The shame and disgrace that is Stephen Harper

[Guest rattler]

Who says the Lieberals would lead the coalition?

If it happens to be a Lieberal as leader, who says that they could lead and not the NDP?

The NDP lead???????? to bankruptcy perhaps.......

[Fido]

The NDP lead???????? to bankruptcy perhaps.......

They don't have to lead.....they can push.

[Guest rattler]

They don't have to lead.....they can push.

Now I understand, just like those lemmings who push the others off the cliff.

You had to be living in Ont. to understand the following joke:

Heard on the Q107 morning show:

"I went to an NDP fund raiser yesterday..."

"Really?"

"Yeah, I went to work."

And then not too long ago Bob Rae had something to say about the NDP, just consider the source. How soon the tune changes.

The trouble with the NDP

9/10/2008

Jack Layton's decision to fight Elizabeth May and the Green Party's participation in the leader's debate might surprise some. It didn't surprise me.

For a party that once immersed itself in principle, it is admittedly a come down, but it's been clear for some time now that it is narrow self-interest and not high principle that drives "Jack Layton's NDP".

In the Toronto Centre by-election I was struck how the NDP campaign had reduced itself to two themes: class warfare and character assassination. Corporations bad, wealth creation bad, rich guys vs poor guys, "working families" vs what? Lazy families? And attack your opponent for being whatever you want on the day.

The NDP is eternally frustrated by its own decisions to put itself on the margins, and it shows its frustration by retreating to its themes: class warfare and character assassination. So it was. So it will be.

Their attack on the Harper government is a model of hypocrisy, because this is, after all, The House That Jack Built. It was the NDP's gamble that it could defeat child care, Kelowna, urban investment, and then get something better. It didn't, got something much worse, and has never had the honesty to admit its mistake.Now they're yapping once again about being "the real opposition". What a joke. The point is not to criticize Harper, it is to replace him. And the NDP can't do that, because in the end it will always revert to the Two Themes: class warfare and character assassination.

The NDP decision to exclude the Greens isn't about principle, it's about saving their own skin.

Tom King, the NDP candidate in Guelph, said it last night "the Liberals are the bad guys, they are the enemy". We have the most right wing government in history and the NDP turns its guns on the Liberals. And the Greens.

We need to build a progessive coalition to defeat the Harperites. This isn't about saving the NDP's skin. It's about defeating, and replacing, a government that doesn't believe in child care, better health care, a new partnership with first nations, Metis, and Inuit, investment in cities and has no commitment whatsoever to the environment. The NDP doesn't get that. Jack Layton thinks he's Obama. What a joke. He's Ralph Nader, hand on the horn, "no difference between Bush and Al Gore".

[CD]

More intersting factoids in the news...

Tories toss policy, release secret tapes to dodge defeat

30 Nov, 4:32 PM

...

The Conservative's claim that a coalition government would have no legitimacy does not accord with Harper's own position on the matter just four years ago.

In September 2004, Harper wrote to then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson to argue that she should "consider all your options" if the Liberal minority of Paul Martin was to fall on a confidence vote.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation," Harper wrote.

Harper co-signed the letter with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe.

Full article here...

[Guest rattler]

More intersting factoids in the news...

As I stated earlier, Political parties only care about money and power. Anyone who believe otherwise is due to be disappointed.

[Moon The Loon]

So if the coalition does occur, would this not require another election

Nope, hence the constitutional crisis. A government in power but not elected to govern.

[dagger]

Nope, hence the constitutional crisis. A government in power but not elected to govern.

That's not a crisis at all. The coalition would represent 63% of the electorate, versus 37% today.

After all, Steve himself told the GG when he was in opposition that giving the opposition a chance to govern after defeating Paul Martin's government would be the appropriate thing.

No party without a majority is elected to govern. The tradition is that the party with the most seats is asked to govern, but in a minority Parliament it must seek the support of the opposition parties.

I know the Tories are trying to spin this as a constitutional crisis, but it isn't. It's political crisis of Harper's own making.

[Guest rattler]

And the facts are / were

Those talks did not invoke a coalition, but rather revolved around replacing the elected Liberal minority with a Conservative government led by Harper and supported by the New Democrats and Bloc on an issue-by-issue basis.

During Saturday's conference call, Layton also is heard saying it doesn't matter what the policy issues are, they just need to defeat the Harper minority. He says he hopes a lasting coalition can be built that will survive two or three years in government.

NDP spokesman Brad Lavigne said the Conservatives are merely trying to deflect attention from the government losing the confidence of the House of Commons.

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

An unidentified Tory was "invited" to participate in the call, said PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas.

"Maybe the invitation was meant for the Bloc, and they accidentally invited us. We were invited. When you get invited somewhere you have the opportunity to choose to participate or not participate."

http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/497106

[RFL]

Ok here is my take on it:

The trio was already scheming to tank the goverment at the next budget presentation. Anyone notice how quickly the coalition formed? Anyone believe things actually happen that fast in Canadian politics? If the GG allows a coalition to take over without an election (and that is the burning desire of each of the trio) then we have the national control wheel in the hands of a non-elected and non-scrutinized group with no formal plan or platform. We the citizens have no input.

The $1.95 dart was irrelevant except it forced them to give up the surprise factor.

[J.O.]

I don't know about that RFL. Threatening to cut someone's major source of funds off at the knees has a way of making people react pretty quickly. Besides, I think you're giving all of them way too much credit.

[Guest rattler]

Seems that the Liberals are split on the issue.

John Ivison: Coalition success may ride on Ignatieff, and he isn't game

Posted: November 30, 2008, 10:34 PM by Shereen Dindar

Full Comment, John Ivison, canada, Canadian, Canadian politics

By John Ivison

Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff is unlikely to support the coalition deal being negotiated by lame duck leader Stéphane Dion - a decision that would doom the opposition parties attempt to bring down the government next week in a vote of no-confidence in the House of Commons.

A person close to Mr. Ignatieff said that any deal with the Bloc Québécois and NDP struck by Mr. Dion would be a “poison chalice” for the next leader. He said that Mr. Ignatieff has the support of more than 50 of the 77 Liberal MPs, so the success or failure of a coalition proposition will depend on how the leadership candidate views any deal.

Although Mr. Ignatieff has publicly maintained the official Liberal line that the government should fall over its handling of the economy, his supporters say any coalition deal with the left-wing NDP and separatist Bloc is fraught with risk. It would only take nine Liberals to be absent from the House next Monday for the government to survive and the source said he fully expects a number of no-shows.

Liberal attempts to reach a deal with the NDP face a number of hurdles, not least of which is the New Democrats’ insistence on a senior economic portfolio such as industry for leader Jack Layton. The Liberals are equally determined that those economic jobs should be held exclusively by them. But one senior Grit confided that the internal leadership dynamic creates even bigger obstacles to an agreement than negotiations with the New Democrats.

The source in the Ignatieff camp said Mr. Dion is making all the running on coalition talks with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, and is not consulting with leadership candidates, Mr. Ignatieff, Bob Rae or Dominic LeBlanc.

“Dion is like Frankenstein’s monster - he’s on the slab and just had a jolt of life injected into him. He’s going full tilt ahead with this coalition but his caucus isn’t going with him,” the source said.

Mr. Ignatieff’s supporters are aware that a coalition would be shaky, and probably short-lived. The Conservatives opened their war-room yesterday, just in case the country is plunged into an election next week, and are already preparing to hammer the Liberals for striking a deal with the sovereigntist Bloc.

“Ignatieff knows he will probably be leader next May, so why not do it cleanly and properly? What’s in it for him to be part of this power grab?” asked one Conservative, who said he was also hearing from sources that Mr. Ignatieff does not want to be part of any deal.

Despite the increased likelihood that the government will survive the confidence vote, the coming week is still likely to be full of high drama.

Yesterday, the government continued its attempts to remove the irritants that provoked the crisis. The proposed ban on strikes for the public service was ditched, following the remarkable u-turn on the public funding of political parties issue on Saturday. Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, said yesterday that he will bring down a Budget on January 27, although he stopped short of promising the kind of stimulus package the opposition parties have been demanding.

Scott Brison, the Liberal finance critic, said that the government’s moves mean nothing. “We can’t trust anything this government says anymore. We have no faith in this Prime Minister,” he said.

The Conservatives hope that the focus of media coverage will now shift to the potential coalition partners and what the some Tories have been calling their “coup d’état”. The allegation that NDP leader Jack Layton and the Blco Québécois’ Gilles Duceppe held conversations about a coalition long before the current crisis offered the Conservatives the chance to hit back after days of being pounded over the political funding issue. They charged that the confidence vote is not about the handling of the economy or the government’s fall update, “[it] is merely a trigger to execute a long-standing secret deal between the NDP and the Quebec separatists.”

The Conservatives have alleged that the moves by the opposition parties to offer themselves up to the Governor-General as a viable alternative, should the government fall, are undemocratic. However, the Liberals retaliated by saying that Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe presented precisely the same proposal to former Governor-General, Adrienne Clarkson, in 2005.

The only certainty amidst the drama is that Stephen Harper has been wounded by his miscalculation. His reputation for strategic brilliance is in tatters and many Conservatives have started speculating about leadership challenges. An unoffical website called Conservatives for Jim Prentice sprung up yesterday, pointing out that Mr. Prentice has invited his opposition critics to join him at the U.N.’s global climate-change talks taking place next week in Poland. “If the government had acted more like this, while still advancing the Conservative agenda in a less agressive way, we might not be staring into the abyss,” wrote the anonymous supporter of the Environment Minister.

[Hadji Ramjet]

Mitch:

It's the information presented that's important: if you have an issue with the information, then rebut it with facts instead of defending your delicate sensibilities with ad hominem attacks.

Peace through deterrence, victory through devastation.

[Dork]

Yawn....LOL.

What a bunch of .umbasses.

The global economy is in the tank and the Liberals and NDP want to throw a hissy fit.

AMF,

Time to bury these .ackasses. The Canadian public has no patience for this manure.

[dagger]

Seems that the Liberals are split on the issue.

Or not. It also seems as if Harper's rep in his own party will be the big loser here. Jim Prentice for PM? I might vote for him!

As I posited earlier, in the end the Grits and NDP will roll this agreement up, stuff it in a tube, and put it on the table in front of Harper with a warning that it comes out of the tube if he makes every vote a confidence vote. Ignatieff will make sure it gets stuffed in the tube, while warning the Tories if they pull a stunt like this again, they're toast.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

[BoomerPete]

Time to bury these .ackasses. The Canadian public has no patience for this manure.

Too true ... but the manure in question is Stephen Harper.

Harper's own past statements have come back to haunt him, fully revealing his lack of principles and laying bare his willingness to use a major national crisis as a means for advancing unabashedly partisan policies that he made no mention of in an election fought less than two months ago and that contribute little to solving the problems that presently confront us.

In 1979 he denounced Joe Clark for allowing his minority government to fall over a gasoline tax that wasn't a part of the platform the party presented to voters. In 2008 he pulls the same stunt, only with the decidely idiotic twist of doing it over policies sure to alienate the significant majority of voters who have just voted against him.

In 2006 he was more than ready to grease the skids in an attempt to get rid of Paul Martin's minority government telling the Governor-General that:

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority,"

Today under very similar circumstances he tells the nation:

"While we have been working on the economy, the opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters. They want to take power, not earn it."

So, it's entirely appropriate for his party to collude with other parties to defeat the party in power and form a new government supported by a majority of parliament, it's just not allowed when the party so defeated happens to be his?

What's worse is that Harper has as much as suggested in his comments that a coalition of the Liberals and NDP with Bloc support would be unconstitutional and that the Governor-General should not permit such a government to be formed. Does he take us all for illiterate idiots who can neither understand the terms under which our own governance takes place nor observe the many examples of minority coalition governments that have governed in other democratic states such as Germany, Italy and Israel? That such coalition minority governments are rarely stable is irrelevant. They are a constitutionally acceptable result of an election where no party gains an absolute majority and no single party is able to form a government that has the confidence of a majority of the members of the House. Suggesting otherwise and attempting to engender a constitutional crisis over it at time like this has to be considered the ultimate act of placing one's own interest ahead of the nation's. Disgraceful is far too weak a word to describe it. For doing this to Canada at a moment when there is a dire need for sound principled leadership Stephen Harper makes me want to puke.

Now, of course, Harper and the Conservatives are in full retreat, trying to undo the damage they have inflicted upon themselves. The problem is, it's too late. Harper has revealed himself in all his cynical, vindictive glory. The opposition parties now know that Stephen Harper can never be trusted on any level ever again. There is no pledge to be less partisan or more noble in power that can be believed. They know that if they allow this government to live Harper will choose the time and he will find the means to exact an even greater revenge on them. It is fundamental to his nature.

So, regardless of what the Conservatives do next week, the die is cast and this government will fall. For this they have no one but themselves, and most specifically their leader, to blame. How long the coalition will last or how well it will govern is anybody's guess, but it will exist for only one reason: Harper's strategy of intimidation blew up in his face.

In the end, perhaps it is poetic justice that Stephen Harper, a man bent on sticking a shiv into an opposition already doubled over in weakness managed instead to plunge the knife squarely, deeply and firmly between his own shoulder blades. It's truly Shakespearean.

Pete

[BoomerPete]

As a P.S. - I've been reading Roy MacGregor's columns for years. His beat has mostly been sports, and more recently all those things big and small that make up being a Canadian. He is decidedly not a writer with a political cant or agenda. I think his column today captures the esseence of the situation far better than any of the overtly politcal commentators has so far been able to:

Globe & Mail: Harper rising in ranks of out-of-touch prime ministers

Globe and Mail

This Country

Harper rising in ranks of out-of-touch prime ministers

Roy MacGregor

December 1, 2008 at 5:24 AM EST

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper is indeed going down, it will be as the most successful politician in Canadian history.

The man who united the right and the left.

It is how he will go down as Prime Minister that puzzles at the moment, as this past week he has resembled some bizarre amalgamation of former prime minister Joe Clark, former U.S. president Richard Nixon and, unbelievably, former Roman emperor Nero.

Canada has a long history of leaders oddly out of touch with regular people, from Mackenzie King talking to his dead mother and dog, to Pierre Trudeau peering out the limousine window at the country lights and wondering aloud whatever do such people do?

If, as the Prime Minister appeared to be suggesting on Friday, the only proper answer to a vote of no-confidence against his minority government would have to be another election, then he knows nothing of the ground-level contempt out there for holding yet another useless electoral exercise bare weeks after the last.

Harper also seems to have no sense whatsoever of the fear - even if some of it is misplaced - that older Canadians have for their savings and their children, and younger Canadians have for their jobs and job prospects. To say such concerns will be addressed in a distant budget - since sharply moved up - simply fed the panic. And to allow his Finance Minister to boast a surplus is still possible is simply foolish. Surely such news warmed the hearts of those being laid off just in time for the holidays.

But then, to add to all this misconception by suggesting that the country would somehow benefit from dropping public funding of political parties - the mind boggles. Why not go all the way back to being beholden to big business? Though it's pretty hard to say, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country" with a straight face.

This Nixonian desire to crush the opposition by whatever means possible is alarming. The Prime Minister clearly doesn't understand that Canadians prefer to put their own boots to political parties.

It also speaks to the brilliance of the collective that chose to deny the Prime Minister a clear majority on Oct. 14. That he could not win 200-plus seats up against a hopeless Liberal Leader with a hopeless policy says as much about the people's trust of Harper as it does their disdain for Stéphane Dion.

The man who ridiculed Joe Clark for thinking he could govern as though he had a majority has fallen into the very same trap. In Clark's case, he couldn't count. In Harper's case, he couldn't see.

The Sunday rumours that the Prime Minister will now seek to prorogue Parliament and govern without it until the New Year is fascinating. And if that doesn't work, maybe he can bring in the army.

What this whiff of tyranny he let loose in the Centre Block has done is infuriate the opposition parties to a point where they say they will topple the government no matter how far the Conservatives back down.

Harper says that if they do so, only another election can properly decide matters. But he is wrong. If he asked Governor-General Michaëlle Jean to allow a fresh election, she would surely refuse, given the state of the world economy and the mood of the Canadian people.

In fact, given what has happened this past week, it is arguable that she would have been wiser not to have allowed the previous election that tossed out the fixed election date and settled nothing. When Harper argued that Parliament was "dysfunctional," what she should have said in return was "Make it work."

Back on Sept. 5, former Liberal cabinet minister and former senator Eugene Whelan wrote to the Governor-General begging her to say "No," and call on the other leaders to form a government. The privy councillor received a form letter back: "Thank you for writing ...."

Today, at 84, the farmer who held elected office for four decades says he's beginning to feel like "a messiah."

But no matter what the outcome - the compromising Conservatives carrying on, or a coalition in charge - Whelan wants it known that minority governments can work just fine.

He sat through the Pearson-Diefenbaker years when once the dust settled from the various battles, they came up with such matters as medicare, the flag, the auto pact and student loans.

"I must say," he wrote to the Governor-General, the 1960s "were some of the most productive years of my Parliamentary career."

Too bad, he says, no one ever bothered to show his letter to her. In his last year as agriculture minister, he says, he read and signed 18,772 letters, each one with a small "P.S." at the bottom "just so they'd know I had read it."

So he will try again, because he's never stopped believing that political solutions can be found to any problem his country faces.

"I'm like an old milk horse," he says from his home near Windsor. "They retired him after 30 years and every morning he still goes to the front gate to get his harness on."

[deicer]

"he has resembled some bizarre amalgamation of former prime minister Joe Clark, former U.S. president Richard Nixon and, unbelievably, former Roman emperor Nero."

A quite adequate discription of Steve.

[Mitch Cronin]

Mitch:

It's the information presented that's important: if you have an issue with the information, then rebut it with facts instead of defending your delicate sensibilities with ad hominem attacks.

Peace through deterrence, victory through devastation.

Right you are old bean , but that doesn't mean I'm gonna leave you alone if I see you bullyin' someone...

I like this place 'cause people are generally decent with each other... Yep, there are exceptions, but generally speaking, someone can offer up some dumb idea or thought or wrong conclusions or whatever (it's been known to happen from time to time!) and he won't get squashed and made to feel very small... Generally, he'll be set straight without malice or sting.

If you want to be a pompous dick and not get flak for that, go on over to PPrune and you'll probably feel right at home... over here, you're likely to hear something from me about it... others too I'd bet.

I know, you're right... attack the argument, not the one posting it... I'm guilty of breaching that very reasonable convention occasionally... I'll try to fix that... but don't expect me to accept boldfaced rudeness or the asinine treatment of anyone else without comment.

And J.O. was right, by the way. You were rude to Don and you ought to apologize.

[dagger]

I think Adam Radwanski has it about right.

Harper has not only botched this affair badly, he botched the election as well.

Isn't it time that some of his defenders here grow some stones and demand a better Tory leader and PM?

How to spend your stay of execution

Adam Radwanski, today at 12:11 PM EST

Now we find out if the Conservatives are a real party.

Replacing leaders is not a decision to be taken lightly. But if Conservatives are not at least seriously discussing the replacement of Stephen Harper before Parliament returns on Jan. 26, he truly has succeeded in creating a cult of personality.

Conservatives assuredly owe Harper a debt of gratitude for turning them from a messy coalition of old Reformers and Progressive Conservatives into a credible national government. But looking at his performance over the past few months, he's performed so badly that it's verged on the self-destructive.

This is a Prime Minister who called an early election to win a majority government, and failed utterly to make a case for what he would do with it. One who ran against one of the weakest Liberal leaders in history, while the Liberals were bleeding votes to the NDP, and had his campaign more or less match Stephane Dion's blunder for blunder. One who returned to Parliament with the consolation prize of a minority, and managed to almost immediately lose it based on a blunder that made Joe Clark look like a strategic genius by comparison.

Harper has, in many ways, put his party in position to win - not just a minority government here and there, but to be Canada's strongest federal party for a sustained period. But he now stands as the biggest barrier to that outcome. His personality is not conducive to either leading a minority government or winning a majority one. And he's so prone to tactical overreaches that it's only a matter of time until he puts his party further into a hole.

Conservatives, particularly caucus members, have placed a level of trust in Harper that goes beyond what most parties invest in their leaders. From ministers to backbenchers, they've effectively surrendered their voices to him. Solidarity is one thing; as anyone in my line of work can attest, getting any elected Conservative (with the exception of Michael Chong) to express a single independent thought is virtually impossible. Many of them won't even make themselves available to spout talking points, presumably because they're terrified of going off-message.

That's a bargain that may - may - be worth making if your leader is a strategic genius. Harper is nothing close to that. The Liberals were probably unwise to force out Jean Chretien, a leader who had led them to three straight majorities but was seen not to have enough respect for his party. But would anybody have faulted them for dumping him, as they surely would have, if he'd managed to win only a minority government against Stockwell Day and had then effectively lost control of Parliament to a Day-led coalition of Canadian Alliance members, Progressive Conservatives and Bloquistes?

The question is whether this party exists in anything approaching its current form without Harper at the helm, since he and a tight circle of trusted strategists and fixers control virtually all of its operations. But it's something Conservatives are going to have to test at some point, and Harper has made a very convincing case that they should do it sooner than later.

The Governor-General has, at considerable expense to parliamentary democracy, allowed Harper to basically shut down the government to save his own skin. That's a reprieve for him. It's an opportunity for his party.

[Guest rattler]

Dagger I think Harper bouched things also but the chances of the Conservatives turfing him and

grow some stones and demand a better Tory leader and PM?

are much the same as the Liberals coming up with a new face / direction for their new leader.

[dagger]

Dagger I think Harper bouched things also but the chances of the Conservatives turfing him and are much the same as the Liberals coming up with a new face / direction for their new leader.

Well, the Liberals are looking for a leader, so what's your point?

There are probably a half dozen Tories in that caucus that would make better prime ministers than Harper because they are more likely to be statesmen and unifiers.

[Maverick]

Well, the Liberals are looking for a leader, so what's your point?

There are probably a half dozen Tories in that caucus that would make better prime ministers than Harper because they are more likely to be statesmen and unifiers.

Perhaps but Harper is it for now. There is no way on earth that this coalition will be able to hold unity for a week much less seven. The fundamentals are just too different.

Harper will come out of this bruised but still in control and the three amigo's will be answering to their constituents as to how this disgusting Ménage à trois was ever allowed to develop.

Screech as much as you like. Harper is an idiot for getting himself and the tories to where we are but this will be gone before we know it along with Dion and possibly Layton as well.

[Guest rattler]

Well, the Liberals are looking for a leader, so what's your point?

There are probably a half dozen Tories in that caucus that would make better prime ministers than Harper because they are more likely to be statesmen and unifiers.

And so far the pickings are very lean, but maybe more will come to the fore.

1. another professor with limited "real life" experience.

2. ex NDP of Ontario (proved what he could do to an economy)

Are there more out there????

[dagger]

Perhaps but Harper is it for now. There is no way on earth that this coalition will be able to hold unity for a week much less seven. The fundamentals are just too different.

Harper will come out of this bruised but still in control and the three amigo's will be answering to their constituents as to how this disgusting Ménage à trois was ever allowed to develop.

Screech as much as you like. Harper is an idiot for getting himself and the tories to where we are but this will be gone before we know it along with Dion and possibly Layton as well.

So long as Harper is in control, the coalition remains on the table. It's a great insurance policy. It bells the cat. The ultimate recourse to it may not occur, i.e. the parties end up supporting some realistic financial measures, but surely if Harper resorts to more idiocy, the coalition is back on with a vengeance.

As for what constituents think, this may be viewed in Calgary as a disgusting three way, but in the rest of the country, it's a lot more complex because what the coalition stands for on policy is a lot more in synch with the times and with what people in most of the country believe is necessary right now, i.e. ,major stimulus.

Dion is disappearing anyway, and Harper wanted to try to provoke an election while he was still around. Harper will indeed survive, until there is a new Liberal leader, and then what? Mistrust for him outside of a couple of western provinces is so profound that he will be toast and take his party with him to depths like an anchor.

[Guest rattler]

So long as Harper is in control, the coalition remains on the table. It's a great insurance policy. It bells the cat. The ultimate recourse to it may not occur, i.e. the parties end up supporting some realistic financial measures, but surely if Harper resorts to more idiocy, the coalition is back on with a vengeance.

As for what constituents think, this may be viewed in Calgary as a disgusting three way, but in the rest of the country, it's a lot more complex because what the coalition stands for on policy is a lot more in synch with the times and with what people in most of the country believe is necessary right now, i.e. ,major stimulus.

Dion is disappearing anyway, and Harper wanted to try to provoke an election while he was still around. Harper will indeed survive, until there is a new Liberal leader, and then what? Mistrust for him outside of a couple of western provinces is so profound that he will be toast and take his party with him to depths like an anchor.

So I guess these folks are wrong & out of synch?

Liberal resolve to defeat Harper starts to crumble

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 14:43 on December 4, 2008, EDT.

By THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - Liberal resolve to bring down the Conservative government is already starting to crumble.

Within an hour of Prime Minister Stephen Harper winning a two-month reprieve, some Grit MPs were pulling back from the idea of trying to replace the Tory regime with a Liberal-NDP coalition propped up by the Bloc Quebecois.

Toronto MP Jim Karygiannis says the coalition idea is finished and is calling on Stephane Dion to resign the Liberal leadership sooner rather than later.

Dion is scheduled to step aside as Liberal leader once a successor is chosen May 2 but many Liberals remain uneasy about the prospect of ensconcing him in the prime minister's office even temporarily.

Newfoundland MP Scott Simms says all MPs need to give their heads' a collective shake and get back in touch with what their constituents want them to do: fix the faltering economy.

Victoria MP Keith Martin says the two-month suspension of Parliament gives opposition parties a chance to open lines of communication with the government and work out a way to avert another crisis in the new year.