Iggy would lead Liberal/NDP coalition

[dagger]

I don't think there would be anywhere near the uproar if the Libs and NDP were able to topple the government. That's the nature of the beast.

It's the unholy alliance with avowed separtists that is causing the hand wringing, as well it should.

The last poll I saw showed that 70% of Canadians outside Quebec were uncomfortable with a separatist party holding the balance of power, and, here's the difference, gang, being on the inside looking out, versus their traditional position of being on the outside, looking in.

Everyone knows what sort of deals would have to be made with separatists in order not to topple an NDP-Lib coalition.

Having the Queen's representative essentially placing the balance of power in the hands of Seperatists, is , to many Canadians, an utter non-starter. Such a move would undermine the monarchy in Canada, precisely what the Bloc would like to have happen in the first place.

I've never seen an issue galvinize the population in Canada like this. The turnout for the last election was a little sad, (and I've already acknowledged that due to travel, I didn't vote in the last election, the first time in about 30 years ).

If another election costs $300m, so be it. It's a once in every 141 year lesson all Canadians need to learn to recognize the importance of voting in federal, if not all elections.

There won't be a voter alive today that won't recall what the impact of not voting was back in the fall of 2008.

This could very well be a turning point in Canadian political history.

Sorry

We just HAD an election, but Harper wouldn't govern with a minority and concocts a financial statement that could only be calculated to FORCE either the complete submission of the opposition or an election where he could blame them for voting against the government.

He was contriving to get one more crack at a near-broke, Dion led Liberal party.

He refused to accept the will of the people as expressed on Oct. 14

He refused to honor his obligation under the parliamentary system to make the minority parliament work. Quite the opposite - he tried to sabotage it.

Sorry Bean, this one is all on him. Too bad if the opposition refused to commit suicide. Putting country before partisanship, Harper would have avoided all of this. But he's too small a man for that.

[FireFox]

Care to show where the VETO exists in this agreement? Being reported in the press?

Here ya go sunshine. Your turn.

"The coalition accord, deconstructed"

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...onstructed.aspx

[dagger]

Here ya go sunshine. Your turn.

"The coalition accord, deconstructed"

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...onstructed.aspx

I'm sorry, starshine, but they have a right to be consulted, but not a veto. That's Kelly McParland's partisan interpretation. The Bloc is required to support confidence votes, so they can be consulted and their wishes not heeded.

[Thebean]

Sorry

We just HAD an election, but Harper wouldn't govern with a minority and concocts a financial statement that could only be calculated to FORCE either the complete submission of the opposition or an election where he could blame them for voting against the government.

He was contriving to get one more crack at a near-broke, Dion led Liberal party.

He refused to accept the will of the people as expressed on Oct. 14

He refused to honor his obligation under the parliamentary system to make the minority parliament work. Quite the opposite - he tried to sabotage it.

Sorry Bean, this one is all on him. Too bad if the opposition refused to commit suicide. Putting country before partisanship, Harper would have avoided all of this. But he's too small a man for that.

The conservatives were returned with a greatly strengthened minority. There was no confusion at all about the greatly reduced support for the Liberals and NDP. The Bloc is the Bloc. Their numbers won't ever change much.

There was no concensus on anything, except the majority of voters were satisfied with the status quo. If that wasn't the case, presumably the Libs, NDP or Bloc would have replaced the Conservatives in a minority gov't.

I'm hard pressed to think of anything the Conservatives did that was offensive in their previous term, other than being Western-based, which perpetually sticks in the craw of the Ontario liberal crowd.

Sure, the income trust thing was annoying, but I think they did the right thing. If Canada wants to remain competitive, industry must keep retained earnings for r&d, investment, retooling and other requirements.

There are more than a few companies today that could use the cash they've been handing out to shareholders, (alot of whom were insiders with preferential positions achieved at the outset).

Are the Conservatives collectively sharpest crayons in the box? Nope.

I had a chance to meet a few of them in a previous life when they were the Opposition and most of them were as dumb as a sack of hammers and had attention spans of gnats. But then again, nothing compares to the bald face lies that came out the governing party at the time.

Remember, this whole mess was based upon a conservative sensability that taxpayers should not have to subsidize political party's who are so unpopular with the public or so incompetent that they can't even raise a few sheckles from their own supporters.

It's a fundamental philosophical difference: Self-reliance or waiting at the trough for a hand out from big brother.

I guess it's a matter of where you stand.

[handyman]

It's a fundamental philosophical difference: Self-reliance or waiting at the trough for a hand out from big brother.

What's really sad is that the Liberal/NDP supporters are they themselves people who are looking for handouts.

Stop looking for handouts, break open your piggy banks and fund your own party.

Oh...and get a job!

[dagger]

Remember, this whole mess was based upon a conservative sensability that taxpayers should not have to subsidize political party's

Wrong, if policy reform was the goal, the Tories should have made it an election and throne speech issue, and phased it in. Applying it cold turkey was a blatant "hidden agenda" issue to cripple the opposition for another election this year. Alternatively, Harper probably thought that if they voted it down, it would be a perfect issue to blame the opposition for an unnecessary election.

But it wasn't only party financing.

The whole economic update was framed to be unacceptable. It was meant to be voted down.

The Bloc and NDP never could have voted on principle for a three year wage freeze for the civil service that had just signed a new deal. Clearly, the freeze wouldn't have saved a nickle, but was intended to get those pro-labor parties to endorse 1.5% as a fair increase FOR ALL UNIONS (including AC employees, one might surmise.)

So I call BS on your analysis. Three days before Flaherty issued the statement, Harper was talking about big deficits and the need for stimulus and he signed the G-20 statement calling on all members to produce major stimulus, and Flaherty to the dismay of all economists is projecting SURPLUSES?

Come on now. Park the sanctimony. It's clear what Harper was trying to do, and it had nothing to do about policy. It was pure politics, and in many countries, the failure of said initiative and the creation of this crisis would have been clear grounds for his resignation. In those countries, it would have been the honorable thing to do.

[FireFox]

The CooCoo Coalition Crumbles:

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.

[Thebean]

Wrong, if policy reform was the goal, the Tories should have made it an election and throne speech issue, and phased it in. Applying it cold turkey was a blatant "hidden agenda" issue to cripple the opposition for another election this year. Alternatively, Harper probably thought that if they voted it down, it would be a perfect issue to blame the opposition for an unnecessary election.

But it wasn't only party financing.

The whole economic update was framed to be unacceptable. It was meant to be voted down.

The Bloc and NDP never could have voted on principle for a three year wage freeze for the civil service that had just signed a new deal. Clearly, the freeze wouldn't have saved a nickle, but was intended to get those pro-labor parties to endorse 1.5% as a fair increase FOR ALL UNIONS (including AC employees, one might surmise.)

So I call BS on your analysis. Three days before Flaherty issued the statement, Harper was talking about big deficits and the need for stimulus and he signed the G-20 statement calling on all members to produce major stimulus, and Flaherty to the dismay of all economists is projecting SURPLUSES?

Come on now. Park the sanctimony. It's clear what Harper was trying to do, and it had nothing to do about policy. It was pure politics, and in many countries, the failure of said initiative and the creation of this crisis would have been clear grounds for his resignation. In those countries, it would have been the honorable thing to do.

I could see your point if conservative theory was not one of self-reliance, but more akin to the liberal / NDP mentality of "I want it all and I want someone else to pay for it". If that were the case, the Conservative actions would be inconsistent with their philosophy.

However, reducing or eliminating subsidies to groups who lack the willingness, initiative or popular support to raise money on their own is entirely consistent with Conservative ideology. I don't care if that means political parties, the CBC or The Society for the Advancement of One Armed Paper Hangers.

What's completely and utterly inconsistent is the Liberals, a federalist party, offering the Bloc, an avowed separatist group, power, paid for by the ROC with all kinds of lucrative secret, backroom deals. That is a complete, utter and pathetic betrayal of all things the Libs profess to stand for and an insult to every Canadian who supports a united Canada.

If, and that's a big if, the Conservatives made deals with opposition to bring down a Liberal / NDP Gov't , it would be just that. To bring it down and have an election so the voters can get off their thumbs and decide.

It would never involve giving a pack of hungry wolves the keys to the meat locker.

[FireFox]

Very well said Bean.

[DEFCON]

Perfectly stated throughout the thread, Bean.

[AME]

Sorry

We just HAD an election, but Harper wouldn't govern with a minority and concocts a financial statement that could only be calculated to FORCE either the complete submission of the opposition or an election where he could blame them for voting against the government.

He was contriving to get one more crack at a near-broke, Dion led Liberal party.

He refused to accept the will of the people as expressed on Oct. 14

He refused to honor his obligation under the parliamentary system to make the minority parliament work. Quite the opposite - he tried to sabotage it.

Sorry Bean, this one is all on him. Too bad if the opposition refused to commit suicide. Putting country before partisanship, Harper would have avoided all of this. But he's too small a man for that.

Mr Dagger

IMHO

What you are saying can only be true if you can prove that Harper would not have put forward the same package had he gotten a majority.

In order for this to be the sneaky underhanded trick you claim it to be someone somewhere has to prove that it wasn't the plan regardless of the election outcome.

How's that for spin

[BoomerPete]

"Just brilliant leadership."

Pete, no matter who supports who, no matter how this turns out, no matter what the rhetoric spouting from Ottawa from all, but especially the bobbing-and-weaving Prime Minister, (mind the body language, not the speech), and no matter who voted for who, that is the key to this entire disaster in governance - the most out-of-touch piece of stupid and reckless calculation by a political leader in recent memory.

Stephen Harper deserves to lose his job and disappear from Canadian politics, Flaherty needs to grow some balls, (an opportunity he will however, shortly lose), Dion and his team of incompetents need to sit in the corner with the dunce hats on, Layton needs to get rid of the stars in his eyes and Duceppe needs to stop feigning a collegial honesty.

By his speech yesterday, Harper has demonstrated he doesn't get what happened and what he did - divided the country as no other PM has. He has threatened democracy in Canada as no other leader has.

Funding for the parties has nothing to do with who they are or what persuasions they represent. The political parties are legitimately constituted and elected into Parliament. Removing funding is effectively removing a fundamental principle of a democracy. This is a principle which the Conservatives still don't get.

GG may prorogue this parliament but that would be a terrible decision that rewards the irresponsibility of this leader, even though she doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so. Harper has lost the confidence of Parliament - ergo, things must continue. To prorogue, he gets away with this.

GG's earning her salary for the first time.

We'll spend the next month kicking tin, looking for the primary cause but we need look no further than the Prime Minister himself. The rest are details of partisan politics. We are now in uncharted democratic territory in the worst financial crisis since 1929. The Conservative Party has a great deal to answer for.

rattler;

"there is no doubt he build the field but then the others came. "

Of course they did. The Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the House and there was a vacuum of leadership - something had to be done. They did what was Constitutionally proper. Spin came later.

Don,

Indeed leadership, or more precisely the staggering lack of it is the essence of this crisis. Bad policy decisions (since withdrawn) led first to the demonization of the majority that opposed them, now to the rending of constitutional precedents, and soon to a devolution into a full throated national unity crisis, evidence of which is plentiful without even having to leave our little AEF world. It is unbelievable to me that one stubborn, vindictive, small minded man could wreak such havoc upon the nation in a matter of days. There are no prizes to be handed out to the other leaders either, fortunately Dion will soon be gone and in the end Layton and Duceppe are irrelevant to the resolution of the crisis.

It's amazing how quick the drop has been and how closely our politics now resembles that of Thailand. Like the Thais the essential problem in front of us, the point on which all seem intransigent, is the fate of the Prime Minister (though in Thailand it seems that the courts have now stepped in and removed the PM - can you imagine that as our next step ?). It is clear to many in our country that after this Stephen Harper must never, ever, be given another opportunity to lead the nation. The real crisis we are facing will not end while he remains in power.

Regarding the GG's decision to accept the request to prorogue Parliament, that one was a tough call, so I'm not surprised that she went for the easier (read stall for time) option. From what I've learned so far (and we're all learning a lot I suspect) in general terms a GG must accept the PM's requests regarding the starting and ending of sessions of Parliament. The "but" in the deal is that proroguing has never been used as a means to prevent Parliament from voting on a matter of confidence, and, given the ample evidence that the PM has lost the confidence of the House, his "guidance" to the GG is tainted by the fact that he is no longer speaking for the nation's interest but instead against that interest as it has been expressed by a majority of our representatives. Preventing the Members of the House from convening in order to prevent a vote of non-confidence from occuring is an incredible breach of the parliamentary process.

The down side of the GG's decision, as our right of centre friends may soon discover, is that it sets a new precedent which will be available to future governments as well. It's not a sole privilege for Stephen Harper just this one time because he needs it. For example, should the coalition acede to power and at some later point the Bloc decides that it is withdrawing its support of the government the same option to prorogue for a couple of months will now naturally be available. Same goes if it's the NDP. Threaten to pull the pin and the government goes into hibernation for 50 days while back room deals are made or front page war is conducted. Given that we are likely to see a string of minority or coalition governments before any party regains the trust of the electorate I think the future efficient governance of the nation has been severely hamstrung by this decision.

The only "safe" exit from this crisis is a grand compromise that allows the Conservatives to continue in power but with a clearly delineated policy on how the issues in conflict are to be resolved. The other part of the compromise is that Harper's head must be served up on a platter so that we can be done with both him and Dion in one shot. It's the only logical answer that will avert a calamity of historic proportions. Let's hope the wiser heads in both parties start to think for the nation instead of for themselves.

Pete

PS - Jeff Simpson's latest column has it about right:

Globe and Mail: What a difference five days make

What a difference five days make

JEFFREY SIMPSON

Globe and Mail Update

December 4, 2008 at 3:13 AM EST

A week ago, last Thursday morning, all was politically calm in Canada.

The Conservatives were governing, with no threat to their position. The Governor-General was abroad. Canadians were enviously observing Barack Obama's administration take shape in the United States. The Prime Minister had attended an uneventful meeting of Pacific leaders in Lima, Peru. An economic statement was anticipated later that day from the Harper government to signal its response to the deteriorating economy.

Today, five working days later, the economic statement and its aftermath have created a political crisis with a coalition of parties determined and at least now having enough votes to defeat the government, a possible constitutional crisis involving the Governor-General and the beginning of a nasty national-unity crisis.

To have created three crises – or dangerous situations, if “crisis” is too strong a word – for the government and for the country in five working days represents a lack of judgment by a prime minister rarely, if ever, seen in Canadian history.

Even if Stephen Harper escapes and slays the rickety coalition of Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Québécois arrayed against him – an entirely possible outcome – he has so tarnished his reputation that it is hard to imagine him ever winning a majority government. He has signalled to all those who worried about what he might do with a government majority that those worries were not necessarily misplaced.

Last night, the Prime Minister went on national television to attempt to deal with these three crises simultaneously. He did not even acknowledge those worries, nor speak to Canadians about their own economic worries. The same lack of empathy that characterized his initial response to the economic tsunami was back.

Once again, however, he was aided by his best weapon: Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, whose message looked as amateurship as aspects of his own leadership, a film that appeared to have been shot by a high-school student. It could only have reminded those Canadians who might have forgotten the election campaign why so few of them wanted him to lead the country.

The Prime Minister spoke softly but offered strong words and no new ideas. He neither apologized for nor softened anything he has done or said in these five days.

Mr. Harper insisted the economic statement had appropriately responded to Canada's challenges. He repeated his promise that further measures will be taken in a Jan. 27 budget. What the other parties proposed, he warned, would overturn an election result. The proposed coalition would endanger Canadian unity through a supportive arrangement that the Liberals and NDP have made with the Bloc.

Knowing his government faces parliamentary defeat early next week, Mr. Harper will ask the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament. She is almost certainly obliged to respect his wishes, since the government has won a confidence vote on its Speech from the Throne. But everyone will know prorogation is to save the government from defeat in order to give the Prime Minister precious time to squeeze his way out of political trouble.

Mr. Harper said he would use “every legal means to protect democracy,” thereby equating his own government's survival with that of the maintenance of democracy. The inference was clear: What the opposition parties propose is “anti-democratic,” and must therefore not be allowed to happen.

Whatever “legal means” he chooses, Mr. Harper has certainly set off a national-unity firestorm by his political means. Anti-Quebec sentiment has been inflamed by the coalition's arrangement with the “separatists,” as Mr. Harper calls the Bloc. In Western Canada, in particular, Mr. Harper's arguments about “separatists” resonate, as does the notion that the “Central Canadian” parties in the coalition are depriving the Conservatives of their right to govern.

By contrast, many Quebeckers, including those who are not Bloc supporters, are recoiling in the face of the insults being hurled at the province on open-line shows and elsewhere outside the province. For a prime minister who declared that he had reinforced Canadian unity, his attempt to hold power by turning public opinion in English-speaking Canada is reigniting latent tensions.

Beyond “legal means” lie the Conservative Party's political apparatus, its fundraising acumen, its large membership lists, its capacity to advertise on radio and television, its ability to organize well-attended events and to mobilize its coalition. The Prime Minister will need every means to survive.

[DEFCON]

We all seem to have agreed on one thing; Harper "appears" to have screwed up?

Alternatively, history may consider this event as a great political maneuver that ultimately produced a majority government from which Harper and crew go on to do great things for the Country?

[Guest rattler]

We all seem to have agreed on one thing; Harper appears to have screwed up?

Alternatively, history may consider this event as a great political maneuver that ultimately produced a majority government from which Harper and crew go on to do great things for the Country?

Yes, Harper did screw up. He under estimated the desire of the Liberals to rule. I am surprised Jack went along with the deal except of course he may be dreaming of bringing the Liberals into the NDP fold and reduce the dilution of votes in future.

Very strong parties have disappeared before, Social Credit in Alberta and BC who both ruled for a very long time but refused to adapt to suit the new world.

The party was a powerful political movement in Alberta from the 1930s through the 1970s, but has had no seats since 1982, and today has little public support.

The British Columbia Social Credit Party, whose members are known as Socreds, was the governing political party of British Columbia, Canada, for more than 30 years between the 1952 provincial election and the 1991 election. For four decades, the party dominated the British Columbian political scene, with the only break occurring between the 1972 and 1975 elections when the New Democratic Party of British Columbia was in power.

[BoomerPete]

We all seem to have agreed on one thing; Harper appears to have screwed up?

Alternatively, history may consider this event as a great political maneuver that ultimately produced a majority government from which Harper and crew go on to do great things for the Country?

Yup, and George Bush will be remembered as a brilliant strategist with the vision to bring democracy to the middle east through the minor deceit of a bald faced lie about the threat of Saddam nuking New York.

[YYC I/C]

Alternatively, history may consider this event as a great political maneuver that ultimately produced a majority government from which Harper and crew go on to do great things for the Country?

Defcon, I don't see any circumstance where Harper forms a majority unless it is part of a coalition. After this fiasco, Harper has no chance in central Canada. He's alienated Quebec and Ontario does not trust him. I don't think he could pull more than 15 seats from both provinces combined.

[FA@AC]

We all seem to have agreed on one thing; Harper appears to have screwed up?

Alternatively, history may consider this event as a great political maneuver that ultimately produced a majority government from which Harper and crew go on to do great things for the Country?

Other than what Woxof wrote, I haven't seen a single analysis of this mess in the press or anywhere else that doesn't acknowledge that Harper has been seriously damaged by the uproar he created. Most of the pundits are now suggesting that Harper is finished. The more I see of the coalition under Dion's "leadership" the less I like the idea of Harper's government being ousted by it. Nonetheless, Harper will be toast if that happens. A coalition government wouldn't last long, but Harper won't lead his party into the next election if he loses his government to the coalition. If Harper's government survives until the Liberals have a new leader, it'll surely lose ground in the next election (if the Conservatives even allow Harper to remain their leader that long) at which time Harper will have to go. Harper could have won a majority in the last election, but there is no way that this country will ever give him one now.

[DEFCON]

A snippet from BP's article; "reigniting latent tensions"

Those "tensions" need to be dealt with for once and for all.

For example, the referendum was held and the separatists lost. If they had won, they'd be gone leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces, but in defeat, their pledge was to simply, do it again?

On the other side, I’ve come to understand; French Canadian’s aren’t responsible for the mess, we are. They have a culture and wish to protect it, for better or worse. I don’t believe the Quebec crowd really gave a rats ass as to what the rest of Canada was doing pre Meech? The Quebecer only ever sought to maintain his culture and rightfully started resisting someone else’s social engineering agenda intended to erase it. IMHO, their position was not unreasonable.

Liberal politicians created the debate and have employed our collective sensibilities to serve Party and self.

[mrlupin]

What happens now?

Do the Conservatives go back to being a mostly western party? Would replacing the leader change Canadian's perception of that Party?

The tensions in Quebec will be small... the Partie Québecois is in shambles and can't get much support at the moment...too much internal fighting. Isn't the real tension likely to be between the West and the East? I don't read of many Easterners defending Harper and wasn't that long ago that the conservatives couldn't get any eastern support...

Anyone know how long until Dion is replaced?

Now we get a month of Conservative propaganda....

[DEFCON]

YYC I/C

BTW, I'm from Ontario, not the West and I support Harper as do so many long term Ontarians. The Liberal vote appears to emanate from the Toronto Ottawa centers and that vote does not represent “all” Ontario.

I have a Conservative friend from Ontario that voted Liberal the last time out. His logic; the Liberal candidate had a better chance of whacking the NDP incumbent than did the Conservative candidate? This is false support. How many others do the same or other weird things?

I think we are in serious need of an election system overhaul.

[Fido]

I think we are in serious need of an election system overhaul.

Unfortunately an election system overhaul from anything that has been suggested would make the sort of thing we have seen this past 7 days the norm.

The only thing that would obviate this mess completely is enforcing a two party system. Something that has limited support.

[DEFCON]

BP

"Yup, and George Bush will be remembered as a brilliant strategist with the vision to bring democracy to the middle east through the minor deceit of a bald faced lie about the threat of Saddam nuking New York."

Personally, I'm not wishing, hopeful or otherwise notional regarding Harper’s future, but history hasn't yet been written and anything is possible.

[DEFCON]

Fido

"The only thing that would obviate this mess completely is enforcing a two party system. Something that has limited support."

That's exactly the sort of revision I'm talking about.

Why not separate the vote for PM from the vote for ones local member of Parliament and give the "people" the choice?

[Fido]

Why not separate the vote for PM from the vote for ones local member of Parliament and give the "people" the choice?

We would then need to adopt a republican system such as the USA or France has.

I doubt that there would be much support. As soon as you say United States of Canada all sorts of irrational arguements come out.

Much like we have been hearing on this board lately.

[Guest woxof]

As for being a judicious saving of taxpayers money, first consider:

i) that the amount to be saved is pretty minor versus the scale of the challenge;

Pete

It is always entertaining to hear about how many millions in savings is only a small part of the whole budget or is "pretty minor" so not necessary. Add them all up though and it comes out to huge numbers.It is only a few million is a very lame excuse for continuing waste. There are no doubt all kinds of areas where a few hundred thousand here and there can be cut. That is called good management.

Woxof...self vaingloriously certain about this.