservatives screwed up in cutting off the subsidies, not that its a bad idea, just the wrong time. And lets be clear, if the boot was on the other foot, the Liberals would do the same thing in a flash. Politics is a blood sport and if you can take your opponent down, you do it - show no mercy. If you want to understand how politics works, read Machiavelli's _*"The Prince.*_" And as I mentioned above the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition are not blameless. Also, remember there are things happening in the U.S. and Europe that effect Canada and which the present government have very little control of. That's it for know talk to you all later.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (7 Dec 2008)

> Pretty much says it all; a serious tactical miscalculation by Harper brings forward a solution few Canadians find acceptable, and the separatists enjoy an outcome that is, ipso facto, bad for Canada.



I couldn't agree more. Mr. Duceppe can now go back to Quebec and shout "*victoire, Freedon pour Québec!"  * once and for all. There's no closing the door on this one, because it's a clear victory for Quebec and the separatist movement. We thought that in 1995 we had finally closed the lid on the "yes" side. It's Ironic, that this time it was Ottawa that reopened the "yes" bottle and let out the ugly genie. We're in for some very stormy weather and I can't see a clear sky anywhere for the foreseeable future. 


*Caught this on MSN just now, that Dion is resigning on Monday and Leblanc is pulling out of the race to back Ignatieff. * 

 Posted with usual caveats.



> Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is expected to resign Monday and Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the leadership race and will support rival Michael Ignatieff, CTV News has learned.
> 
> Link to the full story: http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081206%2frae_ignatieff_081207



The fighters are sent to their respective corners and so the battle begins. Tune in on January 26 for the complete blow-by-blow coverge.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Dec 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Wrong again. The Tories did what an elected minority is supposed to so.
> 
> They put a propostion onto the table, even if it were one that the Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Green parties find belligerant. They voiced their displeasure as the Opposition is supposed to do. Then, the minority pulled the bit that they all found "belligerant" (the 1.95 per vote bit) from that propostion in return ... just as a governing minority is supposed to so. Parliament then carries on compromising and deal-making like normal. NOT.
> 
> ...



ArmyVern 

Couldn't have said it better myself!! Good post.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> The fighters are sent to their respective corners and so the battle begins. Tune in on January 26 for the complete blow-by-blow coverge.



Really, I expect the blow by blow coverage to begin within 1.2 seconds of Celine Dion making his anouncement official. The media will scoop in like vultures (they're already circling) ...a dn as the flesh is stripped from his carcass ... Mr Ignatief, as the interim leader, will announce in no uncertain terms that the coalition is just as dead a Dion.

Dollars to donuts.
Ignatief already has the speech written; that's the best thing (only thing??) the Liberal Party could do at this point in time.


----------



## McG (7 Dec 2008)

Potential good news regardless of your party of choice.  Too bad it still seems to keep the coalition alive.


> Ignatieff could be Liberal leader by Wednesday
> Updated Sun. Dec. 7 2008 9:56 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081206/rae_ignatieff_081207/20081207?hub=TopStories


----------



## tank recce (8 Dec 2008)

And now for a "Tin Foil Hats and Black Helicopters" moment...

Who are the people currently pushing hardest for this coalition?  ???

Jack Layton, NDP
Bob Rae, NDP (let's not kid ourselves)
Ken Lewenza, CAW leader and NDP banker.

It has been established that the coalition was proposed if perhaps not actually organised prior to the official 'last straw.' Was it perhaps planned rather further in advance? Perhaps, as far back as when Bob Rae switched to the Liberals with the intent of going for the top job?

(Yes, Buzz Hargrove was the CAW leader then. I don't insist on the full thesis...  )

I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories, but hey - I came up with this one all on my own, so there's a little pride of ownership happening!  ;D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (8 Dec 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Wrong again.



Hey at least I'm consistent.    But a difference of opinion of the duties of a minority government doesn't make me wrong. (nor you of course) I like to think I can disagree without being disagreeable.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...  The Tories did what an elected minority is supposed to so.
> 
> They put a propostion onto the table, even if it were one that the Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Green parties find belligerant. They voiced their displeasure as the Opposition is supposed to do. Then, the minority pulled the bit that they all found "belligerant" (the 1.95 per vote bit) from that propostion in return ... just as a governing minority is supposed to so. Parliament then carries on compromising and deal-making like normal. NOT.


And the funding cut would have cost them more money than any other party.  It wasn't just about the funding issue, it really is about the lack of action on the part of the Tories.  Given how the Tories play 'pass this or it is election time' over and over,  the opposition took this extraordinary measure to stand up to them.  You have three parties that want to invoke demand side economics right away and one advocating supply side economics.  (supply side economics aka trickle down theory aka pissing on the poor) 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They shouldn't have a couple of narcissts deciding that they actually are entitled to run the country instead; Canadians had just told those people with their votes that they were NOT entitled to head the nation.


The narcissist you speak of were elected.  Elected with sufficient numbers to form a majority in the house of commons.  It is democratic and legal.  

Tank recce,  I agree with you fully,  sans the tinfoil hat.  This is largely an NDP thing.

I think I said it before,  you'll be able to tell how seriously the Liberals take their ability to form Government by how quickly they turf Dion.  Many don't want him to have his painting up with the other Prime Ministers.  An interim leader, ... God... please  anyone but Ignatiff.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2008)

The _Globe and Mail_’s political columnist Lawrence Martin has never been a fan of Stephen Harper and here, in a column reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, he discards the last shreds of objectivity and blasts Harper and his other arch-fiend, Dion (because he lost the last election):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wcomartin08/BNStory/politics/home


> Our Robert Mugabe moment, and other unpleasant memories
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




Despite my personal distaste for the management of the past couple of weeks, neither proposing a coalition nor proroguing the House was _unconstitutional_; the *Mugabe moment* remark is so over the top that the rest of the column can barely be taken seriously.

I will not bore Army.ca members with more of my thoughts on _conventions_ but someone, Sheila-Marie Cook (the GG’s secretary), Stephen Harper, Peter Hogg (a constitutional expert brought in to advise the GG), Michaëlle Jean or Kevin Lynch  - the only people in Rideau Hall who knew who said what to whom, did give Martin’s colleague Michael Valpy a blow by blow account of the proceedings. Mme Jean was well and properly advised by Mr. Hogg as PM Harper was by Mr. Lynch. Martin, and others may not like the decision she made but it is unfair, dishonest even, to insinuate that by following the 150 year old _convention_ that conversations between the head of state and her head of government are absolutely private Mme Jean has, somehow, broken faith with the people of Canada.

There have been lies aplenty over the past two weeks, beginning with the whopper of all whoppers: “We’re not doing this because Harper threatens to bankrupt us – it’s all about a (missing) stimulus package.” That’s the key lie; Harper is an amateur compared to Dion/Duceppe/Layton.

Changing the debate is legitimate – especially now. It is true, as Zell_Dietrich has pointed out, that there is nothing constitutionally _unconventional_ about the idea of a coalition and we do, indeed, elect individual members who, in their turn, decide who should govern and for how long. But our understanding of _civics_ is, doubtless, informed by US conventions and laws and practices and we are atuned to the idea that we should elect both a government and a prime minister. I have no doubt that many, if not most Canadians voted, in Oct, for (or against) Stéphane Dion, Stephan Harper, Jack Layton, etc and not for (or against) their local candidate. It may be time for that idea – we elect governing parties – to become _conventional_.

At last, some truth from Lawrence Martin: Dion and the Liberals are the big losers. Dion grossly miscalculated the hay that could be made from Harper’s gross miscalculation. That will cost him Stornoway and he will ensure that Edward Blake is not left to be the only Liberal leader who never became prime minister.


----------



## Reccesoldier (8 Dec 2008)

Edward, not that I disagree about Martin being a Liberal shrill, in all honesty though, the Mugabe remark was from an American newspaper article.  From my discussions with Americans on other boards, they have little understanding of our parliamentary process and rules so the prorogation looks like a dictatorial move to them.

Martin is a horrible hack, but his dim-witted assessment is more than counterbalanced by Cristie Blatchfords http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081208.BLATCH08/TPStory/National/columnists

It's so nice to see a little reason in print.  The PM is the PM because he (and every other PM that has ever *been elected* to that office) likes to win and like most winners they love to defeat the losers.  Conan would be proud.


----------



## Rodahn (8 Dec 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> The PM is the PM because he (and every other PM that has ever *been elected* to that office)



Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've said it before, there was no ballot that stated any of the leaders for the position of PM.  Granted there is voting along partisan lines, but we as a nation do not vote for the position of PM Per Se, and until there is reform to the electoral process, we won't.

The PM's office is filled (for the most part) by the leader of the party holding the majority of seats in Parliament.


----------



## Teflon (8 Dec 2008)

Feel better Rodahn?

When one votes for their riding's rep, they know who will be PM if that rep's party wins enough seats, no one voted for a rep of the "New Democratic Liberal Separatists Party in any riding.

But feel free to explain whole process to us yet again and pretend that the point isn't understood


----------



## Reccesoldier (8 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've said it before, there was no ballot that stated any of the leaders for the position of PM.  Granted there is voting along partisan lines, but we as a nation do not vote for the position of PM Per Se, and until there is reform to the electoral process, we won't.
> 
> The PM's office is filled (for the most part) by the leader of the party holding the majority of seats in Parliament.



Please stop picking fly shit out of pepper, especially when it is quite obvious that the point is not on how the PM is elected (I understand the system quite well) but that he is the PM because he is a partisan warrior that believes his way is the right way and that his political enemies deserve to be driven before him like cattle.

The alternative of that option is to have a PM that tries to govern by the consensus of the mushy middle, who stands for nothing and will stand for anything as long as he gets to continue to warm the seat of that office with his rear end.


----------



## Rodahn (8 Dec 2008)

Sorry Zip, but you did make the statement regarding elected PM. Which to my mind perpetuates the idea that we elect a PM directly. I get frustrated by the lack of understanding by some people of how the system operates.

It may very well have been picking fly crap out of pepper, but this is one of the perceptions that irks me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2008)

Please move the discussion along :

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Dec 2008)

Christmas in Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2008)

>...we must also acknowledge that the system you just described also has a Political Party system conventionally grafted on.  This system includes Party discipline, Party Campaigning, and the notion of a Party Leader.

Ironically, many of the same people who argue that the coalition deserves to govern because that's how parliament is supposed to work - people vote in ridings, ridings elect MPs, MPs "elect" their own government and PM - can also be found to argue in support of proportional representation (PR) at other times, without any suggestion of constitutional tinkering.  All the PR schemes I've looked at tend to further emphasize and formalize the role of parties in the system.  The MPs would still select their government - perhaps even their PM (unlikely) - but the direct line of accountability between MP and riding voter would be diluted, and for some schemes, non-existent.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2008)

> Just as the Prime Ministers from Pitt, through North, Gladstone & Disraeli, Lloyd George and MacKenzie King have progressively usurped the powers of the Monarch, with little formal acknowledgement of the fact, so have the parties usurped the legitimate powers of the Members of Parliament.



In the Canadian context I believe, I stand to be corrected, it might have been Diefenbaker, *that it was MacKenzie King * that blew up the old informal party system, just as he blew up the relationship with the Governor-General, and created the modern disciplined party.

If I'm not mistaken it was MacKenzie King who, when confronted by a caucus revolt, responded by claiming that his legitimacy came not from caucus, but from the party membership at large.  And that is the reason that the Libs are having so much trouble turfing Dion and electing Ignatieff.

If the system actually worked the way that Messrs Rodahn and Dietrich proclaim then the coalition would have no trouble at all in finding one of their 165 members to stand as leader of the coalition in the house.  Instead they find themselves hamstrung by Party Constitutions with three equally partisan Leaders that can be widely suspected of reversing our usual formulation of "Mission, Men, Machines, Myself".

Edited to include the salient player:  MacKenzie King


----------



## Reccesoldier (8 Dec 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Sorry Zip, but you did make the statement regarding elected PM. Which to my mind perpetuates the idea that we elect a PM directly. I get frustrated by the lack of understanding by some people of how the system operates.
> 
> It may very well have been picking fly crap out of pepper, but this is one of the perceptions that irks me.



Fair enough.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Dec 2008)

Funny how we* SAY* we don't elect a Prime Minister yet we sure kick the leader of the party that comes in second right in the teeth.........


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Dollars to donuts.
> Ignatief already has the speech written; that's the best thing (only thing??) the Liberal Party could do at this point in time.



I'd bet that way....



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Potential good news regardless of your party of choice.  *Too bad it still seems to keep the coalition alive.*http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081206/rae_ignatieff_081207/20081207?hub=TopStories



Don't know about that - I've heard Iggy saying on the radio (and, apparently, he's been saying it to TV as well) saying, "a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition".


----------



## aesop081 (8 Dec 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Don't know about that - I've heard Iggy saying on the radio (and, apparently, he's been saying it to TV as well) saying, "a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition".



Was thinking the same thing watching a liberal on newsworld just now, saying that "they have a coalition ready in case they dont like what the PM has to say when parliament resumes"

Its funny what happens when you stop and think about the mess you got yourself into......


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Dec 2008)

Time to sit back and watch the backpedaling begin.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Was thinking the same thing watching a liberal on newsworld just now, saying that "they have a coalition ready in case they dont like what the PM has to say when parliament resumes"
> 
> Its funny what happens when you stop and think about the mess you got yourself into......



Yeah, funny how taking a few deep breaths before engaging mouth works....


----------



## helpup (8 Dec 2008)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> And the funding cut would have cost them more money than any other party.  *It wasn't just about the funding issue, it really is about the lack of action on the part of the Tories. *  Given how the Tories play 'pass this or it is election time' over and over,  the opposition took this extraordinary measure to stand up to them.  You have three parties that want to invoke demand side economics right away and one advocating supply side economics.  (supply side economics aka trickle down theory aka pissing on the poor)
> The narcissist you speak of were elected.  Elected with sufficient numbers to form a majority in the house of commons.  It is democratic and legal.



ref the Bold, 

Sorry I cant agree with that. The coalition may pay lip service to it all being about the lack of action but I firmly believe it was the threat to funding that was the main ingredient for this Soup.  I am on record saying that Harper did a bad judgement thing with bringing out that addition to the legislation. But that still doesn't excuse forming a coalition when the Major players announced they would do no such thing.  People keep pointing out that the majority are now being served.  Yet when 3 dissimilar parties who attract people who hold differant views and run separate campains do not or are not able to form a majority.  Is it right that they now try to with out notice prior to the election or at least giving the intent.  And for those who like to trot out the differant countries that do this through out the world.  Trouble is the have a differant electoral system and it would be comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Dec 2008)

And "You're Fired"  ;D

Dion will bow out early to clear way for successor
Last Updated: Monday, December 8, 2008 | 1:37 PM ET CBC News 

Embattled Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion announced Monday that he will step down earlier than planned to make way for a new chief to try to reunite and strengthen the party ahead of a potential election.

Dion originally planned to stay on as a caretaker leader until his successor was chosen in early May, but has faced growing pressure from his party to step down after his handling of the recent political crisis.

"I have decided to step aside as leader of the Liberal party effective as soon as my successor is duly chosen," Dion wrote in a press release. He did not specify a date.

Dion also said that he agrees with party members that a new leader must be in place before Parliament resumes.

Liberals are eager to get a new leader in place before Parliament restarts on Jan. 26, when the government could be toppled or a Liberal-NDP coalition government could rise to power.

The federal Liberals are divided on how to select Dion's successor.

There were reports over the weekend that leadership contender Michael Ignatieff was poised to take the top job during a vote at a caucus meeting on Wednesday.

However, some MPs, particularly supporters of leadership rival Bob Rae, have railed against that method of selection, instead calling for the vote to include all Liberal party members.

Ignatieff supporters argue the matter must be settled quickly and can be decided by the 77 elected Liberal MPs in a caucus vote, which would likely guarantee an Ignatieff victory.

Rae, meanwhile, suggested over the weekend that a caucus vote would be undemocratic and illegitimate because it would disenfranchise Liberals in the 231 ridings not represented in the House of Commons.

The third leadership contender, New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc, is expected to drop out of the race and endorse Ignatieff. He is scheduled to hold a press conference Monday afternoon.

With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## CougarKing (8 Dec 2008)

And Liberal leader Stephan Dion resigns.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1048255



> *Dion announces resignation*
> David Akin and Juliet O’Neill, Canwest News Service
> Published: Monday, December 08, 2008
> OTTAWA - Stephane Dion has resigned as leader of the Liberal party as the race to succeed him becomes a two-man contest with the anticipated withdrawal of New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc.
> ...


----------



## Scratch_043 (8 Dec 2008)

so now, not only is the Liberal party headless, but it would seem that the Coalition is as well....


----------



## Teflon (8 Dec 2008)

ToRN said:
			
		

> so now, not only is the Liberal party headless, but it would seem that the Coalition is as well....



Correction - It seems the liberal party has decided to amputate it's present nonfunctional head and graft on a new one and see if that ends it's popularity nosedive!


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2008)

Text of statement, c/o Canadian Press:


> After the election on October 14 I announced I would stay on as Leader of the Liberal Party until my party could select my successor. One of my goals was to ensure an effective opposition to Stephen Harper's government.
> 
> I believe that decision was the right one and I am proud of having forced Stephen Harper to back away from his attempt to force upon Canadians his most ideological and harmful plans in these tough economic times.
> 
> ...



Now also available at Liberal Party web page here.


----------



## helpup (8 Dec 2008)

"The Prime Minister and his government refused to lay out a plan to stimulate the economy. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister shut down Parliament to save his job while thousands of Canadians are losing theirs. The Prime Minister has poisoned the well of trust and respect that is necessary for a minority government to work in Parliament - especially in a time of crisis. Mr. Harper took an economic crisis and added a parliamentary crisis that he then tried to transform into a national unity crisis: this is no way for a Prime Minister of Canada to act"

Oh Brother, I take issue with the PM refusing to lay out a plan. They had one it was not one that involved throwing money as fast as possible. It was seeing what way the economy blew here and across the world. It was waiting to see what Obama was going to do for his rescue packages.  So the opposition did what they were suppose to do.  Oppose the current Gov't.  But outside of saying we are going to give lots of money right now as it is needed they were very light on the specifics as well.  The coalition had less of a plan and more of a action. That action being " lets throw money at it"  The PM role in life cannot be equated to a"job" that one looses and goes on unemployment.  How removed from reality is Dion to even think about equating it to the average Canadian.  The argument could be made that he did the coalition to help him paying back his bills. As getting the "job" as he put it of being PM would definitely pay better and allow him to raise more funds. ...... but then again by going there I would be sounding like him. 

I disagree the PM took this and turned it into a political crisis.  He started the ball rolling yes, you betcha, but turning it into what it was took 3 parties to decide on a course of action and the Torrie's immediate reaction although less then civil accurate or even honest was an action that a wide margin of Canadians across the country agree with.  So frankly Mr Dion it was 4 parties that did this and my view is most Canadians are getting sick of the school room antics by all parties, with only a soft Mea Culpa coming from one party leader in particular....


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (8 Dec 2008)

I think this whole mess is Harper's fault. This is yet another strategic partisan jab at the opposition, making it harder for them to gather funds to go against the Conservative Party of Canada, these cuts; putting it under the guise of cutting spending and whatnot (never mind the high spending and huge deficit they pulled off, what ? 1-2 budgets ago ? Thing is.. Harper, as Rex Murphy puts it, got really stupid or really arrogant. The liberals and the other coalition parties, realizing they couldn't let this go by, and seeing if they didn't act now they would never get the support they wanted, made a fuss about this now when the economy is a mess, and Harper has nobody to blame but himself for creating it. The arrogance of this man confounds me, seriously


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2008)

Yeah we know how Nfld feels about him, in no small part to your mouthpiece premier. But that's neither here nor there.

If and when the CPC get a majority, I want it retabled. I should not have to pay anything, not even $2.00 to support any government party, should I wish not to. If they can't raise enough money on their own, they obviously don't have the support base to be a player.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (8 Dec 2008)

This has nothing to do with me being a Newfoundlander, and way to stereotype. Yeah, and with party funding, dont take into account demographics and their varying ability to donate to a political party


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2008)

Proud_Newfoundlander said:
			
		

> This has nothing to do with me being a Newfoundlander, and way to stereotype. Yeah, and with party funding, dont take into account demographics and their varying ability to donate to a political party



Why should demographics matter when we are dealing with *national* parties? Surely they all have supporters all across Canada - in rich and poor provinces alike. If not, if they depend, disproportionately on support in poor regions, then maybe they are not _national_ at all and ought not to be trying to govern the nation.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (8 Dec 2008)

If they run nationally then they are national. For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts. Harper, in my view, didnt make this as an attempt at a fully fair system, or none of that crap his supporters are pushing at the rallies, in my view it was to further bankrupt the Liberals. It also dosent make me less skeptical when a Tory candidate in the last election told me that one of the reasons for the election was to further bankrupt the Liberals


----------



## aesop081 (8 Dec 2008)

Best thory i have heard so far :

This was all engineered by Ignatief in a bid to accelerate Dion's demise and install himself as leader without the expense of a convention.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (8 Dec 2008)

That is a good theory, Ill have to remember that


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Dec 2008)

> If they run nationally then they are national. For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts. Harper, in my view, didnt make this as an attempt at a fully fair system, or none of that crap his supporters are pushing at the rallies, in my view it was to further bankrupt the Liberals. It also dosent make me less skeptical when a Tory candidate in the last election told me that one of the reasons for the election was to further bankrupt the Liberals



First off, you will have to prove to me that the demographics for the NDP are "poorer" for them then they are for the Conservatives.  Secondly, the Liberals basically are bankrupt and it is not the fault of anyone but the Liberal's shoddy attempts at fundraising and the absolute moral bankruptcy and rot within the party.

As for the NDP- they are nowhere near bankrupt.  They are second only to the Conservatives in fundraising lately.  Frankly, they don't need the help from the taxpayers.  And I would point this truth of politics (or just about anything else)- if you have a message that people can believe in, you will get their money.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2008)

Democracy if necessary, but not necessarily democracy:

http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2008/12/08/dont-take-away-a-persons-right-to-vote-rae/



> *Don’t take away a person’s right to vote: Rae*
> December 8, 2008, 8:38 pm by Sandy
> 
> As Ezra Levant posted today, Bob Rae has made it clear that he thinks it is essential that all members of the Liberal Party of Canada be given a chance to vote on the next leader — that to do otherwise would be anti-democratic.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2008)

Well it's nice to know that if anything is consistant in this universe, it's Bob Rae. He was morally and mentally bankrupt when he steered Ontario into his train wreck, as Premier, and he'll use the same formula with the nation, if given the chance.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2008)

Check these two postings on "New Parliament, New Leaders".
Liberals Battle Lines
Bob's Coalition


----------



## Teflon (9 Dec 2008)

Proud_Newfoundlander said:
			
		

> That is a good theory, Ill have to remember that



Don't hurt yourself!


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (9 Dec 2008)

Allthough, Iggy has been the most reluctant of the colaition


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Dec 2008)

Proud_Newfoundlander said:
			
		

> If they run nationally then they are national. For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts.



So what exactly are you saying here?  With new rules governing political donations no one is allowed to give that much really, but regardless, you are completely dropping the context of the conversation none the less.  

We are talking about $1.95 a year.  Even the poorest of the poor can afford to pay that much *if they want to support their party*.  The problem is (as it always is with liberal and socialist programs) the majority (according to public opinion polls) don't want or need to be forced to support any party but the one that happens to uphold their values. 



> Harper, in my view, didnt make this as an attempt at a fully fair system, or none of that crap his supporters are pushing at the rallies, in my view it was to further bankrupt the Liberals. It also dosent make me less skeptical when a Tory candidate in the last election told me that one of the reasons for the election was to further bankrupt the Liberals



Yes, Harper is a partisan Conservative.  Oh, the horror!  The guy that leads the Conservative party actually has the _nerve_ to press his conservative *agenda* and believe in what he is doing!!!

PN did you lambaste Chretien when he brought this law in for purely partisan reasons? How about the completely partisan and geographically based Gun Registry, aimed at ridding urban centers of guns, but specifically affecting rural and largely non-liberal owners and the West.

Partisan, thy name is Proud_Newfoundlander


----------



## helpup (9 Dec 2008)

Proud_Newfoundlander said:
			
		

> I think this whole mess is Harper's fault. This is yet another strategic partisan jab at the opposition, making it harder for them to gather funds to go against the Conservative Party of Canada, these cuts; putting it under the guise of cutting spending and whatnot (never mind the high spending and huge deficit they pulled off, what ? 1-2 budgets ago ? Thing is.. Harper, as Rex Murphy puts it, got really stupid or really arrogant. The liberals and the other coalition parties, realizing they couldn't let this go by, and seeing if they didn't act now they would never get the support they wanted, made a fuss about this now when the economy is a mess, and Harper has nobody to blame but himself for creating it. The arrogance of this man confounds me, seriously


I think you missed something.  Harper did bring up contentious legislation, ( like he hasn't done that before. ) yet it took a hit me in the pocket book piece that finally got the Liberals to vote. ( I lost track of how many they supported or abstained from despite hinting that this might finally be the one. ) Don't get me wrong I agree fully that the party funding removal is the start of all this.  I don't even mind the system for what it is.  Yet if a better one came out I would rather support it then be told that I had to give money to my party that I voted for.  My beef was Harper did not need to table those little digs in.  Yet he did, miscalculation or mastermind plot? ( I lean towards the former) You cant convince me that he anticipated this whole mess though.  Now onto the part I think you missed.  After this event was tabled it was the 3 Stooges lead by Dion went beyond fullfilling the oppositions role. They took this as a power grab chance for one and more impotently it was a GET HARPER!! Play.   These cuts as you put it are bad optics plain and simple and a bad time to bring it up.  However they are something that more then 50% of Canadians believe they should NOT be Paying.  ( I am not one of those at the moment ).

And getting onto Arrogance.  You do have a point Harper does come across as arrogant.  But no more the Chretien did despite his humble guy from the sticks routine. And what do you call Dion, who despite being labeled as one of the worse things to happen to the liberal brand decided that he would have the ability to lead a coalition ( that he swore he wouldn't ) of dissimilar parties with the sole goal or protecting the economy.  Yet what was their specifics for the "magic bullet" solution for this.  All I have heard was throw money at it.  Or Jack saying hey we will take any of their ideas and call it our own as we represent the majority.  They may represent together the majority of those who voted, but how many would of voted for the same party if they knew it was going into a coalition govt.  I know many NDPers who would not and even more liberals that are spinning.


----------



## CougarKing (9 Dec 2008)

And Bob Rae drops out of the race because he said he did not want to delay the inevitable, IIRC.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/09/rae-liberals.html



> *Rae dropping out of Liberal leadership race, leaving Ignatieff*
> Last Updated: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 | 11:00 AM ET
> Toronto MP Bob Rae will withdraw from the Liberal leadership race on Tuesday, paving the way for Michael Ignatieff to serve as the party's next leader, CBC News has confirmed.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2008)

More of same from Canadian Press, Bloomberg and Reuters....

Wow - didn't think the Red meltdown would happen quite this fast.....


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Dec 2008)

This should get ire of the average Liberal party member. Most out here say the Party should choose the leader, not the MPs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> This should get ire of the average Liberal party member. Most out here say the Party should choose the leader, not the MPs.



Heck, the leader was _almost_ chosen by the party executive (some'll say he was, in effect), so I can see why some card-carrying members would be underwhelmed...


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Dec 2008)

>For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts. 

As someone else wrote, that must be proven, not assumed.  The NDP has its share of limousine socialists.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> This should get ire of the average Liberal party member. *Most out here say the Party should choose the leader, not the MPs*.




I think you can make a could case for the reverse - especially if you want a return to a more _classical_ form of Westminster style parliamentary government.

We should, according to the _classicists_ all vote for our individual members - selecting the best person to represent us. Then the elected members should _caucus_, based on party affiliation or, even, a coalition. Each caucus should elect a leader. Then the caucuses (and a few independents) should gather to elect a speaker and to hold a single 'vote' to see who forms the government. The leader of the caucus/party or coalition that gets the most votes sends its leader to see the GG and, after she agrees he's to be the Prime Minister, then selects a cabinet for her to approve. 


Edit: typo


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >For example, poorer demographics support the NDP, and are not as able to give to the party in large amounts.
> 
> As someone else wrote, that must be proven, not assumed.  The NDP has its share of limousine socialists.



Indeed. According to the CPC's financial reports, most of their donations are for less than $100 per individual. It comes down to basic philosophy... Conservatives = a lot of little donors, Liberals = a few large donors, NDP = some of both. Although I'm not a member of any party, I would much rather belong to one that is less reliant on corporate or union contributions, thereby being more beholden to the membership at large.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think you can make a could case for the reverse - especially if you want a return to a more _classical_ form of Westminster style parliamentary government.
> 
> We should, according to the _classicists_ all vote for our individual members - selecting the best person to represent us. Then the elected members should _caucus_, based on party affiliation or, even, a coalition. Each caucus should elect a leader. Then the caucuses (and a few independents) should gather to elect a speaker and to hold a single 'vote' to see who forms the government. The leader of the caucus/party or coalition that gets the most votes sends its leader to see the GG and, after she agrees he's to be the Prime Minister, then selects a cabinet for her to approve.
> 
> ...



Further to this I came across this article  by William Cross of (wait for it) Carleton University and Andre Blais of Universite de Montreal.

A couple of highlights stood out for me:



> ....*In 1965,* we find only two methods of leadership choice in use: selection by the parliamentary caucus and by a delegate convention.   *Selection by parliamentary caucus is consistent with traditional notions of parliamentary government in which the party leader’s primary task was to captain the parliamentary team.  In many parties, the party leader was not yet dominant outside the parliamentary caucus and in some cases was not even formally in charge of the extra parliamentary party. *  The aggregate numbers mask the strength of the parliamentary party in leadership selection at this time.  *In four of our six countries, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, all of the parties in our sample chose their leaders through a vote of MPs in 1965.  The Canadian and Belgian parties were the exception.  The Canadian parties abandoned caucus selection in favour of delegated conventions by the 1920s.*  The Belgian parties, for their part, never gave the caucus the formal authority to select the president but this may be due to the fact that the president initially did not have much power and, perhaps most importantly in contrast with the Westminster party systems, the president was not the leader of the parliamentary party.
> 
> *By 2007*, the proportion of parties in which the parliamentary caucus makes the choice by itself  has dropped from two thirds to one quarter of our sample and this aggregate number is inflated by the continued popularity of this method in Australia and New Zealand.  *All three of the major Australian parties continue with caucus selection as do the largest New Zealand parties.  Only one party in our sample outside of these two countries continues to choose its leader exclusively through a vote of its parliamentary caucus -  Ireland’s Fianna Fail.....  *




And here is their definition of "caucus".




> ...There is some variance as to the definition of the ‘caucus’; in Australia all three parties extend the vote (for Party Leader) to members of both parliamentary houses, while Fianna Fail, for example, restricts the vote to elected members of the Irish Dail.  While declining in popularity, this method continues to be used by the major parties in Australia and New Zealand.....



I wonder if this internal selection process contributes to the tendency noted by many on this site for the Aussies to be able to put together positions that while fought over seem to be more likely to withstand the changing of governments.

One party doesn't seem to necessarily just throw out the policies of the previous governing party.

Does the selection process insulate the Prime Minister from many of the vagaries of populism?


----------



## Scratch_043 (10 Dec 2008)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/12/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4595068.shtml

IMHO that's the best way to deal with the automakers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Dec 2008)

Hey, even the World Socialists think the coalition idea sucks!  Some highlights, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Canada: Liberal-NDP coalition would be a tool of big business*
Richard Dufour, World Soclialist web site, 10 Dec 08
Article link


> (....)
> 
> Whatever ultimately happens to the coalition agreement when parliament resumes at the end of January, one thing is clear: if a Liberal-NDP coalition government ever sees the light of day, it will be a right-wing government, that under the cover of “progressive” phrases would press forward with the anti-worker and anti-democratic agenda pursued by its predecessors, the Harper Conservative government and the Liberal governments of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (10 Dec 2008)

I've said it before,  but I think this sums it up nicely.

Please forgive the short post but I'm not sleeping well since Ignatiff got the interim leadership....


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Dec 2008)

Sent to me:

THREE WEEKS BEFORE CHRISTMAS

T’was three weeks before Christmas, when all through the house
The opposition was stirring, even Layton - the louse.
The dealings were waved in front of noses in the air,
In hopes that a Coalition soon would be there.

The Blocs were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of separatism danced in their heads.
And Jack in his ‘kerchief, and Stéphane - the sap,
Had just settled down for a long winter’s nap.

When all across the country there arose such a clatter,
Dion insisted, it didn’t really matter.
Away out the window, he threw with a flash,
The results of the election, amid the backlash.

The moon on the breast of Elizabeth May,
Suggested she might still be able to play.
When, what to her wondering eyes should appear,
But a weasely Frenchman with promises dear.

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it was Jack Layton, the dick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name!

"Now Dion! now, Duceppe! Now Mays - you vixen!
Let’s get together, It’s time to Listen!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Let’s unite! Let’s unite! Separatists and all!"

And then, in a twinkling, they heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of Canadians, not aloof.
They drew in their heads, and turned around,
And down the chimney St Harper came with a bound.

He was dressed all in gold, from his head to his feet,
Letting them know he wouldn’t be easy to defeat.
A bundle of Tories he had flung on his back,
And he looked like a King, with nothing to lack.

His eyes-how they glared! his fists, how clenched!
He stands for democracy, and won’t see it trenched!
His droll little mouth was drawn up in a sneer,
For the governor-general soon would appear..

The promise of dissolving he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it caused encircled his head like a wreath.
He had a stern face and a little round belly,
And wanted to bury Dion in a bowlful of jelly!

Harper was elected by Canadians, voted in fair,
Not a Weasel, not a Separatist, not the guy with no hair!
With them getting together, it will have to be said,
Canadians will face the future with dread.

Harper spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
Shook his head in disgust, then turned to the jerk.
And laying his middle finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose!

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a shout,
Trying to teach Canadians, what this is about.
And I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,
"This is the end of democracy, C’mon lets fight!"


----------



## Gunnar (10 Dec 2008)

Redolet lvcernam, but it's still a good start.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Dec 2008)

tank recce said:
			
		

> And now for a "Tin Foil Hats and Black Helicopters" moment...
> 
> Who are the people currently pushing hardest for this coalition?  ???
> 
> ...




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _National Post_ web site is a column that, generally, supports your thesis:
------------------
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/10/kelly-mcparland-the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-that-ensnared-stephen-harper.aspx

 Kelly McParland: The vast left-wing conspiracy that ensnared Stephen Harper

Posted: December 10, 2008, 3:36 PM by Kelly McParland

 My reporting skills, which were never stellar, must be fading.

Listening to Stephen Harper being interviewed by Peter Mansbridge on Tuesday, the bit that struck me most (apart from the Prime Minister's unintentionally hilarious suggestion that “I’m not there to play political games”) was Mr. Harper's stated belief that the NDP and Bloc Quebecois were conspiring against him well before his plan to end public funding for political parties blew up in his face. I thought there would be headlines the next day: “Harper accuses opposition of conspiracy.” But not a word (not one I could find, anyway.) I guess everyone made the logical connection when Jack Layton, in his secretly taped conference call with NDP members, referred mysteriously to dealings he’d had with the Bloc Quebecois. But not me.

So here’s the transcript from Mansbridge:

Harper: “I think frankly after the election, if not before the election, the opposition parties decided that they would work against the government as essentially a unified front.”

Mansbridge: “You believe that there was a conspiracy right from the get-go?”

Harper: I think it’s absolutely clear that was their position.”

Mansbridge: “No matter what you’d put in that economic statement?”

Harper: “It’s absolutely clear that was their position. It’s clear from the statements of a number of the leaders themselves. It’s clear in the lead-up to that economic and fiscal update, if you look at the lines of attack they were using in the House of Commons.
"Mr. Ducepe and Mr. Layton made it clear they wanted to defeat the government no matter what ... Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton want to push the Liberal party into a corner where they vote against the government no matter what, or they’re condemned as sellouts.”

Harper was obviously alluding to Mr. Layton’s conference call, the weekend before the coalition was formally created, in which he detailed his frequent contacts with the Bloq, and hinted that co-operation had been going on for some time:

_“Let’s just say we have strategies, this whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn’t have been made with the Bloc to lock them in early, because you couldn’t put three people together in one, in three hours. The first part was done a long time ago, I won’t go into details...”_

I’ve never been a big believer in government conspiracies. A workable conspiracy requires a degree of competence and an ability to keep a secret that politicians simply don’t possess. But Mr. Layton’s words clearly indicate contacts of some sort had been made before the crisis broke, and some kind of game plan worked out, that would explain much of what happened. To wit:

• Mr. Harper’s failure to judge the push-back he’d get on his funding plan looks less startling. Much has been made of the shredding of his reputation as a tactician, but it’s possible he was set up. If the Bloc and NDP were had already agreed to pounce on the first chance to defeat him, the funding issue just happened to be the one that came along.

• Stephane Dion’s leadership looks even worse. (Editorial note: is that even possible?) If Mr. Harper is correct, the Bloc and NDP leaders saw Mr. Dion as a weakling who could be manipulated into supporting the crisis they planned to provoke, and were proved correct. Dion leapt at the coalition so fast he caught his own caucus by surprise, and never did catch on that he was teetering on a cliff edge. 

• The outlook for the coalition becomes even bleaker._ (Editorial note: is that even possible?)_ Mr. Ignatieff is unlikely to be as easily manipulated as poor Mr. Dion, nor is he as likely to sign on to a strategy he didn’t devise himself.

 National Post
--------------------

This lends some credence to the _theory_ that Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe outmanoeuvred both Dion and Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is an article discussing Ignatieff’s tactics:
-------------------
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=1059689

 Ignatieff backs away from cliff

John Ivison,  National Post

Published: Thursday, December 11, 2008

OTTAWA -Michael Ignatieff has mastered the vocabulary of politics, but not yet the body language. At a press conference to announce the dawning of the Age of Ignatieff yesterday, the new Liberal leader gave the game away after suggesting that he still supports the idea of a coalition with the NDP and Bloc.

"[Prime Minister Stephen Harper] miscalculated, with nearly catastrophic results for the country," he said, before giving a furtive glance toward his team of advisors, who were sitting nervously on one side.

What catastrophe would that have been then? A Liberal-led coalition under Stephane Dion, with the NDP's Jack Layton in Cabinet?

Mr. Ignatieff can threaten to vote no-confidence in January and bluster that he's still prepared to enter a coalition, in order to wring concessions from the government in the budget. But it is clearly not his intention to bring down the Conservatives, which will come as a surprise to his erstwhile coalition partners in the NDP, who still expect him to lead them into the promised land next month.

"The arrival of Mr. Ignatieff removes an impediment to the coalition," said the party's deputy leader, Thomas Mulcair, who pointed out that 160 MPs had signed the agreement, including the new Liberal leader. Dream on.

Mr. Ignatieff said that if the budget is, in his opinion, in the national interest, his party will support it.

Since Mr. Ignatieff said a team of Liberals will meet with Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, next week to submit ideas for a stimulus package, it would be safe to conclude that the budget will contain some measures the Grits can live with and the government will survive.

The new leader laid down what he called the "tramlines" for his party -- that is, nothing the Liberals will do will jeopardize national unity or fiscal responsibility. Since the Bloc is intent on shattering national unity and the NDP does not even know where fiscal responsibility lives, it is a good bet that this beautiful friendship will never be consummated. "We have different interests, different ideologies and different views," was how the Liberal leader characterized the relationship.

While Mr. Ignatieff's advisors chomped on fingernails as they looked on anxiously, hoping against hope that their guy wasn't going to blow it on day one, they do sit more comfortably than in days of yore. Back in the dark days of the 2006 leadership campaign, it was typical for media interviews, designed to correct the previous day's disastrous gaffe, to merely compound the agony.

But the Liberal leader has been in frontline politics for three years now and has learned the language appropriate for a political leader. Indignation, self-belief and resoluteness are in; anxiety, doubt and indecision are out.

He also understands the value of a heartwarming anecdote when you have nothing constructive to say on an issue. When he was asked about his plans for rural Canada, he launched into a rambling soliloquy about how he grew up in his uncle's barn in Quebec -- "born in a manger, no doubt," quipped one cynic.

Mr. Ignatieff's reminiscing capped yet another day of high drama on Parliament Hill. At noon, Liberals started spilling from their caucus meeting at which former leadership candidate Bob Rae had nominated his old college roommate as leader. MPs were in high spirits when they emerged. "I've never seen the party so united," gushed John McCallum. Which, frankly, isn't saying much.

Mr. Dion walked out, backpack slung over his shoulder, and wandered through the halls in apparent good humour. He said he wouldn't presume to offer Mr. Ignatieff advice. "He's a big boy," he said, as he left, presumably to clear his stuff out of Stornoway, the official residence of the leader of the Official Opposition. To add insult to injury, Mr. Dion also lost his chauffeur-driven car, which prompted him to say he would have taken the bus home if there hadn't been a transit strike in Ottawa.

Mr. Rae was the only Liberal who looked down in the dumps. He brushed by reporters without passing comment, a disconsolate, deflated figure, whose snowy locks blended into the backdrop as he wandered off Parliament Hill, apparently lost in thoughts of what might have been.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
--------------------


I think _Iggy_ (and/or his handlers) have finally got it right: _”nothing the Liberals will do will jeopardize national unity or fiscal responsibility.”_ That, effectively, rules out *active* cooperation (à la a coalition) with the BQ or NDP.

I also suspect that it will be Harper’s choice of election dates, after the budget passes, not Ignatieff’s.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Dec 2008)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is Don Martin’s take on why the budget will pass:

--------------------
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=1059736

 Harper braces to fork over bailout billions

Don Martin,  National Post

Published: Thursday, December 11, 2008

OTTAWA -It goes against every ideological bone in his body. An economist by education if not employment, Stephen Harper has an avowed belief in deploying widespread tax relief and letting free enterprise pick the winners and losers.

But the Prime Minister sounds like he's clearing his throat to sing the bailout blues very, very soon. He'll be handing out billions to prop up three chronically inefficient, unresponsive and perhaps unsustainable car manufacturing companies, a salvage operation that sources hint could roll out before Christmas.

With a wince in his voice -- although that might have been because the Peter Mansbridge interview was conducted inside CBC studios he views as akin to hell--Mr. Harper tried to clarify his government's position on handouts for General Motors, Ford and Chrysler on Tuesday.

Action will be taken, he vowed. The deal hammered out in Washington, D. C., is being watched closely and Canada will copy the U. S. moves to prevent competitive disadvantages from crossing the border, he added.

He even admitted the auto-sector bailout was so urgent, it couldn't wait until his prorogued Commons returns, although the "big stuff " won't be released until the Jan. 27, 2009, budget. Huh? A requested bailout from the Shrinking Three manufacturers estimated at roughly $6-billion isn't "big"? Gosh. Can you say $30-billion deficit?

Admitting the auto stimulus moves can't wait makes Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's fiscally vacuous update of just two weeks ago an even more laughable document than it first appeared, particularly now that Parliament's budget officer has raised suspicions about its delusional surplus projections. But I digress.

The Harper handout squeeze is coming from every side.

Feisty new Liberal emperor Michael Ignatieff appears to rank a bailout as one of the preconditions for allowing this government to survive a confidence vote in the Commons; manufacturers are responding to political pressure to roll out their Canadian rescue plans starting tomorrow; and yesterday's approval for a Congress-White House deal worth US$14-billion has quickly forced Mr. Harper to consider a costly matching giveaway scheme.

It's up to Industry Canada bureaucrats to devise the terms and conditions for Canada's rescue mission, but the ones imposed by Congress should be viewed as a starting point.

Union pay sacrifices are a must, executive compensation will be frozen or reduced, an equity stake for our investment must be secured, and there has to be independent oversight by a respected authority with the power to decide whether bankruptcy is better than continuing to turn our money into Detroit losses.

Mr. Harper has correctly sensed the danger of giving money away to an industry that may be beyond salvation, particularly since he has the option of instead diverting billions to bridge, highway or water treatment projects that would be of permanent benefit to all Canadians.

The estimated value of the bailout also seems off, even to a mathematical dyslexic like me. Canada's auto manufacturing industry is about one-10th of American production, which suggests our bailout should be a 10th of the US$14-billion congressional package. So what's with the $6-billion in loans and credit lines being sought by the Big Three for their Canadian operations?

And while it's doubtful Canada's workers are anywhere near the $73-per-hour cost attributed to their U. S. auto assembly colleagues (a figure, mind you, that includes wage, benefit and retirement costs), Canadian workers should not be handed a tax-subsidized cheque without sacrificing some of the best pay packages around.

But the greatest danger is how this could open wide a Pandora's box of handouts without precedent in Canadian fiscal history.

Relief for the auto sector will launch a lineup of palms-out industries far beyond our means to pacify. How will Mr. Harper argue taxpayer protection for a GM worker in Oshawa is any more pressing than help for a forestry worker in Quebec?

There are already unconfirmed noises that Nortel Networks Corp. will seek government help. Who's next? The banks, airlines, or even, if the age of the US$30 barrel of oil is indeed on the horizon, that last functioning piston of Canada's economic engine, the Alberta oil sands?

It's crunch time for Stephen Harper. He faces plenty of parliamentary headaches because of his foolish behaviour of the last month, but his greatest migraine is yet to come from going against his beliefs to finance the winners and sacrifice the losers in Canada's economic meltdown.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
--------------------

As Martin suggests, bailouts run counter to Harper’s evident beliefs but he needs to pass an attractive (to Ontario and Québec voters)  budget and then prolong the agony until the GG has no option but to drop the writs when, sooner rather than later, he engineers his own defeat in the HoC.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Dec 2008)

If I was of a devious turn of mind, and this is based on the passage of the budget and the collapse of the coalition when Parliament resumes, the best time for the government to fall would be in March or April. This would have allowed about half a year to pass since the election, winter will be more or less over, the Liberals will still be in deep financial trouble and will not have had time to promote a platform or a sense of vision or even to 'select' their leader at a national convention. (The Grits, however, would be financially commited to the Vancouver convention and would face a large expenditure in cancellation fees.) In the meantime the media would have had a field day with the 'righteous outrage' of the NDP and the Bloc at the 'sabotage of working Canadians and the nation of Quebec' by the Liberal refusal to honour the coalition agreement.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Dec 2008)

Don seems to be following Lawrence farther and farther down the same path these days......

First, re the "miscalculation":
It starts to look to me, if we take Harper and Layton at their word, and with the evidence of Rosemary Speirs, that when Harper saw that he was about to be defeated by a pre-planned "coalition" he threw in the party financing clawback as a political poison pill.  The Socialist Coalition would have preferred to paint the take-down as a matter of principle.  Instead Harper has successfully made the issue about self-interest, and although much of the public suspects that it was about his own self-interest, they now seem to "know" that it was also about Coalition self-interest.....and principle had little to do with it.

Those 60% polls indicate who got the better of the fight.

One area where Harper might have pushed too hard was on tackling the Unions, but on the other hand, it seems that the Unions have been a critical player in this coalition.....to the extent that they Unions are still advising the Liberals they will support them if they support the Coalition.  It may have been an irresistible target but it probably didn't play as well in the Information Operation.

Second, as to the Economic Statement:  It would have been foolish to offer anything until Obama's plan was known.  Wa are the 10% tail and we don't wag the US's 90% dog.

Third, as to the bailout itself:

The new numbers are still only talking a recession until second quarter 2009.  We are talking here about short term coverage.  If I were Harper I woudl be offering temporary EI expansion for the duration of the recession, cover tax cuts in the stimulus mantle and throw the Big Three a $1.5 Bn bone.  Not the $6 Bn that they asked for but 10% of what the US is offering.

Chrysler is likely not going to be saved but it has always struggled close to bankrupty.  That's how Lee Iacocca made his name.

All three companies have systemic issues and the recession just made those issues more apparent.  They need to resolve those issues one way or another and that requires a market cure.  They need to create  two new products: a car that appeals to consumers and a business that appeals to investors.

Finally, with respect to Old Sweat's observation on timing:

By April Obama's Hundred Days will be up - and there are already some indications that the gilding is starting to wear from the lily.
Centrist rather than Progressive appointments
Blagojevich and the Chicago Machine
Request to stay in Afghanistan
Protectionism?

Those Nationalists that are also Progressives, and that were allying themselves ideologically with the new Progressive guy are suddenly going to find themselves confronting  Progressive disappointment.

They will then have to decide between their hatred for the US and their hatred for Harper.

And as I am writing this CTV is reporting that the Supreme Court ruled on EI surpluses.  Effectively saying that there is nothing wrong with the Government collecting EI premiums and putting them into General Revenues but there is a problem with them setting the rates in Cabinet without consultation - an insurance then becomes a tax.  

This means that the Liberals illegally confiscated they Insurance Fund and used it to create the impression of a surplus.  The Supreme Court has now told the Conservatives to fix this.

The Conservatives have now been given cover to:
Increase EI benefits and coverage
To incur a deficit doing it
To blame the Liberals for it
To take away the Martin card for Financial acuity
And to tie the Liberals to the same type of accounting procedures they used to finance their party (Adscam).
Edited to add: And note that the Liberals, all the time they were making money from EI, and creating the surplus, they then spent the surplus on pet projects rather than writing down the debt or, better yet creating an asset pool to fund the future liability (and the future is now).

I think Mr. Ignatieff is going to have a long, hard uphill slog over the next few months.

Any takers as to whether he survives his coronation in May?


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Dec 2008)

Don Martin of the National Post is getting as lazy as James Travers of The Star WRT checking facts/research before putting his "thoughts" down. He cannot even read his own newspaper.
A 5 minute Google search, cut and paste as well as posting here uncovered the following 3 examples of many, to undercut Martin's "And while it's doubtful Canada's workers are anywhere near the $73-per-hour cost attributed to their U. S. auto assembly colleagues (a figure, mind you, that includes wage, benefit and retirement costs)......"

*National Post Editorial: End of the Hargrove era
Posted: May 16, 2008, 5:52 PM by Dan Goldbloom * 

The average pay for assembly line employees is more than double the average industrial wage in the United States, and almost double the average here in Canada

CAW has had a key role in making the Big Three uncompetitive. The unionized North American car makers are often saddled with compensation packages 40% larger than those paid by their non-union, international competitors making cars in Canada and the United States.

*Auto workers' wages trigger disputes
Posted By CANADIAN PRESS * 
Posted 10 days ago

Tony Faria, an auto industry specialist at the University of Windsor, said that once new contracts negotiated by both the CAW in Canada and the United Auto Workers in the United States. come into effect, Canadian employees of the Big Three will cost their employers about $27 an hour more than their American counterparts.

Before the last contracts were negotiated, the total cost of compensating a CAW employee for an hour of work -- which includes wages, benefits and the so-called legacy pension costs of supporting retired employees -- was approximately $77 an hour, according to both GM and the CAW. UAW costs were slightly less, averaging approximately $73 an hour. At that time, the U. S. and Canadian dollars were around parity. 

However, UAW workers made several concessions in their latest contract, including the implementation of a two-tier wage system. 
Under this system, current employees will keep their current compensation rates, but new workers will make significantly less in benefits and wages. These new workers will only cost their employers $47 an hour all-in, while non-assembly line workers will only cost $26 an hour. In another concession, the UAW will take control of health-care benefits as of 2010, meaning the all-in cost of the workers who were hired before the two-tier system was implemented will fall to $62 an hour.

*Ford workers accept deal to freeze wages
CAW will ask GM and Chrysler to match historic contract after a more than 2-1 positive vote*
May 05, 2008 04:30 AM 
TONY VAN ALPHEN 
THE STAR BUSINESS REPORTER

The Big Three calculated the labour cost for workers here had risen to $81.40 an hour including benefits and pension liabilities, which was $33.90 more than the amount for Honda, Toyota and Nissan workers in the U.S.
The three companies proposed wage cuts; elimination of the COLA; reductions in vacation time; and increasing costs for health care. CAW economist Jim Stanford said Ford and the union struck "a balance" so the labour cost gap won't increase between Canadian workers and their U.S. counterparts at the Big Three because of a productivity edge here.

$70 per hour, 35 hour work week eqates to $127.4 K


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Dec 2008)

What makes the numbers more interesting is the fact that companies in Canada are mostly not on the hook for basic health care (they often pay the nominal provincial health care premiums as part of the benefit package.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Dec 2008)

See here for an article in which _Iggy_ says: _"I am prepared to vote non-confidence in this government. And I am prepared to enter into a coalition government with our partners if that is what the Governor-General asks me to do … but I also made it clear to the caucus this morning that no party can have the confidence of the country if it decides to vote now against a budget it hasn't even read."_

He’s a smart guy and he has just rescued his party from a potentially disastrous ‘coalition’ with the BQ and NDP and, simultaneously, elevated himself, in the eyes of *most* Canadians, to the status of a ‘reasonable’ guy – a status which Stephen Harper has, arguably, thus far, not managed to achieve.

But, Harper now has a _level playing field_. He can, _de facto_, negotiate in public with Ignatieff – leaking Ignatieff’s demands and countering them with his ideas and with the views of the experts he will call upon for semi-public advice. He’ll be able to present a budget that _Iggy_ will be unable to refuse – or, at least, will have very great difficulty refusing while still appearing ‘reasonable.’


----------



## TCBF (11 Dec 2008)

- Watch for this: A radical proposal for the government stimulus package to only secure the Auto Sector pension funds and medical/other benefits while letting the company(ies) themselves fail.


----------



## john10 (12 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So what are the duties of the *Minister* responsible for Quebec?


 To represent the interests of the province at the cabinet table I imagine. Certainly not to direct oversight of contracts signed by Public Works.

Judge Gomery said Martin had nothing to do with it. http://www.canada.com/national/features/gomery/story.html?id=7eb45c76-0206-4167-986c-40466ed354ef

Look, there are plenty of things you can criticize Martin for, but lying about his involvement in the sponsorship program? That simply has no basis in fact, so it's silly to keep digging yourself in.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Watch for this: A radical proposal for the government stimulus package to only secure the Auto Sector pension funds and medical/other benefits while letting the company(ies) themselves fail.




I rather like the idea TCBF puts forward.

In my view there is nothing sacred about the Big Three. _Iconic_ – yes. _Vital_ to our (or America’s) national interests – no. We can survive with a new Big Three (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) or even a _Medium 10_ or 20.

While I do not accept that trade union greed is all or even most of the problem I cannot see how any resolution cannot involve some parity with non-union shops – parity with what we find in the Japanese car makers’ North American plants.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§9) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is the latest (as at 0203 Hrs EST, anyway):
--------------------
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081211.wautowrap1211/BNStory/Business/home
 GM considers bankruptcy as bailout talks collapse
*Senators' last-minute push to revive deal scuttled by workers' rejection of pay cuts*

BARRIE MCKENNA AND JOSH WINGROVE

Globe and Mail Update
December 12, 2008 at 2:03 AM EST

WASHINGTON AND TORONTO — A refusal by the United Auto Workers union to accept swift wage cuts scuttled a $14-billion bailout of the Detroit Three auto makers Thursday night, as General Motors was said to have hired legal and banking experts to consult on bankruptcy protection and Chrysler warned it was nearly out of cash.

After a day of intense negotiations it appeared a deal was close on revisions to the bailout bill, first passed by Congress earlier this week. But Republican senators had earlier balked at the plan, instead demanding wage concessions and pension reform.

Those two issues led to the breakdown last night after UAW refused immediate concessions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

Mr. Reid said he was "terribly disappointed." He had hoped that a revised deal would be voted on last night.

"I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It's not going to be a pleasant sight," he said.

The collapse came after hours of marathon talks, as the bailout transformed into a clash over how far the U.S. government should go to ease the pain of the deepening recession. Senate Republicans refused to sign off on the House-approved deal, saying Americans are struggling to understand why the auto makers deserve bailouts when half a million workers are losing their jobs every month.

"This proposal isn't nearly tough enough. We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said earlier Thursday in a speech on the Senate floor.

The bill passed by Congress specified emergency short-term loans to GM and Chrysler and put a government-appointed "car czar" in charge of making sure the companies become competitive.

Republicans had been pushing an alternative that would slash worker pay and benefits at the Detroit Three, force bondholders to take a bigger hit and fund auto workers' pensions with stock instead of cash.

Those demands proved to be the sticking point, angering Democrats supporting a bailout plan.

"In the midst of already deep and troubling economic times, we are about to add to that by walking away," said Senator Chris Dodd, the banking committee chairman who led negotiations on the package.

Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker, the point man on the Republican side, had proposed setting a strict March 15 deadline for GM and Chrysler to cut their debt, persuade bondholders to accept an equity swap and start labour renegotiations to compete with foreign auto makers' work rules.

Mr. Corker said GM and Chrysler had been "working with us. They like this."

While several Republicans had warmly greeted the idea, some Democrats viewed the proposal as demanding too much from the UAW, which Democratic congressional aides said earlier Thursday had still been willing to negotiate.

Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, a strong bailout supporter, said the UAW was willing to make the cuts — but not until 2011, when their contract expires.

The collapse came as two top Chrysler executives, vice-chairman Tom LaSorda and chief financial officer Ron Kolka, said the company is almost out of cash and wouldn't be able to pay its bills in the new year.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that GM was now considering bankruptcy protection.

In a statement issued after the collapse of the deal, GM said it was "deeply disappointed" that the bipartisan agreement faltered. "We will assess all of our options to continue our restructuring and to obtain the means to weather the current economic crisis," the company said.

Chrysler also said it "will continue to pursue a workable solution to help ensure the future viability of the company."

Ford says it's in slightly better shape, but could also falter if its competitors go bankrupt.

The rescue package has become a victim of growing bailout fatigue. In recent months, the U.S. government has thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at banks, insurers and brokerages. Even so, credit markets remain dysfunctional and banks continue to tighten lending standards.

The political battle over the auto bailout has also exposed a growing geographic rift between Democrats and Republicans. Auto jobs are heavily concentrated in the U.S. Midwest, which voted heavily Democratic in the November election.

Republican opposition to the bailout is also crassly political. Most of the Asian and European car makers now have plants in the south and southwest staunchly Republican states. These plants are all non-union, and their workers earn lower wages, pensions and benefits than workers at the Detroit Three.

Mr. McConnell's home state of Kentucky, for example, is home to Toyota's first U.S. plant. And like other foreign auto makers, Toyota isn't seeking a bailout. Mr. Corker's state of Tennessee is home to a non-union Nissan plant.

The auto bailout issue gained urgency last week when the government reported the economy had lost more than a half-million jobs in November, the most in any month for more than 30 years.

"There's a lot of hardship out there. People are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their cars and losing their patience," Mr. Reid had said. "We don't need to pile on."

The Democrats hold a razor-thin 50-49 majority in the Senate. (There's one vacancy because president-elect Barack Obama has resigned his Illinois seat). To avoid procedural stalling tactics, the legislation would need 60 votes.

With no deal in place, the White House could dip into a $700-billion bank rescue fund to help the auto makers, although President George W. Bush has repeatedly said he won't do that.

The uncertainty leaves the fate of the Detroit Three's Canadian operations in limbo. They, too, are seeking government loans, but they are contingent on the parent companies also securing financial aid.

Mr. Obama, who supports a bailout, said he shares taxpayers' "anger and frustration" with the Detroit Three. But "at this moment of great challenge for our economy, we cannot simply stand by and watch this industry collapse," he told reporters in Chicago. "Doing so would lead to a devastating ripple effect throughout our economy."

_With reports from The Associated Press_
--------------------

Sen. Harry Reid is right: the DOW is set to open down about 3%. That’s “ugly” but nothing like as bad as the losses we saw in Sep and Oct 08. Most investors, even the ones who ‘invest’ based on panic, have already written down the value of the Big Three to near zero.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Dec 2008)

The DOW is down 100 points right now. Many Americans dont support a bailout for the automakers and if they were smart they would decline any further money.The government wants to force the carmakers to build small green cars that Americans dont want to buy.Its Congress' meddling that is partly responsible in its CAFE standards.The Big 3 dont have to meet CAFE standards in its foreign operations and that part of their business is solid.The recession is going to hurt auto sales so an infusion of cash now wont do much good.Bankruptcy will allow Ford,GM and Chrysler to reorganize to include resetting their Union contracts.This bailout has been for the Unions that supported Obama and less to the benefit of the companies.At the end of the day their wage/benefit package costs them $72 an hour vs the non-Union competion $48 an hour. Bankruptcy wont mean these companies will go away they will get breathing room.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2008)

john10 said:
			
		

> To represent the interests of the province at the cabinet table I imagine.



Not to mention the oversight of things like the Sponsorship program to ensure they benefit the sitting Government and the Party's electoral success.

Face it, there was ample evidence that Martin was aware of something; go back and start researching and you will see that there were *Liberal* MP's who wrote letters warning that something was amiss with the Sponsorship program. As collateral evidence, Paul Martin Jr's "Venetian Blind" trust, his non-arm's length sale of CSL to his sons and the exemption to tax laws that allowed one company to evade $700 million  dollars in tax liabilities (engineered while he was Minister of Finance; guess which company got the exemption?) tells me the man was a very smooth operator, not that he didn't know or wasn't aware. Anyway, he is history now, and will be a footnote in some future textbook.

The important question to think about now is will the "new" leadership of the Liberal Party think beyond seizing the keys to the treasury and actually work with the government, or will they stick to the plan that seems to have been in the works even before 14 Oct 2008 (according to some news sources. I also remember some opposition candidates hinting "something big" would happen post election)? There are dangers and opportunities in both paths, I would hope the path of cooperation is taken, since that can lead to long term renewal for the Liberals (as Edward pointed out, we as a nation need a serious "government in waiting" in the wings).


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ......Bankruptcy will allow Ford,GM and Chrysler to reorganize to include resetting their Union contracts.This bailout has been for the Unions that supported Obama and less to the benefit of the companies.At the end of the day their wage/benefit package costs them $72 an hour vs the non-Union competion $48 an hour. Bankruptcy wont mean these companies will go away they will get breathing room.



Agreed and agreed.

Either the unions suck it up and move to Toyota wages and benefits, thereby allowing the Companies breathing room but preserving their membership, or else they stick to their guns (hoping that the Dems will rescue them in January) and risk the Companies going bankrupt. In that case they will lose their membership, have to re-sign their membership and end up working for reorganized companies at Toyota wages in any case.

Hobson's.......


----------



## Flip (12 Dec 2008)

> end up working for reorganized companies at Toyota wages in any case.



They will more likely find themselves in a totally new line of work - "would you like fries with that sir?"- Toyota already will have a pool of employees and the last bloody thing they want is a bunch of former union members coming in and poisoning the air.  

Just as this should mean the end of the UAW as we know it, we should also see the end of executive hyper-salaries.


----------



## observor 69 (12 Dec 2008)

If people don't want to buy your cars it doesn't matter how low auto worker salaries are.
The big three are already giving the cars away if the prices I see in the paper are to be believed.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (12 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> • Stephane Dion’s leadership looks even worse. (Editorial note: is that even possible?) If Mr. Harper is correct, the Bloc and NDP leaders saw Mr. Dion as a weakling who could be manipulated into supporting the crisis they planned to provoke, and were proved correct. Dion leapt at the coalition so fast he caught his own caucus by surprise, and never did catch on that he was teetering on a cliff edge.
> 
> • The outlook for the coalition becomes even bleaker._ (Editorial note: is that even possible?)_ Mr. Ignatieff is unlikely to be as easily manipulated as poor Mr. Dion, nor is he as likely to sign on to a strategy he didn’t devise himself.




Dion was put in a bad spot,  oppose that which he couldn't support or force an election.  Layton knew Harper would pull the same tricks of brinkmanship so he set things up to give the grits more options than caving in or having an election they couldn't afford.

Ignatiff inherited a rather nice position,  he has authority that Dion never had -  he can hold Harper's feet to the fire.  Watch for the budget to contain a lot of really nice goodies,  things so good the grits would be hard pressed to oppose it.  So Layton will get help for the down trotten,  the Grits look effective again and  Harper stays in Power.... everyone get allot of what they want - Merry Christmas.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2008)

Re: Big 3 Bailout.

Rule #1 of Depth.  Never reinforce failure - exploit success.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> They will more likely find themselves in a totally new line of work - "would you like fries with that sir?"- Toyota already will have a pool of employees and the last bloody thing they want is a bunch of former union members coming in and poisoning the air.
> 
> Just as this should mean the end of the UAW as we know it, we should also see the end of executive hyper-salaries.





> If people don't want to buy your cars it doesn't matter how low auto worker salaries are.
> The big three are already giving the cars away if the prices I see in the paper are to be believed.



I seem to be missing my mark.

People may not want Big 3 cars at the prices the Big 3 charge but people want cars, in particular Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, Hyundais.....

Consequently, if the Big 3 goes under then the residual demand for their product will be filled by increased demand for the others.  They will have to create and staff new capacity making vacancies for new/old employees.  

Frank Stronach will continue in business making brake assemblies, transmissions, engine castings and whatever he makes but he won't be making them for the Big 3.......although actually I think he will still be making them for Ford.

Ford seems to be the least at risk - note that they are not asking for money, just a line of credit.  Not quite the same thing.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2008)

And then there's this -
Shared in accordance with the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act.



> Canadians want compromise, not coalition: poll
> Norma Greenaway, Canwest News Service
> Published: Friday, December 12, 2008
> 
> ...



Off hand I would suggest: no election unless Harper calls it.

If Jack anticipated this then I am truly confused.


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And then there's this -
> If Jack anticipated this then I am truly confused.



I'm willing to bet he didn't... he was probably blinded by the froth spilling out of his mouth at the thought of an actual cabinet post.  That would have been quite a feat for the leader of the party that placed *fourth *in a national election.


----------



## john10 (13 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not to mention the oversight of things like the Sponsorship program to ensure they benefit the sitting Government and the Party's electoral success.


 No, Martin had no role in the sponsorship program, and the role of the Minister for Québec is not to audit or do oversight of sponsorship spending in the province. It's not even an official position as far as I know, more of an informal title to an MP who can give insight about Québec issues at the cabinet table.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Face it, there was ample evidence that Martin was aware of something; go back and start researching and you will see that there were *Liberal* MP's who wrote letters warning that something was amiss with the Sponsorship program.


 Firstly, no, there is no evidence that Martin was aware of what was going on. And second, even if he was, it wasn't his job, as Finance minister, to do oversight of spending by Public Works or PMO discretionary funds. There are mechanisms and staff in place to do oversight; it's not the job of the Minister of Finance. The Auditor General did her job investigating the program, and the day after she gave her report on the mismanagement, PM Martin called the Gomery Commission to investigate the program in more depth.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As collateral evidence, Paul Martin Jr's "Venetian Blind" trust, his non-arm's length sale of CSL to his sons and the exemption to tax laws that allowed one company to evade $700 million  dollars in tax liabilities (engineered while he was Minister of Finance; guess which company got the exemption?) tells me the man was a very smooth operator, not that he didn't know or wasn't aware.


 You're trying to build a presumption of him being a liar based on your own basic ignorance of ministerial functions and who is responsible for what. Sorry, but that doesn't pass.

You're claiming that Martin is a liar based on presumptions that are simply not true, and by digging yourself in, you are displaying your ignorance of ministerial duties (i.e. the notion that the Finance minister is supposed to know how small increments of tens of millions are spent, is supposed to be aware of the real value of contracts signed by ministries like Public Works, that the minister for Québec is supposed to know about any contract that is signed with a Québec firm, is supposed to do oversight of money spent by the PMO).

It's quite clear that the only reason you keep insisting on this, regardless of facts, is that you like the Conservatives and you don't like the Liberals. My advice, respectfully, is to grow up a little bit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is what I think hope is the last word on the abortive coalition:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wcomurphy13/BNStory/specialComment/home

 And what of this coalition now?

*REX MURPHY*

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
December 12, 2008 at 10:27 PM EST

Just 12 days ago, on Monday of the past week, there stumbled into life what all of us now remember as the coalition.

Three men - two leaders of national parties, one leader of a Quebec separatist party - held an official "signing ceremony" for the coalition.

The coalition was all ready to become the government. Stéphane Dion would be its prime minister. Jack Layton's NDP would have six of its cabinet ministers. The Bloc was guaranteed something called a "formal consulting mechanism" during the promised 18 months of the agreement between all three. Only the delay of an imminent confidence vote, and the subsequent prorogation of Parliament, stayed the coalition's swift and lofty ascent to power.

I'm summarizing what everyone already knows, because in the hectic, stormy politics of the last two weeks, events of 12 whole days ago feel like something you might catch only on The History Channel. It really does seem like years have passed since those two or three days when Mr. Dion really looked like he was going to become prime minister after all. But it was only just last week. As T. S. Eliot once sagely observed, "History has many cunning corridors," and as if by way of illustration of this maxim, last week's PM-to-be is this week's backbencher. The Governor-General had barely finished sipping tea with an imploring Stephen Harper before the Liberals jettisoned Mr. Dion and placed Michael Ignatieff in his job.

Where are we now? Last week, the coalition had everyone in the country mesmerized. There was talk of nothing else. Open-line shows, comments on web pages, editorials - there was a wave of popular and media response of a volume unseen since the wrangles of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord.

And where is this coalition now? What is it? Does it even still exist? Mr. Ignatieff hems and haws about "a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition," which is what a really fancy mind comes up with when it wants to say yes and no to the same question. Equivocation in a tuxedo, but pure equivocation nonetheless.

One would think the brand new leader of the Liberals could give a direct answer on something as plain as whether his party still has an agreement with the NDP and the Bloc; that all three are, like the fabled musketeers, all for one and one for all. That, as per the agreement between them, and the signing ceremony that announced it, come Jan. 27, when Parliament returns, it's out with the Harper imperium. But on the few occasions that Mr. Ignatieff has been pushed to clarify the most central question in all of Canadian politics - is the agreement to bring down Stephen Harper still in force? - the most erudite washing machine in Canadian politics goes into full spin cycle.

And out tumbles yes, no, and maybe as if they were synonyms.

Even the NDP, which I think has the first claim to pride of authorship in this matter of a coalition, seems more than a little hazy on its current status. Its most dulcet-toned deputy leader, Thomas Mulcair, reminds Mr. Ignatieff that he was "one of 161 MPs who signed a letter to the Governor-General asking to form an alternative government with the NDP."

But when pressed on the matter of whether his party and the Liberals are still in concert, still determined to do what that coalition was set up to do - form that alternative government - out comes the tepid, "I have every reason to believe in his sincerity and in the sincerity of his Liberal colleagues."

Let's try that again: "I have every reason to believe in his sincerity and in the sincerity of his Liberal colleagues." There's a trumpet blast. More "let's do lunch" than "give me liberty or give me death."

Are the Bloc still in this thing? No idea. Do they still have that wonder, detailed in the signing ceremony, of a "formal consultation mechanism?" Is Michael consulting with them? Is Jack mechanizing? Haven't heard. This is all very strange. Just 12 days ago, we had the boldest, most dramatic parliamentary manoeuvre in a generation, a formal alliance between three opposition parties, a signing ceremony of their leaders giving birth to a new entity and an "alternative government." This week, the once explosive notion of a coalition is a shimmer in some phantom zone of yesterday's politics. No one who had anything to do with it wants to admit it's dead. They want it to fade away all on its own. If it wasn't for that signing ceremony and the wonderfully retentive powers of videotape, I'd almost bet some of its backers would deny it ever existed.

There won't be any more rallies for the coalition. It was the fevered product of a moment's opportunism, a political house of cards. Five years from now, it'll be a good question for Trivial Pursuit.
--------------------

The coalition was, and *a* coalition remains a good, solid, legal and democratic ‘solution’ to a _dysfunctional_ minority parliament. The Layton, Duceppe and _whats’isname_ coalition was doomed by Jacques Parizeau and Canadians' sure and certain knowledge that Layton _et al_ were/are lying through their teeth when they claim(ed) the economy/stimulus was/is the problem. It was 100% obvious to all but the mentally defective that Layton, Duceppe and _whats’isname_ were driven mad by fear of losing their political pogey. They, especially the BQ and Liberals, are *political welfare bums* (_Pace_, David Lewis) – sucking from the public teat that which they are unable to raise on their own; they are _flaccid_, in every respect.


----------



## Old Sweat (13 Dec 2008)

I would think the lying through their teeth bit is not as serious in the eye's of the public as is the implied handing over control of the government to the Bloc. Dxxx it, it combines the worst features of Meech and Charlottetown with the bartering of the national interest in a blind lust for power. It is an illegitimately conceived solution to a side issue, while much larger challenges are left to fester on. Even if it results in a constitutionally correct solution, the methodology is wrong, wrong, wrong. Therefore the coaltion receives a failing grade.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 Dec 2008)

Stumbled across this interesting piece by Leo Knight who hosts the  Prime Time Crime's - Crime & Punishment. Reproduced with the usual caveats under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act.


WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008

The last Rae Day

As much as he tried to be conciliatory and magnanimous, the angst on the face of Bob Rae as he reluctantly let go of his passionate, all-consuming ambition to be the Prime Minister of Canada was all too evident.  And, so too must have been the angst in the boardroom of Power Corp, where Rae's brother, John, is part of the ruling class, oops, sorry, senior management.

But wait, Michael Ignatieff is still part of the ruling elite "entitled to their entitlements" class of the Liberal Party of Canada isn't he?  Well, that's a little hard to say.  He's been absent from Canada for much of his adult life.  On the surface he seems more centrist than the former NDP Premier of Ontario could ever claim to be.  And whatever ties to Power Corp. he may have, it seems to be only a friendship to the Raes.  Well, so far.

What is clear is that, with the notable exception of Stephen Harper, every Prime Minister in office longer than the time to have a cup of coffee in the past three decades, owes his allegiance to Power Corp.  Then, add the likes of Maurice Strong (he of the UN Oil for Food scandal) and Paul Volker (former chair of he US Fed and current Barack Obama advisor) to the mix and their influence – dare I say dominance - over North American government is complete for the last 40 years.

And there's the rub isn't it?  There is no ability to control Stephen Harper is there?  Oh sure, Brian Mulroney, another Power Corp. alumni, was an adviser in the early days, but that too failed.  So how to continue the run?  Obviously Harper has to go.   

But how?  He was just elected a few weeks earlier.  Albeit to a minority government as the Libs were reduced to their lowest vote tally in living memory.  In the last minority Parliament, Lib leader Stephane Dion supported the Harper government against all of his pet causes in a twisting, hypocritical, mind-numbingly theatrical performance to avoid an election, all the while saying he was against what Harper was doing.  It's a wonder his dog, Kyoto, didn't bite him.

No problem apparently though after the next election forced by Harper.  The Libs did exactly what they said they would never do and crawled into bed with the NDP and the separatist Bloc.  Well, as threesomes go, I doubt there has been another dripping with more sleaze and hypocrisy than that one.  Or as Mulroney once mused, "There's no whore like an old whore."  And I suppose he is an authority on that subject.

What puzzles me is the concept that Rae, and by extension his supporters, or more accurately, string pullers, tried to peddle that the Governor General had an obvious choice to make if they, the combined opposition, simply said they had no confidence in the sitting government and she should appoint them as the government. 

It not only defies logic, and law and tradition, but speaks to the unadulterated ego and sense of entitlement possessed by the Liberal Party of Canada.  That Jack and Gilles jumped on the train is really of no import.  Neither will ever get close to the Prime Minister's office in any way, shape or form save and except as an invited visitor.  Canadians, as apathetic as they can be in their "I'm all right Jack" existence, would never be so stupid as to let them close to the levers of power.  So Layton signed on to his only shot and is still trying to milk out the dry udder of that cow while Duceppe is still sniggering at the door those idiots opened for him and the separatists.

And at the end of the last Rae-Day, the worst Premier Ontario has ever seen will not have the opportunity to become the worst Prime Minister Canada has ever seen.   His brother, John Rae, who ran the campaigns of Jean Chretien and is a central, dominating part of the power brokers of Power Corp. will not have a direct pipeline into the Prime Minister's office. 

Or will he?


----------



## Infanteer (13 Dec 2008)

Ahh...good old Power Corp - it was about time we pulled out the Canadian Illuminati again....


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Dec 2008)

It is too bad that only a very, very few Canadians will read Leo Knight or even Rex's piece. Even then, less will understand. My sister and her husband are excellent examples of the last two statements. That's why this country is in trouble. The Canadian Greatest Generation tried, but the politicians, mainly the Liberals, squandered Canada's promise. And here we are.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2008)

I suspect that this report, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a signal that Stephen Harper is not done with the idea of making parliamentarians *and political parties* ‘share the pain’ of the current economic crisis:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081213.wrcmppay1213/BNStory/National/home

 Government rolling back scheduled pay raises for RCMP

The Canadian Press

December 13, 2008 at 9:07 AM EST

OTTAWA — The federal government is rolling back planned pay increases for members of the RCMP by 0.5 per cent over the next two years, CTV News reports.

The Mounties were expecting pay increases of 2 per cent in 2009 and 2010 as well as a 1.5 per cent market adjustment in 2009. Instead, the pay increases are being decreased to 1.5 per cent and there will be no market adjustment.

RCMP Commissioner William Elliott broke the news to the force members in an e-mail sent Friday.

“We have now been advised that on Dec. 11, 2008, (the) Treasury Board modified its previous decision dated June 19, 2008, on RCMP member's compensation,” he said.

Treasury Board did so by amending the rates of pay for the second and third years of the most recent three-year compensation arrangement to limit the previously approved increase to 1.5 per cent, Mr. Elliott wrote.

The CTV News report said cabinet was not informed of the Treasury Board decision.

Under Canadian law, the RCMP cannot engage in collective bargaining and pay is determined by the Treasury Board. According to the RCMP website, a constable with three year's experience is paid $74,539 a year.

The force is planning to hire 1,700 new cadets each year for the next few years as many officers are hitting retirement age.

In June, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that RCMP cadets would start being paid for their 24 weeks of training in an effort to entice recruits.
-------------------- 

I doubt PM Harper will want to reintroduce the end of the _pay for votes_ scheme until he has a majority, but he may want to *reduce* the amount paid out by a token amount – say 10%/20¢ and he may ask MPs to forgo a pay raise or even to roll back their last increase, for a while, at least.

If, as appears likely, _Iggy_ wants to avoid a coalition that is approved by _Jolly Jacques_ Parizeau and gives _Taliban Jack_ Layton a hand on the economic levers then he will, probably, accept a bit of punishment IF Harper provides sufficient stimulus (mostly wasted, as I point out here) to require him to support the budget and allow Harper to govern until mid/late spring when the GG will have no choice except to allow another election as soon as Harper engineers his own defeat in the HoC. _(Sorry, that's a long, convoluted sentence, but I'm sure you get the point.)_ That will begin to undermine Ignatieff: he'll be seen as keeping Harper in power even when Liberal's are hurt, because he's afraid of a general election - as he should be.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is a commentary by Conrad Black (Lord of the Realm and convicted felon):
--------------------
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/13/conrad-black-harper-and-ignatieff-promise-a-rivalry-for-the-ages.aspx

 Conrad Black:
Harper and Ignatieff promise a rivalry for the ages

Posted: December 13, 2008, 9:30 AM by Kelly McParland

Despite appearances, Canadian political life (at least from this distance) seems to be working out sensibly. The arrival of Michael Ignatieff as leader of the opposition returns the Liberal Party to what was, for nearly a century, the principal factor that kept it in office through three quarters of that time as the democratic world’s most successful political party. 

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, W.L.M. King, Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau were all party leaders called from obscurity, or late to politics, who had not sought political leadership before. They all lost at least once, but on balance, they were all winners, and won 17 of 25 general elections they fought. 

John Turner, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were all Buggin’s Turn: Each was the surviving runner-up from the previous leadership convention. Add in Stéphane Dion, who was a gesture to alternating English and French-speaking leaders, and who won his party’s leadership as the beneficiary of tactical errors in Ignatieff’s leadership campaign. Despite the disintegration of the opposition for a decade, this quartet won only four elections, while losing four. 

The earlier method of leader-selection was, I have long thought, the most unpredictable, ineluctable, process of choosing a leader of any important organization in the world except the Holy See -- and it worked. 

Michael Ignatieff is the first Liberal leader not of Anglo-Saxon or French ancestry, and has spent even more of his life outside Canada than did Pearson or Trudeau. His intellectual standing could only be rivaled, among his predecessors, by Trudeau, and, in a stretch, King. His writing, which is a worthwhile body of work, reveals an affecting connection to his country all through long periods outside Canada. 

One of his problems three years ago was that his rivals managed to portray his return to Canada to enter political life as condescension rather than the closing of the ring that it really was. He was responding to the equivalent for him of “the cry of the loon and the dip of the paddle,” as have many others in different fields, from Peter Munk to Mordecai Richler. The original Thomas Wolfe was not entirely correct: In Canada, you can go home. 

In policy terms, the only area where Ignatieff seemed to be in a time warp three years ago was his concern to resolve outstanding issues with Quebec nationalists. They don’t want to reach agreement; and their strength, in both relative and absolute terms, is withering. The constitutional anomalies can be eliminated when the Quebec federalists are strong enough to make an arrangement with Ottawa without fear of nationalist reaction. The time will come, and fairly soon. 

Taking psychological liberties with public figures is hazardous, and often odious, but there may be a matter of finishing off some family business here. George Ignatieff, the new Liberal leader’s father, was a prominent contender to be governor general about 30 years ago, but was passed over. He and his wife would have done honour to the position. If this weighs in Michael ignatieff’s ambitions, and his writing reveals a lively interest in his ancestry, it is certainly creditable to set right the short-changing of one’s forebears. 

Michael Ignatieff removed any lingering doubt that he had the character to lead when he did not scheme against the hapless Dion, and kept his distance from the hare-brained exploration of a coalition government with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. Canada needs, and surely deserves, deliverance from the sort of nasty, hyperactive political adolescents who confected that mad enterprise. 

Michael Ignatieff will be only the 12th federal Liberal leader in 142 years of Confederation. As all but Edward Blake and Stéphane Dion have served as prime minister, his chances of doing so are good, although the Liberal hammer-lock on Quebec following the 1917 conscription controversy for 67 years until the rise of Brian Mulroney, cannot be resurrected. The Liberals are not the sure thing in almost three elections out of four that they were between the death of Sir John Macdonald in 1891 and the retirement of Pierre Trudeau in 1984. 

The joust between Ignatieff and Stephen Harper should be an interesting one; as well-matched, and surely more coherent, than the nine-year, four general-election battle between John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson (1958-1967). 

Perhaps because of the brilliance of the Florida summer sun, compounded by the foibles of my American hosts, I have been conducting a completely unnoticed, rear-guard argument in favour of the theory that Stephen Harper is something of a Mackenzie King, an ungalvanizing public personality but a cunning political operator. 

It is conceivable that there was an element of calculation in his suggestion of ceasing to finance political parties, reviewing some of the rigidities of pay equity, and revisiting the right to strike in the public service. These are all respectable policy options, and my impression is that the country was more offended by the absurd opposition response than by Harper’s heavy-handed, yet sneaky and reckless introduction of these thoughts in a financial message. This episode should be out of mind when the budget is presented in January, but Harper can still revive these issues more promisingly, later. 

Harper showed great tactical skill in putting the opposition back together at the start of this decade, and in making inroads in Quebec. It is obvious now that he was astute in provoking the last election when he did. This distances him from the ineptitude of many previous Conservative leaders, but it doesn’t make him a Mackenzie King. 

King made a virtue of indecision, timidity, hypocrisy and obscurantism. As Frank Scott wrote of King in a moment of exasperated brilliance: “He blunted us. He never let his on the one hand know what his on the other hand was doing. The height of his ambition was to pile a parliamentary committee on a royal commission. Postpone, postpone, abstain … Always he led us back to where we were before.” 

He was also a political genius who held the country together with what Scott called “the smokescreen of his politics,” and struck like a leopard when he had the chance to extend his own incumbency (an astounding 22 years as prime minister). 

Stephen Harper will not abase himself, as King often did. He may be authoritarian and seem a bit wooden. But he too makes it as a comparative intellectual, and he is now a proven political strategist, notwithstanding the events of the last few weeks. The ideological gap between the main parties should be quite narrow, so it should be a good hand-to-hand combat between the most apparently intelligent pair of alternative prime ministers Canada has had since the young Laurier and the old Macdonald, (1887-1891).

National Post

cbletters@gmail.com
--------------------

A few days, maybe a week ago, one of our members, here on Army.ca, posited that Harper had a deep and devious plan to provoke the Liberals and NDP to overplay their hand and fall into the lap of the BQ. Black gives credence to that idea in saying, _” It is conceivable that there was an element of calculation in his suggestion of ceasing to finance political parties, reviewing some of the rigidities of pay equity, and revisiting the right to strike in the public service. These are all respectable policy options, and my impression is that the country was more offended by the absurd opposition response than by Harper’s heavy-handed, yet sneaky and reckless introduction of these thoughts in a financial message.”_

Would the person who made that suggestion please provide a link to it? Thanks, in advance.

I agree with Black that the ‘ideological gap’ between Harper’s *Parliamentary* Conservative Party and Ignatieff’s *Parliamentary* Liberal Party are quite narrow. The gaps between the party bases, the _rank and file_ in the riding associations, are wide and deep: the Conservative base is far to the right of where Harper knows he must be to win elections and the Liberal base is far to the left of where Ignatieff wants to position the Liberal party. The battle is for the _mushy middle_ and both leaders must reject the siren songs of their respective bases and fight for the only ground that matters – the middle ground. _Iggy_ will have a harder time because while Harper’s hard right wing has nowhere to go, right now, the hard left of the Liberals are being invited into _Taliban Jack_ Layton’s NDP.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2008)

> Would the person who made that suggestion please provide a link to it? Thanks, in advance.



Going to take a liberty here.

A couple of us have opined on that issue but I think the strongest, earliest defence came from Thucydides here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2008)

I think Roy McGregor may have it (Canadians’ penchant for _driving in reverse_) just about right in this column reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081215.wmacgregor15/BNStory/politics/home

 The bully Prime Minister, the uncertain G-G and that silly coalition seem to have woken us up

ROY MacGREGOR

From Monday's Globe and Mail
December 15, 2008 at 4:18 AM EST

In Canada, you usually have to go in reverse in order to get anywhere.

Perhaps it's because we spend so much time stuck in snow, perhaps it's because we're forever looking through the rear-view mirror in search of something to apologize for, but it's there, and it's real.

Canadian voters, it is well known, seem happier tossing out than grudgingly putting in. Sort of voting backward, if you like.

It is rather curious, then, to see recent polls being interpreted as support for Prime Minister Stephen Harper - "record support," certain majority if an election were held today - when, in fact, they are no such thing.

What the polls really show - if you use the reverse rule of thumb for Canadian politics - is a near-total condemnation of the coalition formed by the Liberals and New Democratic Party and formally approved by the Bloc Québécois.

The Canadian way, again countervailing, is to embrace those we first denied office - think of it as the RLS syndrome, in recognition of the political career of the beloved Robert Lorne Stanfield - but before we all start saluting Stéphane Dion for his statesmanship, grace and sacrifice, let us remember for a moment the ineptness, the inability to communicate and that embarrassing hissy-fit performance during the coalition's first appearance in the House of Commons.

For those who may have forgotten, that is where duly elected members of Parliament once met in public.

That coalition could hardly have been presented more poorly to an astounded Canadian public. Canadians were invited to watch a televised signing ceremony in which the Bloc signed with a flourish, and then were expected to accept that the Bloc was in no way part of the coalition. Dion then met with Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and let her tell Canadians that she might be named to the Senate so she could join him in his work - this, at a time when the combined actions of the Prime Minister and the various elected opposition parties were sending out signals that democracy no longer had a place on Parliament Hill.

No wonder one of the polls found that nearly three-quarters of Canadians were "scared" silly by all this.

They had a coalition composed of a dud Liberal Leader, an NDP Leader seemingly more full of himself than even his detractors had imagined, and both supported by a man with the surprised look of someone who has just pulled a winning lottery ticket out of the trash.

Then they had a Prime Minister who basically declared martial law without the guns.

Surely even those politicians involved begin to see how repulsed - perhaps more so than at any time in this country's history - Canadians have become with their federal politics.

While the coalition deserved widespread condemnation, so, too, did the Prime Minister. His behaviour, from the heartless economic statement to the sadistic wing-plucking of the opposition to his increasing problems with the simple truth – _no flags at the signing ceremony? no responsibility for the chaos?_ - had Harper looking far more like Richard Nixon than Sir John A. Macdonald.

This disconnect between Parliament Hill - or wherever government is to be found these days - has been so complete that it seems impossible that so many tin ears could have been sent to Ottawa at the same time.

The Prime Minister, having railed at the coalition for being undemocratic and having spent his political career vowing Senate reform, now proposes to name 18 Conservatives to the Senate in order to "balance" things out.

While tens of thousands are losing their jobs, he sends 18 pals off to the great "taskless thanks" at $130,400 a year, not including perks.

The major thing that can be said of such rampant madness is that it has angered people to a point rarely seen in this country. Never has a non-sitting Parliament been talked about so much. Never has the easy condemnation of politicians formed so much of the national small talk.

Is it possible to fix this mess?

"We know what to do, Canadians, when we're stuck in the snow," Jean Chrétien once said of a previous Canada-threatening crisis. "You don't get excited. You don't spin your wheels. You just go forwards, backwards, forwards, backwards - and eventually you're back on the road."

If that is still possible, then perhaps we should thank the coalition for its good work, even if accidental. After all, the coalition did expose the Prime Minister as a man never to be trusted with a majority and did force the Liberal Party to dump Dion. Thank it, and then kiss it goodbye - at least in its current formation.

Looking ahead, it is arguable that the silly coalition, the bully Prime Minister and the uncertain Governor-General have awakened Canadians in a manner far beyond their pitiful 59.1-per-cent level of interest on Oct. 14.

Perhaps, as well, it has awakened those who need to be poked to the reality that there is more to politics than gamesmanship. A possible depression, for example. And certain war.

Looking back, as Canadians so love to do, we may even one day agree that this was a necessary madness.

One that ultimately forced the country to return to its senses.
--------------------

Being a Conservative partisan I hope McGregor is wrong when he says that the coalition exposed _”the Prime Minister_ [Harper]_as a man never to be trusted with a majority,”_ but I fear that he may be right. If we have an election in spring 2009 we can certainly count on the opposition – political and media – to remind Canadians, over and over and over again, that Stephen Harper is a bully (true enough) and untrustworthy (not proven but, as we all know, lies work).


----------



## GAP (15 Dec 2008)

The Coalition Christmas Story

 T’was three weeks before Christmas, when all through the house
The opposition was stirring, even Layton - the louse.
The dealings were waved in front of noses in the air,
In hopes that a Coalition soon would be there.

The Blocs were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of separatism danced in their heads.
And Jack in his ‘kerchief, and Stéphane - the sap,
Had just settled down for a long winter’s nap.
When all across the country there arose such a clatter,
Dion insisted, it didn’t really matter.
Away out the window, he threw with a flash,
The results of the election, amid the backlash.

The moon on the breast of Elizabeth May,
Suggested she might still be able to play.
When, what to her wondering eyes should appear,
But a weasely Frenchman with promises dear.

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it was Jack Layton, the dick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name

"Now Dion! now, Duceppe! Now Mays - you vixen!
Let’s get together, It’s time to Listen!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Let’s unite! Let’s unite! Separatists and all!"

And then, in a twinkling, they heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of Canadians, not aloof.
They drew in their heads, and turned around,
And down the chimney St Harper came with a bound.

He was dressed all in gold, from his head to his feet,
Letting them know he wouldn’t be easy to defeat.
A bundle of Tories he had flung on his back,
And he looked like a King, with nothing to lack.

His eyes-how they glared! his fists, how clenched!
He stands for democracy, and won’t see it trenched!
His droll little mouth was drawn up in a sneer,
For the governor-general soon would appear.


The promise of dissolving he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it caused encircled his head like a wreath.
He had a stern face and a little round belly,
And wanted to bury Dion in a bowlful of jelly!

Harper was elected by Canadians, voted in fair,
Not a Weasel, not a Separatist, not the guy with no hair!
With them getting together, it will have to be said,
Canadians will face the future with dread.

Harper spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
Shook his head in disgust, then turned to the jerk.
And laying his middle finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose!

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a shout,
Trying to teach Canadians, what this is about.
And I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,
"This is the end of democracy, C’mon lets fight!" 

By Wendy Heuvel, with apologies to Clement Clarke Moore, author of the original.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2008)

> Then they had a Prime Minister who basically declared martial law without the guns.





> While the coalition deserved widespread condemnation, so, too, did the Prime Minister. His behaviour, from the heartless economic statement to the sadistic wing-plucking of the opposition to his increasing problems with the simple truth – no flags at the signing ceremony? no responsibility for the chaos? - had Harper looking far more like Richard Nixon than Sir John A. Macdonald.





> The Prime Minister, having railed at the coalition for being undemocratic and having spent his political career vowing Senate reform, now proposes to name 18 Conservatives to the Senate in order to "balance" things out.
> 
> While tens of thousands are losing their jobs, he sends 18 pals off to the great "taskless thanks" at $130,400 a year, not including perks.





> After all, the coalition did expose the Prime Minister as a man never to be trusted with a majority



Permit me to disagree with the histrionics.

I do sense, however, an attempt at creating a story line to counter the intention of 55-60% of Canadians to vote for Harper in light of the Coalition effort and despite the Coronation of Iggy.


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2008)

It would have been interesting to take this one step farther to see if ignorance/cognizance of our political system affected one's perception of the coalition or of the proroguing of Parliament.  It's also a little frighting to think that so many election day votes may be cast by the ignorant.     


> Canadians don't understand political system: survey
> Updated Sun. Dec. 14 2008 4:26 PM ET
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2008)

Oops.  Forgot the lnk: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081214/survey_canada_081214/20081214?hub=QPeriod


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2008)

MCG - are you truly surprised?

First the populace is outraged at the tactics of the coalition.

Then, are they outraged to discover that the game was played by the rules?

Next, will they be outraged by the rules themselves?

Patently the rules don't deliver the democracy that they thought they were getting.

Kind of like discovering that the fine print on your home insurance policy releases you insurer from any obligation except supplying compensation when King Kong is in town.


You can argue they should have read the fine print all you like.  But they'll never buy another policy from that supplier.


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> MCG - are you truly surprised?


Not surprised, but still disappointed.  It is much easier to discuss the relevant facts when one does not first have to correct a maze of misconceptions.  It is also very difficult to support others, who have arrived at similar conclusions as your own, when the path to their conclusion was based on misconceptions, exaggerations, and untruths.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Dec 2008)

You know, all this shidt that is being presented in the last few posting (and generally most postings) is coming from the same source. The G & M, CTV are controlled by the same beneficial ownership. Who is on CTV's Question Period? Who co hosts it? The answer is G & M employees.
Keep quoting CTV/G & M. That's just spreading LPC hate. We all know where their political loyalty lies. Did you read Lawrence Martin today? Hate. The media want the good old LPC back so everything is handed to them on a platter for the media to REPEAT. "Bully" Harper wants to make them work for it. I don't think Mr Harper is a bully. In your face, take no prisoners leadership. Or do you like Mr Dithers?
Yes. what is so important to Brisson and MCCallum that the world will stop on Friday if the CPC does not produce the "right" financial figures. Who are these guys? Maybe the bar is closing early.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> .. It is also very difficult to support others, who have arrived at similar conclusions as your own, when the path to their conclusion was based on misconceptions, exaggerations, and untruths.



OK - I admit.  I am having diffi.culty parsing this.  ;D  I fear that I am being considered  a dupe, OR that I am being castigated for duping others, OR for taking advantage of those that are duped.

Please clarify if I am to take offense. 

As to your greater point, it is disappointing but is our situation much different than what the Americans felt when they discovered their President being picked by The Electoral College and The Supreme Court?

It is within the rules - but those may not necessarily reflect the democracy  they now expect.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (15 Dec 2008)

For those of you who think that Harper will enjoy an easy majority if there is another election next year, er I would think again. The vote rich province of Ontario has gone from a "have abundance" to a "have not" province in the span of two and a half years, that's about as long as the conservatives have been in power. Back in May of 2008 there was already grumblings of how the conservatives were handling the economy, now just a short eight months later we see, mass layoffs in the auto sector and the manufacturing sector in Ontario, the likes we haven' seen in decades and people are going to be looking for someone to blame. "Hello Mr. Primeminister" 

Harper can sow gold linings into his stimulus package, but it won't matter, because its way to late, the jobs are already gone and people are sitting at home with fingers wagging and pointed at, "Guess who" and no it it's not the liberals, NDP or Gilles.

I recently read a posters reply on this thread on how Canadians don't know much about their political system, well the same can be said about those same people, when they lose their jobs and lively hoods. They don't care much about politics, but what they do want is someone to blame for their misfortune and all the phyco babble and politico speak is not going to change that one little bit. 

Like it or not as to whether or not they are to blame or not, one simple fact remains and that who ever was residing at 24 Sussex Drive at the time those jobs disappeared will get all the blame. 

If the world financial crisis had never happened, if the Iraq war had never happened, we would have seen John McCain as the next president instead of Barrack Obama, but the financial crisis and the war did happen, so people blamed George Bush, but they also blamed John McCain through his association with Bush the crisis and the war. McCain was the loser even before he entered the game, it just hadn't been realized yet.

As George Bush said "the buck stops here".


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> For those of you who think that Harper will enjoy an easy majority if there is another election next year, er I would think again. The vote rich province of Ontario has gone from a "have abundance" to a "have not" province in the span of two and a half years, that's about as long as the conservatives have been in power.



Actually, the "buck" stops at *Dalton McGuinty's* desk in Queens Park, and the federal Minister of Finance has been very vocal and public in demonstrating the difference between the fiscal prudence of the Federal Government vs the reckless actions of the Provincial Government. (as a libertarian myself, I find Jim Flarhety's definition of fiscal prudence to be a bit  *strained*, to say the least.)

Indeed, should there be an election in the near future, the CPC can draw the link between the economic performance of the Provincial Liberals and the proposed "stimulus package" of the Federal Liberals. As an added method of sticking a fork in the Liberals, they can always use the slogan "*The Liberal economic package: Rae Days for Everyone!*"


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (16 Dec 2008)

> Indeed, should there be an election in the near future, the CPC can draw the link between the economic performance of the Provincial Liberals and the proposed "stimulus package" of the Federal Liberals. As an added method of sticking a fork in the Liberals, they can always use the slogan "The Liberal economic package: Rae Days for Everyone!"



Maybe, maybe not; difference is, it won't be a provincial election and McGuinty won't be the one on the hot seat. People haven't forgotten about the Harris Tories and the slash and burn tactics he used in Ontario in the mid nineties, yet are they soon to forget that while they were loosing their jobs the Neophytes sat back and said don't panic everything is OK. The provincial liberals will be the lesser of the two evils come election time, besides its not McGuinty's picture that's plastered in the papers, television and web everyday, it's Harper's and the more negative exposure the MSM gives to the Harper Tories, the less people will think about McGuinty's liberals. Besides McGuinty had his hand out since late last year asking for help from the Neophytes, but Flaherty slapped it and said go away, no one should invest in Ontario, the MSM took that "slip of the tongue" and has been running a marathon with it ever since. 

I live in the real world, not some ideological world were everyone has angels flying out of there arses. My world is job= house, food, clothing and whatever is left goes to a little enjoyment. Take way the job, you take away everything, including sometimes even ones self respect. So please don't sit there and tell me that come election time that suddenly Harper becomes our saviour, because that's probably the farthest thing from our minds. Maybe you should get out there and talk to people in Windsor, Oshawa and Oakville and listen to what average every day people are saying instead of some office dwelling has-beens, who's only purpose in life is to manufacture "fairy dust" to shove up our their asses so the shit they throw at us doesn't smell like the sewage it actually is. As for McGuinty, he's covered his tracks, he's so much as told us over the past two years, not to expect much from Ottawa, but he will keep on trying, now that realization has come true and that leaves McGuinty smelling like a bottle of febreeze.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2008)

According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has, and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty soon will, changed his economic tune:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081216.wflaherty16/BNStory/politics/home

 PM's economic flip: 'I've never seen such uncertainty'

BRIAN LAGHI , STEVEN CHASE and BILL CURRY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
December 16, 2008 at 3:30 AM EST

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper has delivered his bleakest forecast yet for the Canadian economy, warning yesterday the future is increasingly hard to read and conceding the possibility of a depression.

"The truth is, I've never seen such uncertainty in terms of looking forward to the future," the Prime Minister told CTV News in Halifax.

"I'm very worried about the Canadian economy."

When asked whether a depression might be possible, he answered:

"It could be, but I think we've learned enough about depression; we've learned enough from the 1930s to avoid some of the mistakes that caused a recession in 1929 to become a depression in the 1930s."

A recession is often defined as two consecutive quarters of shrinking economic output.

The definition of a depression is less established, but is considered to be a prolonged recession where output declines by more than 10 per cent.

Mr. Harper also confirmed in the interview that his January budget will push Canada into a deficit and include billions of dollars in spending, which he hopes to combine with provincial spending to boost the Canadian economy.

"Obviously, we're going to have to run a deficit," he said. "We're talking about spending billions of dollars that was not planned."

Mr. Harper's darker forecast was yet another shift in tone for the government on the economic story. Last Friday, for example, his ministers appeared to deliver contradictory messages on the speed with which the government should be reacting to the crisis.

Hours before Industry Minister Tony Clement called a hasty Toronto news conference to buck up the Ontario auto industry, the message emerging from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was a plea to be patient with the Harper government as it planned a stimulus package.

"This is not a sprint," Mr. Flaherty told an audience in Saint John, preaching the virtues of "thoughtful consideration" before acting with stimulus.

Later that day, however, Mr. Clement, signalled that Ottawa was indeed moving quickly to help out auto makers, announcing the general outlines of a package that could lead to $3.4-billion in Canadian aid.

"The seriousness of the situation dictates that we be here this evening," Mr. Clement said of his last-minute appearance.

As chief salesman for Tory economic policies, Mr. Flaherty is often the one left taking the blame for conflicting messages on how the Conservatives will respond to the faltering economy.

This was the case in the Nov. 27 fall fiscal update. On Nov. 23, after months of insisting his government had already done much to stimulate the economy, Mr. Harper abruptly changed tone after an international leaders meeting in Peru. He warned reporters that "it may well be necessary to take unprecedented fiscal stimulus."

Four days later, however, Mr. Flaherty's economic update offered only a modest injection of assistance, while also announcing billions of dollars in budget cuts - the very opposite of fiscal stimulus.

"They moved in the wrong direction," IHS Global Insight managing director Dale Orr said yesterday.

The update prompted calls for Mr. Flaherty's resignation from some critics - and unease within the Tory caucus.

Aside from a lack of stimulus, the update also contained two politically explosive measures: a move to scrap per-vote subsidies for political parties and a bid to ban public-sector workers from striking.

"It was just outrageous and absolutely improper," said University of Western Ontario economics professor emeritus David Laidler, a member of the C.D. Howe Institute's monetary policy council.

"I was frankly very surprised because I thought Flaherty was a pretty competent guy."

Prof. Laidler, who emphasized he was speaking only for himself, said he thinks Mr. Flaherty should have stepped down after he was forced to withdraw the more controversial items in the face of unanimous opposition party rejection of the update.

"He should have resigned either because they were his policies and they were rejected so firmly he had to withdraw them - or they weren't his policies and he shouldn't have allowed them in his statement."

But one senior Tory aide said that Mr. Flaherty is not likely to lose his job because his office is compliant with the Prime Minister's wishes.

Mr. Flaherty spent an hour yesterday meeting with Liberal MPs John McCallum and Scott Brison, who said he conceded that the relatively rosy economic projections in last month's controversial fiscal update have been overtaken by worsening conditions.

"He certainly admitted that the economic situation has deteriorated since receiving the forecasts [for the Nov. 27 fiscal and economic statement.] He does agree that the forecasts were too rosy [given the deterioration,]" Mr. McCallum told The Canadian Press.
--------------------


What Mr. Harper is doing, in part, is to prepare himself and the _fiscally conservative_ part of his ‘base’ (people like me) for a great load of useless, wasteful even counter-productive spending that will aim to satisfy the usual whiners in big business and big labour but that will do little real good for the economy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2008)

But, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CTV News_ web site – sorry Rifleman62 for quoting another _bête noir_ – Stephen Harper has not changed his tune on the coalition of the dimwits:
--------------------
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081215/harper_atlantic_081215/20081215?hub=TopStories

 Stephen Harper has tough words for coalition

Updated Mon. Dec. 15 2008 10:47 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Despite having to shut down Parliament to save his government from being toppled by a furious opposition coalition, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pulled no punches when discussing his political rivals in a year-end interview with CTV Atlantic.

Harper accused the coalition of trying to "overthrow" the government, refused to answer critics' repeated demands to apologize for the fiscal update that sparked the turmoil on Parliament Hill, and defended his move to appoint senators to the upper chamber -- the same institute he has derided for being undemocratic.

Asked repeatedly whether he regretted unveiling a fiscal update that would have financially crippled the opposition parties, while saving roughly $27 million a year, Harper said he had acted in the best interest of Canadians.

He also suggested the anger displayed by the opposition was exaggerated, noting reports that the NDP and Bloc had talked about a possible coalition around the time of the election.

"We only found out later that they had been planning to overturn the results of the election ever since election night. But in terms of the political financing measures, we believe these are in the public interest, and the public overwhelmingly supports these measures," he said.

With Michael Ignatieff now holding the reins of the Liberal party, it's become uncertain whether the Liberal-NDP coalition will last until the government unveils its budget in late January.

The coalition needs the support of the Bloc Quebecois to survive, which has proven to be a sore point for many Canadians. In a recent Strategic Counsel poll, 58 per cent of voters across the country said they opposed the coalition.

Harper told CTV Atlantic he met with Ignatieff last week, but said he still knew little about the former Harvard scholar and author.

"I've read very little of what he's written. I certainly know he's a noted academic," he said.

Harper also invited Ignatieff to "work with the government on dealing with the economy because nobody wants Canadians to go back to the polls."

The Liberals and Conservatives are currently discussing the upcoming budget, set to be tabled on Jan. 27. Ignatieff has said the coalition could bring down the government unless the budget includes what he has described as an adequate stimulus package, to help soften the blow of the worldwide credit crisis.

Harper said Canadians should know exactly what the coalition would do as an alternative.

"I want to see exactly what it is the opposition would have us do in the budget. I mean, we're going to proceed with the budget one way or another. But I do think, particularly as these parties talk about getting together and trying to overturn the government, I think they should tell Canadians would exactly they would do instead," he said.

*Tory Senate appointments*

The prime minister also addressed the controversy surrounding his plans to fill 18 vacant Senate seats, despite his opposition to appointing senators without some form of democratic process.

Currently, senators are chosen by the prime minister and keep their appointments for 45 years, or until mandatory retirement at 75. Harper wants the provinces to elect their own choices, and also wants shortened terms of just eight years.

"In a way, it's a sad day for me," said Harper. "I've waited for three years. We've invited provinces to hold elections. We've put an electoral bill before the House of Commons. But for the most part, neither in Parliament nor in the provinces has there been any willingness to move forward on reform."

Currently, there are 58 Liberals and 20 Conservatives in the 105-seat Senate, after years of successive Liberal governments.

"We're now faced with a very simple choice. Does the government Canadians elected appoint those senators, or are they going to be appointed by a coalition that nobody elected?" said Harper.

When asked by CTV Atlantic's Steve Murphy whether "two wrongs make a right," Harper repeated that he was left with little choice.

"It's the only option. There is no prospect for electing these senators in the near term," he said.

Harper also said he faces increases pressure from within his own party to appoint senators who are loyal to the ruling government. In the past, the Conservatives have accused the Liberal-dominated Senate of stalling bills passed by the lower chamber.

Senators have defended their role as overseeing the chamber of sober second thought, saying they have a duty to carefully examine any legislation, rather than rubber-stamping bills and blindly supporting the government.

"Quite frankly, I think the public would prefer to see senators supporting the government they elected," said Harper.

*Afghanistan*

Before the interview, the prime minister visited New Brunswick, where three soldiers killed in Afghanistan this past weekend were based.

He spent time at an elementary school where veterans of the Second World War shared their stories with students, and Harper gave his condolences to the families of the latest victims.

"It is always a tremendous tragedy when we lose people like this," he said.

Harper later spoke about the visit with CTV Atlantic and said it was important to be reminded of the sacrifices Canada's soldiers must sometimes make.

"These are the best that we have -- bright, ambitious young people who are willing to put their lives on the line for the country and their fellow human beings," he said.

"Whenever we get this news it's always terrible. And it always helps give me some perspective. Whenever we in politics complain about some of the difficulties of public life, we always have to remember that it's pretty trivial when compared to the sacrifices and risks that our men and women undertake on our behalf."
--------------------


This looks like electioneering to me.

While I agree with retiredgrunt45 that a majority in a Spring election is anything but a foregone conclusion, I cannot help but think that it may be Harper’s main chance. Memories of the unpopular coalition will fade, _Iggy_ will get stronger and will look better and better; the economic slide will slow – Harper may decide he has to go early.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2008)

The ghost of coalitions past now haunts Mr Ignatieff:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/16/kelly-mcparland-layton-adds-another-weight-to-ignatieff-s-ball-and-chain.aspx



> *Kelly McParland: Layton adds another weight to Ignatieff's ball and chain*
> Posted: December 16, 2008, 5:25 PM by Kelly McParland
> Full Comment, Kelly McParland, Canadian politics
> 
> ...



This is quite correct; you either are in a coalition or not; politics is not quantum physics and *Schrödinger's Coalition* is not a solution the public will accept (indeed they have already been pretty outspoken about it).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2008)

Just my gut, mind you, but I think SH saw this whole thing coming before Iggy or Layton did. IF that's the case, he's still the chess master and the libs will be hard pressed to play any kind of one upsmanship at a game Harper engineered. I'm sure that the CPC knew about this 'coalition' before the principals announced it. No secrets on the Hill, and all that. The dippers are yappy little ghetto dogs and always will be. Layton shot his wad on this one (the coalition) and when it doesn't fly, will forever be relegated to the political dumpster. He's used up all his favours and is being looked upon as the communist opportunist that he is. His base, the unions, are losing members and control, with the manufacturing upheaval. The members will soon figure that he, and his minions like Lewenza, were the ones that put them where they are today. Next election will see him lose more seats and end up a shadow of their once, never really important, selves. The Bloc has been quietly pushing their agenda(s), while Canadians blissfully ignored them. They put themselves in the spotlight, with this deal, and incurred the hate of, a whole new and young generation of, Canadians within the Dominion once again. Watch for a new round of anti Quebec bias throughout Canada because of the greed and opportunism shown by the BQ. Harper and the CPC will likely gain seats, that they lose in Quebec, because they'll be seen as defenders of the realm (but no one will use the word 'treasonous'). Iggy may be an intellectual, but Harper is no slouch in that department either. Harper has been accused of being wooden and standoffish. Iggy makes him look like PT Barnum welcoming you to a show. Like I say though, just my gut.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Dec 2008)

I think you're right. I think what this coalition did for the Conservatives was show small "l" Liberals just how far left their party has been swung. As much as Mr Ignatieff comes off as a centrist, he won't have enough time at the helm to change the party's course prior to the next election.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2008)

This is a joke, right?

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2008/12/jack-layton-to-move-into-stornoway-as.html



> *Jack Layton to move into Stornoway as leader of the opposition.*
> An AWM exclusive: Don't call the movers yet Iggy.
> 
> Having had his plans of being in a coalition cabinet thwarted by newly anointed interim Liberal leader Micheal Ignatieff; Jack Layton has made a deal with Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe that would have the NDP named as the official opposition with Layton as leader.
> ...



Just slightly outside the realm of tinfoil hats, it should be noted that the NDP is a Democratic Socialist party while the BQ is a National Socialist party, so the alliance of the two will have far fewer hurdles to overcome than the 3 headed "Coalition of the Inept" had.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Dec 2008)

Being good socialists, if that's not a contradiction in terms, he and Olivia will no doubt open the house to the street people of Ottawa.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This is a joke, right?
> 
> http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2008/12/jack-layton-to-move-into-stornoway-as.html
> 
> Just slightly outside the realm of tinfoil hats, it should be noted that the NDP is a Democratic Socialist party while the BQ is a National Socialist party, so the alliance of the two will have far fewer hurdles to overcome than the 3 headed "Coalition of the Inept" had.



An "F6" report; "F*" - Reliability cannot be judged*. "*6" - Truth cannot be judged.*


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Dec 2008)

Well now, I sure hope everyone would stick to the same arguments, from both sides of the spectrum, if this would come to pass.

I doubt it though...........................


----------



## tamtam10 (19 Dec 2008)

In a poll conducted this week, if Canada were to hold an election now, The Conservatives would win a strong election. Full results of the poll here:

http://informedvote.ca/2008/12/torries-take-commanding-lead-in-new-poll/

I think the author brought up a good point - Canada's shift in opinion could be a result of the Liberals wanting to form a coalition with the separatists.


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Dec 2008)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> An "F6" report; "F*" - Reliability cannot be judged*. "*6" - Truth cannot be judged.*



Should be an F16 report, as in Drop a 1000 pound JDAM on both their asses.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Dec 2008)

There was a report and an interview with the pollster this morning on CFRA regarding a poll done for Canadian Business Magazine that indicates that the CPC would win a strong majority if an election was held today. While the Liberals have improved, this has been at the expenses of their coalition partners. Moreover, most Canadians dislike the process by which the Grits picked their new leader.

The rest of the MSM seems to have ignored it. The article in Canadian Business Magazine online can be viewed here:

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/ceo-poll/article.jsp?content=20081230_074546_21312


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2009)

Tom Kent was, in many ways, the _author_ of Pierre Trudeau’s disastrous _reign_. He (Kent) was the intellectual instigator of the 1960 Kingston Conference that caused the Liberal Party of Canada to lurch to the left, in 1967-70, and to abandon the _centre_ so carefully nurtured by Laurier, King, St Laurent and Pearson.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is Mr. Kent’s advice to _Iggy_:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090105.wcoliberals06/BNStory/politics/home

 Dear Iggy, this is not a year for an election

TOM KENT

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
January 6, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

The 2008 federal election seemed remarkable for how little it changed. The Conservative government remained, the exchange of insults continued to substitute for parliamentary debate. But, in late November, reality struck. We have entered 2009 with politics transformed.

Two changes are most significant. Prime Minister Stephen Harper panicked so badly as to destroy, certainly for 2009 and likely forever, his chance of attaining a majority government. No less remarkably, the Liberal Party moved into the contemporary world: It invited its members to join in an exchange of opinions through the Internet.

This second revolution has some way yet to go. The current invitation from on high is for views on what to do about the economy. That is, for better or worse, Mr. Harper's business. The Official Opposition's job is constructive criticism. But proposing immediate alternatives is not the priority for which the Liberal Party needs the involvement of its diminished membership. Only its surviving elites and functionaries cling to the image of themselves as the natural governing party. Everyone else knows that their demoralized, distrusted party will be mended only if it has a replenished membership creatively involved in shaping policy for the next government, not second-guessing for today.

The delusions of Liberal leadership were paraded in the Liberal-NDP coalition agreement. When that was signed, my congratulations went to Ed Broadbent. It might be attacked as a pact with separatists, but, in truth, the political effect was to restore the NDP to the significance it lost when the Bloc Québécois became the third party in Parliament. If a coalition government could have succeeded under Stéphane Dion, the New Democrats would have gained the most in public credit.

If, alternatively, Mr. Harper could provoke an election now, he would almost certainly get the majority he longs for. Enough people would be sensibly reluctant to risk inexperienced leadership when economic peril looms. That reluctance will decline, however, as peril becomes reality. It is already too late for fiscal and monetary stimulus to save us from rising unemployment during much of 2009. The government of the day will bear increasing blame.

That burden is now securely on Mr. Harper's back. Prorogation of Parliament has removed his power to obtain an early election. Under our monarchical conventions, we do not know what condition may have been attached to the Governor-General's acceptance of the Prime Minister's plea for time. It should have been a warning that, if he came back wanting a dissolution within the next 18 months, it would be refused in favour of a coalition government.

Even if there was no precise warning, Mr. Harper must recognize this strong probability. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff will surely take care to sustain the coalition agreement. The NDP and the Bloc have nothing to lose by keeping it in place.

By thus firmly trapping himself in the hard times of 2009, Mr. Harper has given the Liberals' new leader an early opportunity to shine. Mr. Ignatieff can lay Liberal arrogance finally to rest. He can replace it by common sense. He has only to say, soon and firmly, that this is not the year for another election. We face prolonged uncertainty about jobs and incomes, about prices and savings. Adding political uncertainty to the mix could only worsen our economic troubles. A responsible opposition would recognize that, for the present, steadiness is more important than changing the government through the conflict of election campaigning.

Such a statement would not give Mr. Harper a blank cheque. Further outrages would compel the coalition to defeat the government. But short of those, it should be held accountable not through daily debate and polling, but after enough time for the people to remake their electoral assessment. The Liberal Party, meanwhile, will probe, question, suggest; and if the government nevertheless introduces measures that Liberals cannot support, they will as a party abstain.

There is little doubt most people would greet this with relief. How much the Liberals thereby gain would depend on another change in the nature of their leadership. Just as this is not the time for an election, it is also not the time for pronouncements from the top.

The party's need is renewal of strength from below, to engage its members in the making of policies for the times: policies rooted in awareness that the prosperity of an advanced economy depends on the widespread skills possible only in a society fostering equality of opportunities.

Such engagement of the membership has to come from discussion within constituency associations and the stimulation of country-wide thinking over the Internet. Mr. Ignatieff and his associates need to concentrate their own comments on the business of the day. On the Liberals' policy directions in 2009, they need the patience to say little and listen much. There is just a chance that, in 2010, we then might enjoy democratic politics addressed to the well-being of our society in this century.

_Tom Kent served as principal assistant to prime minister Lester Pearson._
--------------------

He raises an intriguing point: we do not know what, if any condition Mme. Jean may have placed on her decision to prorogue parliament.

But, I think he is correct: IF Harper can engineer a defeat, soon, on grounds that would not compel Mme. Jean to offer the coalition an opportunity to govern, then he can win a majority in 2009. What might such a condition be? Perhaps on a budget that, demonstrably, meets pretty nearly all of the conditions _imposed_ by Brison and McCallum (Ignatieff’s budget negotiating team). Perhaps on an issue that divides the coalition and the Liberal Party: such as national defence/national security or the Middle East crisis. (My guess is that _Iggy_ and the St Laurent/Pearson/Turner/Martin _rump_ he commands is _offside_ from the Trudeau/Chrétien/Dion majority in the party.) A cleverly designed proposal to _transform_ the armed forces - and spend money on the CF – or to _re-engage_ in the Middle East, with a distinctly anti-Hamas/Hezbollah _bias_ will infuriate the BQ and NDP and might provoke a revolt in the Liberal caucus if/when, as I expect would be the case, _Iggy_ decided not to oppose such moves. Now, admittedly, it would take a combination of a large (50+) revolt and the _strategic absence_ of several Tories to allow a BQ (49 votes), NDP (37) and disaffected Liberals to defeat the government, but …


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2009)

Although Prime Minister Harper would like to have a majority government, why is it constantly necessary to suggest he will engineer his defeat in the house to have an election. Politics is like warfare; the enemy *do* have a vote (literally in this case) and it seems to me that we should be looking to see what the opposition parties have in mind; either individually or as part of a "coalition of the inept".

The suggestion in the Blogosphere that the NDP and BQ form a coalition and become the official opposition should Ignatieff ignore the "Troika" may have been whimsical, but it is actually a compelling idea:

The BQ and NDP together outnumber the Liberals.
The NDP is a Democratic Socialist Party while the BQ is a National Socialist Party; their philosophical differences would not be so great to prevent them working closely together.
The Official Opposition is entitled to more funding and perques in Parliament; a bonus for them and it sticks a fork in the Liberals (especially fundraising and organization).
As the Official Opposition, they also get more media coverage. How could Jack Layton turn that down? It also drives another fork in the Liberals, as their message slips down into soundbites following Jack Layton's pontifications.

Many other possibilities also come to mind. I will be interested to see how the usual suspects praise the Obama administration for trying to extend the Bush tax cuts while attacking Prime Minister Harper for tax cuts in the Jan 27 Budget. That might be the most incoherent possible election platform in history.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> That might be the most incoherent possible election platform in history.



As opposed to their previously incoherent attempts?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> As opposed to their previously incoherent attempts?



More incoherenter


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jan 2009)

And on the subject of incoherence:



> ....Prime Minister Stephen Harper panicked so badly as to destroy, certainly for 2009 and likely forever, his chance of attaining a majority government......





> .....If, alternatively, Mr. Harper could provoke an election now, he would almost certainly get the majority he longs for.....



Je suis confuseed.

You say he used to advise Pearson hunh?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report that suggests Harper’s plans for the forthcoming year – without an election:
--------------------
I have *highlighted* a bit about the ‘order of business on 26/27 Jan 09.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090108.wsenate08/BNStory/politics/home

 Harper pushes to gain control of Senate
*PM changes course, backs down on confidence votes*

GLORIA GALLOWAY AND JANE TABER

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
January 8, 2009 at 4:00 AM EST

OTTAWA — Facing an emboldened opposition and the possibility of defeat, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is making a significant switch in tactics, dropping his reliance on confidence votes and moving even further toward stacking the Senate with Tories.

A top aide said yesterday that Mr. Harper will no longer threaten elections to force opposition compliance on secondary policy matters.

He is also planning to fill Senate seats as they become vacant and will not stop until next January when his Tories will finally have the majority in the upper chamber, according to two senior government officials.

Reversing his promise not to name senators until the chamber is reformed, Mr. Harper made 18 appointments last month. Now senior government officials say he is expected to appoint two more in March, when the next vacancies occur. He will make 10 more by the end of the year, keeping with his new strategy to control the Red Chamber to make reforms.

"Now that the decision has been made to fill the seats, delaying on appointments does not make sense, and as such, expect that the government will fill seats as they become open," said a senior Harper official.

Like the Senate plan, the reduced emphasis on confidence votes is a dramatic change for the government, which will face a stronger opposition and a declining economy when Parliament returns later this month.

"We are in a different situation," said the aide, referring to the past session of Parliament, in which the government held 43 confidence votes that the Opposition Liberals allowed to pass.

"If you have interpreted a shift in position, that's correct. But it's appropriate that we shift in economic circumstances ..." said the aide, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Harper's priorities are the drooping economy and the budget plan to revitalize it, he said.

"It would not be possible, not be correct not to proceed on other issues, and we intend to proceed on a number of issues. But those issues will be secondary to the economy," he said.

During the fall campaign, and even after the Conservatives were held to a second straight minority, spokesmen for the Prime Minister said matters such as the Tory crime agenda would be subject to confidence votes.

Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion had sanctioned repeated abstentions rather than campaign without money or an organization. But just before Christmas, newly appointed Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said it would be "unacceptable" to make all votes a matter of confidence. "We've got our act together, got a leader chosen, and [Mr. Harper] can't keep making these misjudgments of the mood of the House and hope to survive," Mr. Ignatieff said.

*Parliament returns with a Throne Speech and the swearing-in of new senators on Jan. 26 and the budget the next day.
The Throne Speech, said the aide, will be perfunctory.* "The event that we're all waiting for is the budget. This will be one of the most important budgets in Canadian history, certainly in recent Canadian history."

*Both the speech and the budget are automatically confidence matters. The aide said no decision has been made as to which will be voted on first.*

The Liberals and the New Democrats say they are willing to form a coalition government with the support of the Bloc Québécois should the Conservatives lose a vote.

But polls suggest the idea is not popular. And it would be difficult for the opposition parties to justify taking down the Conservatives if the economic package contains the large stimulus they have demanded.

The Governor-General allowed Mr. Harper to prorogue, or suspend, Parliament last month as he faced a no-confidence vote that would have defeated his short-lived government.

Government officials said there is a view that the Conservatives should make the Senate appointments in case the government is defeated when Parliament returns, giving the opposition parties the opportunity to fill the vacancies.

Breaking his vow to appoint senators only in rare circumstances, Mr. Harper appointed 18 new Senators - mainly strong Conservative partisans - late last month.

Conservatives say this does not mean they are abandoning Senate reforms that the Liberal majority in the chamber has blocked.

"We've become more realistic in terms of what is necessary to actually achieve it and to achieve it we need to have the votes in the Senate because the current occupants of the office are just not interested," said an official.

There are 105 seats in the Senate: 58 Liberals, 35 Conservatives, three Progressive Conservatives, four independents and one independent New Democrat.

Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton said that if the government fills the seats upon vacancy, by the end of 2009 there will be 49 Conservatives and 50 Liberals.

But by the next month - in January, 2010 - the numbers will reverse and the Tories will have 50 Senators and the Liberals will occupy 49 seats with the retirement of Toronto Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein.
--------------------

This, the Senate filling plan, does not depend upon not having an election – it does depend upon Harper winning whatever election might occur.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Although Prime Minister Harper would like to have a majority government, why is it constantly necessary to suggest he will engineer his defeat in the house to have an election. Politics is like warfare; the enemy *do* have a vote (literally in this case) and it seems to me that we should be looking to see what the opposition parties have in mind; either individually or as part of a "coalition of the inept".
> 
> The suggestion in the Blogosphere that the NDP and BQ form a coalition and become the official opposition should Ignatieff ignore the "Troika" may have been whimsical, but it is actually a compelling idea:
> 
> ...




The only parties that actually want an election in 2009 are, in my view, the BQ and the Tories. Both think they can make some gains.

I believe the Liberals' financial crisis is acute. They have a long, long way to go (years, certainly) before they get near the Conservatives' fund raising skills. Borrowing, for everyone - but especially political parties with huge debts and little prospect of victory, is tough right now. The NDP have suffered just as much as the Liberals from the coalition fiasco; their _"conscience of parliament"_ reputation is badly soiled - they have been shown, at last, for what they are: power hungry, professional politicians, _comme les autres_.

Neither Ignatieff nor Layton wants an election and either can deny one to Harper. Harper must hope for a miscalculation (against political advantage) on an issue that neither can afford not to vote against.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2009)

According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, Ignatieff is talking sense:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090108.wPOLignatieff0108/BNStory/politics/home

 Cut taxes to spur spending, Ignatieff says

The Canadian Press

January 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM EST

HALIFAX — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says if he was prime minister, he would look at giving low- and middle-income Canadians tax cuts to try to jump-start the economy.

Asked at a meeting with business leaders in Halifax today what an Ignatieff government would do in its first 100 days in power, the Liberal Leader said the tax cuts would be aimed at boosting the purchasing power of the average Canadian.

He said the Liberals also want “shovel ready” infrastructure projects funded by the federal government to create jobs as quickly as possible.

To achieve that goal, Mr. Ignatieff said he would hire a team of people who would call mayors to ask what projects they have ready to go, because the quickest way to spend infrastructure money is through the municipalities.

He also said the Liberals would overhaul Employment Insurance to ensure that unemployed people receive their benefits in less than 40 days and accused the Conservative government of being unprepared for the recession.

Halifax is the first stop in Mr. Ignatieff's national tour on the economy, which will also include visits to Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.
--------------------

These are *demands* that Harper/Flaherty will have no trouble accepting.

But, _Iggy_ need not “hire a team of people who would call mayors to ask what projects they have ready to go” – there are enough highly paid and grossly underemployed executive level civil servants in Ottawa to call every mayor of every city with a population over 12,500 in one day. The resulting list could be prepared on a week-end (it would be the first time some of those _executives_ had ever worked between `1500 Hrs Friday and 0900 Hrs Monday) and money could be allocated before lunch on a Monday by some very hard working bureaucrats in Finance.

It looks like the budget passes with ease.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> he would look at giving low- and middle-income Canadians tax cuts to try to jump-start the economy.



Why only low and middle class income earners.  Who's going to jump-start the economy?  Low income-earners with little disposible income or middle-to-upper class Canadians who buy shit from Chapters, Future Shop, Ford Motor Corp and the Bay like it's going out of style?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2009)

The middle class is what matters.

The top 10% don't really need too much help. They are, already, using the tax system to shelter a significant share of their income. They are, also, more careful spenders - that's one of the reasons they're in the top 10%. (By the way the "top 10%" = 1.5 to 2.5 million Canadians).

We really should aim to get about 1,000,000 Canadians *off* the (income) tax rolls. That means raising the 'floors' - national and provincial. That should, also, be accompanied by (provincial) welfare reform that allows for _graduated_ welfare for low income earners - to make low income jobs useful. The bottom 10% to 25% (2 to 5 million Canadians) of taxpayers already spend everything they get.

But the middle class (about 15 million taxpayers) will spend any tax savings - and even if only 10% of what they spend stays in Canada (not a bad _guesstimate_, I guess)   it's still worthwhile.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jan 2009)

[size=10pt]_*Hey, What About Us Seniors? * _  [/size] 

(first time I have said that!)


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> [size=10pt]_*Hey, What About Us Seniors? * _  [/size]
> 
> (first time I have said that!)




What!?!

They let you youngsters be 'seniors' out there on the left coast?

--------------------

I am skeptical about tax breaks for most seniors. We are, broadly, (75% of us?) fairly well off and we are, broadly again, great savers. Bad targets for tax breaks - at a policy level.

We also vote in disproportionately high numbers - way more than the 'youth' cohort (18-35 year olds) so politicians are interested in buying our votes with someone else's money. We'll get our break; we always do.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Jan 2009)

And Edward, who is having an uncharacteristic attack of consicience, and I and many other seniors will be spending a lot of money outside Canada for the next two months and a bit. If asked, however, on my return to the Great White North and after I hide my six figure RV, I will grant an interview to a gullible journalist, if that isn't redundant, and offer him/her a lovely snack of cat food on dry bread and wilted lettuce which will have been my proclaimed diet for many, many years.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jan 2009)

>“shovel ready” infrastructure projects

It's getting harder to find a discussion of "fiscal stimulus" which doesn't include that term.

Along with "robust rules of engagement", it reveals the speaker to be someone incapable of actually articulating the details and specifics of what should be done.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And Edward, who is having an uncharacteristic attack of consicience, and I and many other seniors will be spending a lot of money outside Canada for the next two months and a bit. If asked, however, on my return to the Great White North and after I hide my six figure RV, I will grant an interview to a gullible journalist, if that isn't redundant, and offer him/her a lovely snack of cat food on dry bread and wilted lettuce which will have been my proclaimed diet for many, many years.



Would that explain your "feline" physique?


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Jan 2009)

Now, that's catty. Back on topic.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jan 2009)

That's what I call it, the left coast.

I am in San Antonio spending/living. Gas is $1.55 US for a US gallon. The cost of living is a lot cheaper in the USA. We poor seniors. 

Go up young Canadian dollar, go up!


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Jan 2009)

How long will you be there? We will be in the Fredericksburg area area around the 20th or so of February.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jan 2009)

Until 3 Apr. Gerry W may be visiting us for a week or so. No date yet. We are planning to go up there to the Museum of the Pacific.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Jan 2009)

Our plan is to head to Mission and then head home on 31 Mar.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2009)

Hey there; who's economy are you _supposed_ to be stimulating!


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Hey there; who's economy are you _supposed_ to be stimulating!




Sunny, warm Texas, according to all of us.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ web site, is an excellent article by Richard Van Loon that explains, quite clearly, why the aborted coalition was and remains unacceptable:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/coalition+doesn+stack/1149585/story.html

 Our coalition doesn't stack up

*Canada's much-debated alternative government doesn't compare well to properly formed coalitions in other countries*


BY RICHARD VAN LOON, CITIZEN SPECIAL

JANUARY 7, 2009COMMENTS (6)

 While the furore has abated somewhat with the appointment and subsequent near disappearance of Michael Ignatieff as Liberal leader, the coalition agreement to replace the Conservative government remains formally in place, and the debate continues.

On one side, those opposing the coalition have trumpeted its illegitimacy on the grounds that Canadians voted to keep Stephen Harper as prime minister, albeit with distinctly limited enthusiasm. Canadians certainly did not, the opponents say, vote for this coalition. The co-operation of the avowedly separatist Bloc Québécois has deeply troubled many critics. Even within the Liberal party itself, doubts about the arrangement have been strong. And certainly Canadian voters, even Liberal voters, have not had the opportunity to vote for any government led by Mr. Ignatieff.

Proponents of the coalition cite the fact that, in early December at least, the PM had clearly lost the confidence of the House, and that only 37.7 per cent of those voting in the 2008 election had voted Conservative as opposed to 43.8 per cent for the two formal coalition partners and 53.8 per cent if the Bloc voters are included. The formal legitimacy of coalitions in the Westminster and virtually all other forms of democratic government is often cited, as is the fact that strictly speaking only about 38,500 voters in Calgary Southwest actually cast ballots with Stephen Harper's name on them. The legitimacy of the coalition is further buttressed in the eyes of its supporters by its willingness to put forward ideas to deal with the current economic recession.

Yet the coalition is not popular with Canadians. In polls soon after the coalition was put forward, 60 per cent of Canadians were opposed to its taking power, and Stephen Harper maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Michael Ignatieff in polls this week as the best person to be prime minister.

In taking Prime Minister Harper's advice to prorogue Parliament, thus effectively rejecting the coalition at least for the time being, Governor General Michaëlle Jean was clearly in line with public opinion if not that of some parliamentary experts and commentators.

Although it is not yet formally dead, the coalition may die either immediately when Michael Ignatieff emerges from hiding or, more likely, if the Harper government can cobble together an economic statement which at least marginally satisfies the Liberals and avoids any further shots amidships of the opposition parties' financial interests.

But should it die so untried and so soon? At first glance I was inclined to say no. But when you look at how coalitions are formed and take power in other democracies, Westminster parliamentary and otherwise, the answer is unequivocally, yes.

Coalitions are a common feature of many European systems and they are not unknown in Westminster parliamentary democracies. They are usually underlain by some form of proportional representation but, much more importantly, voters generally have a good idea that they are voting for a potential coalition partner and, with occasional exceptions, they have a pretty clear idea of what the coalition will look like if the partners are given a mandate.

The 2006 Swedish election is a good example to consider, particularly since it, like the current Canadian coalition but unlike most other coalitions, is not led by the party with the most seats or the plurality of the popular vote in the Swedish parliament, the Riksdag. The current government is a four-party coalition called "The Alliance for Sweden" led by the Moderate Party. The Social Democratic Party, Sweden's long time governing party, actually polled 35 per cent of the vote and won 129 seats compared to the Moderate Party's 26.2 percent and 93 seats. However the Social Democratic prime minister quickly concluded that he would not be able to govern even with the support of minor parties which normally supported his party, and so he resigned and the Alliance took power.

So far this sounds a bit like the Canadian situation, but there is a major difference even aside from the un-Harper-like willingness of prime minister Goran Persson to quickly cede power. The Alliance coalition was formed and developed a platform two years before the election. And while the partners maintained their separate identities -- three of them even publishing their own manifestoes -- it was perfectly clear to Swedish voters that they were voting for a coalition if they voted for members of any of the four Alliance parties. By contrast, Canadian voters in 2008 had no inkling that they might be voting for one. The operative principle is an electorate informed about the possibilities before the vote, and that is the reason Persson so quickly ceded defeat.

In other European countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Ireland or Italy, voters know that a coalition is likely and they generally have a good idea of probable member parties. The normal consequence is that the party with the plurality of votes and seats (since these are proportional representation systems that result is usually guaranteed) form a coalition with one or more sympathetic minority parties and the result, unless one lives in Italy, is often a stable government until the next scheduled election.

Both Australia and New Zealand have had coalition governments. In Australia, the Liberal Party has been in a virtually permanent coalition with the much smaller National Party, the National Party leader holding the position of deputy prime minister in the last coalition government. Government alternates between that coalition and the Labour Party. In practice, while the Liberals and the National Party run separate campaigns, the arrangement is so stable that most analysts tend to treat Australia as essentially a two-party system at the national level. However, for our purposes the important point is that voters always have a clear idea what they are voting for.

New Zealand has had several coalition governments as far back as the 1930s and they have sometimes been controversial. After the 1996 election, the National Party which had a plurality of seats in Parliament bolstered a tenuous hold on power by a coalition with the anti-immigration New Zealand First Party, a coalition which eventually disintegrated.

This coalition was formed after the election, the first held under a new mixed-member proportional system, and it would be fair to say that voters did not know that it was likely.

Prior to the next election in 1999, the Labour Party, recognizing the probable impact of the new proportional representation system, came to a public agreement with the smaller Alliance Party that they would form a coalition, and so it was viewed as legitimate and was supported by other minor parties following the election. Labour Party prime minister Helen Clark then led three consecutive coalition governments, although her coalition partners changed over time.

Arrangements known in advance proved more stable and legitimate than one formed after the election. But even in the latter case, the lead party in the coalition had a plurality in Parliament, something which does not apply in the Canadian case.

Both Britain and Canada have had coalition governments during wartime but these have been in response to dire national emergencies and have been led by the party with a plurality or, more often, a majority in the House of Commons.

So what really makes a coalition legitimate?

International precedents suggest three conditions. One is that the country faces a compelling national emergency, usually a major war. A second, broadly applicable in less troubled times, is that voters must know in advance that they are voting for potential members of a coalition, one which will govern if its members can claim a majority of seats in the legislature immediately after the election. A third is that a party with a plurality, already in government or immediately after an election, forms the coalition and immediately seeks support of the legislature. But as the New Zealand experience in the late 1990s suggests the latter is not always a successful strategy. Stable coalitions in peacetime are virtually always underpinned by the results of an election in which voters were aware of the possibility of their formation.

The current coalition agreement in Canada does not meet any of these tests. While it may be formally possible under the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracy, it is not democratically legitimate and it does not meet international standards. If Stephen Harper's government proves not to have the confidence of the House, the Governor General should dissolve Parliament.

_Richard Van Loon is former president of Carleton University and is now professor emeritus at Carleton's Graduate School of Public Policy. He is co-author of The Canadian Political System._

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------

In other words, if _Iggy_ really wants to be PM all he has to do is say, during the campaign, is: “Vote for either your Liberal or NDP candidate, it matters not, ‘cause if we get a combined majority we’ll form a coalition – we Liberals believe in the NDP’s economic, social, defence and foreign policies.”

Equally, if he really wants to be Deputy PM, all _Taliban Jack_ Layton has to say, during the next election campaign is: “Look, my fellow Canadians, I know you don’t want me to be your PM but Olivia and I really, really want chauffeured limos and all that so we approve of all things Liberal and we’ll join them in a coalition. Anybody but Harper, right?”

Then we can have a coalition … if any Canadians want one.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2009)

Do we really need a coalition if the Liberal leader is trying to outflank the CPC from the right? (The real question is how well the Liberal party will hold together under this violent lurch back towards the centre?)

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-ignatieff-going-to-outflank-harper.html

*Is Ignatieff going to Outflank Harper on the Right?*

Are you getting the feeling Michael Ignatieff is going to outflank the Conservatives on the right? That's certainly the impression you get listening to his recent statements on tax cuts, Israel and job retraining.

Indeed, is he sounding more conservative than the Conservatives? And is this why he's got the Liberal Party running even with them?

Here are two things to watch for; his position on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and on Pakistan.

If he says Section 13 of the Human Rights Act should be abolished and our tilt in South Asia should be away from Pakistan and towards India, he will have outflanked the current Government.

He says he is devising tests for the Conservative budget. Well, hey, I'm devising some tests on his positions. I've named two above and I have some others on issues such as gun rights, parole, prisons, the Newfoundland bridge, the Vancouver Island bridge and the Canadian Interprovincial Highway System.

If he passes, and Stephen Harper does not, things could be different at Mesowest, and in the Country. We need a conservative government in Canada, whatever party leads it.
[/quote]


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2009)

....the two front-runner parties are neck 'n neck, but respondents seem to want Harper as PM more than Iggy.  More detailed numbers in attached news release by the polling company.



> (....)
> 
> _Methodology
> Polling between January 3 and January 7, 2009. (Random Telephone Survey of 1,003 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). A survey of 1,003 Canadians is *accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20*._
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting column by <gasp> Lawrence Martin:
-------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090114.wcomartin15/BNStory/politics/home

 Here's how Obama can raise Harper's game

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 15, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

Stephen Harper has about as little in common with Barack Obama as John Diefenbaker had with John Kennedy.

It's not just that one is liberal and the other conservative. They clash on myriad levels. One's a visionary, the other more of a plodder. One's a renowned communicator, the other spent almost his first term trying not to communicate.

The Obama approach is that of a consensus builder. The Harper approach is divide and conquer. The Obama world view is of one family. Mr. Harper inclines more toward the "clash of civilizations" template. The new president is about to shut down Guantanamo; the Prime Minister didn't have much of a problem with it. The new president is soon to shut down the Iraq war; Mr. Harper didn't have much of a problem with it.

In style, Mr. Obama is GQ, Mr. Harper Rotary Club. Mr. Obama is a fine wine, Mr. Harper lime juice. Mr. Obama is relaxed, Mr. Harper suspicious. One is inspirational, the other isn't. One makes Americans feel proud. The other makes Canadians - except when he's almost overthrowing his own government - feel indifferent.

Mr. Harper and other leaders suffer unfairly in comparison to Mr. Obama. The new president's gaining all these glorious notices without even having served a day on the job.

But what's striking about the incoming American leader is that he's probably closer to the Canadian mainstream than the Canadian leader, who's closer to the Calgary or Texas mainstream.

As might be expected, Mr. Obama has more similarities to Michael Ignatieff. From his years at Harvard and elsewhere, the Liberal Leader has several close contacts in the Obama camp and will no doubt, with time, be cultivating them.

Put it all together and you might get the impression that Mr. Harper is dreading the advent of Mr. Obama. But you could be wrong. Mr. Obama's arrival has Canadian Conservatives optimistic. In contrast to George W. Bush, who was a barnacle, the Democrat presents Mr. Harper with a big opportunity.

If the PM plays it properly, he can share in Mr. Obama's winds of change. By building rapport with the new president, he can establish for himself a more moderate, modern and attractive leadership personality.

Economic conditions are already forcing a commonality of approach from the two leaders. Deficit spending, stimulus spending and tax cuts are the way each is going. Mr. Harper's outlays will be more along the lines of a dime-store New Deal than Mr. Obama's, but that's because we don't need as much of an overhaul.

On the environment, each favours a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming. The PM has moved slowly on this issue, but Mr. Obama's arrival prompted him to quickly propose a mutual accord on the environment. If he can be seen to be at one with Mr. Obama on this issue, it will help Canadians forget his three years of foot-dragging.

On border barriers, a problem Mr. Harper unsuccessfully raised with Mr. Bush, he should be able to make more headway with the new president. Mr. Obama campaigned against Republican politics of fear, which has led to America's putting up walls around the wall, including along the Canadian border.

Mr. Obama has a vested interest in quickly building rapport with the Harper government. One of his priorities is getting Americans off their dependence on foreign oil from unstable states. For that, he needs Canada. His style is bipartisan, so he won't come at Mr. Harper with a closed mind.

The potential is there for Mr. Harper to bask in some of the Obama limelight for as long as it lasts. The two leaders will never be buddies. At root, Mr. Harper is too different for that to happen.

But if he can be seen as working shoulder to shoulder with the new president in fighting the great recession, he will succeed in doing what he cares about most -- scoring political points. His finding common cause with the exalted American liberal would be too much for Canadian Liberals to bear.
--------------------

Despite the fact that Martin cannot resist the opportunity to paint Harper is a less than flattering light, his main thesis - Obama and Harper ought to get along just fine and this will discomfit, at least, the Liberals - is spot on.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jan 2009)

> In style, Mr. Obama is GQ, Mr. Harper Rotary Club.



And to my mind that comparison speaks volumes to Messrs Obama, Martin and the Chatterers generally.  Style over Service.

Thank you Mr. Martin.

I too agree that Obama and Harper will find ways to accomodate each others needs.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jan 2009)

In todays society when people can name every kid that the Brangelinas have but not know who the PM is or the Premier of Ontario, that should send a message. 

There were some COs I really didn't like, but you knew where you stood with them. 

It's all about "style" these days isn't it?

Sad. Really sad.


----------



## GAP (16 Jan 2009)

Electing Senators  
1/15/2009 
Article Link

The all-party committee looking at electing Senators in Manitoba has a series of public meeting scheduled for later this month and next.

Since the federal government has committed to moving forward with Senate reform, Manitoba struck a committee to ask Manitobans how Senators should be elected.

The first of the nine meetings will be in Steinbach January 26th. The last is in Winnipeg February 21st.
End


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jan 2009)

The latest from Canadian Press, shared with the usual disclaimer.....



> The Liberals want an amendment to the federal budget requiring periodic economic status reports to Parliament starting in March, says Leader Michael Ignatieff.  He said that's the price of Liberal support for the budget, which Finance Minister Jim Flaherty brought down on Tuesday. "We are putting this government on probation," he said Wednesday.
> 
> The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have already said they'll vote against the budget and the Conservative government must have Liberal support to survive.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Jan 2009)

Tories put on probation; coalition declared dead
Article Link

BILL CURRY 
Globe and Mail Update
January 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM EST

OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said his party is prepared to “swallow hard” and support the Conservative government, provided they agree to table regular updates outlining how they are living up to their commitments outlined in the federal budget.

The Liberals will move a budget amendment today that will force the government to provide reports updating its progress on implementing the stimulus in March, June and December.

The Liberal Leader said he informed his would-be coalition partner, NDP Leader Jack Layton, in advance of his decision. However Mr. Layton told reporters the budget failed to meet the criteria Mr. Ignatieff himself had laid out in advance: that it protect the vulnerable, protect the jobs of today and prepare for the jobs of tomorrow.

As a result, Mr. Layton declared the coalition dead and said Stephen Harper will remain Prime Minister for a considerable amount of time thanks to the support of the Liberals.

“We have a new coalition now on Parliament Hill: It's a coalition between Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff,” said the NDP Leader, who dismissed the Liberal amendment as “a fig leaf.”

“Today we have learned that you can't trust Mr. Ignatieff to oppose Mr. Harper. If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want a new government, I urge you to support the NDP.”

Mr. Layton's decision to oppose the amendment means the Liberal proposal will likely require the support of Conservative MPs when it comes to a vote next week.

More on link


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Jan 2009)

Just a quick opinion on good old Taliban Jack. To say you will vote against a document without knowing what is in said document reveals a close-minded, ignorant outlook. To have it pointed out to you that the document contains almost everything you called for and you still say you will vote against it, reveals a rather shallow, little man who will do anything to grab a tiny piece of power in an attempt to appear relevant. For someone who constantly brays about cooperation between the parties, just not the conservatives, reveals an out of touch oxygen thief.

Just my 2 pesos.


----------



## JesseWZ (28 Jan 2009)

I'm no political scholar, I'm also no fan of liberal (small and large L) government, however this to me seems like the opposition is doing what the opposition is supposed to do, keep the government in check. I express no grief with the amendment if and when it passes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jan 2009)

And the text of MI's speech.....
http://www.liberal.ca/story_15596_e.aspx


> ....this afternoon, I will move to amend the budget motion to include new measures to ensure the government is held accountable for its promises.
> 
> We are putting this government on probation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2009)

> The Liberals will move a budget amendment today that will force the government to provide reports updating its progress on implementing the stimulus in March, June and December.



If, as the Bank of Canada predicts, the economy turns the corner in June, will the honourable leader of the opposition permit the government to cease and desist on the spending that at that time will have been rendered surplus to Canadian requirement?

Or, is this entire exercise driven by a combination of the opposition wanting to spend and the government having entered into an international agreement to "share the pain"?

To me, beyond the domestic politics, it looks as if the entire OECD has agreed to devalue their currencies to the tune of 2% of GDP in order to bail out the US Treasury.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2009)

Following is a long (six part/20,000± word) series by NDP insider Brian Topp about the aborted BQ/Liberal/NDP _coalition_ that rose suddenly and collapsed just as quickly in Dec 08.

Topp is a *partisan*, as he makes very clear in his _caveat_ in Part VI, but that does not make his recollections any less valuable.

There will be a book, he suggests, but I choose to reproduce the series here, in full, for discussion and comment by Army.ca members, because _blogs_ can be transient things.

A few preliminary comments:

+ Dion was right. Coalitions are not _foreign_ to our system of government; in fact in many Westminster style (responsible)  legislatures they are the norm.

+ Harper was right. Canadians would not stomach a _coalition_ that explicitly allowed the BQ a _seat at the table_ and the Liberals and NDP lacked the wherewithal to di it without the _Bloc_.

+ Michaëlle Jean’s decision to prorogue parliament was constitutionally and _politically_ correct and *should never* be explained. One of the _principles_ of our constitutional monarchy is that the sovereign’s (or the GG’s) discussions (consultations) with her prime minister are absolutely private. Explaining herself – as so many in the _commentariat_ demand she do – would  breach the *essential* confidentiality that permits her to seek the best available legal, political and constitutional advice and to _impose_ the crown’s _will_ on her government.

This is a pre-season _gift_ for political science fans: Enjoy!


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2009)

Here, collected under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from recent editions of the _Globe and Mail_ web site, is a series of _memoirs_ of the formation and abortion of the _coalition_ from NDP insider Brian Topp:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-prime-minister-makes-a-big-mistake/article1382092/



> Sunday, November 29, 2009 11:27 PM
> Coalition redux: The Prime Minister
> makes a big mistake
> 
> ...



Next The Shape of Deal


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ web site is the next instalment:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-shape-of-the-deal/article1383166/


> Monday, November 30, 2009 11:58 PM
> 
> Coalition redux: The shape of the deal
> 
> ...



Next: _The agreement comes together_


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2009)

Another segment, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-shape-of-the-new-government/article1385058/



> Wednesday, December 2, 2009 12:37 AM
> Coalition redux: The shape of the new government
> 
> Brian Topp
> ...



Next: _Things come together_


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2009)

Yet another chapter, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-things-come-together/article1386199/



> Wednesday, December 2, 2009 11:13 PM
> Coalition redux: Things come together
> 
> Brian Topp
> ...


_

Next: Things Fall Apart
_


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2009)

The fifth and penultimate instalment, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-things-fall-apart/article1387799/


> Thursday, December 3, 2009 11:11 PM
> Coalition redux: Things fall apart
> 
> Brian Topp
> ...


_

Next: Lessons learned
_


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ web site, is the final chapter of Brian Topp’s saga of the rise and collapse of the _coalition_ in Dec 08:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-lessons-learned/article1389515/


> Friday, December 4, 2009 5:28 PM
> *Coalition redux: Lessons learned*
> 
> Brian Topp
> ...


_

Topp’s last bit is highly partisan and, in my view, highly suspect, especially on the constitutional and fiscal policies issues. But he said he was a partisan and he proved it. That does not detract from a compelling story about the craft of politics.

_


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Dec 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A few preliminary comments:
> 
> + Dion was right. Coalitions are not _foreign_ to our system of government; in fact in many Westminster style (responsible)  legislatures they are the norm.
> 
> ...



Coalitions might be mentioned in the manual but are foreign to Canada with rare ecxeption(s?).  They are also rare in the UK.

As far as Bloc participation in a coalition, we need not ponder its acceptance.  We know it was rejected by Canadians who rejected the thought of a coalition by a significant margin.

The Governor-General's most important function, probably her only meaningful function, is to hire and fire the PM.  While her motivation for doing so is her own, I like to think that a Lib/NDP/Bloc coalition scared her as much as it scared Canadians.  She can also read the polls.  After initially thinking she was another inept Liberal appointee, I've learned to like her.

I think the Three Stooges imagined themselves the new Trinity and only they could save Canada from the evil satan (Conservatives) who is set to destroy the country.  So how would things differ under finance minister, Santa Claus Jack?  Probably no differences in real terms, just different rhetoric by different parties.  There would probably be the same $50 billion deficit with the Conservatives screaming bloody murder about the Lib/NDP/Bloc cabal ruining our children's futures.


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2009)

The first parts were interesting on the negotiations part....especially the Liberals assuming non other than them could hold cabinet seats.....really....are they that arrogant? 

The last part was compelling story about the craft of politics poor me/us crying towel stuff. They are doing nothing here but putting their agenda in print.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Dec 2009)

Regardless of the view from which it is written, it is an interesting insight and reveals some mindsets of the Liberals and NDP.  I agree the arrogance and sense of entitlement of the former is staggering.  But so is the elitism of the NDP.

"I believe the Prime Minister committed a gross act of disrespect toward the House of Commons on December 4, 2008."

I believe the opposition parties attempted to commit a gross act of disrespect toward Canadian voters.  The law is on the opposition's side: what they attempted to do is permitted.  In view of campaign statements made regarding coalitions - what they told voters about their intentions - what they attempted to do was not rightful.  

I notice that among suggestions for reform, nothing is ever proposed that would separate powers from the House.  A telling phrase is "consequences of small “c” conservative misrule".  If the NDP think in terms of "rule" rather than "govern", they never deserve to govern.

We are stuck with an institution that was created and nurtured through long periods when suffrage was far from universal and it was in fact essentially possible to buy a seat.  The change from monarchy to parliamentary government was a shift of power from one small circle (the monarch and circle of advisors) to a somewhat larger circle of privileged people, and we have not progressed very far beyond that because we have failed to further separate and balance powers.  The NDP don't care to make substantive changes; they only wish to hold the rulership.  They are just "rules lawyers" in the game of Parliament like everyone else.

Coalition coulda-shoulda-woulda: while the NDP have the right idea that budgets should be balanced, their general solution is to tax as much as necessary.  It is not a party given to questioning the need to spend.  The problem with coalitions is that the easiest concensus to achieve is to agree to buy more of what is on each partner's wish list, using funds that are gathered or brought into existence by legislated assertion.  Their solution to recessions is to spend; when the solution does not work their response is that - like Communism - it has never really been tried: we have never attempted to spend enough.  Japan's problem isn't that it has pissed away vast sums down dead ends; Japan's problem is that it lacked the resolve to keep doubling down.  Etc.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Dec 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I notice that among suggestions for reform, nothing is ever proposed that would separate powers from the House.  A telling phrase is "consequences of small “c” conservative misrule".  If the NDP think in terms of "rule" rather than "govern", they never deserve to govern.



And therein lies the salient and most important distinction between left and right politics in Canada. The Liberals/NDP seek to rule while the Conservatives seek to govern.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2009)

Outstanding find, and an excelent look "behind the curtain" at how our would be "rulers" operate. I can only hope more information is brought to light in the future.

If any group of parties wants to try a coalition, then let them run on a coalition ticket so I know what I am voting for. This story should also be instructive to proponents of Proportional Representation (PR) voting schemes; all the deal making takes place in "airless conference rooms" and out of sight of the voters, regardless of what the voters themselves may have wanted or intended.


----------

