Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition. Will there be another election?

[Brad Sallows]

>I guess this goes to the whole principle of what a Representative truly is?

In our current system, he represents a unit of influence wielded by the PM or someone in the PMO on the PM's behalf.

It's helpful to calm ourselves down by reminding ourselves how the system is structured and distinguishing what is permitted from what we think is right.  But if the structure can't achieve what is right, it will be replaced - peacefully or violently - but it will be replaced.

What I think is "right" is that the country needs to be able to have at least one, preferably two, full 4-5 year terms of majority Conservative government for every 8-16 years of Liberal government.

I'm a bit of a blog junkie, and while I comment pretty much only in the part of the political map in which I feel at home, I read widely enough to get a feel for what the other factions are thinking.  I read to understand their attitude towards my home turf.  And I avoid the fever swamps.

What I perceive of their attitude, stated concisely, is this - and remember, I'm not writing about the fever swamps: that my "faction" (hence I) is unfit to govern.  They simply have not tolerated loss of control gracefully, not for even a brief interval, and notwithstanding that the party in control is on a short leash.  Since the voting pattern in Canada seems to place a hard ceiling of about 40% or low 40s on the Conservative vote, I'm wondering where that leaves my interests in the short term.  I've already observed a significant write-down in my private pension funds; I know that my investments will not be protected and expect that I will be asked to use some of my top-up money to top-up someone else's.  Apparently I am expected to stand by gracefully - because that's the only way the system works - while people who claim to be objective rationalists - the "reality based community" - undertake a massive experiment for reasons they can not or will not explain in detail, using methods about which they have set down nothing except their name in the top left corner of the paper.  Forgive me if I find that arrogant.

From where I sit, they are preparing to fuck with my future - the course as charted by the current government looked extremely reasonable and promising and was based on what was observed and measured.  The only reason I can discern for it is a pure sense of entitlement: they can, so they will.

 

[MAJONES]

FWIW, there is a protest group on facebook:

People to Call a general election, say no to the BQ in power!


Joining may not seem like much, but it is better than just grumbling about it here on Army.ca

(Just to be safe, I recall that there is a QR&O against signing a petition about policy in the CF, but I don't think that this would fall under that)

 

[a_majoor]

From the National Post:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/01/kelly-mcparland-liberal-coalition-could-make-canada-a-coony-of-quebec.aspx

Kelly McParland: Liberal coalition could make Canada a colony of Quebec
Posted: December 01, 2008, 11:50 AM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, Kelly McParland, Canadian politics

Having been handed a political gift by Stephen Harper, the Liberal party is doubling down instead of pocketing the win. The Prime Minister’s plan to hobble opposition parties by ending their access to taxpayer subsidies has blown up in his face, much as such plans always do when evil geniuses try to take over the world.

The opposition had this thing won: They humiliated Mr. Harper, forced him to back down, and undermined his authority with his own caucus. But rather than accept victory and withdraw with honour, top figures from the NDP and the Liberals spent the weekend conspiring for more. They want to run the whole country, and they apparently don’t care what sort of sham government they have to put together to do it.

In place of the Conservatives we are to be offered a Liberal-led coalition with Stéphane Dion temporarily at its head and a quarter of the cabinet spots occupied by the NDP. That still doesn’t provide enough votes to counter the Conservatives, so it will have to be propped up by the Bloc Québécois to survive. The national government will be dependent on the separatist Bloc to approve all major legislation, in effect making Canada a colony of Quebec.

The three men contending for the leadership of the Liberal party appeared together yesterday to proclaim their willingness to support Mr. Dion for the dubious distinction of leading this sorry grouping, perhaps wisely recognizing the dangers of leading it themselves. They pointed out that the arrangement will just be temporary — the leadership race will continue as before. Mr. Dion is thus considered good enough to lead the country, but not good enough to head the Liberal party.

What’s more, he’s being deputed to lead the country during what may be the most critical six months in living memory, after which he would be dumped for someone else. His would-be successors could very well be sitting in his Cabinet, passing judgement on critical issues, while simultaneously campaigning to unseat this leader as inadequate.

The Liberals apparently believe Canadians will buy into this: an unstable government beholden to a separatist party for its survival, led by a man who was repudiated by voters less than two months ago, who will be given the reins through a critical period in the national history and then replaced with somebody to be identified later.

It doesn’t say much for the judgement of any of the three candidates vying to replace Mr. Dion. It suggests they have concluded it is better to sacrifice Mr. Dion and the interests of the country rather than sacrifice their own ambitions. If Mr. Dion fails in his rescue mission, presumably the coalition will fail as well; if he succeeds, why would we want to replace him with an untested successor?

Whether Governor-General Michaëlle Jean will allow it is an arresting question. The opposition has every right to defeat the government and try to replace it, but a grouping so unstable, unwieldy and beneficial to the cause of the separatists, headed by a temporary figure who lacks even the confidence of his own party, can hardly be said to be in the best interests of the country.
National Post

 

[Lil_T]

Agreed.

There is also another FB group that just started up.  Canadians AGAINST a Coalition Government.

 

[Kirkhill]

There's nothing wrong with the mechanics of forming a coalition, and the opposition powers have been able to do this since the 2006 election.  If they can agree to spend enough money on each other's pet projects, there's no reason they can't govern indefinitely unless their base fraction of voters tires of receiving the benefits of those projects.

But:

1) Dion did, during the election, speak against forming a coalition with the NDP.
2) Whatever the "voters of Canada" said, they did not affirm the leadership of Dion.  They did return a House structured much like the previous one.
3) Dion has already been scheduled for departure.
4) Nevertheless, Dion is to be installed as PM.
5) His replacement will not have to face an election.  It has already been stated that the coalition intends to govern for at least 30 months if it can, and has also already been stated that the Liberals expect to select a new leader in 6 months or so.  Even Chretien had the decency to wrongfoot the opposition by calling a premature election after they selected a new leader.
6) Despite calls from all quarters of their supporters and among themselves for a fiscal stimulus, none have even attempted to show why it is necessary.  I am unaware of even one half-serious attempt to demonstrate why sudden and massive intervention is necessary. It continues to be an assertion.  With a complete absence of proof and despite all economic indicators to the contrary, we are to believe disaster must be around the corner and react accordingly.
7) In addition to the case for sudden economic intervention not being demonstrated, I am unaware of a single instance of a plan.  I don't mean a list of objectives supporting a statement of aim (X for manufacturing in general, Y for automakers specifically, Z for forestry); I mean a plan.  What specific amounts are to be expended, and where?  How is $30B to be divided; who will receive it?
8) Corporations and markets will react to signals.  Right now the signal is that $30B is up for grabs.  Experience shows that those who devote the most energy to lobbying tend to receive the most rewards.  Time and effort devoted to lobbying is time and effort not devoted to the business at hand.
9) If the market for low-yield government bonds turns out to be rather dry, will they print what they need (deflating, of course, the value of savings and fixed incomes).
10) Does the pension protection they have talked about include my private one, or is it just for public sector and large corporation defined benefit funds?
11) After years of accusing the Conservatives of having a weak bench and no serious heavyweight policy minds, and thus being unfit to govern even during economically stable times, the opposition parties:
a) Turn to their parents to arrange the marriage.
b) Ask their uncles to hold their hands, fiscally.
Obviously the NDP lack experience in federal government.  Is this an admission by the Liberals that they, too, are weak?  Am I alone in thinking this is not the best time to be putting training wheels on the economy so the NDP can get a little cabinet OJT?  They accuse the Conservatives of incompetence and demonstrate self-doubt of their own competence to the degree that the elected politicians are not leading or manifestly seen to firmly lead.  No amount of Jack Layton's self-congratulatory lists of positive-sounding adjectives can paper that glaring hole over.

$300M, the supposed cost of an election, is 1/100th of $30B.  It is reasonable to invest 1% of the proposal to ask what, in the face of all this new information, the voters wish to affirm.  And during the campaign, the prospective coalition members can take the time to explain how they intend to divvy up $30B worth of largesse, what amount will be added to the federal debt, what amount will be raised from new revenues, and how those revenues - in light of expectations of falling take from various taxes - are to be obtained.  Then the chosen winners can await the election outcome, and those not selected can get on with working through the credit crunch.  At least there will be an answer to a large, unanswered question.

>An economic stimulus package will be the new government's top priority, while other policies include a commitment to improve child benefits and childcare "as finances permit."

Priceless.  That was first on my list of "things they really want to do if the fiscal stimulus is a smokescreen".  Look forward to more spending programs on which the Bloc, NDP, and Liberals can agree.

+1 to you Brad.

I'm starting to wonder if, in fact, there wasn't a greater issue than party financing, that caused the Socialists (Lib, Dem, Bloc) to act.

How about a fear that a "crisis" was NOT responded to by government and people came to see that given time crises resolve themselves.

If I follow Stephen Haper's logic this is an ideal outcome.  As a "minimalist" it suits his personal inclination and his longterm agenda to demonstrate that "Government is not necessary".

For the Interventionists this is not just anathema but a terrifying prospect.  What will they do with themselves if people realise that they are not necessary?  That, in fact, crises do resolve themselves - often messily, sometimes because of intervention, sometimes despite intervention.

They could not allow this crisis to resolve itself without somebody being seen to be doing something - even if, like those toy steering wheels kids play with that are connected to nothing, the actions are totally unrelated to the resolution.

This would bolster the case for that demmed Anglo-Saxon Laissez-faire school of economics - By the way how did that nasty system get tagged with both an Anglo identity and a French epithet?  


Unfortunately for Harper, who might have preferred that the problem was solved proactively and under the radar, this doesn't leave him much ammunition to argue to a panicking public that wants to be assured that someone has a plan and is working it, that everything will be alright in the morning.

So Harper expects the crisis to resolve itself and hopes to be seen to be doing nothing so as to convince Canadians in the future that nothing need be done.

But Canadians are used to Interventionists flailing theatrically and sharing their pain.

The Interventionists give Canadians what they want - in large part because they fear a successful NON-intervention.

Eh - probably overthinking this thing.  Those beers are starting to have an impact.  

 

[Kirkhill]

Reading some of the rest of the posts

I find myself agreeing with Brad again on the necessity/legality of the tapes.  It is not necessarily unethical or immoral to break the law.  However it is probable that the justified culprit may still have to "do the time", all in a good cause.  Of course that is why we have Jury Trials by peers which get to gauge whether or not it is appropriate to exempt the culprit from the laws in place.  A bunch of Green Peace activists in Britain just got off a trespass (vandalism?) charge at a Coal Fired Generator Plant by arguing that their lesser crime was necessary to prevent the greater crime (environmental - CO2 yadda yadda) that the plant would commit.

The taping may have been illegal (although Canadian law says that only one party to a conversation needs to know that taping is occuring and as long as the Tory MP came by the phone number honestly I think the legality issue at least open for debate), but it was necessary.

I also agree with SKT - Harper's done - at least as the front man.  Jim Prentice has got a good shot at being the "kinder, gentler" face of Toryism.  And I think he may find the going a bit easier next time because, like Infanteer and Simpson, I think that this will ultimately be  a case of winning the battle but losing the war.

Next time out I can't think the Tories are going to lose many votes.  Their base is going to be more energised than ever.  Liberals and Dippers will have great trouble gaining seats in the West or 519 or 705 or 905 where the Tories were just elected.

Can't speak to the Maritimes or Quebec.  I don't have a handle on their politics and attitudes.

But I do think that this will just deepen the urban-rural split and and confine the Dippers and Liberals to Downtown Ridings of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.   As to the Blockheads - bugger 'em.

 

[a_majoor]

Actually Kirkhill, I think you are right on the meta level. After all, the Labour government of the UK just pissed away 20 billion Pounds Sterling on a stimulus package which did nothing. Perhaps Stephan Dion and Jack Layton could generate the same effect by putting the $30 billion of their "stimulus" package in an old quarry and set it on fire.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090707/Fears-tax-rises-election-Darling-says-20bn-spending-spree-enough.html#

Mail Online

Fears of tax rises after next election as Darling says £20bn spending spree was not enough

By Benedict Brogan
Last updated at 2:17 AM on 01st December 2008

Alistair Darling admitted yesterday that the Treasury will have to pump more money into the economy to tackle the recession.

His candid assessment came as doubts about his recovery plan intensified.

It will dismay those who hoped last week's £20billion giveaway would mark a turning point.

Hard times ahead for Chancellor Alistair Darling who has admitted his £20bn package may not be enough to save the economy

And it will fuel Tory claims that the Government has pencilled in steep rises in VAT after the next General Election.

Tessa Jowell, meanwhile, became the first senior minister to admit 'justifiable anxiety' about tax rises on high earners in 2011.

More...

   * Pressure building for interest rate cut to 2%, say economists
   * Property slump ruins retirement plans for 1.7m people hoping to sell their home for pension funds

The Olympics minister said the new 45p rate should not become the 'thin end of the wedge' in case it revived fears of the politics of envy.

Last week Mr Darling announced that the national debt will double to more than £1trillion as the Government borrows more to fund tax cuts in the battle for recovery.

But he admitted yesterday that he would 'almost certainly' have to do more to jump-start consumer activity.

The Chancellor said: 'You'd be very foolish to say "well, that's the job done". You know this is something that needs constant attention.

'I put more money into the reserve on Monday precisely because I know we're almost certainly going to be doing additional things. The people expect you to do that.'

Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell is the first senior Labour politician to admit 'justifiable anxiety' about tax rises on high earners

Opinion poll evidence suggests voters already believe his package is a failure. An Ipsos MORI poll for the Observer showed Labour support dropping five points to 32 per cent, ending the 'Brown bounce'.

Support for the Tories has risen by three points to 43 per cent, giving them an 11 point lead.

Only six per cent of those questioned said they would spend more once the cut in VAT to 15 per cent comes into force today.

Mr Darling's admission was seized on by the Tories as proof that the Government knows its plans are unlikely to succeed.

Senior officials in Whitehall say privately that the Treasury's forecasts for the recession to end next summer and be followed by accelerating growth are 'optimistic'.

As first revealed by the Daily Mail, Mr Darling confirmed that he plans to take powers in the Queen's Speech on Wednesday to force banks to start lending to consumers.

Effectively admitting that self-regulation has failed, he said he was 'totally focused' on finding ways to make them treat customers fairly.

Small businesses have complained the banks are imposing draconian terms and interest rate increases despite the £37billion pumped into the banking system by the Treasury.

Mr Darling told the Observer: 'You know they are getting something from the Government. They have to realise that the taxpayer's going to get something in return.'

The gloom was deepened by bleak statistics on jobs. The manufacturing industry body EEF said confidence was at a record low and almost 100,000 factory workers are expected to lose their jobs next year.

Firms are already introducing pay freezes and some are planning to ask staff to accept a salary cut.

The EEF wants the Bank of England to slash base rate again this week, from 3 per cent to 2 per cent.

   *  Research by property information firm Hometrack shows sellers having to drop prices by an average of £25,000 from their last asking price to have a hope of finding a buyer.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Thucydides, I was starting to think I was talking to myself again. 

...What’s more, he’s being deputed to lead the country during what may be the most critical six months in living memory, after which he would be dumped for someone else. His would-be successors could very well be sitting in his Cabinet, passing judgement on critical issues, while simultaneously campaigning to unseat this leader as inadequate....

That quote from McParland goes to that very issue.  It could be read as an implicit recognition that the "heavy-hitters" know that there is nothing significant that can be done, either positively or negatively, in the next 6 months so they may as well let Dion Strut and Fret for his 15 minutes.  Especially if it gets him out the door more easily.

The real big impact of this crisis, financially speaking, is the inflationary impact of expectations.

Before if a government introduced a 2 Billion Dollar programme the press and pundits were all over it.  If a government produced a, for example, 25 year defence programme for 60 Billion Dollars, the shrieks and wails were manifold.

Now however, after people chucking around 700 Billion here, a Trillion there, 600 Billion the other side of the Pacific the "Theater Goers" won't be satisfied with a paltry 10 Million Dollar "laser show".  They'll demand, and get more extravagant Lalapaloozas of shows.

Back to the Bullion ,,,,, er the Beer.

 

[a_majoor]

For our progressive friends:

http://kerplonka.blogspot.com/2008/12/distinguishing-on-facts.html

Distinguishing on the facts

There seems to be a lot of glee from the pro-Coalition side about recalling what Stephen Harper said in 2005 when Martin flat-out ignored Parliamentary resolutions demanding he step down ... until they went his way. Well, two points on this:

1) Harper et al were deliberately trying to bring the government down on legitimate confidence votes. To force an election. (Interpolation: the Coalition of the Extortionists intend to avoid an election)

2) Remember that Chuck Cadman was an old Reformer who only voted with the Martin government because his constituents didn't want another ELECTION. That in mind, does this mean you would've been perfectly okay with the Bloc, Harper, and independents forming a coalition to impose Stephen Harper as PM without an election, even though he came in legitimate second place to the Liberals? Because "most Canadians voted against the Liberals"? It's easy to conclude you would have now that the tables are switched, but I submit that most of you would've disliked it. A lot. (Hell, most of you reject Stephen Harper legitimately winning elections...)

 

[Kevin_M]

I don't even see how this is democratic.

Canada voted for the conservatives to be in power, yet the parties can form a coalition and get the tories out of power. Who are we, Russia?

 

[Infanteer]

After watching the news tonight, I'd think we shouldn't be too quick to count Stephen Harper out of the fight yet.  If we've learned anything the last couple years, it's that he is a pretty cunning politician himself.  With the Frankenstein Party attempting to pull out some Parliamentary rules to take power, the notion of prorouging the House (the PM's power to do so) may be a technicality he can use to run the Opposition out of steam.  When you got everything to lose, the knives will come out - but is his Party ready for the fight?

P.S.  Is anyone else enjoying the irony that the Liberals, with none other than Stephane Dion, are relying on the Bloc Quebecois to prop them up right now?  I don't think Ribbentrop and Molotov could have pulled that off!!!

 

[McG]

I am not a fan of the Liberals, NDP or Bloc. However, I think there is an overwhelming wave of hypocritical BS filling up this thread. This board is full of old posts bemoaning the horrors of rule by minority from times when Liberal governments reigned under a plurality.  Now, I'm reading exaggerations of how the opinion of Canadians is being trod upon by those who might challenge the plurality.  If you truly believe in rule by plurality, then stick with that regardless of the party in power.  For those of you flip-flopping your opinion based on how plurality benefits "your party" or not, I accuse you of being every bit as blindly & dangerously partisan as you like to accuse the party which is not yours ...  and I am pointing fingers to both sides of the spectrum.

Canada voted for the conservatives to be in power...

No.  Only a minority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives to be in power: http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx

Many in this thread seem to be framing the situation as some violation of the will of the majority.  It is not.  It is the reality of our system that the group able to put together a plurality of the seats is the group that will hold power.  Sometimes we (individually) are happy with who holds that plurality, and sometimes we are not. Rarely does the group in power represent the majority of the voters.  That is our democracy.

The west already spoke, loud and clear during the election.

It's only loud & clear if you decide not to look past the seat count.  The Conservatives did earn the majority of the popular vote, but only by 2.4% (see http://enr.elections.ca/Provinces_e.aspx ).  I would not call that a "loud and clear" .  It is ambiguous leanings in favour of.

It's a shock to see just how easy it is for all of our votes to become meaningless and ...

The plurality of Canadians elected the Conservatives,

You are like a stone wall as I've already taken apart the notion of "all our votes".  In the case of our current government, the plurality is a minority.  A coalition government would not overturn all Canadian votes.  It would simply shift us from one group with a plurality to another group (one which actually reflects an ambiguous majority of the voters).

 

[retiredgrunt45]

I take a quote from (Rex Murphy) on the national last night when he said.

"Either Mr. Harper is to dumb to know what he's doing, or he's to arrogant to care"

Harper said Dion was a national embarrassment, well as far as Mr Harper is concerned, what he has succeeded in doing over the past week with his divide and conquer tactics, makes him an even bigger embarrassment to his own party. Instead of concentrating on whats important, he persistently continued to poke the hornets nest. He poked the nest once to many times and he got stung. I really think the man can't help himself. This persistence to always be confertational must be in his DNA, because he continuesly goes for the jugular even when there's no reason to and this time he was held to account. The man obviously doesn't like opposition and that has become much more evident is this session of Parliament. Its either his way or the highway. He's a one man show and I really believe he thinks he can just go of and do what he pleases without having to answer to anyone.

Watching question period on CPAC yesterday, when the opposition stood up while Tony Clement was speaking and shouted "new leader", well when Prentice sat back down next to Harper, Harper threw him a look that if looks could kill Prentice would probably be dead. Harper didn't look at all to impressed by the gesture.

I think If the coalition can pull it of, more power to them, because at this point anything is better than Harper. I'd even take a conservative party without Harper at the helm.

Wheres the Rhino party when you need them!

 

[meni0n]

MCG, the conservatives got the most votes of any of the other parties, sure if you combine all of the other party votes, they got less than all together but, those parties ran on different campaign platforms and that is why people voted for the ones that appealed to them and now you're saying that it doesn't matter and they will all have the same platform now? How does that makes sense? Why didn't they all present one common platform and ran under a coalition banner? Since they all differed opinions in their campaigns six weeks ago, how is this going to be a functional government if they start to be divided on an issue? Last we heard the Liberals want out of Afghanistan in 2011, Bloc 2009 and NDP now. And when they start to in-fight and not able to make a decision, or not support each other in the House then the conservatives will just do to them what they just did.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

In other forms of government,  in minority situations, nothing gets done.  For example in the States if they can't pass a budget,  people don't get paid.  Our system is set up so that if the people who are 'in charge' can't get stuff done they;re not in charge anymore.  Typically an election is called if the government can't pass its bills, but there are other options,  one is the GG can ask the opposition if they are able to get stuff done. 


It is rare that the other parities would have enough in common,  but both the bloc and NDP gave up ALOT to make it work.  (yes I'm talking in the past tense,  they've reached an agreement and they have enough they want to do to keep busy for the next year and a half) I think it is a very Canadian solution - a bully pushing everyone around thwarted by people with radically different backgrounds, ideals and visions coming together in compromise to say "That's enough of that thank you very much".

 

[helpup]

I was working in Kingston recently, and their city council tried to get $8 million in federal "infrastructure" money for their vast and uneconomic multi-use downtown arena. London Ontario receives 121% more from the federal and provincial governments than the average of 30 similar Canadian cities, yet refuses to actually spend that money on infrastructure (they budget @ $8 million/year vs the @ $30 million /year actually needed). A large "Stimulus" package will only trigger inflation and devalue any accumulated savings and wealth you might have (compounding the global financial crisis to boot, which is caused by a vast imbalance between wealth and accumulated debt.)

It looks like a multi prong counterattack against inept and "progressive" city councils, Provincial governments and programs wherever they exist and national level "Progressive" parties is needed to end the madness.

That is why I added the line about " any takers".  Most of the packages allot of the parties are talking about ( ok so make that two of the parties) involve infrastructure as a large source of putting Govt cash.  Once you factor in the little kingdoms back scratching that goes on there will be a large percentage of funds going to questionable projects and or just being boneheaded.  Still I do think there will be a major increase.  Will it help the "Global Crisis"  I have my doubt's but we are going to have to do some serious upgrading and repair to the infrastructure.

 

[vonGarvin]

OK, for those who think that they voted for Harper for PM, you are all full of beans.  As for me, I voted the same way I always vote: by secret ballot.
My options were for a number of people (5 or 6, as I recall) who all wanted to represent Prince Edward-Hastings in Parliament.  As it turned out, the candidate who is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada was elected to represent my riding.  As it stands now, he is on the government side.  Come next week, he may be in opposition.  Whatever. 
I do realise that Messrs Dion, Layton and Duceppe were more upset about losing out the federal monies for votes "thingy" than anything else, but politics do make strange bedfellows.
Whoever said that Canadian politics are boring were, in my opinion, a bit off!

 

[helpup]

I don't have too big of an issue with the Coalition.  I don't like it, but as it has been pointed out in our system and in many others it is fully allowable and does have it's own benefits ( perceived or real ) It also has it's drawbacks.  That this one will be supported by the Bloc being one of the big ones.  Yet the Bloc for the time being have stepped back from the " lets separate".  They know that Quebec's are not into that (  at that moment ) So they are doing what they think is best for their province.  And to keep the coalition going you just know they will get a "fair share" of keep the Bloc happy amendments.  The moment they don't this coalition will fall.

It still remains to be seen if this horse will even get out of the Gate.  There is the Proroguing by the PM, the choice of the GG, the voicing of the Canadian people that still need to be felt out.  And for those who feel it is illegal and undemocratic.  Well my take on that is there are people in Posn who sole job revolves around seeing what is legal and non legal with the way the Govt does things.  I will trust their judgement to the legality.  My liking it is a differant matter and I can fully understand why people will HATE and LOVE this political move.  

Personally I am embarrassed by the Conservatives pushing the Opposition into a corner, I am embarrassed at the NDP', Liberal's Get Harper view.  I actually understand the Bloc's view it is pretty simple what is best for Quebec and our view.  ( Although you could argue they would get similar perks with out too much effort with the Conservatives in power. )

I am amused at the situation and the realization that "History is being made".  I am also looking forward to seeing the aftermath of this stunt in 4.....-18 months from now when as pointed out we will go to the Polls again.  

What I would rather be seeing though is a Country that has a Calm leadership that is not rushing to spend it's way out of a situation. Especially since the US has not completely announced its own plan until Obama is in.  And Since the Liberals gave us a number of good budget years we can afford to sit on the fence for a bit longer and see what works and what doesn't work.  

Democracy in action never promised you would get what you wanted, liked or even thought of.  It does allow you to have a say though.  

 

[Kirkhill]

This event may or may not be democratic.  Laws may on may not be right.  The courts may or may not be just.  Life may or may not be fair.

Rugby - League, Union and Sevens, Soccer, Aussie Rules, Gaelic,  American and Canadian ....... all purport to be Football.

The game is being played by our local rules. 

If we don't like the rules, as Infanteer points out, we should, within those same rules, work to change them.

 

[Kirkhill]

It is rare that the other parities would have enough in common,  but both the bloc and NDP gave up ALOT to make it work.  (yes I'm talking in the past tense,  they've reached an agreement and they have enough they want to do to keep busy for the next year and a half) I think it is a very Canadian solution - a bully pushing everyone around thwarted by people with radically different backgrounds, ideals and visions coming together in compromise to say "That's enough of that thank you very much".

Zell - you and I are never going to perceive political situations from the same viewpoint I fear. 

First off - "people with radically different backgrounds, ideals and visions coming together in compromise to say "That's enough of that thank you very much"."

Jack, Gilles and Stephane do not have "radically different backgrounds, ideals and visions" except by comparison to Stephen Harper.  In that, those that argue that Canadians are closer in spirit to the socialists than the Tories, have a case.  Jack, Gilles and Stephane all agree on the nature of a national economy, the importance of being Right, social integration and the power and necessity of coercion.  This sets them apart from Stephen Harper and many of the Conservatives.

One group tries to stem and contain and direct the tides of history and marshalls the greater community to achieve their ends.  The other group tends to see the tides of history as a surfing opportunity which challlenges the individual.

Jack and Gilles don't surf.

The only difference between Jack and Gilles (Stephane is a non-entity along for the ride) is a disagreement on who is going to be in charge.

Demonstrably both of them, given an opportunity to demonstrate their democratic credentials in the way they run their parties, have proven to be vastly more undemocratic, controlling and intolerant than Stephen Harper has ever been.

And, with respect to bullying.......need one mention Le P'tit Gars and the chokehold?  Or Pierre Trudeau (War Measures, Imposed Constitution, Desecration of Institutions, NEP, Reversal on Wage and Price Controls.....)?  Or even William Lyon MacKenzie King (and no it doesn't help that he is part Scots).

We do agree, as I noted above, this is just the game being played by Canadian rules...... But as a born again cynic, don't try and convince me that there is some higher purpose all this serves.  Keep that for the teenagers and those of the stunted ilk of Carleton's Poli Sci department.  It is a fairy tale.