ScottKuma

My understanding on this is that this is only a delay tactic until the budget is presented in late January. The vote on the budget is a confidence vote - if it fails, then the Parliament is said to not have confidence in Harper (and his party)...

What I DON'T get (as an American who's keenly interested, but not educated in Parliamentary politics) is what happens next? Does the failure of a confidence vote automatically call elections?

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

Baraka_Guru

Today I heard someone express Harper's move quite eloquently:

He's like a student who knows he's going to fail a test, so he pulls the fire alarm to buy some time.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

CandleInTheDark

First of all this was not a budget that was tabled. A budget is much more expansive.

Second, it is not just your 1.95 it is OUR 1.95. Your vote is not tracked by to YOUR taxes so that the 1.95 comes from YOUR tax dollars. That would be great if your money was used to support your party. It's not. Quite simply all government spending is a division of each dollar we each pay for tax. Military, health, foreign affairs, etc. are all paid for by diving our dollars to support those measures.

If you want to support your party, I am sure every voter can spare the 1.95 from their own pocket. You can find that change lying around your home. But your voluntary contribution would not be coercing other people who do not believe as you do to support causes they don't agree with.

The political subsidy means that YOU support the Bloc, NDP, Conservatives, Liberals and Greens simultaneously. Clearly no one supports ALL parties. You cannot be for federalism and seperatism simultaneously. You cannot be for the free market and against it simultaneous. But that is what this political subsidy amounts to.

I will support my party and you will support yours. Neither of us has the right to force each other to support a party that doesn't represent our beliefs.
-----Added 4/12/2008 at 04 : 31 : 38-----
ScottKuma: The governor general (who in reality takes orders from the PM but let's ignore that for a second) has several options available to her as the Queen's representative:

She can call an election
She can call on another leader with support from the majority of the house to form government
She can call on the PM to form a different government
She can tell all the 3 stooges and Mr. Harper to sit down and get to work

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

m0rpheus

No dumbass questions, only dumbass answers, I mean your electoral college confuses the fuck out of me sometimes.

Anyway,
Yeah pretty much prorouging is just a delay tactic but it was one that was pretty much going to success as the GG really had no reason not to grant it. It's by no means over. The other thing it does is give the GG time think about the coalition government.
Canada's system can be a "my way or the highway" type when the party in power has a majority (ie the 90's federal Liberals, or the Ontario Conservatives under Harris) but Harper was dumb enough to think he could get away with it in a minority.

Really the thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the Bloc. The fact that they need the Bloc to govern just makes this a little hard to swallow.

__________________
"it never got weird enough for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

Leto

ehem... the 4 stooges.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

roachboy

this is really quite interesting--i've been reading around on this when i've had the chance this afternoon.

my question is rudimentary, i suspect: how that the prorogue (great word) has been granted, how does the state function between now and 26 january?
as i understand it, all remaining business from this session is expunged with the declaration of vacation time...and this is not a state of emergency because officially the parliament is still a body--it does not have to stand for new elections.

i just read the statement from gilles duceppe. he sounds pissy. where would i go to get a better sense of the bq?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

highthief

It's interesting - because while the Bloc is a seperatist party, that's not how many Quebecers view it. Even Federalist Quebecers look upon the Bloc, to a large extent, as a Quebec advocacy party more than anything else.

I think Harper has made some enormous mistakes with Quebec that will preclude him ever winning a majority government (you almost always need at least a few Quebec seats to get a majority) - first, his middle finger salute to the artistic community a few months ago, which deeply affected Quebec, and now, he is really driving a wedge between Francophone and Anglophone, between Quebec and the west, in the way he is attacking the Bloc as the devil incarnate.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

CandleInTheDark

Roachboy: In Canada the executive branch and legislative branch are combined. So while the legislative branch has taken a break, the PM and his ministers are still the executives and free to exercise all the powers that go along with that responsibility.

As for Harper's Quebec gaffes, I could really care less. It's time the ROC stops being held hostage by the whims of one province. This country has been walking on egg shells for over a century. Besides it is not Harper who has driven a wedge between the Quebecois (Francophone implies all french Canadians across the country) and the ROC, Quebec and it's political elite do a fine job of pissing off rest of us, especially Westerners. We they no longer see themselves as different and above the rest of us will there no longer be wedge. Any Coalition government will essentially remove the voice of the west, a nice big "Fuck you" from the eastern provinces to the county's new economic engine. Seperatism may be renewed, but it won't necessarilly be in Quebec.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

Fohur2

Nah John Baird wouldn't work,he's one of the more combative Conservatives there is.

Jim Prentice could work or more likely Peter Mackay

Sticky

You are absolutely right. That is what I was trying to say earlier.

That is the line from Duceppe.
As an anglophone from Quebec I have not seen that yet. Sure people don't like him but I don't think labeling the Bloc as he has as stirred up an French English stuff here.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

percy

I think the GG did the right thing. With one news report suggesting 70% of Canadians were against the coalition, it was pretty much a no brainer for her.

I really have to wonder if this wasn't the plan by Harper from the onset.,..like if he caught wind of a coalition and turned the tables on them. You know, bait the opposition into a frenzy knowing their collective intelligences add up to the holes in a bowling ball, get parliament suspended to buy more time to view how things are turning out stateside and with the rest of the world economically, create the illusion of potential disaster (markets falling, Quebec separation, Alberta separation, coalition government) all the while sitting back knowing that all one has to do is nail a budget in January and walk off the the Prom King.

Even if he resigns, the damage to the Liberals and NDP now is almost immeasurable. They now have to exist with their tails between their legs, or whats left of them to stand on. People have transfixed on these morons like the clowns they are. I wouldn't doubt it right now, if Harper is sipping a nice snifter of scotch laughing his ass off.

If that is the case then Harper is quite diabolical.

No wonder Iggy decided to take the high road and put on his Lion's outfit from the Wizard of Oz. Out of sight and well,...

Funny today one of my colleagues said that Harper is a power hungry, arrogant SOB who should take what shred of dignity he has left and bugger off. I mentioned Harper's character is very much like Chretiens in that regard. My colleague responded that the difference was that Chretien was smarter. I disagreed and mentioned the difference was a majority government.

Fohur2

Nah John Baird wouldn't work,he's one of the more combative Conservatives there is.

Jim Prentice could work or more likely Peter Mackay

Charlatan

Actually it is *my* $1.95.

The $1.95 is tied directly to the number of votes earned. If I don't vote, there is one less $1.95 in the pot. If I do vote there is one more $1.95 in the pot and it goes to the party I voted for.

I don't see this as anything close to theft. I see it as a way to get rid of special interests having undue influence on our political parties by way of massive donations.




As for Harper getting his request to prorogue granted, I think this is ultimately a very undemocratic move. He is thumbing his nose at the will of the house.

I noticed that he came out of his meeting with the GG offering, for the first time since all of this started, a small olive branch. He suggested that he would let the other parties have some say in the upcoming budget. This really is the only way to get out of this. He has to compromise.

Harper is the head of a minority government. Minority governments cannot act like a majority and expect to get away with it.

I am hoping that at some point we see a coalition government of some sort. I still think that coalitions are Canada's future. I agree with Ignatief's comment that it is the biggest threat we now have to keep a minority government in check. I would take it a step further and suggest that it is the greatest tool we have for representing true democracy in our parliamentary system (a system that does not look like it will have any majority governments in the near future).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

percy

I think if we adopt the notion that coalition governments are to exist, then we need a framework so that it is fair and democratic. Alot of the rhetoric surrounding this so-called crisis that is passed as fact, is in fact incorrect.

I have heard numerous times that 2/3 of the country didn't vote conservative. Actually, 2/3 of voters didn't vote conservative out of the 60% who took the time to vote. That isn't 2/3 of the country.

I have heard repeatedly that everyday Canadians has lost confidence in the conservatives (ie see Toronto Star). The members of the House lost confidence, not everyday people on the street, but that's what we are told.


It is not undemocratic to force the ruling party out of power just as it is not undemocratic for the ruling party to counter that notion before a non-confidence vote.

Anyway, my point is this. If we adopt coalitions in the future, we need rules. For instance if one party calls an election and wins a minority, the next day the coalition can't expect to show up for work assuming because they didn't win, they automatically get to rule because the majority lost. We will get nowhere fast.

Incidentally some of the most corrupted governments in the world, where backroom dealing is the norm because of coalitions, such as Italy and Israel,..are in array because of the coalition system they endorse.

I am not saying coalitions shouldn't happen, but we need checks and balances to not lose sight of the purpose of the function of government, that being something called democracy (if it exists)

The bright side would be the disallowance of dictators like Chretien and Harper but could spell the beginning of polarization and corruption.

By the people for the people, eh
-----Added 4/12/2008 at 08 : 41 : 31-----
,...or imagine a House where all the members don't belong to any party and all sit as independants.

By the people for the,....

Charlatan

I think we already have the rules. It is the rules of Parliament that we are currently following.

Harper won a minority government. He could have maintained that government for a full term as long as he didn't lose the confidence of the house. I believe that he get's the first opportunity to form the government as the former PM. I seem to recall that there was some debate that when Martin lost his last election that if the Liberal seats plus the NDP seats were greater than the Conservative minority, they could form a coalition OR the Liberals could have formed a government with the support of the NDP (much like Trudeau did in the early 70s) or Mackenzie King did with the Progressive Party before the King-Byng affair (in that case the Conservatives had the numbers of a minority government but Mackenzie King was able to form a government as the incumbent).

As for bringing down a government via a vote of non-confidence and replacing it mid-Term with a coalition... I think the current rules are fine. First, it takes some doing for a opposition parties to agree to a coalition. Second, there is no more a chance of the opposition screwing things up than there is of the party getting tossed out. Ultimately, they will have to stand for re-election at some point and the public will turf them if they fail to govern to their satisfaction.

For example, if the current coalition were to have taken power, they would have likely faced a new election in at least 18 months (though I have a feeling it would have been sooner given the new Liberal leader would have wanted to get a mandate as soon as possible). If the coalition was truly deplorable they would have paid the price in full. If they were actually successful, all of the hatred of their "backroom coup d'etat" would have been forgotten.

Of course, the real solution here is for governments in a minority situation to work toward compromise and not act like they have a majority.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

highthief

Right now the tar sands have hit the "no profit" barrier given the new price of oil - not sure Alberta will be all that economically powerful if that keeps up.

Not that they haven't been giving it away before this, but that's another issue.
-----Added 4/12/2008 at 09 : 02 : 01-----
MacKay is a Conservative, not a Reformer. No chance.

Plus, Belinda did make him look bad.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Martian

I don't understand all of this gnashing of teeth in regards to the BQ. From where I'm sitting, it really seems quite disingenuous. Harper's minority government needs support from another party in order to accomplish anything anyway, and the Bloc currently holds the balance of power. I don't see that their situation would be substantially improved in a coalition government. The major hurdle that the coalition would face would be uniting the three parties sufficiently to actually get anything accomplished, but even then I reckon it's going to be better than Harper's minority that he pretends is a majority.

Whether or not the average Canadian has lost confidence in the Conservative government is debatable, and will depend largely on who you talk to. The House, however, clearly has. As these are the representatives chosen by the average Canadians to advocate in their stead, I figure the practical result is the same.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Charlatan

The gnashing of teeth over the BQ is plain and simple posturing. It is the one wedge issue on which Harper could get any traction.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

CandleInTheDark

No it is not your $1.95. It is our $1.95 because we ALL pay taxes and not all of us votes, and not all who vote cast their ballot for a party who qualifies for this subside. Roughly 60% of Canadians voted. The other 40% who did not vote, still paid the subsidy. Whatever their reason for not voting, the government is still using their tax dollars to subsidize political parties. They don't tax you or I $1.95 more for voting. By not voting you simply change the proportion of the total budget spent on the subsidy, not who the money comes from.

And regardless of the purpose, it is still an immoral action. Road the hell is paved with good intentions and other cliches.

And polls recently released (whatever you make of them) clearly indicate a lack of support for the coalition and an increase in support for the Conservatives. Many Canadians seem to prefer another election to the GG selecting who will govern. And given the unprecedented coalition with the Bloc, this is understandable. Canadian's should be able to decide if what is good for Quebec sovereignty is actually good for Canada.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

Radio Monk33

I think the favourite line I've seen in the National Post is the "Axis of Idiots". If it comes down to it, lets see another election and let the people decide if they want a Liberal/NDP/BQ party or the Conservatives. Oh wait, the Liberals are out of money..

I have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing the possible carnage of a coalition government, might let the Conservatives pick up the pieces for a majority in the near future.

__________________
"Punk rock had this cool, political personal message. It was a bit more cerebral than just stupid cock rock, you know"
-Kurt Cobain

roachboy

another naive question: i take it that the bq is primarily francophone...but harper's attacks on it are interpreted as offenses to quebec in general. do harper's actions present the bq with an opportunity to cross over more into an anglo constituency?

underlying this really is my curiousity about the bloc.
i suppose i can squander some more work time today reading about it, so any direction would be lovely.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

percy

Yes the Bloc is primarily francophone. And the attacks by Harper are mainly offensive to those who are Quebecers (francophone Quebecers who support the Bloc or not) since they have become accustomed to the Bloc party and see the Bloc as their French voice of Quebecers in Ottawa(federal politics)

And no the opportunity for anglophones to be swayed to the Bloc is a non-starter because the Bloc is only interested in the interests of the French majority. Anglophone rights is Quebec are abismal in comparison to francophone rights throughout the rest of Canada, which is an official bilingual country.

Martian

To be more specific, the Bloc is only interested in the Anglophone constituency insofar as it overlaps with Quebec. Upwards of 80% of the provice speaks French as a first language, with the bulk of the Anglophone community centred in and around Montreal. The Bloc's mandate is to advocate for Quebec interests, which due to the demographics is seen as synonymous to advocating for Francophone interests.

The Bloc has a huge following in Quebec, but does not field candidates outside of it. They have no interest in the rest of Canada, which is where the bulk of the Anglophone community resides. This often puts the Bloc in firm opposition to the Conservatives, whose power and interests centre in Western Canada; the French speaking population west of Ontario is practically non-existent, and is not particularly large within Ontario itself either. Due to this there's something of a rivalry between the western provinces (Alberta in particular) and the BQ.

The Bloc also advocates for Qubec sovereignty, despite the demonstrable short-sightedness and outright foolish nature of such a goal.

I have no further reading, but will pass on anything I come across.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Sticky

Here is an article that discusses the results of a large cross-country poll.
Political power struggle scaring Canadians: Poll

Some points from the article that refer directly to the poll results:
- "Almost three-quarters of Canadians say they are "truly scared" for the future of the country"
- "a solid majority say they would prefer another election to having the minority Conservative government replaced by a coalition led by Stephane Dion"
- "Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives would romp to a majority victory with a record 46 per cent public support if an election were held today."
- "Conservatives' spike in popularity appears to reflect a backlash against the Liberals and New Democrats whose support slid to 23 per cent and 13 per cent respectively"
- "60 per cent of those interviewed said they opposed replacing the government with Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Quebecois, compared with 37 per cent who favoured the idea"
- "Support for the coalition was highest in Quebec at 50 per cent, followed by 44 per cent in Atlantic Canada."
- "Almost seven in 10 of those surveyed Tuesday and Wednesday gave prorogation a thumbs up."
- "The Tories also were deemed by almost six in 10 Canadians to be the best managers of the economy in these troubling times."

There was a graphic in the print version fo this article that had some of this stuff in it. I am going to try to track it down.
I tracked it down. This was in the center of the page:




Here is another article that refers to the poll and discusses the 1.95 subsidy per vote:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Major...856/story.html

"Sixty-one per cent of voters said they oppose federal political parties securing $1.95 annually for each vote, which is a major source of party funding.
On the other hand, only 36 per cent of those polled said that the subsidy should continue to exist."

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Leto

Too True Percy! very good

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

filtherton

You guys better be careful up there, the decider is still in office for another month and a half, and he's got a penchant for "spreading democracy".

percy

Now that's funny. I will make sure my Christmas cards I send out this year with angels bearing fruit with trumpets circling Obama don't have my return address. But I do hear Cuba is quite nice this time of year.

m0rpheus

If it is a plan by Harper it's a pretty dumb one. Considering his own party is sharpening the knives to stab him in the back.

Fine. Then I get to decide where a $1.95 goes, I'd still rather have them get a subsidy then rely on donates which are clearly always no-strings attached from major corporations (cough cough big tobacco in the states cough).

__________________
"it never got weird enough for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

percy

Haven't heard any dissention from the conservative members regarding any potential ousting of Harper. Absolutely squat about that notion in the media also.

And if it was his plan, to me anyways it was politically brilliant. Maybe not the best timing in conjunction with the economy, but people are now looking to him for leadership and well,..looking at especially Dion and Layton with great disdain.

If people weren't convinced before that Layton and Dion have absolutely no credibility, it has now been proven to them.

Maybe there is a case to replacing Harper, but certainly not as immediate as the cases for Dion and Layton.

CandleInTheDark

I'm not too sure Harper intended the result it did. I certainly think he read the mood of Canadian's correctly regarding the political subsidy. But I don't think he intended to unite the left, and it was impossible to predict the backlash against the Seperatist Coaltion. I think Harper made the right call with the subsidy and now has an unpredictably large payoff from it.

I expect the coalition to crack during the break, or be under significant pressure to pass the Conservative budget.

As for replacing Harper, there hasn't really be much calls on conservative blogs and forums for it, and it certainly has not increased due to this Coalition business. Most people who were calling for Stephen's head were wanting it for not acting conservative enough, and that certainly could not be said about their economic update.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

Charlatan

I think the coalition, or threat of one, is the best tool the opposition currently has to keep Harper on the straight and narrow. Trying to run a minority government like he has a majority is not the way to stay in power.

Harper needs to make some very strong conciliatory gestures to the opposition. Having representatives from the NDP and the Liberals at the table while coming up with a new budget would be a good start.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

percy

I'm guessing Harper will put out an economic plan that is more than concilliatory and accepting in the eyes of the Canadian public than worrying about caving into each and every demand the opposition thinks they are entitled to.

It would be foolish not to listen to the opposition outright, but unfortunately I think the oppositions sense of entitlement will grow, which again will be a huge mistake for them. It doesn't mean they have to roll over, but if their demands over extend any sense of logic, they are dead in the water.

Whether people like it or not, Stephen Harper is the prime minister. He is expected to lead the country. If some people feel he should be the messenger for Liberal and NDP platforms, then they are clueless as to what leadership is. On the other hand, Harper has to have the leadership skills to prove he can work a minority government, which means adopting some opposition ideas and moving them forward or trying to better them.

edit;

I'm guessing Harper will put out an economic plan that is more than concilliatory and accepting in the eyes of the Canadian public than worrying about caving into each and every demand the opposition thinks they are entitled to.

Further, and quite poignantly, this rings true since the opposition look and sound like a bunch of buffoons,...Harper isn't going to appease the opposition as muchas they would like well because,...why would he lower himself to that level. People have no respect or Dion and Layton,...why strive for that level,..

His plan will be and should be for Canadians,... not the appeasement of the opposition.
-----Added 6/12/2008 at 11 : 51 : 52-----
Not picking on you Charlatan, but the more I think of it, the less Harper will include the opposition in his economic budget.

But if his budget is stupid and doesn't reflect the needs of Canadians, he would and should suffer a non-confidence vote.

However whether you want to admit to it or not, Harper is in the drivers seat. This is a lose - lose for the opposition. If Harper comes out with a solid plan which I think he will, the opposition has to eat crow, feathers and all. If they stall parliament after that, then they are writing their own ticket. If they still go ahead with a non-confidence vote after and assuming Harper puts out a solid platform, the Canadian public will ravage them at the polls.

You know, I work in marketing and the one thing Harper is very good at is understanding the ebb and flow of public opinion when it swings between general content and miscontent. The opposition don't understand this and therefore the reason they are in the position they are in.

And also, don't be to surprised if Layton and Dion gasped a huge sigh of relief when parliament was suspended,..that may have just saved what careers they have left.

Yakk

The first measure in each session of parliament is the speech from the throne, which is delivered by the GG (at the instructions of the PM).

The house then votes to approve or disapprove of it. It is automatically a measure of confidence.

This happens before any budget votes.

The opposition has proposed to take over. They made the plan. Harper engaged in procedural tricks to delay it -- so... I could see them voting non-confidence and doing it before the budget gets put forward.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

CandleInTheDark

Yakk, the opposition passed the throne speech. Which would hopefully be something the GG takes into consideration when deciding if Stephen Harper actually doesn't have confidence in the House. It would be suspect of the opposition to so rapidly remove their confidence in the government after the throne speech.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

m0rpheus

Really? I've been reading alot in the media that much of this is Harpers fault and that his leadership is in pretty bad shape. I mean he failed to get a majority against the weakest leader that the Liberals could possibly throw at them, and now he might be ousted from the PM's spot because he came in acting like a bully trying to throw his weight around like he had a majority.
Will he lose the leadership right now? No. But if he gets booted from the PM roll I wouldn't be surprised.
Dion wont last long either, although I haven't heard anything about Layton being replaced. The only people I've heard complaining about Layton were the people already complaining about Layton. I mean if the coalition goes through the NDP will get cabinet seats for the first time ever.

Bolded stuff I wanted to touch on.
This all started with him being foolish enough to not think about the opposition when he only had a minority. Would he be dumb enough not to do it again? Not right away. I think Harper got comfortable after a loooong minority government that met with little opposition. This time he came out trying to bully the opposition around rather than trying to work with them and it's failing.
If Harper can put forth a budget that takes into account the other parties then he might get through this. The thing is he HAS to take into account the other parties.
As stated above, I agree with you about Dion and no one respecting him. The thing is there is still a strong "anybody but Harper" feeling out there. Harper couldn't get a majority against this loser last time what makes this time any difference? Except the fact that Harper has given the opposition ammunition about what a Harper majority would be like to use against him for undecided votes.
Layton is another story. Some people love him, some people hate him. If he gets cabinet seats for the NDP his position as leader of the NDP is pretty safe.
Actually one thing I do wonder is if there is another election will the Liberal and NDP coalition stay together?

__________________
"it never got weird enough for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

Charlatan

I am not sure but I would think that the government will have to have another Throne speech as they will be starting a new session.

The GG doesn't need consider much about the confidence of the house. Either the house has confidence or it doesn't. The only thing she needs to decide is whether to call an election or let another party (or parties) form the government.


And Percy... you are right. Harper doesn't need to have the opposition at the table. He just needs to offer a budget that will appease the public enough to take the wind out of their sails. Everything hinges on what he has to offer.

I stand by my point, however, that unless the Bloc disappears or the Conservatives can stop being so right wing, there won't be majority governments.

Harper, in his anti Quebec rhetoric pretty much shot himself in the foot as far as Quebec is concerned. Without Quebec there is no majority for anyone.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

streak_56

Why western Canada is scared of a Coalition government...

1) For once the prime minister isn't coming from the east. He's a guy we can relate on some level with, calm, collected and looking out for his voters. The power lies with us, we want someone to represent us because there *IS* truth behind western alienation.

2) BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan was huge money makers. Most of our money gets shipped out east to support provinces that don't share back with us. Hard economic times have not hit us as hard out here (yet). And we feel that the during the Chritien/Martin years, they fucked us hard, we think we work hard, earn our money and therefore should keep it.

3) The Bloc. They were built upon separtist ideals and we cannot trust a party like that.

4) Dion as said before, is incompetent. Not only him but his party lost the election. Poor press conferences, lack of organization and his address after Harper made his... no one in western Canada can understand that man. I would much prefer a Layton lead coalition that Dion purely on the fact that Layton can convey messages clearly, understandably and grammatically correct.

5) Why wasn't the coalition formed before the election? What the hell was the point of voting for NDP, Liberal, Conservative if power hungry politicians want to make it all null and void. What else are they willing to do just for power?

Personally....

I'm excited, I love talking politics with people, and I love ruffling peoples feathers. This is all just propaganda from all parties. Conservatives saying that this is slapping democracy in the face, the Coalition saying that Harper doesn't care... its all positioning public opinion. Where do most of the votes come from? Ontario and Quebec, they don't give two shits about anyone else. Its worrying about me, myself and I, then everyone else. Dions trying to save face for a liberal worst showing at the polls, Layton needs a last shot at doing something significant, and I can see the Bloc kicking back, laughing at English Canada because we've given them all the power this election. I personally believe that the west will suffer under a Coalition led government. I think over the past few years, Harper achieved one goal... he didn't fuck the country up, he sat back, let people see that a Conservative led government isn't going to change much and I was willing to give him atleast two more years as Prime Minister. If he doesn't fuck anything up again, then I'll vote conservative again. I think that the liberals are shooting themselves in the foot, the NDP are going in the right direction, trying to "make a difference." And Ignatiff needs to lead the liberals before Dion ruins this coalition for them.

percy

Harper had been very pro-Quebec at least up until the election. He gave them everything they were asking for and more to the point where he started losing conservative supporters because of it. I think he was surprised that the conservatives were virtually ignored in Quebec after all his pandering to them running up to the election.

But if you call a separatist a separatist and it is interpreted as anti-Quebec,..well then yes I suppose. He gave Quebec a chance but they used him and turned their backs on him. Now they probably will pay for it (that means getting treated like every other province instead of being special).

I think there is a possibility for a majority without Quebec but that would mean an exclusive Bloc majority for them. That wouldn't be good for them because they would be severely marginalized. (The Bloc) Really if one can get a majority without Quebec, then Quebec will have as much power as all the other provinces, not more, which wouldn't mean much federally speaking.

Could you imagine Quebec being treated just like all the other provinces? Mon dieu

Charlatan

Harper has been very supportive of Quebec. But given his tearing into arts funding and his recent use of the separatist rhetoric he comes off as pandering in his previous positions. It's fine to use the term separatist but at least use it in both official languages. To use sovereignist in French and separatist in English is just perceived as scare mongering by the Quebequois.

I was impressed with Harper's "a nation within Canada" I thought it was smart as it diffused the issue. It's the kind of attitude a leader of the nation needs to show... especially in a minority position. Unfortuneately, Harper's action show why he shouldn't be trusted with a majority.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Leto

I agree with you about the coalition... those guys only got together when they smelled blood. But I also would like to offer my perspective on this western 'alienation'.

Actually Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and John Turner are all westerners, so I don't think that there is any geographical bias to who becomes Prime Minister, I just happen to think that it is a numbers game. Where ever there are more people, you are going to get more of lots of things. Doesn't just apply to candidates for prime minister, but also to things as unpleasant as number of people murdered or economies of scale when pricing commodities such as gas or bread.

I have been out to BC many times (it's my second home!) and love the place, but have always been curious as to why there is such a disdain for the east. Especially since the biggest complainers seem to be those who actually relocated from the east. At any rate, you say:

Most of our money gets shipped out east to support provinces that don't share back with us. Hard economic times have not hit us as hard out here (yet). And we feel that the during the Chritien/Martin years, they fucked us hard, we think we work hard, earn our money and therefore should keep it.

Very compelling words, and all you have to do is change the point of reference to Ontario from BC, Alta, & Sask, and you have the exact same issue. Furthermore, these former PMs (Chretien, Martin, Mulroney) all seemed to want to take their boots to the cities. Yes, Toronto is a big kicking bag,

But it's not just us. I speak for Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary, Montreal and Halifax as well. there has been a growing concern and movement to 1) reclaim some of the massive outflow of money out of Ontario to help bolster our infrastructure (as nobody else seems to be concerned about us when times go south) as well as support the needs of cities across the entire country.

As for the Bloc, well, yes, I don't like their Separatist foundation. But a lot of Quebeckers have been driven to support this party as a means of getting local support and representation, knowing full well that the party will never fullfill a separastist mandate. Very similar to the mechanism of voting for the old the Reform party.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I