Well, looks as though I may have been wrong, though a lot can happen before next monday.
The good thing is that hopefully this Government will be very dysfunctional and not able to get very much done. Governments doing less is always good for the country.
I find the vote counting argument insane.. when they say that Harper only has 36% of the vote but the LIB+NDP is like 48.
If you look at the winners of the elections in the last like 25 years, none of them were much higher than 40%. The oh-so-beloved Jean Chretien (41%, 38% and 40%). Even god's gift to Canadian politics Trudeau only got 45, 38, 43, 50, 43, 40, 44.
This concept of canada ever having a PM that garnered 50% of the vote is stupid.
So you can make the argument that all you needed were about 2-3% more voters for the cons and they'd have a landslide majority. Stop trying to add LIB+NDP votes, especially 1:1. If they ran as one party, the hardcore NDPers would go green before they went liberal.
I heard Bob Rae on Charles Adler yesterday afternoon. Adler asked him if the coalition was put in power and he (hypothetically) became the new leader of the Liberal party in the spring, would he call a general election. He basically said no in his usual slimeball roundabout way.
Interesting article in the National Post today (David Frum) about the GG's role in the current foofurah in Ottawa. Regardless of your slant on this, I think we are headed to prorogation of the House . . . Election date over/under is March 10, 2009
The issue for the GG is NOT about the legality or propriety of Coalition governments within a Westminsterian democracy. The issue is the methodology being utilized to achieve THIS coalition, and whether or not THAT passes muster. In the Aussie case mentioned in the Frum article the Queen took the unusual step of reprimanding her representative for making the wrong decision. It was about as "political" as Her Majesty has ever been, at least since WW2.
The issue is the methodology being utilized to achieve THIS coalition, and whether or not THAT passes muster.
has this aspect been explored here?
exactly what is the issue with the methodology here?
do we the people have some kind of right to expect another election just because one group (conservatives) said they could make a minority govt work (and were wrong) especially when another group comes along and says they can make a majority govt work? is that what all the righteous indignation is about? isn't this a fairly standard, albeit rare in canada, procedure for a parliamentary democracy?
i'm trying to understand the underlying principle that has some people so excited. i'm having a good laugh watching harper backpedal so hard just trying to hold on to power. and watching the other parties jumping through hoops trying to get power.
i say give em a shot. if they totally blow it, it won't last long and can't do much more damage to canada than if we slog through another few months without a government. and that will do more to guarantee a conservative majority in a year or so than another election right now. if they don't blow it, then that's a good thing for canada, isn't it?
i'm not a liberal supporter. i'm not a ndp supporter. and i'm not a conservative supporter. that doesn't leave me much choice, does it? i hate them all.
We, as citizens, have the right to expect that our government will act in the best interests of the nation. In fact, we should DEMAND it. That is not happening in this current environment. My issue is with the petty political game that is being played.
a) The Conservatives try to put a boot on the throats of the Opposition by cutting them off from the public purse. A symbolic gesture to the electorate that "they feel our pain", with the added benefit of screwing them in the pocket books.
b) The Opposition parties use this as an excuse to bring down the government, which is their right, although doing so for such clearly partisan reasons is EXACTLY what the Conservatives want, election-wise.
c) The Cons back off of this part of the deal to preserve their status, which should end the issue right there, at least until they introduce a budget that the Opposition can judge.
d) The Coalition says too late, we are taking over, and here we find ourselves.
The Coalition claim that the Government is "fiddling while Rome burns" does not hold up to any serious scrutiny. With our economy so closely tied to the one south of the border, it is foolhardy to go making major decisions (auto-bailout) without knowing for certain what is going to be done in the USA. That is why the budget is planned for the 27th of January, AFTER Obama is sworn in. Our financial institutions are much better positioned to survive this downturn than just about anybody elses in the G20. Decisions made in haste are usually not sound ones.
This crisis (the Coalition, I mean) is a manufactured one. If the Coalition parties were serious about helping the country, rather than themselves, why not work with the government to improve the situation? Harper has proven time and again to be a wimp when playing the brinkmanship game, so what has changed, other then the lust by the NDP to sieze more control then the electorate gave them?
I believe the the GG will prorogue parliament until late January, at which time the government will present a budget/stimulus plan. The defeat of that plan will lead to an immediate writ for election, and the Conservatives will win or lose based on how well they are able to remind everyone of this crap thats going on right now. Likewise for the Liberals. The only real loser in a prorogued parliament is the NDP and the Bloc, and I am okay with that. REALLY okay.
Also, the fact that the Seperatists are so gleeful about this coalition should give every Canadian pause. Anything that the Bloc thinks is good for them is, ipso facto, bad for the nation as a whole. If they feel, as many of them have been quoted as saying, that the Coaliton is good for Quebec Sovereignists, then how can Federalists support the Coalition?
i'm not a liberal supporter. i'm not a ndp supporter. and i'm not a conservative supporter. that doesn't leave me much choice, does it? i hate them all.
funny you say that... I feel the same way.
All have some things that I think are important but all have completly out of line stuff that should be buried or burned asap.
so basicly, you take the lesser evil, but there's none.
We, as citizens, have the right to expect that our government will act in the best interests of the nation. In fact, we should DEMAND it.
this part is kind of funny in a sad way. does anyone actually expect the govt will act in our best interests? i would like those people to tell me what colour the sky is in their world. i expect the govt to act in a way that is most likey, based on current polls, to get them re-elected. and i have to say i haven't been very disappointed over the years.
a) The Conservatives try to put a boot on the throats of the Opposition by cutting them off from the public purse. A symbolic gesture to the electorate that "they feel our pain", with the added benefit of screwing them in the pocket books.
b) The Opposition parties use this as an excuse to bring down the government, which is their right, although doing so for such clearly partisan reasons is EXACTLY what the Conservatives want, election-wise.
c) The Cons back off of this part of the deal to preserve their status, which should end the issue right there, at least until they introduce a budget that the Opposition can judge.
d) The Coalition says too late, we are taking over, and here we find ourselves.
that is a very good summary of the conservative party line on the events that took place. i'm sure if someone posted the coalition's viewpoint on the events it would be somewhat different. the truth, of course is completely different than both of these.
bottom line, if this coalition had formed immediately after the election, it would be the government right now. the fact that it is forming now makes no difference, constitutionally. they can thank harper for giving them the impetus to overcome their mutual loathing and realize they hate him in power even more and can't handle/afford/win another election now. seizing control is the only viable option. like it or hate it, that is what we are stuck with.
keep an open mind. compare what different parties said was important 3 months ago to today. hold them accountable. get them to explain their inconsistent stories, or as i like to call them, outright lies. don't drink the kool aid.
i doubt any coalition could last the full term. you just have to know the bq will demand something so ridiculous that one or more of the others can't stomach and suddenly, there won't be sufficient numbers in parliament one day on a critical vote... they will get through at least 1 budget so that gives them at least a year.
b) The Opposition parties use this as an excuse to bring down the government, which is their right, although doing so for such clearly partisan reasons is EXACTLY what the Conservatives want, election-wise.
Incorrect. Harper brought the funding formula forward because he'd thought he'd win. He never wanted another election. He wants one now because without it he's out. He planned on playing his increased minority like a majority with everyone cowering out of fear of another election they cannot afford. It didn't work. As for C) he didn't back down right away....he said we'll make it a point of parliamentary support to scare them into voting for it. He backed down after he realized he is screwed. As for all this anti coalition stuff, a minority government has to get a majority of votes every time it makes legislation. It certainly isn't the opposition's job to agree with the minority gov. It's the minority governments job to speak to the opposition and put forward legislation of such middle ground that it passes. Harper made his bed. There's nothing immoral about the other 3 parties agreeing that they'll do a better job of running the government. They have the numbers and they have the motivation. All this bs about them pandering to the bloc is nulled by the fact that Harper has been pandering to Quebec for 2 years! And harper himself suggested an alliance with the bloc in 2005. Give the coalition a chance.
this part is kind of funny in a sad way. does anyone actually expect the govt will act in our best interests? Expect? No. Desire? Yes. for the record, the sky is sort of grey right now, because of the clouds.
bottom line, if this coalition had formed immediately after the election, it would be the government right now. True
the fact that it is forming now makes no difference, constitutionally. False
seizing control is the only viable option. like it or hate it, that is what we are stuck with. Also false
keep an open mind. compare what different parties said was important 3 months ago to today. Like Dion saying that a coalition with the NDP was not possible, because the cap and trade idea was bad for our economy?
hold them accountable. get them to explain their inconsistent stories, or as i like to call them, outright lies. don't drink the kool aid. Agreed
i doubt any coalition could last the full term. you just have to know the bq will demand something so ridiculous that one or more of the others can't stomach and suddenly, there won't be sufficient numbers in parliament one day on a critical vote... they will get through at least 1 budget so that gives them at least a year. Getting a little ahead of ourselves, aren't we?
For the record, I am a Libertarian who declined his ballot in the last election. I am also fairly pissed at Harper's waffling of late. Either play the cards you've got all the way to the river, or fold pre-flop, so to speak. This folding to a C/R on the Turn is just stupid.
Cannot remember if it was Awesome or Big Mike who was advocating for a No BS Party, but I am game, if one comes along.
For the record, I am a Libertarian who declined his ballot in the last election. I am also fairly pissed at Harper's waffling of late. Either play the cards you've got all the way to the river, or fold pre-flop, so to speak. This folding to a C/R on the Turn is just stupid.
Cannot remember if it was Awesome or Big Mike who was advocating for a No BS Party, but I am game, if one comes along.
Must have been Awesome. I wouldn't advocate for any political party, being myself a libertarian (small L)who declined his ballot in the last election.:)
No worries. Just watched the speeches. Harper was basically the same as he always is. Dion shit the bed. How can you put that piece of crap on the air when you've had several hours to put something together? If that is an indication of their readiness to lead, then God help us all.
I am starting to believe that several Liberals may be absent when all this comes to a vote. My nephew is working on Iggy's leadership campaign, and he says that a great many of Iggy's supporters (including MP's) are NOT happy with this coalition idea.
Lets hope that cooler heads will prevail in the new year and these parties can learn to work as a four way coalition.
If you really believe that then good for you. I want parliament to work as do you. But what good is it that anytime a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the Government he can cancel the sitting parliament? Does not set a good precedent. IF Harper can play nice from now on then fine. On the other hand if the next 7 weeks if all Harper does is have attack adds on the air preparing for another election, I'm sure you'll agree that the coalition of 3 is the best way to go right?
If you really believe that then good for you. I want parliament to work as do you. But what good is it that anytime a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the Government he can cancel the sitting parliament?
It's like a week earlier than it would have been prorogued anyway. We're not losing much by just calling a time out.
On the other hand if the next 7 weeks if all Harper does is have attack adds on the air preparing for another election, I'm sure you'll agree that the coalition of 3 is the best way to go right?
I'll be first in line with a pencil in my hand voting for the conservatives in the ensuing election. If the GG really thought that the coalition could govern, she would have rejected Harpers request.
I do expect the conservative budget to be a compromise budget with a few consessions to the liberal party. I believe that the Iggy/Rae (less Rae) leadership supporters are looking for a way out of this painted in NDP-Bloc corner where the party can save face.
It's like a week earlier than it would have been prorogued anyway. We're not losing much by just calling a time out.
I'll be first in line with a pencil in my hand voting for the conservatives in the ensuing election. If the GG really thought that the coalition could govern, she would have rejected Harpers request.
I do expect the conservative budget to be a compromise budget with a few consessions to the liberal party. I believe that the Iggy/Rae (less Rae) leadership supporters are looking for a way out of this painted in NDP-Bloc corner where the party can save face.
QFT. The GG has acted with proper care and consideration for ALL Canadians. Her Excellency is to be commended.
Further to my earlier post, at least 12 Liberal MP's (including Ignatieff) were prepared to be absent from any confidence vote that occurs prior to a new Liberal leader being selected. So much for unaninimity amongst the Liberal party, never mind the Coalition.
postponing the defeat of a government was the worst thing the GG could do. She postponed parliament for longer than the session has been back. She should have either called an election or give the coalition a chance. While everything that has transpired is within the rules, it infurates me that a PM could fuck things up this quickly after returning with a minority. Harper should lose his job for this.
Kick the god damned conservatives out for having their head in the sand and NOT acting responsibly.
postponing the defeat of a government was the worst thing the GG could do. She postponed parliament for longer than the session has been back. She should have either called an election or give the coalition a chance. While everything that has transpired is within the rules, it infurates me that a PM could fuck things up this quickly after returning with a minority. Harper should lose his job for this.
Kick the god damned conservatives out for having their head in the sand and NOT acting responsibly.
She prorogued parliament a week prior to the scheduled date, so big deal. The Coalition was formed, not so much as a spontaneous loss of confidence in the government, but as a planned effort from some corners to remove the duly elected government from power REGARDLESS of what legislation they brought forth.
It is my opinion the Flaherty could have promised every Canadian "sunshine and fluffy bunnies", in his economic statement, and the Coalition would still have put us where we are today. This was done for partisan reasons, not for the good of the country. I do not hold Harper blameless in any of this either. For someone who is a supposed political savant, he has certainly shown that he has the idiot portion of that title down to a tee. He can consider himself fortunate that the GG did not see fit to start setting any precedents this past week. I stand by my earlier prediction re: a March election. After that vote, I believe, regardless of the outcome, that Harper will step down as Leader. If the Conservatives win a majority, he will announce that he will not seek reelection at the end of his term, which amounts to the same thing.
On a side note, with the imminent arrival at CFB Trenton of our latest casualties from Afghanistan, I find it incredibly sad that people who truly understand what service to one's country is all about, are "represented" in parliament by such venal, self-interested, clods.
And please, no comments about what colour sky I live under, okay? Not about this . . .
Kick the god damned conservatives out for having their head in the sand and NOT acting responsibly.
Do you honestly believe that the coalition was formed in three days? Or do you think that it was something that was in the plan at the end of the election and they were looking for any excuse to bring it up?
The semantics matter. In the latter case, anything Harper did was irrelevant.
After that vote, I believe, regardless of the outcome, that Harper will step down as Leader. If the Conservatives win a majority, he will announce that he will not seek reelection at the end of his term, which amounts to the same thing.
I'm not too sure about this. Theres two things that Harper truely loves in this world:
1) Sticking it to his opponents
2) Power
So I don't see him leaving the party unless the cons lose the next election, or they retain another minority.
Do you honestly believe that the coalition was formed in three days? Or do you think that it was something that was in the plan at the end of the election and they were looking for any excuse to bring it up?
The parties can't even keep their own meetings secret. You really think this could be planned in advance without a leak? No way. But if conspiracy theory is your thing I understand.
Do you honestly believe that the coalition was formed in three days? Or do you think that it was something that was in the plan at the end of the election and they were looking for any excuse to bring it up?
The parties can't even keep their own meetings secret. You really think this could be planned in advance without a leak? No way. But if conspiracy theory is your thing I understand.
Really? How much info. do you hear coming out of Conservative caucus meetings? Veeeeerrrrrrry little. Granted, it's pretty much Harper talking to himself in the crapper, but you get the point . . .
My point is that nothing in politics happens in 3 days. If you believe that the coalition is a response to anything that Harper has said since the election, you are badly mistaken.
My point is that nothing in politics happens in 3 days. If you believe that the coalition is a response to anything that Harper has said since the election, you are badly mistaken.
Because BBC Z has insider info that the rest of Canada lacks? Because you say so? Or because you think so and nothing more.
Because BBC Z has insider info that the rest of Canada lacks? Because you say so? Or because you think so and nothing more.
Once again, I defer to the simpliest of logic skills. There's no way that three parties with completely different ideologies come together in a time like that..
Comments
The good thing is that hopefully this Government will be very dysfunctional and not able to get very much done. Governments doing less is always good for the country.
If you look at the winners of the elections in the last like 25 years, none of them were much higher than 40%. The oh-so-beloved Jean Chretien (41%, 38% and 40%). Even god's gift to Canadian politics Trudeau only got 45, 38, 43, 50, 43, 40, 44.
This concept of canada ever having a PM that garnered 50% of the vote is stupid.
So you can make the argument that all you needed were about 2-3% more voters for the cons and they'd have a landslide majority. Stop trying to add LIB+NDP votes, especially 1:1. If they ran as one party, the hardcore NDPers would go green before they went liberal.
exactly what is the issue with the methodology here?
do we the people have some kind of right to expect another election just because one group (conservatives) said they could make a minority govt work (and were wrong) especially when another group comes along and says they can make a majority govt work? is that what all the righteous indignation is about? isn't this a fairly standard, albeit rare in canada, procedure for a parliamentary democracy?
i'm trying to understand the underlying principle that has some people so excited. i'm having a good laugh watching harper backpedal so hard just trying to hold on to power. and watching the other parties jumping through hoops trying to get power.
i say give em a shot. if they totally blow it, it won't last long and can't do much more damage to canada than if we slog through another few months without a government. and that will do more to guarantee a conservative majority in a year or so than another election right now. if they don't blow it, then that's a good thing for canada, isn't it?
i'm not a liberal supporter. i'm not a ndp supporter. and i'm not a conservative supporter. that doesn't leave me much choice, does it? i hate them all.
a) The Conservatives try to put a boot on the throats of the Opposition by cutting them off from the public purse. A symbolic gesture to the electorate that "they feel our pain", with the added benefit of screwing them in the pocket books.
b) The Opposition parties use this as an excuse to bring down the government, which is their right, although doing so for such clearly partisan reasons is EXACTLY what the Conservatives want, election-wise.
c) The Cons back off of this part of the deal to preserve their status, which should end the issue right there, at least until they introduce a budget that the Opposition can judge.
d) The Coalition says too late, we are taking over, and here we find ourselves.
The Coalition claim that the Government is "fiddling while Rome burns" does not hold up to any serious scrutiny. With our economy so closely tied to the one south of the border, it is foolhardy to go making major decisions (auto-bailout) without knowing for certain what is going to be done in the USA. That is why the budget is planned for the 27th of January, AFTER Obama is sworn in. Our financial institutions are much better positioned to survive this downturn than just about anybody elses in the G20. Decisions made in haste are usually not sound ones.
This crisis (the Coalition, I mean) is a manufactured one. If the Coalition parties were serious about helping the country, rather than themselves, why not work with the government to improve the situation? Harper has proven time and again to be a wimp when playing the brinkmanship game, so what has changed, other then the lust by the NDP to sieze more control then the electorate gave them?
I believe the the GG will prorogue parliament until late January, at which time the government will present a budget/stimulus plan. The defeat of that plan will lead to an immediate writ for election, and the Conservatives will win or lose based on how well they are able to remind everyone of this crap thats going on right now. Likewise for the Liberals. The only real loser in a prorogued parliament is the NDP and the Bloc, and I am okay with that. REALLY okay.
Also, the fact that the Seperatists are so gleeful about this coalition should give every Canadian pause. Anything that the Bloc thinks is good for them is, ipso facto, bad for the nation as a whole. If they feel, as many of them have been quoted as saying, that the Coaliton is good for Quebec Sovereignists, then how can Federalists support the Coalition?
funny you say that... I feel the same way.
All have some things that I think are important but all have completly out of line stuff that should be buried or burned asap.
so basicly, you take the lesser evil, but there's none.
WTF?
that is a very good summary of the conservative party line on the events that took place. i'm sure if someone posted the coalition's viewpoint on the events it would be somewhat different. the truth, of course is completely different than both of these.
bottom line, if this coalition had formed immediately after the election, it would be the government right now. the fact that it is forming now makes no difference, constitutionally. they can thank harper for giving them the impetus to overcome their mutual loathing and realize they hate him in power even more and can't handle/afford/win another election now. seizing control is the only viable option. like it or hate it, that is what we are stuck with.
keep an open mind. compare what different parties said was important 3 months ago to today. hold them accountable. get them to explain their inconsistent stories, or as i like to call them, outright lies. don't drink the kool aid.
i doubt any coalition could last the full term. you just have to know the bq will demand something so ridiculous that one or more of the others can't stomach and suddenly, there won't be sufficient numbers in parliament one day on a critical vote... they will get through at least 1 budget so that gives them at least a year.
Incorrect. Harper brought the funding formula forward because he'd thought he'd win. He never wanted another election. He wants one now because without it he's out. He planned on playing his increased minority like a majority with everyone cowering out of fear of another election they cannot afford. It didn't work. As for C) he didn't back down right away....he said we'll make it a point of parliamentary support to scare them into voting for it. He backed down after he realized he is screwed. As for all this anti coalition stuff, a minority government has to get a majority of votes every time it makes legislation. It certainly isn't the opposition's job to agree with the minority gov. It's the minority governments job to speak to the opposition and put forward legislation of such middle ground that it passes. Harper made his bed. There's nothing immoral about the other 3 parties agreeing that they'll do a better job of running the government. They have the numbers and they have the motivation. All this bs about them pandering to the bloc is nulled by the fact that Harper has been pandering to Quebec for 2 years! And harper himself suggested an alliance with the bloc in 2005. Give the coalition a chance.
For the record, I am a Libertarian who declined his ballot in the last election. I am also fairly pissed at Harper's waffling of late. Either play the cards you've got all the way to the river, or fold pre-flop, so to speak. This folding to a C/R on the Turn is just stupid.
Cannot remember if it was Awesome or Big Mike who was advocating for a No BS Party, but I am game, if one comes along.
Must have been Awesome. I wouldn't advocate for any political party, being myself a libertarian (small L)who declined his ballot in the last election.:)
I am starting to believe that several Liberals may be absent when all this comes to a vote. My nephew is working on Iggy's leadership campaign, and he says that a great many of Iggy's supporters (including MP's) are NOT happy with this coalition idea.
Lets hope that cooler heads will prevail in the new year and these parties can learn to work as a four way coalition.
If you really believe that then good for you. I want parliament to work as do you. But what good is it that anytime a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the Government he can cancel the sitting parliament? Does not set a good precedent. IF Harper can play nice from now on then fine. On the other hand if the next 7 weeks if all Harper does is have attack adds on the air preparing for another election, I'm sure you'll agree that the coalition of 3 is the best way to go right?
It's like a week earlier than it would have been prorogued anyway. We're not losing much by just calling a time out.
I'll be first in line with a pencil in my hand voting for the conservatives in the ensuing election. If the GG really thought that the coalition could govern, she would have rejected Harpers request.
I do expect the conservative budget to be a compromise budget with a few consessions to the liberal party. I believe that the Iggy/Rae (less Rae) leadership supporters are looking for a way out of this painted in NDP-Bloc corner where the party can save face.
QFT. The GG has acted with proper care and consideration for ALL Canadians. Her Excellency is to be commended.
Further to my earlier post, at least 12 Liberal MP's (including Ignatieff) were prepared to be absent from any confidence vote that occurs prior to a new Liberal leader being selected. So much for unaninimity amongst the Liberal party, never mind the Coalition.
Kick the god damned conservatives out for having their head in the sand and NOT acting responsibly.
What are the responsible things they should have done?
She prorogued parliament a week prior to the scheduled date, so big deal. The Coalition was formed, not so much as a spontaneous loss of confidence in the government, but as a planned effort from some corners to remove the duly elected government from power REGARDLESS of what legislation they brought forth.
It is my opinion the Flaherty could have promised every Canadian "sunshine and fluffy bunnies", in his economic statement, and the Coalition would still have put us where we are today. This was done for partisan reasons, not for the good of the country. I do not hold Harper blameless in any of this either. For someone who is a supposed political savant, he has certainly shown that he has the idiot portion of that title down to a tee. He can consider himself fortunate that the GG did not see fit to start setting any precedents this past week. I stand by my earlier prediction re: a March election. After that vote, I believe, regardless of the outcome, that Harper will step down as Leader. If the Conservatives win a majority, he will announce that he will not seek reelection at the end of his term, which amounts to the same thing.
On a side note, with the imminent arrival at CFB Trenton of our latest casualties from Afghanistan, I find it incredibly sad that people who truly understand what service to one's country is all about, are "represented" in parliament by such venal, self-interested, clods.
And please, no comments about what colour sky I live under, okay? Not about this . . .
Do you honestly believe that the coalition was formed in three days? Or do you think that it was something that was in the plan at the end of the election and they were looking for any excuse to bring it up?
The semantics matter. In the latter case, anything Harper did was irrelevant.
I'm not too sure about this. Theres two things that Harper truely loves in this world:
1) Sticking it to his opponents
2) Power
So I don't see him leaving the party unless the cons lose the next election, or they retain another minority.
I love it.
Because BBC Z has insider info that the rest of Canada lacks? Because you say so? Or because you think so and nothing more.
Once again, I defer to the simpliest of logic skills. There's no way that three parties with completely different ideologies come together in a time like that..
MAYBE if aliens blew up the CN Tower..