- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
A letter sent to the Governor General of Canada (and copied to quite a few others):
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition. Will there be another election?
- Thread starter Zell_Dietrich
- Start date
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,686
- Points
- 1,040
>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?
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?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The price of power:
http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/the-truth-starts-to-leak-out/canada-election
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.
http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/the-truth-starts-to-leak-out/canada-election
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
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 914
- Points
- 1,160
ModlrMike said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
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.
tomahawk6 said:
- 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
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,686
- Points
- 1,040
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.
>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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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....
- Reaction score
- 1,682
- Points
- 1,090
retiredgrunt45 said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Thucydides 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. 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
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,686
- Points
- 1,040
>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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
helpup said:
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.
Similar threads
