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

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by RedFred
My feeling is that extremely dumb moves have been made by the PCs, Grits AND NDPs. The only winners I see is the Bloc and possibly the Greens because the Greens were not involved in the whole mess.

Grow up MPs! The public has decided on a PC minority government. Work it out! Deal with it.

If the Tories are Machiavellian enough I see this working out for them in the long term.

[KrazyHorse]

The public has decided on a PC minority government.

No, they haven't. The public does not decide governments. Commons does.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The public has decided on a PC minority government.

No, they haven't. The public does not decide governments. Commons does.

I'm not sure why you continue to choose the "but LEGALLY" approach. The public doesn't care that this is legal by our rules, by convention we did elect a PC minority government. It's how the vast majority of Canadians vote with in mind, they vote for leaders and not for local MPs.

So you can continue this line of argument, but it's getting you nowhere. WE understand that, but the problem is it's not necessarily how the public votes ideologically.

The public sure as hell didn't vote for a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition...

It's safe to say most Canadians would like to never see any NDP or Bloc ideas get implemented, but we'll have that happen with this new government...

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not sure why you continue to choose the "but LEGALLY" approach.

Because I have no wish to increase the power of the PM relative to Commons beyond what it already is.

The public doesn't care that this is legal by our rules, by convention we did elect a PC minority government.

The public will have its say when Parliament is dissolved.

It's how the vast majority of Canadians vote with in mind, they vote for leaders and not for local MPs.

Perhaps this will teach them better.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My feeling is that this is an extremely dumb move on the part of the Liberals, first and foremost. There are all sorts of marginal ridings where this will not sit well. They may be poisoning the well for a long time to come, and when the hypothetical coalition government comes crashing down they might have to drink from it.

If I had more confidence in Dion, I'd hope that the coalition will manage to do a better job than Harper until the initial outrage died down, then disbanded itself for fresh elections. Most realistically, the best case scenario is that the coalition doesn't screw things up very much until May 2nd, and whoever takes over then actually does a decent job.

[Asher]

There's no way three idiots from 3 distinct ideologies in complex economic hardships can not NOT **** things up.

[KrazyHorse]

You are forgetting that this is not a one-time gesture of support from the Bloc. The Liberals and NDP will have to sit with them and vote with them EVERY DAY.

Can you imagine Harper NOT making hay out of this every day until the next general election?

[Asher]

Harper's accusations that the agreement reached on Monday would hand power to separatists prompted Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, shaking with rage, to bellow: "Canadians are fed up with these lies."

Holy hell is this guy not suited to be PM.

1) Shaking with rage -- really? Like the "You think it's easy to make priorities??" video? I gotta watch this tomorrow.
2) How is it a lie when it is clear that the Bloc is pivotal to having a majority coalition? How does one feign rage so convincingly about a perceived "lie" and then lie in response to it? Does he not comprehend the ramifications of his coalition, or is he just a really good liar?

[Asher]

Stephen LeDrew: The man who thinks he has the only hotline to brains
Posted: December 02, 2008, 7:15 PM by Kelly McParland
Stephen LeDrew, Full Comment, Canadian politics

Within days of the last election, I wrote in these pages that Stéphane Dion had been roundly rejected by the people and should resign immediately; that he should be replaced by an interim leader who would oversee the rebuilding of the Liberal party’s policies and finances, before a new chief was chosen.

The reaction from Ottawa insiders was that Dion was too stubborn to quit, and that he hoped he would somehow become prime minister before the 2009 party convention.

It struck me as an affront to common sense and democracy then, and it still does today, as Dion and the socialists and separatists prepare to assume power following the elected government’s certain loss of the looming confidence vote.

Because civics has not been taught in our schools for generations; many people do not understand how Canadians could have gone to the polls a scant six weeks ago, elected a government and only now find ourselves in this mess. The short answer is that we elect Members of Parliament, who then elect the prime minister. Now it seems that this odious coalition-deal will have a majority of members elect Dion prime minister, contrary to the decision Canadian voters made in the last election. Clearly, the system has not adapted to the expectations of its citizens, and must be changed.

But a crisis is not the time to effect substantive electoral reform, so Canadians have two options.

(1) Encourage Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament before Monday’s scheduled confidence vote. Recessing the House a week or so before the scheduled Christmas break would allow citizens to take a breather and allow the government to wait and see what Barack Obama does after his Jan. 20 inauguration. Then the Conservatives can bring down a budget that will complement U.S. actions, potentially saving billions of wasted dollars thrown at the wall in the interim. The ensuing vote in Parliament would then be about real issues, not an unprincipled power-grab by desperate egos.

(2) Admit that our system of government can be hijacked by partisans, and allow the vote to occur on Monday. The three unworthy amigos would take over, and we would hold our collective breath hoping they didn’t screw it up too badly until such time as either (i) some MPs come to their senses and defeat the government, or (ii) Dion steps down for a new Liberal leader in May.

Either way, it is not unfair to hope that Harper will stop drinking the Kool-Aid and get some advisors who will temper his moments of bad judgment. Remember, this has all come about because the Prime Minister is not the master tactician he is often credited as being. If he were, he would not have provided this opportunity to the unworthies. As for Dion, let’s watch the fun, secure in the knowledge that Canada is strong enough to withstand a few months of bad government.

If people are critical of Harper for being a lone wolf, they ain’t seen nothing yet: Dion thinks he has the only hotline to brains, and this deal will only confirm his ego. So let him play footsie with Layton and that other guy who wants to destroy Canada. Canadians are tough enough to withstand these follies perpetrated upon them by our honourable members.

Stephen LeDrew, a Toronto lawyer and a radio host on CFRB 1010, was president of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1998 to 2003.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/02/stephen-ledrew-the-man-who-thinks-he-has-the-only-hotline-to-brains.aspx

[Flubber]

I'm about workable governmentand while I tend to agree with Asher that the population roundly 'rejected " Dion, I think a system has to be workable-- You have to put aside you personal feelings and subjective views and say "how should the system work?"

To me, its crystal clear if a leader can demonstrate they have the support of the majority of the MPS, they should be allowed to govern. Isn't the whole purpose to have someone that can get things passed through the House-- Whomever can get legislation passed IS the government


NObody in part 1 addressed my poits/questions about if you don't let Dion govern what exactly do you do? Harper is unable to pass anything if the other three parties are opposed and there is little certainty that an election would materially alter things.

So do you

1. Have the facade of Harper as PM when he cannot pass anything?
2. Have election after election?
3. Something else?

The bottom line is that the system MUST still work if the leading party is opposed by everyone else. The way it works here is to allow the next leading party to attempt to govern.

The fact that it is Dion with the support of separatists and socialists is irrelevant. The rules have to be the same for that grouping as it would be if in some alternate universe the Reform and PCs had a majority between them but with the Liberals as the largest party.

The identity of the parties cannot determine things. Either a coalition that excludes the largest party is allowable or it is not-- full stop

[Asher]

It's patently irresponsible to name a lame duck leader who just set a record for worst election result as Prime Minister of the country.

The most democratically acceptable solution is obvious: Have the coalition appoint a leader of the coalition, then have a "runoff"/another election: the coalition vs the conservatives.

Whoever wins, it's fair game.

It'd even be part of the "stimulate the economy" plans because it's injecting $300M into our economy and providing plenty of jobs (Elections Canada).

[Asher]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/03/national-post-editorial-board-a-sad-bargain-sullies-dion-s-air-of-integrity.aspx

National Post editorial board: A sad bargain sullies Dion's air of integrity
Posted: December 03, 2008, 8:00 AM by Kelly McParland

There are several clauses in the twinned manifestos of the proposed new tripartite Canadian government that betray its creepy, insincere spirit. The one that should jump out at Canadians most obviously is this: “The government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois.”

As blogger Ezra Levant noted this week: “A permanent consultation mechanism, you say? Well, we already have one of those — it’s called Parliament. But Parliament is a little too public for this coalition — you know, with nosy Canadians watching how deals are made. This consultation mechanism will be private — a way for the separatists to make their demands in secret, and for prime minister Stéphane Dion to meet those demands in secret.”

This gets to the heart of what so many Canadians find appalling about the deal the Liberals and NDP have made with the BQ: Not only will it necessarily involve all manner of bribes and blandishments for the separatists, but the process will be institutionalized and covert.

This is more than just a mistake by Stéphane Dion, not to mention the Liberal caucus that is shamefully following him into this deal: It is a permanent stain on the political legacy of a man who otherwise would have been remembered as an earnest defender of federalism. As unsuccessful as Mr. Dion might have been in this year’s election campaign (ah, “elections” — who else remembers that quaint method we once used to pick prime ministers?), he always retained the air of principle. Even his Green Shift, which put the environment ahead of electability, was a reflection of that. Now, he will be remembered as the man who gave the Bloc Québécois their greatest triumph, for no other reason than to get Liberals back into power.

Scan the tripartite agreements, and you will find other tell-tale signs of cynicism — such as the following promise: “Both [the Liberals and the NDP] are committed to restoring the integrity, transparency, and efficiency of the appointments process in federal bodies like the Supreme Court [and] the Senate.” In other words, expect a good old-fashioned Chrétien-style stacking of both institutions.

The Dion/Layton cabal has looked back at the Liberal-era manner in which Supreme Court and Senate appointments used to be made and decided that this process was a monument to “integrity, transparency, and efficiency.” They apparently consider the Conservatives’ public scrutiny of Supreme Court appointees to be less “transparent,” and the process of holding elections for Senate seats to have less “integrity” than the old ways. Even for partisans on the left, it must be discouraging that the life of the potential new government should begin with such a glorious perversion of the truth.

In the same spirit, the Liberal-NDP program for economic stimulus includes “support for culture, including the cancellation of budget cuts announced by the Conservative government.” Assuming this also includes a cancellation of the Conservatives’ arts-related tax credits, this means “stimulating” the economy by taking cash away from the broad public and giving it back to a small number of performers, many of them eligible by virtue of already being successful. More strangely, the LibDems pledge “support for Canadian Wheat Board and [agricultural] supply management,” which few economists not in the pay of the CWB would regard or recommend as a means of “stimulating” the economy.

In short, the “Policy Accord” is pretty much just a list of things the Liberals would have done anyway if they’d won the election, each one newly endowed with a mystical “stimulus” pretext. Even the hope of a national child care program — roundly rejected two elections ago — is mentioned as a possible response to the “present economic crisis.”
Critics have complained that Mr. Dion is simply trying to reverse the result of the last election. And in a sense that is true — but with the added disgrace of partnering with politicians seeking to destroy the country whose integrity he once protected.

It’s a sad day for Canada, and sadder still for Mr. Dion.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Asher
It's patently irresponsible to name a lame duck leader who just set a record for worst election result as Prime Minister of the country.

The most democratically acceptable solution is obvious: Have the coalition appoint a leader of the coalition, then have a "runoff"/another election: the coalition vs the conservatives.

Whoever wins, it's fair game.

Coalition vs the conservatives Do you understand how a multi-party system even works?

Actually this is the best idea you have ever had. The Con's got what 37% of the vote? They only got so many seats because of vote splitting. So in your scenario the coalition would obviously run only one candidate per riding, they'd win big and everybody would be happy

[Asher]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


Coalition vs the conservatives Do you understand how a multi-party system even works?

Actually this is the best idea you have ever had. The Con's got what 37% of the vote? They only got so many seats because of vote splitting. So in your scenario the coalition would obviously run only one candidate per riding, they'd win big and everybody would be happy

You're very mistaken if you think most Canadians would vote for the Bloc in any way.

Why do you think even the Liberals-NDP didn't form their coalition before the election? They knew the Tories would win and they didn't even team up then. They knew they had a better chance ganging up on the government once the election was over.

[CrONoS]

There is no possibility that BQ will accept being in a federal government coalition.

There is no ****ing way it happen.