Canada's Opposition Parties Vow to Bring Down Government, 1 month into its term...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil


You are a complete and utter ******* these days.

**** you. I'm done with you.

There must be something in the Alberta water that prevents civil discourse.

Two observations: Nice foil here, with the last sentence complementing the first few lines.

Also, wasn't it cool when nye and I were at eachother's throats all the time? There's a man's fight if I've ever seen one.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Flubber


Excuse me-- AHEM--- AHEM I say

You're an import. Give it time...

[Flubber]

Back to the issue

This situation is a bit unprecedented where we have a party that is somewhat close to a majority which will be replaced in government by a coalition and the largest party is not agreeing to this move.

However I think the relative numbers have to be irrelevant. You cannot say that this coalition thing is bad if the Liberals have 70 seats, not so bad at 90 and totally ok at 110 or whatever. All that matters is majority or not, confidence of the majority or not.

Here , regardless of the near majority size of the Conservative Party-- they are NOT a majority!!! We have a situation where there is apparently a viable government. Regardless of whether you think that many Canadians think Dion is a bit of an idiot (as I do), to me thats extraneous. Dion apparently has the confidence of a majority of the members of Parliament. I think it would be completely irresponsible for the governor general to dissolve Parliament in any situation where there is a viable government that WISHES to GOVERN. We seemingly have that here.

If she throws it to election, what then? Imagine we get IDENTICAL results or at least similar enough that the fundamental situation is unchanged. What would happen then? THe GG goes to Harper AGAIN-- his government falls immediately again so she calls another election???? Imagine identical/substantially similar results again? Do we keep going forever? At what point would the GG ask the Liberals to try their coalition? Because if it is ever ok after 3 elections it has to also be ok now.


My bottom line is that any government that can show itself to have the confidence of the majority of the Parliament MUST be given an opportunity to govern. IN our newish 4 party reality we have become more like other countries where majorities may become somewhat rare and coalitions are more the norm.

If instead we set the precedent that it is the largest party governing or elections, our system simply gets unworkable whenever we have more than 2 parties with significant seats.

NYE, Asher-- I know you don't like this. I don't like it much either (based on Dion as PM which makes me shudder). But I don't see as there is much choice. I think the GG should allow any party that can put forth a viable government the opportunity to govern. A written agreement from the parties that control the majority of seats constitutes that to me


Feel free to disagree.

[Asher]

My bottom line is that any government that can show itself to have the confidence of the majority of the Parliament MUST be given an opportunity to govern.

This goes both ways. The Harper government hasn't been given enough time after the election.

[Asher]

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=7eb59a67-cd8a-4623-a0ec-a1d6a8de0b50

Three-headed monster likely to lead to bloating
Don Martin, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, December 02, 2008

The biggest Liberal loser in its electoral history, a self-admitted campaign failure who advocated carbon taxes as sound economy policy and lacks significant Western Canada representation, seems set to become Prime Minister Stephane Dion next week.

Forgive them. They know not what they've done.

Giddy opposition party leaders have decreed nothing will stop them from toppling this government Monday to create the first governing coalition in almost 100 years, a 30-month, three-headed, Liberal-led monster bonded to New Democrats and Quebec separatists by four pages of policy duct tape.

The government's defeat can now only be avoided if Prime Minister Stephen Harper prematurely pulls the plug on the barely-started Parliament session later this week. That seems a desperate and shameless tactic that would merely delay the inevitable until early next year and give the fledgling coalition time to solidify.

This means an electorate which cast a third of its votes for the Conservatives will have their representation replaced by a hodgepodge of lowest common denominator policies produced almost overnight by parties leaning left and toward leaving.

An election no longer seems to be an option. The coalition, despite lacking any modern precedent, has done an admirable job of building the case for securing the Governor General's blessing to try and govern until June 2011, subject to change without notice.

That will put the keys to 24 Sussex Drive in the hands of an Official Opposition leader who has already announced his resignation in disgrace and set May 2, 2009 as the date to crown his replacement.

The three MPs bidding to replace him will be senior ministers in the new cabinet with Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc dividing their loyalties between governing a country at perilous risk from recession while campaigning hard to win the prime minister's job.

This move is clearly payback for years of facing a Stephen Harper, who lay awake at night scheming on ways to eliminate or embarrass the Liberal party without fearing his own vulnerable state as a minority government leader.

That ensures there will be a fury in the land, particularly in the West and specifically in Alberta. Even if New Democrat rookie Linda Duncan of Edmonton becomes the province's token cabinet minister, replacing the five Alberta Conservatives in power now, the frustration of seeing electorally legitimized power seized by Toronto-based Liberals partnered with separatist forces in Quebec will be revolt-worthy in The West.

While the discipline of power may keep the coalition together, more or less flying in loose formation for perhaps a year or even longer, this is not a system of sustainable government as much as it is a power grab minus a compelling reason to exist.

It circumvents the public's Oct. 14 election verdict for no good reason, given the government has capitulated on every grievance their opponents spotted in the fiscal update. This makes it a personal putsch, not a rationale rebellion.

It puts Canada on an uncertain track under changing leadership that take a full year for political stability to be restored. In the meantime, Prime Minister Stephen Harper may well join Stephen Dion as a former prime minister, the price for boneheadedly browbeating his opponents in dangerous times.

The deficit, already accepted as necessary to fight job losses and auto sector failure, is bound to be larger than expected as the coalition unleashes hefty infrastructure relief, industrial bailouts and unspecified housing construction and retrofitting. No projected price tag was attached to the plan on Monday.

Under coalition control, the government's size will likely bloat to deal with social issues, environmental policy will be hardened against the energy sector, the large number of Senate vacancies will be restacked with mostly Liberal partisans and Quebec appeasement moves will be even more rampant than currently exist.

It must be acknowledged the coalition's organization is more advanced than anyone could've expected given that the precipitating move, the botched fiscal update, was less than 100 hours old when the accord was signed on Monday afternoon.

There comes a time where an aura descends on political leaders. Stephen Harper always projected confident unflappable leadership. That changed Monday when his sagging shoulders and lacklustre performance gave him the look of a lost cause trying to come to mental grips with his six-week squandering of the largest minority mandate in Canadian history.

It's still an awful hard squint to see Dion as a prime minister power-sharing with Jack Layton, but it seems likely to become a reality.

Stephane Dion is about to get the ultimate do-over to answer this question: Who actually won the last election?

Michaelle Jean's Three Options

Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean, who is empowered with the final word on the political crisis on Parliament Hill, faces several options, depending on how the storm unfolds this week.

Despite being on a European tour until Saturday, Jean's office says she is busy studying the scenarios. They include:

1. Prime Minister Stephen Harper could try to buy himself time by asking Jean to prorogue Parliament until late January, when the conservatives are slated to release their budget. Several constitutional experts agree Jean would be unlikely to refuse the request, since Parliament is constitutionally bound to sit only once a year. But they say the Prime Minister would appear to be bolting from a problem, and would pay a political price for shutting down in the midst of economic turmoil.

2. The government could face defeat Monday, when the opposition parties say they will join forces in a vote of non-confidence. The Prime Minister, who must then meet with the Governor General, could ask her to dissolve Parliament, permitting him to call another $300-million election, eight weeks after Canadians last cast ballots.

3. Instead of rubber-stamping an election, Jean could use her "reserve power" to offer the government to the opposition. The three parties have already signed a coalition agreement, and were putting the final touches Monday on a written pitch to Jean. If she agrees, it would be the first federal government to be thrown out of office in favour of an opposition coalition.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher




Also, wasn't it cool when nye and I were at eachother's throats all the time? There's a man's fight if I've ever seen one.

Err not really that cool-- Sometimes there were some fun arguments but often it just degenerated into restatements of entrenched positions sprinkled with insults

That seemed to happen in this thread last night -- Last night degenerated into an "Is not- Is too" type of thing. For a while all that changed was the insult at the end of the one-liner

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Asher

This goes both ways. The Harper government hasn't been given enough time after the election.

The Harper government chose to cause this debacle. They could have continued governing responsibly instead of doing something that would be so unpalatable to the opposition.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


The Harper government chose to cause this debacle. They could have continued governing responsibly instead of doing something that would be so unpalatable to the opposition.

According to the opposition, the reason is he's not spending billions on the economy which isn't in a recession.

I understand they were upset about the lack of subsidies, but Harper backed down on that before the coalition was even signed.

Don't tell me you buy that ****. It's very clear this was in the works before Harper even put forth any proposals. Hell, talk of the coalition was even before the election. It wasn't until the Liberals were humbled and emasculated did they feel the need for revenge, which is precisely what this is.

Do you seriously not know that the funding for the parties was not going to be revoked, well before this coalition was formed?

[Sharpe]

Both the Toronto Sun and Globe editorials say that it is time for Harper "to go" (ie resign, I guess).

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/rob_granatstein/2008/12/02/7604551-sun.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.weCoalition02/BNStory/politics/home

Frankly, that might be the only way for the Conservatives to remain in power - and perhaps the best situation to happen. Both Harper and Flaherty have to resign their posts. Appoint an interim Conservative leader that is more acceptable to the Liberals - perhaps a red tory - and try to form a Conservative-Liberal coalition government. The Liberals are the closest to the Conservatives on the political spectrum, and it would also present the appearance of a unity government during these potentially troubling economic times.

That situation would be a lot more acceptable to the populace than the proposed coalition or a minority Harper-led government which is clearly out of touch and focused primarily on obtaining their own political goals over anything else.

That's what Harper did wrong all along while he has been in power. Unlike Pearson and Trudeau, who formed alliances with the NDP while they were in minority government positions, Harper never tried seriously or at all to form an alliance or cooperation pact with any other party.

All he did was try to get opposition members to cross the floor to join the Conservatives. Compare that to Pearson in 1965, he was only ONE SEAT short of a majority, but he renewed his alliance of 1963 with the NDP.

[Asher]

The media in Alberta is in full-on attack mode. This is going to get very, very messy.

This is from the business section of today's Calgary Herald:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/todays-paper/this+time+coalition+losers/1020634/story.html

This is no time for a Coalition of Losers

Monday's stock market mayhem--the TSX plunged more than 800 points after the opening bell--tells you all you need to know about the idea of a Liberal/ New Democrat/Bloc Quebecois coalition being handed the reins of government and control of the Canadian economy at one of the most crucial moments in our history.

Talk about a prescription for disaster. The Liberals, as has been well documented, can't even manage their own party finances.

Imagine how astute they will be at determining the right course of action (whatever that might be) as the global recession swings into full gear over the next six months.

And with the hapless Stephane Dion (who let us not forget has already resigned as leader of his party as a result of the Liberals' dismal showing in this fall's election) being tabbed to call the shots as the de facto prime minister--until 2011 --the mind simply boggles.

That Dion and the Liberals even think they can hold things together with the New Democrats and the Bloc, let alone run the country for two more years shows exactly how out of touch with realty this gang of political opportunists really is.

As for the New Democrats --six of whom would ostensibly be given cabinet portfolios under the so-called coalition that is set to wrest power away from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Tories--one need only review their recent election policy handbook to understand the folly of letting these people anywhere in the nation's economic decision-making apparatus.

For Alberta and the oilpatch, the consequences could be devastating given the absurd, not to mention potentially devastating economic, environmental and corporate ideologies espoused by both Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton.

How bad can it possibly be? Consider this: Before the ink had dried on Monday's ceremonial agreement signing, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe was reputedly warning Canadians that the Kyoto accord was back on the table.

If this little drama doesn't cast a choking pall over ongoing development of the oilsands-- already under close review due to falling oil prices and soaring costs--who knows what will.

With billions of dollars worth of expansions and new projects being delayed or sidelined right, left and centre as a result of the global financial crisis, the country's single most important economic asset is already in danger.

Let's face it, if our own Premier Ed Stelmach doesn't understand the nuances of the oilpatch--as evidenced by his ruinous implementation of the provincial royalty review --what chance is there that a group of people who would like nothing better than to bring the high-flying oilpatch to heel will be ready, willing and able to look after our particular economic interests in the difficult months ahead?

You got it. Nada. Zip. Not a chance.

And we thought the biggest danger to the Canadian economy was being dragged down by our intimate connections to the U. S. economy, an economy that a major American economic think-tank reported Monday has actually been in recession for the last year.

Small wonder the TSX went bonkers Monday. Or that the Dow Jones Index plunged more than 600 points in sympathy.

And yes, we're well aware that last week, as the Liberals et al were initiating coalition talks in the face of a litany of egregious Tory behaviours, the TSX, Canada's largest market had its strongest showing in 33 years, gaining more than 1,000 points.

Let's just say that investors didn't think the Coalition of Losers would actually get it together enough to pose a viable threat to the Tories.

Now we know.

The combination of a giant series of missteps by the prime minister and an unexpected showing of backbone from the collective opposition has set us on course with the potential for a political/economic catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.

Given the precarious state of the global economy--not to mention our own foundering stock markets -- I think we can all agree this is pretty much the last thing we need right now.

Companies, industries and investors have been desperately seeking some sign of stability after three months of unprecedented, gut-wrenching turmoil that has destroyed trillions of dollars of shareholder value, eliminated billions of dollars in investor savings and reduced business and consumer confidence to levels not seen in half a century.

Instead, what we are going to get--barring a miracle--are a raft of unintended consequences that could make our own premier's economic bumblings of the past year seem almost meaningless.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sharpe
Both the Toronto Sun and Globe editorials say that it is time for Harper "to go" (ie resign, I guess).

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/rob_granatstein/2008/12/02/7604551-sun.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.weCoalition02/BNStory/politics/home

Frankly, that might be the only way - and perhaps the best situation to happen. Both Harper and Flaherty have to resign their posts. Appoint an interim Conservative leader that is more acceptable to the Liberals - perhaps a red tory - and try to form a Conservative-Liberal coalition government.

I'm not sure who is more delusional...you or Ben.

Conservative-Liberal coalition government.

Do you understand basic Canadian politics? The "L" word would NEVER, EVER fly in the West.

[Sharpe]

Sigh, as far as being delusional is concerned - it takes one to know one - so you must be more delusional than either of us then ...

The West has a say in things of course, but not even close to control - population numbers don't let them have even close to that, not when the combined population of the provinces and territories west of Ontario is barely more than the population of the Golden Horseshoe cities - an area that went still had a Liberal and NDP majority this time. You're probably well aware of that having lived in both areas.

[Asher]

I'm just stating the obvious here...anyone who thinks the Conservatives would form a coalition with the Liberals clearly doesn't understand politics on the national scale. Specifically, such a person would appear to be completely clueless to the massive feelings of resentment towards the Liberals in Alberta specifically. It would NEVER happen.

Alberta would vote NDP over Liberal. Hell, look at the election results.

I also don't understand the assertion that it takes a delusional person to identify a delusional person. That really makes no sense... a delusional person is so deluded that they lose all sense of what is real, so how would they tell if a person is delusional or not?

Sharpe...do you know what the NEP is? Do you know how well Chretien, Dion, etc poll in Alberta? Did you know that "Liberal" is always accompanied with scorn and distaste in Alberta?

The Liberals are the Conservative's #1 enemy, not someone to ally themselves with. And another reason they'd never do it is precisely as you mention: You think Ontario is the be all and end all of Canada. Ontario's been overrepresented for far too long by the government's interest, Quebec also. The West is starting to get pissed here. We finally get a government in power and Quebec and Ontario join forces to knock it out of power as they start applying the screws to the West yet again.

[Sharpe]

I know what the NEP is - at least I was around when that program was first implemented.

I don't deny that a Conservative-Liberal alliance would be laughable to think about, but would you rather have this proposed coalition instead?

As far as Ontario being overrepresented by government interest, consider what I read in another commentary recently - if you added up the populations of the 8 provinces and 3 territories as of 2008 aside from Ontario and Quebec - their combined population is 12.6 million people. Ontario's population alone is 12.9 million. How else do you think that Chretien managed majorities despite the strength of the Reform in the West? By winning Ontario massively.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Sharpe
Both the Toronto Sun and Globe editorials say that it is time for Harper "to go" (ie resign, I guess).

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/rob_granatstein/2008/12/02/7604551-sun.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.weCoalition02/BNStory/politics/home

Frankly, that might be the only way for the Conservatives to remain in power - and perhaps the best situation to happen. Both Harper and Flaherty have to resign their posts. Appoint an interim Conservative leader that is more acceptable to the Liberals - perhaps a red tory - and try to form a Conservative-Liberal coalition government. The Liberals are the closest to the Conservatives on the political spectrum, and it would also present the appearance of a unity government during these potentially troubling economic times.

That situation would be a lot more acceptable to the populace than the proposed coalition or a minority Harper-led government which is clearly out of touch and focused primarily on obtaining their own political goals over anything else.

That's what Harper did wrong all along while he has been in power. Unlike Pearson and Trudeau, who formed alliances with the NDP while they were in minority government positions, Harper never tried seriously or at all to form an alliance or cooperation pact with any other party.

All he did was try to get opposition members to cross the floor to join the Conservatives. Compare that to Pearson in 1965, he was only ONE SEAT short of a majority, but he renewed his alliance of 1963 with the NDP.

I would support a Conservative-Liberal coalition led by someone other than Harper, and yes it is a better option than Libs + NDP + Bloc led by Dion if for no other reason than it would have a legitimate claim at being a national unity coalition.

I'm just stating the obvious here...anyone who thinks the Conservatives would form a coalition with the Liberals clearly doesn't understand politics on the national scale. Specifically, such a person would appear to be completely clueless to the massive feelings of resentment towards the Liberals in Alberta specifically. It would NEVER happen.

For the record, I'm not claiming it would happen, certainly not at this point, but if it did it would be the best option at the moment.

Monday's stock market mayhem--the TSX plunged more than 800 points after the opening bell--tells you all you need to know about the idea of a Liberal/ New Democrat/Bloc Quebecois coalition being handed the reins of government and control of the Canadian economy at one of the most crucial moments in our history.

I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the Dow's similar fall that day .

[quote]