Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Exact opposite end? Alberta's had a strong voice in a lengthy majority government as well as being THE power base of a minority government. All in the last 30 years.

Are you referring to Mulroney's government? The man who was from...where was it, Quebec?

Not bad for a province with 1/10th the population of Canada. Quebec has wielded far more power per capita than you would expect in the same timeframe, but Alberta is by no means the most powerless of Canada's provinces (per capita). It might be running 2nd behind Quebec in influence per capita...

1/10th the population, how much of the GDP?

Alberta is subsidizing the rest of the country in a massive way, and the thanks we get for it is constantly looking over our shoulders at the Liberals and NDP who want to **** it all up, as they have historically done.

I don't know if it's their incompetence, their greed, or their general evilness but there's a damn good reason why Liberals and NDPs only very rarely elected in Alberta. Their governments correspond with gloomy periods in Alberta, virtually without exception. Most of these are direct results out of policy decisions made by the Liberal government pointedly at the expense of Alberta to help Quebec/Ontario.

[Victor Galis]

Re: Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm a lot more optimistic about the Canadian experiment than you guys are.

Do you really not remember that just twenty years ago we had the unholy alliance of Quebec and Alberta returning Mulroney to Ottawa?

I don't see Canadian politics as (generally) more regionalist than US politics, for instance. Individual elections may be, but it's a constantly shifting situation.

I'm going to have to agree with that assessment. I think the US is similarly divided perhaps even more fundamentally so. I think Canada's biggest problem is that the parties have embraced regionalism.

Originally posted by Asher
Prior thread: http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...hreadid=182206



You like it more because Quebec only stands to benefit out of all of these scenarios.

Edit: And I will hear no *****ing about my thread title.

Is there ever a scenario short of an independent Quebec where Quebec doesn't stand to benefit?

Still, Quebecs's gains are Montreal's gains. Quebec has had undue influence and federal money in its favour for decades.

Not necessarily. I can see likely scenarios where the provincial legislature directs the gains elsewhere.

[KrazyHorse]

Do I buy into the sense of Quebec victimhood? No, of course not. But it is a natural reaction. See the Scottish independence movement, or the Flemish or the Basques.

I think Quebec should get over its sense of victimhoom and concentrate on building better lives for its residents. And I think that Alberta should stop pretending that this is 1984.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Now you're just in Albertan whiner mode, dude. Take a step back and breathe.

It's all true, whether you want to accept it or not.

Western alienation is present and **** like this only escalates it. Quebec stokes the fire by always getting a retardedly high impact in policy decisions, as we'll see in this coalition. The fact that they literally take our money while they do it adds more to the resentment.

Dismiss it as whining if you want, people are getting more and more sick of it. Check out the comments and op-eds in the Alberta newspapers today.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Do I buy into the sense of Quebec victimhood? No, of course not. But it is a natural reaction. See the Scottish independence movement, or the Flemish or the Basques.

I think Quebec should get over its sense of victimhoom and concentrate on building better lives for its residents. And I think that Alberta should stop pretending that this is 1984.

Are you aware Layton is gunning for Minister of Industry?
Are you aware Layton wants to shut down the oilsands?

There's tremendous uncertainty now which is scaring the **** out of oil companies in Alberta which were already finding the situation too risky (fiscally and otherwise), that it's making a bad situation even worse.

You're looking at economic disaster in Alberta within 2 years with this coalition. Guaranteed.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

Originally posted by Asher

Are you referring to Mulroney's government? The man who was from...where was it, Quebec?

Errr...yeah. And who took a lot of advice from Albertans (who were an integral part of the coalition.

Just because the man was Quebecer doesn't mean that Alberta didn't have influence in his government.

1/10th the population, how much of the GDP?

Alberta is subsidizing the rest of the country in a massive way, and the thanks we get for it is constantly looking over our shoulders at the Liberals and NDP who want to **** it all up, as they have historically done.

Now ask yourself what New York and California think about the fact that they throw money at poor Southern states which proceed to vote for fundamentalist neo-conservatives

Their governments correspond with gloomy periods in Alberta, virtually without exception.

Yeah, the early 2000s really sucked for Alberta.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Yeah, the early 2000s really sucked for Alberta.

They were certainly subdued compared to 2006-2007...

Alberta did very well in the early 2000s due to a variety of factors. And what did we get out of it in the end? The Liberals and NDP started eyeing it, and they basically ran on a thinly-veilled platform a month ago on screwing Alberta. NDP wanted to kill the oilsands, Dion wanted to tax them to death. Clockwork...

Now ask yourself what New York and California think about the fact that they throw money at poor Southern states which proceed to vote for fundamentalist neo-conservatives

Since when did California and New York pay into equalization funds?

[KrazyHorse]

Western alienation is present and **** like this only escalates it.

And Quebec alienation is present. The fact that it's there doesn't justify it.

You are magnifying minor political squabbles to an incredible extent.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2

Originally posted by Asher

They were certainly subdued compared to 2006-2007...


Since when did California and New York pay into equalization funds?

Just because they don't have an explicit equalization fund doesn't mean it doesn't happen, dude. Look at per capita federal spending in the US by state, and per capita federal revenues by state.

The equalization fund is there because some of the things run directly by the US federal government are instead run by provinces in Canada.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Western alienation is present and **** like this only escalates it.

And Quebec alienation is present. The fact that it's there doesn't justify it.

You are magnifying minor political squabbles to an incredible extent.

You think it's minor?

You think the reaction of the energy industry in Alberta right now is minor? The political instability in Canada is insane right now, it's a massive factor in their continued investment in Canada.

I don't think you grasp the enormity of the situation for Alberta right now. This is ****ing it up even before it's official.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Pa

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Just because they don't have an explicit equalization fund doesn't mean it doesn't happen, dude. Look at per capita federal spending in the US by state, and per capita federal revenues by state.

The equalization fund is there because some of the things run directly by the US federal government are instead run by provinces in Canada.

I'd imagine they're not happy, but I'm not looking up the data.

Do they put in 6-8,000 extra per person per year, like Alberta does?

[Asher]

Here's an example: Chevron just sent out a directive to the projects underway in Alberta for immediate fiscal evaluation given the likely future situation. They're doing cost/benefit analysis even before the coalition takes power.

This isn't a joke or a tiny event. If the Oil Sands players pack up and leave, it takes with it the Alberta economy, which is propping up Canada's economy as a whole right now.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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.

I think size of caucus is commonly linked to strength of mandate.

The Liberals have none (strength of mandate that is) so one could argue against the coalition along these lines.

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

I'm not upset by the idea of the coalition at all. I started out saying I can't see why the GG would turn them down. I've been looking for arguments against though, as it is an interesting situation.

Feel free to disagree.

OK.

Bottom line is I feel Parliament should continue if it can. The consequences for the parties are best delivered by the electors at the next vote, and I am personally fine with leaving it at that.

It is messier though since the party that should be on the government side of the House is vehemently opposed to the plan of the opposition. I think this raises interesting questions that should be explored.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Asher


Are you aware Layton is gunning for Minister of Industry?
Are you aware Layton wants to shut down the oilsands?

There's tremendous uncertainty now which is scaring the **** out of oil companies in Alberta which were already finding the situation too risky (fiscally and otherwise), that it's making a bad situation even worse.

You're looking at economic disaster in Alberta within 2 years with this coalition. Guaranteed.

At current oil prices, I don't think the oil sands are viable anyway.

Do they put in 6-8,000 extra per person per year, like Alberta does?

Some of them do, I think.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


At current oil prices, I don't think the oil sands are viable anyway.

They are, but barely. That's why "little" things like this are massively important.