CANADA: Possible Non-Confidence Vote?
 

I have been avidly reading the machinations of the Canadian Parliament over the weekend.

Last week Harper's Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty put forward an interim budget meant to provide stimulus to the economy. Instead, he presented what was a very partisan budget. The opposition parties didn't like what they saw and threatened to vote no confidence and bring down the government that was brought into power only a few week's ago.

So does this mean we are heading for another election? You would think so, but no so fast. The Liberals and the NDP (with the support of the Bloc) have suggested that they will approach the Governor General with the idea that they will form a coalition government.

I have just been watching as the news articles have been flowing in... It looks like this is going to happen.

The plan sees the Liberals with 75% of the cabinet positions and the NDP 25%. It also appears that Dion, the current leader of the Liberals, will *not* be the PM. Instead, Michael Ignatief will be voted into leadership by the Liberal caucus. In a last minute deal that would have seen Ignatief scuttle the coalition (he did not like the idea of Dion being PM and has a large amount of support in the caucus), the other leadership candidates agreed to step aside in favour of Ignatief.

The open vote that would have allowed the non-confidence motion was to have happened on Monday but Harper postponed the vote until next week buying himself some time.

If the opposition decides to go through with this, the only thing that should be able to stop them is if Harper suspends the Parliament (he has the power to do this).


What are you thoughts on this? Is this a "coup d'etat" as Harper colours it? Does the fact that the Conservatives only have 37% of the popular vote colour your view of things? Could you support this coalition?


I am not entirely sure how I feel about it except that it sure makes for exciting times. On one hand, I don't like the Harper. On the other, this sets an interesting precedent. One that might not be so palatable with different parties forming the coalition. Regardless, it looks like it will continue to be an interesting year for politics in Canada (even if nobody outside Canada knows about it).

If Ignatief did indeed act in such a ballsy manner, then perhaps a Liberal led coalition will be strong enough to take over the government. My view of the Dion is that he is intelligent, but not hard enough to make decisions. Rae? well I remember the mess he made in Ontario, and as intelligent as the guy is I don't want to go down that path again. Even though It may have been a Peterson hang-over, we need a strong (& popular) hand on the tiller. The Conservatives just can't shake the Reform aspect of their party.

This could also provide a stable transition and a fully functional role for the G-G for once.

*by the way, I'm still waiting for Harper's split income changes....

I just want to clear up a few things and then I will add my own opinion.

Here is the most recent article from the CBC on this topic
Liberals, NDP, Bloc sign deal on proposed coalition

The next thing that happened is that the Conservatives backed down on the two major items that the other parties said they had issues with
- The took out the dropping of the $1.95 subsidy per vote each party gets
- The also removed the notion of dissalowing strikes by federal employees for the next x amount of time (I think it was two years)

The conservatives then also decided to deliver their yearly budget a month early - end of January rather than February.

We also found out the this plan was in the works before the issue of this budget (or finance update) came about.


Actually they all agreed that Dion would lead the coalition according to the latest reports.

For now it still seems to be set for Dec. 8 (Monday) acording to the article linked above.

I believe that he can only do this with the approval of the Governor General. The other parties also need the approval of the Governor General in order to for a coalition rather than Canadians heading back to the polls.



Well, who said that Canadian politics were not exciting?

My first thoughts are - the rules are there and this fits within them.
What I don't like is the Governor General deciding what is best for the country. The argument by coalition will be that they represent the majority of Canadians and the argument by the Conservatives will be that in the coming tumultuos times it is not a good idea to have a the country led by a coalition. I just don't like the idea of this being up to an unelected official representing another government.

As to the idea that the Conservatives only got 37% of the vote - definately true but at the same time not a sinlg Canadian (0%) voted for the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition.

Had the Liberals and NDP run tegether I am sure that they would have garnered alot of votes and maybe even more than the 37% the Conservatives got. But they did not.
I am not as confident that had the 3 parties run together they would have received that many votes.

Forgetting about the expense of an election for a minute, I wonder if did go to an election would the public be unhappy with the Conservative budget (financial update) and vote them out or would the results remain about the same as they were about a month ago.

I think this is not about what the Canadian people want and need, this is about power and what the parties think they can get away with. This time around it just happens to be the Liberals and the NDP. They think that they can get away with it.
What they are risking, however, is that the Governor General decides not to let them form a coalition and sends the country to an election. If that happens you will see some very unhappy Canadians and they will take it out on the Liberals and NDP.

Oh - One more issue that I have. Should the Governor General allow them to form a coalition government, how do we keep that government in check. They will have a majority of seats but what if they are not effective and can't get anything done becuase of fighting amongst themselves? I don't believe that there is any mechanism for forcing an election.

I just don't like it. I don't like these guys playing around pretending to represent us.

But I am also a guy who like rules. The rules are there and this is allowed. If the Canadian people are unhappy about this then in the end someone will pay.

Some good points in this article:

She could just say no

The Bloc has agreed to support the coalition in confidence votes until June 2010 and in general votes until June 2009.

So what are the odds harper bites it?

I am not a fan of any of the leaders but I think this move, at this time is absolutely ridiculous. Actually I am outraged that these wannabe misfits think this is good for the country. And to have the treasonous Bloc having a say in the day to day matters of Canada. ....if anyone says they are a proud Canadian and accepts that notion,..go shake your head. You are a disgrace. Unbelievable. These 3 fuckwits couldn't manage a paper bag convention for crying out loud.

If the three stooges wanted a coalition government, they should have decided that before the election, not after. And what happens if the coalition succeeds, and that in a year or 2 the Liberals call an election and receive a minority government. Then what? A coalition between PC, NDP and the Bloc a month after that election. More of the same and nothing gets done. Meanwhile Canada's standing in the world doesn't say "Proudly Canadian" anymore, but rather "Banana Republic."

And worst of all, if a non-confidence vote is taken and stands to topple the government, we have the GG, who is nothing more than a fucking glorified hostess, deciding the fate of the nation. Good Lord, save us all.

It is going to be interesting how western Canada reacts if this coalition is accepted. I am hearing rumblings of separation already.

I have been rolling this around in my head for a while and I am still not sure how I feel about it.

1) What the opposition parties are doing is perfectly legal. This is not a coup. It's not even a new idea. In fact, Harper signed onto an agreement a few year's ago to run a coalition with the support of the NDP and the Bloc should they have have toppled Martin's Liberal government of the day (this is the non-confidence vote that ended with one vote in favour of confidence).

The members of Parliament are servants of the Crown (embodied by the GG). They lead only at the behest of the Crown. If a ruling party does not have the confidence of the house, the Crown can either call an election or ask someone else to form the government. The latter is increasingly likely in the face of a recent election.

While some may say this sucks and is undemocratic... it is is the system we have. If you don't like it, lobby for a Republic, lobby for a system other than one based on Westminster.

2) The Conservatives' stimulus plan. What Finance Minister Flaherty tabled last week was the most partisan document that I've seen come out of the Canadian Parliament in my memory. While Flaherty was the bad man, this was Harper's doing and I place the blame for this current crisis squarely at his feet.

Yes, he's backed down on the some of the more odious bits of legislation BUT he has shown incredibly bad judgement. This sort of behaviour leads to loss of confidence in the house (see: Joe Clarke's short term as PM and the gas tax bill that he put forth that brought him down).

This is the thing. If you are running a minority government, you can't pull these sorts of stunts. You must rule with an ear to the other parties. You cannot rule like a majority government.

3) To the question of democracy. In Canada, we do not vote for the leader of our country. We also do not vote for the party that will rule our country. We vote for local representation... a member of Parliament. It is the party with the most seats that, generally, gets to form the government. But coalitions have formed in the past under Trudeau and Borden. The point here is that *nobody* voted for a Conservative government. Nobody voted for a Liberal government. Nobody voted for an NDP government. You all voted for a representative.

If you don't like this system, lobby to change it.

4) The Bloc. This is the part that makes the coalition hard to stomach. On the one hand, the Bloc is a progressive party. They share many values with the Centre-Left so the fit is reasonable. On the other hand, the Bloc are a separatist party. They would like to see Quebec leave Canada. I personally don't think this is a reality today. The separatists have lost. What the Bloc is today, despite what they say, is a regional party with the interests of one province only (not unlike what the Reform party was at one time).



While I don't see the coalition as an ideal situation, I don't think Harper has shown that he is worthy of the confidence of the house. I say let the coalition take power. Then let the Conservatives elect a new leader. Hopefully their dormant Progressive Conservatives (remember them?) will rise up and shake some sense into the reformists...

I'm torn too.

I don't like the idea of a coalition government but then I'm pissed that the Conservative put forth such a short sighted and self serving budget. It confirms my fears about how they would run a majority parliament.

Harper is a disappointment for sure. I had hopes, especially for having a prime minister not from Quebec again, that he may have the leadership traits that encompasses the country, but I think he misses the mark. I think he is very smart and has a plan but his silence and lack of willingness to reach out and explain to people his motives are a detractor. Funny, Chretien was similar in that sense but was never questioned at length or in detail like Harper is. I guess people trusted Chretien but they don't trust Harper.

And the pact that was to involve the PC, NDP and Bloc in 2006 wasn't a coalition. It was a pact to introduce a posibble non-confidence vote. What we have today is a signed coalition of the 3 parties that have agreed to become the government. Big difference.

I hope the coalition doesn't take over. On one hand you have a very pissed off electorate that wants action from it's elected representatives. This will not instill confidence but worse, if a coalition takes place and it becomes the train wreck I think it will become, there will be non-confidence votes in the streets that will slow everything else down leaving not only the government at a standstill, but everything else.

Dion is incompetant,..completely and utterly. Layton is a micromanager who belongs in Alice and Wonderland, not having a hand in governing the country. And Duceppe doesnt give a flying fuck about anything regarding this country as long as the cash flow continues to flow freely into Quebec. Now he is in the ultimate of blackmailing positions because he can virtually ask for a blank cheque or with hold his support. Lovely, billions and billions of more of Canadians money so that we can keep up this ludicrous farce we call unity.

The more I think about it, the more I realize this isn't about one party or the next. It's personal. It's the coalition against Harper. I think they are forcing his card to resign,..because they know the longer he stays, the more danger they are of getting screwwed 10 times worse by him.

And there is the reason the opposition cannot back down. Harper has shown his true colours.

The only way out of this crisis is for Harper to fire Flaherty and resign. As a minority government, the Conservatives should have taken the high road and worked with the Liberals to craft a solid response to the economic crisis. They could still do this but they need to get rid of Harper first.

All very lucid points Charlatan, and well crafted to shine some non-emotional clarity on the matter.

I would further say that the Conservatives, as they are now, are still a regionally motivated party dominated by Reform ideology. When they blunder so badly, as they did last week, it just demonstrates the lack of savvy and/or shows true arrogance. Not to worry, I think that the Hill does that to people. I was no fan of Trudeau's antics in the late '70's either. And Joe Clark? Well, there was a man with integrity, but poor handlers.

Harper has not only succeeded in uniting the Right, or should I say taking advantage of the decimated PC's and dominating the Right, last week he successfully managed to unite the Left.

The Conservatives need to dump Harper and start fresh. Flaherty (who can believe this guy any more??? weren't the Harris years enough? I can't believe that his constituents elected him, but then again, times were goood back then eh?) has to go too.

What I can't understand is how the Conservatives can mis-manage public sentiment on a continuous basis. They attack penny-ante programmes, and tell us all to sit tight and not worry about the bigger problems. For this they will feel the full effect of our type of democracy.

If it were for having the possibility of the three children in office this would be funny. While it may not have been savy for Harper to introduce the elimination of government subsidized along with an otherwise excellent economic update, it will be our three stooges who wear the damages. You absolutely cannot vote to continue your own subsidization and expect the people not to be pissed. It is the exact same as if they voted to increase their own salaries.

Now in a Seperatist Coalition, the Liberals are fucked. They voted to continue their subsidies, tried to usurp power with the Bloc as a partner, and are essentially saying "Suck it Westerners" given the fact that they have little support past Kenora. This Coalition is not their salvation, it is their death throes. I am surprised more Liberals don't see it.

As for the fact that this is legal and constitutional well that is certainly true. That doesn't mean it is right. The Conservatives went to the people for a mandate and increased it. Now the Liberals, who were absolutely rejected by the public are attempting to take power. All informal polling suggests that Canadians do not want this Coalition.

Here's how I see it:

1) Harper is too stupid to continue breathing, let alone be allowed to run the country. He starts off with a minority government - which means he needed to be concialitory and to create a good working relationship with at least one of the other parties. Instead, he says "fuck you" to the other parties while doing absolutely nothing to help the economy. What a nimrod.

2) The coalition should have gotten together right at the outset (after the election) and done this. They could have formed a government at that time.

3) The Conservatives should dump Harper for his incompetence and replace him with some higher form of mammalian life - the other parties are not strong right now, if Harper goes and someone sensible like Prentice comes in, they'll have half a chance of coming out on top.

I don't think you understand what the subsidy is meant to do. The subsidy was meant to reduce the impact of corporate money on the parties. You see, a few years back the amount of corporate money available to the parties was reduced to $5,000 per company. To compensate for this, a public subsidy based on votes earned in the election wsa set up. That $5,000 was further reduced by Harper to $1,000.

You cannot kill the subsidy without increasing the funding elsewhere.

Add to this the fact that currently the Liberal Party is in debt while the Conservatives are loaded with cash.

This was a budget that was meant to crush the opposition. It was as partisan as it comes.

As for the "stimulus" part of the package... industry commentators also felt the package was anemic.

As of today/ tonight the pundits figure the GG will grant the PC's until January. I think that is a sensible thing to do. I have lost a level of confidence in Harper but am willing to see what he can do in a month especially with a first ministers meeting scheduled before a tabled budget. I absolutely don't even want to think of what the coalition will do if they get a chance.

I agree with Candle in the Dark. The majority of Canadians are outraged at all involved, but especially with the coalition, and I think with perfect right to be. It will only hurt them more if they don't work with Harper (assuming Parliament will shut down) more than hurting Harper since all eyes are on him to prove he can do something constructive. If the coalition keeps circling like a pack of wolves, they will all be resigning. The public will make sure of it.

I don't have a problem with the Coalition, even if I'm not a fan of Dion or the way this has come about or the timing of it.

This is a parliamentary democracy and if I hear one more moron on talk radio say "this is treason" or some such nonsense, I'll snap. Such talk pushes me further away from the Conservative Party, a body which, provincially and federally, I have voted for 5 or 6 times.

Canadians elect Parliaments, not Prime Ministers. If the current Prime Minister loses the confidence of Parliament, Parliament can sit someone else's butt in the big chair.

Voting for the Conservatives aside ;) I agree with this.

This is the natural progression of a Parliamentary system. Have a look at some of the European Parliaments... they frequently run on coalitions, coalitions that sometimes have opposing parties working together. As we continue to mature as a nation and develop more political parties, this sort of thing is inevitable.

Harper's cries of "treason" and "coup d'etat" are the cries of a desperate man. He fucked up and now he is paying the price.

That said, I have been thinking about the proroguing of the Parliament and while it is probably putting off the inevitable, I am willing to give Harper a month to get his shit together. Take a month and come back with a budget that doesn't make the assumption he is in a majority government. Pay attention to the fact that 2/3 of the nation did not vote for you.

I've also voted Liberal, Green and Lemon Party in my time as well, it's not an exclusive arrangement!

Well, here are my 0.02c;

While I didn't vote Conservative, I honestly don't mind Harper as a leader.
At least with him I feel a semblance of leadership qualities and direction.
I'm chagrined that this occurs during the world's present economic downturn,
what with Canada supposedly in a relatively rosy position.
It's within the rules, but still smacks of 3 kids ganging up on one, and
"outvoting" him for a change in a game he was winning. Like all three are
sullen losers, pouting and getting their way.

The stimulus package that so many wanted, I wonder, do we all view that as
a magical solution? I'm a child of the 70's, and while God Bless Pierre Trudeau,
his fiscal policies were only being paid off when Paul Martin was the Finance
Minister, indeed, what is our debt to date, international credit rating, and so on...
Anyone know offhand?

Remember Joe Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?
Not the same thing, but an interesting antecedent, so to speak.

I worry this will hurt our ability to adapt in a cohesive manner, if we are a troika
of vested interests, rather than shaped by just one ideological POV. If nothing
else, they may be pretty bland, sort of like a committee agreeing on a
recipe.

Is anyone ever going to invest in our infrastructure, do anything that will
last more than one news cycle in our National memory?
Is Government even all that relevant? I think so, but then I look at Italy
and say their Vita is still pretty Dolce, n'est pas?

I love living here, I don't want to live in the US, but it would be choice
#4 at this point.

All in all, it is pretty interesting, I look to forward to seeing it unfold.

Do we have a pool on the next election?
I say by next July.

And also remember that 3/4 of the people didn't vote Liberal, 4/5 didn't vote NDP and 9/10 people didn't vote Bloc.

Sorry. Couldn't resist Charlatan. Just busting your balls a bit. :rolleyes:

Elections Canada - National

No worries Percy... I know that too.

The more I am thinking about this, the more I am coming to the conclusion that what we are seeing is Democracy in action. This coalition will represent 2/3 of the voters... in this case Progressive Voters.

The one reason I want to see this happen is that it will show that coalitions are possible and may be a *good* thing for Canada. It's problematic that is is happening at a time when the economy is in trouble but sometimes that's what it takes.

The follow on to this is that if the coalition fucks it up, there won't be another coalition government for *many* years.

In that spirit, I would feel better if the coalition was Chretien, Broadbent and Bouchard. Wait a minute,..that is who are pulling the strings behind the scenes sans Bouchard isn't it?

I see your point Charletan and I admit it would be interesting to see something different like that,..I just don't like the cast involved. Maybe it's the glow of infered greatness bestowed onto Obama that really casts a pale over our **gulp** leaders.

You guys watch his speech tonight? I caught it on CTV on my Sat. I'm not sure, seems to me he didn't really say much other then "Hey those guys are worse then me. Give me some time and I'll get this all worked out." I don't know jack about Canadian politics, having enough trouble with the US system. Also found it odd that he taped it and it was released? Is that normal? Or did I just catch a recorded version?

Kind of fun to watch from the outside looking in.

Hmm.

Yes, this is exciting times for Canada. The potential embodied in this coalition government is huge. Possibly unprecedented. The stakes, however, are equally huge. Canada has come off relatively light in this global economic downturn so far, but anyone who doesn't think we're teetering on the brink of absolute catastrophe is fooling themselves.

I make no secret of my dislike for Harper. Flaherty is the fallguy on the budget issue, but given Harper's iron fist policy when it comes to his party, I don't think we can really put on the blame on sorry Jim's shoulders.

So who steps up to the plate if Harper resigns? Prentice? Maybe. My impression of Prentice is that he's more of an industry pitbull than anything. As Minister of Industry he refused to advocate for consumer rights, and in the case of cellular providers double dipping on text messaging charges, even implicity condoned abuses by industries in power. Prentice is a minister, and a poor one at that. He is not a party leader.

The Harper government was far too arrogant. I think they expected the opposition to simply roll over and take whatever they put forth, for fear of sparking another election so soon. What I think the Conservatives are failing to realize is that a lot of their support was not due to their own merits, but moreso due to the faults of their opponents. Public opinion of Dion seems to be that he's just this side of useless, and the NDP have never been a viable alternative on the Federal level. What other choice was there? For a lot of Canadians (including, anecdotally, a significant portion of my own riding) the Conservatives were the only real option.

As an aside, it's misleading to say that Canadians vote for representatives. It's true that the Honourable Barry Devolin represents me in Federal Parliament. But that isn't to say that voters don't consider party politics when placing their votes.

So, the exciting thing about this coalition is that it is democracy in action. A minority government by definition does not have the support of the majority of Canadians. When that government acts in bad faith and loses the confidence of the people it represents, it's time for a change. Since we can't agree on an alternative through an election, the coalition is ideally the way to satisfy the majority of Canada. Harper's desperate cries of treason and outrage notwithstanding, I suspect that such an action at least has the potential to steer Canada in the right direction.

I think it's naive to allow an issue like party lines come to the fore at this late date. Canada is on the brink of national crisis, and that must be what our government addresses. Harper's budget showed no intention of doing so in any meaningful way. I reckon it's time to let someone else have a go.

EDIT - Interestingly, immediately after I posted this, this story popped up in my news feed about Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall. The banal: he, like all coalition opponents, raises the separatist bogeyman. The interesting: he suggests that the answer is yet another election. I would think an elected official would have sufficient understanding of the democratic process to understand why an election in February would be a phenomenally bad idea.

Another election? Very interesting.

As for Harper the only thing I've heard him talk about cutting is funding for campaigning. So campaigns are publicly funded in Canada? And now that his party is in power he wants no more public funding? How much could that actually amount to?

The funding isn't for campaigning, precisely.

Political parties in Canada are prohibited from accepting donations from any corporation exceeding $1000 (it was $5000, but Harper reduced it in what, in retrospect, may have been a precursor to this). In order to make up for this and in recognition of the fact that running a political party takes money, each party receives a subsidy of about $2 for every vote they receive. In theory, this means that the public funding received by the parties is in direct proportion to their public support.

Harper now wants to eliminate the subsidies. However, with the exception of his own Conservative party, every party in the House receives the majority of their funds from public financing rather than private donations. That's why this is a blatant and transparently partisan move; it's designed to rob the other parties of funding so that they can't mount an effective opposition.

There are other issues with the proposed budget that are rather dubious, but that is certainly the big ticket item.

Harper is crying foul now like a stuck pig. He realizes the magnitude of his mistake, I think, but doesn't plan on going quietly. He's actually seeking to suspend Parliament now in order to prevent this; the problem is that strictly speaking the power to prorogue Parliament belongs to the Governor General, and he can only suggest it. Historically, the Governor General has followed the Prime Minister's advice, but in this situation Ms. Jean has several options available to her and may choose not to do so.

Thanks, that makes more of what I'm seeing. I see these news reports on CTV but without a understanding the system some of it doesn't click.

FYI: The only time that the Governor General did not do what the PM asked was when PM Mackenzie King asked GG Byng to suspend parliament and call and election. Instead, Byng asked the Conservatives to try and form a government. king byng affair

FYI: The total budget for funding the parties is about 26 million dollars. In the big picture, this is not a lot of money.

The story I saw had Harper making it sound like cutting it out would solve any and all budget problems. I was thinking "how much do you guys spend on bumper stickers?"

Based on the number of electors in Canada, the theoretical maximum (including cost of overhead) ought to be somewhere around $50 million. I realize that Canada's budget is much smaller than that of our neighbours to the south, but this is a rather paltry amount even for us. As noted by Charlatan, the actual amount spent is quite a bit less than the maximum.

This move is purely political in nature, and would have virtually no impact on the overall budget.

Seems like a dumb move on his part. But until he renames french fries and starts calling them freedom fries... by an act of parliament. Well I think we still hold the worlds stupidity record- politically speaking.

It was a massively dumb thing for Harper to do. He took a gamble that the opposition would not risk calling another election only two months after the last one. His leadership style is a centralized one. His ministers do not speak out of turn and policy is directed from his office. This sits squarely on his shoulders.

He has been known as a brilliant strategist.
-----Added 4/12/2008 at 05 : 16 : 36-----
I just saw this interview with Michael Ignatief on YouTube. I haven't been a fan of his but it's nice to see a politician that can speak. Dion's address to the nation was terrible.

A few things:
- Jim Flaherty's economic update was not a budget. A few people keep on calling it that. Should it have had more real stuff in it? Sure but it is still not a budget.
- Tully Mars to be completely clear, in proposing to cut the subsidies to the parties Harper's parties subsidies would also be cut.
-Harper leadership style is centralized. In most cases this has helped his cause as he could not trust the people around him from blundering. In this case it was his idea to slip these controversial items in Flaherty's economic update. Layton and Dion, however, are not much different this time. The coalition idea did not come from the members of their party and they did not seek apporval for this coalition from the members in parliament (I just read this this morning. I am trying to find it).


How about John Baird as leader of the Conservatives?

I got that. Just seemed like an bad move. Sounds like "Now that I'm elected in let's make this whole getting elected more difficult.

We've been prorogued.

Don't like it - it subverts Parliamentary democracy.

I'd have liked the GG to have said "OK, we'll prorogue, but you harper have to quit and someone else from the Consevative party has 6 weeks to fix this."

Actually what I find most odd about it is if you look at the US the money from the Right used to be much more than from the left but things have changed. Obama was able to raise multiple times the amount of money that was raised by the republicans.
If this is any sort of North American trend you would expect that while the Conservatives may raise alot of money now that perhaps with a more dynamic leader than Stephane Dion the Liberals, in the future, may see more money being raised for their party.
If this is the case then it would seem shortsighted to cut this subsidy if it may be needed in the future.

Quite frankly I will never buy into any argument that a subsidy of political parties is needed. Coercing a person to support a political or moral cause is wrong, and that is exactly what the subsidy is. You can certainly kill subsidies to political parties and NOT increase the handouts they get elsewhere. Let them adapt. Let them argue to the votes to voluntarily submit their 1.95 to the party. The current subsidy, like all subsidies, is tantamount to stealing.

As for the prorouging of parliament, I don't particularly agree with it. I'd rather have had an election as the three stooges which likely to have lost a lot of seats in; or Harper should've handed the reigns to the "Coalition" which would have been just enough rope to hang themselves with.
-----Added 4/12/2008 at 12 : 49 : 28-----
On second thought, I expect the Coalition will implode between now and when parliament resumes so maybe it's for the better. Canadians will get a chance to see how well the three headed turkey walks

I'm sorry I know I'm asking dumb ass questions here, but my educational system didn't even seem to think the names nor number of provinces and territories in Canada were important. Hell, I didn't even know there were any territories until Nunavut was added in the 90's(?)

Anyway, this move by Harper (with an assist from the GG) is a delay and not an end of the issue, right? Seems like Harper bought some time to put together a real budget rather then what he first put out (from my read his budget wasn't well received.) So now he has time to get a realistic budget and plan put together.

I may be reading this situation all wrong but his actions remind me of Bush Jr. Seems like he's taken a "my way or the highway, boys" attitude. Bush got away with that crap for years because his party was in control of a two party system. Canada's system doesn't seem very conducive to this type of governing.

He is a my way or the highway type of guy but that is not really what is happening here. You are correct that it is just about buying time. He will now have to come up with a Budget that is acceptable enough to any of the other parties if he wants it to be passed. If not his government will be defeated and the Governor General will either allow for the calling or ask if some other party would like to try and form a government.
I would rather that it goes to an election (my opinion).

CandleInTheDark I feel that there is another side the subsidy where I see a benefit. My ridding always votes Liberal by a huge majority. This subsidy allows me to give something to the party that I want in power even though there is no way that my vote will ever get them into power. It makes me feel like my vote is worth somethin (1.95 to be specific)

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?

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.

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

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

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.

ehem... the 4 stooges.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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,....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9427/example1si8.jpg



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."

Too True Percy! very good

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".

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.:rolleyes:

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Charlatan, Harper is 12 seats short of a Majority with a poor showing in Quebec. He doesn't need Quebec for a majority. I would also expect federalists in Quebec will now turn their Liberal vote into a Conservative one given the alignment we've seen between the Seperatists and the Liberals. Quebec simply is not as valuable to the federal politics as it once was, and with shifting electoral base to the west it will increasingly lose it's power.

Given the pandering done to Quebec during Harper's time in power, and no pay off from it, the Tories will no longer seek to appease the Quebec electorate. Let them suffer the Bloc Quebecois.

A Harper majority would be the worst thing for Canada, arguably as bad as Quebec separation. Hyperbole? Perhaps.

So Dion stepped down today. I must say, I like calling him incompetant, but really,..I kind of feel sorry for him. He looked like a deer caught in the headlights from the second he won the leadership bid in Montreal. And what a roller coaster ride for him. A week ago he was probably lying in bed unable to sleep, fantasizing about being PM, meeting world leaders, getting free rounds of golf and then,...POOF,...reality hits him for the last time. At least he didn't have a heart attack under all that scrutiny.

Now comes Iggy.(I will call him Iggy because I can neither spell nor pronounce his name) Now theres a spot between a rock and well,..a rock. I think he wants time to get a foot hold on the situation,..in other words I don't think he wants to overthrow the government just yet. For his survival, it would be better to let Harper dig his own hole for the next 12-18 months and rebuild whats left of the Liberals.

But you've got Bob"pit bull" Rae who is raring to see Harper out on his tush. If a coalition government with Iggy at the helm agrees to a non-confidence vote, that will be lights out for Iggy. They will not win. Then Bob will get his chance. Any card carrying Liberals out there? Pay attention, you may get a shot at being leader. Oh wait,..forgot about Belinda. 7 to 1 odds she makes an appearance if the coalition goes ahead next month and fails.

As for,..geez I almost forgot his name already. As for Layton? Never will be a threat. And the other guy,.the sovereigntist. Same bargain bin as Layton.

-----Added 8/12/2008 at 07 : 04 : 42-----
Couldn't be worse than Chretien unless Harper ruled a majority for 10 years and achieved as little,..or basically next to nothing, while being asleep at the wheel for the '95 referendum, scandal on top of scandal, etc And even worse, Chretien was such an arrogant dispicable megalomaniac that he had to destroy his own party so that any successors couldn't or wouldn't dim the light that Chretien thinks shines for him only. If Harper can do all that, I'll give you props for sure.

So I guess we'll see what Iggy does now. I really have no idea. It all depends on Harper's next move with the budget. I don't actually think Iggy will lead the liberals in a coalition for anything more than sending us back to the polls because he just kinda stayed in the backgrounds of whole coalition thing (probably so it wouldn't bite him in the ass later).
If Harper tables a budget that a) makes sense and b) isn't designed to piss off all the other parties then I can see it going through and going back to business as usual in Ottawa (Harper minority with no coalition).

Harper did what he needed to do (or to appear to be doing), he reached out and offered the new leader of the Liberals, Ignatieff, a chance to work together with him on the budget.

Ignatieff is taking the high road on this and not forcing the issue of the coalition or the vote of non-confidence. His words, "a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition" is exactly what is needed. The threat of a coalition is a strong weapon to use against the Conservative minority. Perhaps Ignatieff can keep Harper in line.

What a roller coaster ride.

Hopefully the coalition and a unilateral minority are both dead.

Given his baggage, Bob Rae's drop out was very, very smart.

Can we cut a month of the break now? Pretty please?

I think Iggy and Harper will be a good match for challenging each other. Let's face it, Harper dealing with Dion and especially Layton is an intellectual mismatch. Dion somewhat less just because I think his biggest problem is that he can't express himself in an outward sense,,..he is a thinker but can't think on his feet.

An obstacle Iggy he will have to overcome is to be identifiable to the public. Loads of people know nothing about him and his challenge, when ever the next election comes will be to convince people that he is the person for the job after spending 3 decades in the USA.

I haven't reached an opinion on Iggy yet other than at the first glance a couple of years ago,...he was a little wet behind the ears, so will have to see what kind of substance has developed in the interim.

I certainly hope he isn't another one of these windbag scholars like,..oh who's that pain in the ass who hangs out with the likes of hack writers like Margaret Atwood et al....oh yeah,..Mr. Adrienne Clarkson, otherwise known in less formal circles as John Ralston Saul. If Iggy is anything like that self centered creep well,...me, Joe Poutine and Johnny Hayseed will not be impressed. Save it for those who give a shit.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 08 : 27 : 43-----
Just checking around the political front and notice a few conservative mp's acknowledging Iggy's almost distancing act from the coalition and more interesting, that from the NDP.

I like that.The conservatives saying they are willing to listen to and specifically to the Liberals with zero mention to the NDP and Bloc.

Seems the conservatives are throwing the liberals a bone. Hmmm

oh my goodness...do I detect a resurgence of the Progressive Conservative brand? Could it be so?

The Progressive Conservative party is dead. Their numbers within the CPC are too low compared to the core of Reformers that make up the party. It would take quite a bit (more than just getting rid of Harper) to change the direction of their policy to more in line with what the PC party was.

The truth is, the Liberals under Chretien were far more conservative in the fiscal policy than most seem to recall. They hugely cut spending and as a result managed to be the only G7 country to run deficit free budgets. It's for this reason that many in the PC party didn't return to PC party after Mulroney left the party shattered. They stayed Liberal for many years. It was only with the ad scandal and then Dion, that Liberals bled votes to the Conservatives, NDP and Greens.

There are a number of votes that can be won back with the right leadership at the helm of the Liberals.

I still don't see a majority for any party but we could easily see a minority for the Liberals within one or two elections... and given the frequency of elections these days, that could be a year from now.

The other thing of note is that even if the Conservatives fall, this time over the appointment of the Senators, I have heard that Ignatief may attempt to form the government with the support of the NDP and Bloc but not in the form of an official coalition (the difference being there would be no cabinet seats for the NDP).

The Trudeau minority in the early 70s had a similar set up.

Well Iggy was on the tube yesterday after his meeting with Harper and basically said it is Harpers job to come up with a plan, not his. So much for the opposition wanting their say. Actually more like entitlement of their demands.

Not that this is a bad thing. More power to Harper now that he can shower Canadians with the goods to isolate the opposition.

He has the green light to appease Canadians, the ones who matter in the grand scheme of things, not the desperate opposition.

From the sounds of it, Harper wasn't putting anything out there, he was just asking the opposition to come up with something. That doesn't sound like working together. That sounds like Harper was trying to set it up the opposition so that when the economy continues to tank he can blame them.

Quite frankly, I wish they'd all stop fucking around and get on with it. They are all still manoeuvring while things get worse.

I haven't yet contributed to or commented on this thread, but I've been following along quietly. I'm still digesting all of this.

One thing I'll add, though, is that I give Harper a lot of credit. He's proven on a number of occasions--in the last government--that he has a strong capacity for politicking. Much of the degradation of the Liberal party over the past few years has happened directly through the actions of Harper. He's shown me that he's a politician's politician. (Which, coincidentally, is why I don't want him to ever get a majority.)

Although it may seem he's made a few "mistakes" lately, I'm not so sure this is the case. He's got a briefcase full of things he can pull out at any time to make an example of the Liberals to the benefit of the Tories. He will show that the Liberals have had a track record of going along with the Tories, whether it was as positive support or through a lack of negating actions.

I'm thinking he's doing some more mining here with the threat of the coalition. When it comes time for the Tories to go for their majority (if there ever comes a time), they will have a ton of talking points to communicate to the public. This is currently the strength of the Tory position in this minority environment.