• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

wait a minute there......
The Tories acted in a belligerent manner,  and consequently all three have united against them.

We're being a little fast and loose with history.
Seems to me Dion was first to oppose everything the first Harper government did because the opposition was expected to oppose everything.

Before Dion there was the issue of Chretien. A pretty feisty guy......
And before him there was this thing called the National Energy program.
Dollars travelled East and the devastation in the west was real and profound.
The federal liberals refused to solve the softwood lumber dispute to the detriment of the west. And then the federal liberals did their best to do nothing about the mad cow debacle.

1.The three amigos hatched a scheme to grab power.
2.The Conservative government forced their hand.
3.Then the Conservative government offered to withdraw the offending articles from the update! 

Now we're talking about Conservatives refusing to cooperate and being belligerent!!
From where I sit (out west) you seem to be filtering the issue through something rose coloured.... >:(

If the liberals and NDP controlled enough seats on their own I would just si and take it.
That a major distortion of the will of the people is required for this coalition to work makes the idea seem untenable at least. Out west, it seems like looming disaster. :o

 
Zell_Dietrich said:
Minority governments mean no one party gets its way.  Compromise and deal making is the name of the game.  The Tories acted in a belligerent manner,  and consequently all three have united against them.  Now they'll be shut out while the other three decide amongst themselves what to do and then in Parliament vote as one.

Not a bad assessement as far as it goes but,
All parties return in late January.
Day 1 - speach from the throne
Day 2 - presentation of a new budget
Days beyond..... discussion & vote on the budget.
If the Conservatives present desirable goodies that are voted down -  there will be an election -  Liberals will be handed their a$$ in a handbasket with good ole Stephane still in the drivers seat - still intending to leave in May
The Bloc.... they'll be going into a new election with "proof" of what those other politicians think of Quebec - and they will come back stronger - taking seats that Stephen had retained last election.
The NDP.... who cares about the NDP
 
Zell_Dietrich said:
Minority governments mean no one party gets its way.  Compromise and deal making is the name of the game.  The Tories acted in a belligerent manner,  and consequently all three have united against them.  Now they'll be shut out while the other three decide amongst themselves what to do and then in Parliament vote as one.

Wrong again. The Tories did what an elected minority is supposed to so.

They put a propostion onto the table, even if it were one that the Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Green parties find belligerant. They voiced their displeasure as the Opposition is supposed to do. Then, the minority pulled the bit that they all found "belligerant" (the 1.95 per vote bit) from that propostion in return ... just as a governing minority is supposed to so. Parliament then carries on compromising and deal-making like normal. NOT.

Then, instead of making some proposals for the budget, the three flaming flamingos announced their little "coalition of the fuktards" and announced that it had been pulled together because the PM hadn't an inkling what to do abut the economy. What a load of no-longer-being-distilled scotch that is. The little dictators had been planning it well before Mr Harper gave them the opportunity to use "the lack of addressing the economic crisis" as an excuse.

Nope, instead they cooked up their little coup plot waiting for an excuse to jump onto the still warm flesh of a freshly elected minority leader. Turns out it didn't work out too well for them though. I am still convinced that both Mr Harper and Her Excellency the Governor General did the right thing by giving us some bacon & cheese perogies for the next 6 weeks to chew on. Canadians spoke with their votes a mere short seven weeks ago. Those votes showed that Canadians preferred Tories to govern, but in a minority capacity. That's what they asked for and that is what they should have.

They shouldn't have a couple of narcissts deciding that they actually are entitled to run the country instead; Canadians had just told those people with their votes that they were NOT entitled to head the nation.

Now, as for the "belligerancy" ... is that really Harper's fault? I mean really ---- the funding cut would have applied to Tory coffers as well. Whose fault is it that the Liberals and other opposition parties would have found themselves bankrupt, but the Tories not? That's not the Tories problem - the proposal was applicable to EVERY party. It's those parties who find it "belligerant" own damn faults that Canadians just aren't opening up their purse strings to them anymore. Wonder why that is? See my original post ... the Liberal party has gone waaaay left of centre .... and because of that, they've lost my vote until they sort their shit out ... de facto - that means - they've also most certainly have lost any moolah I would have anted up in their direction as well.

Instead of whining and blaming the Tories for their plight and ills, perhaps they should grow the hell up, take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror ... and sort themselves out. Maybe then, their fortunes would once again rise - both on the popular vote front and on the monetary front. Until then, don't blame the Tories ... they can blame their own silly elitist agenda pushing of the past decade or so for their own undoing. The blame for this all lies squarely on their own shoulders.
 
From the reports I have read/seen, at the LPC caucus meeting, Rae took over the microphone from Dion and demanded that the LPC defeat the CPC at the very earliest opportunity. Rae was to travel cross Canada to lead the demonstrations for the coalition (and campaign for the LPC leadership). The caucus was fully behind Rae.
The LPC is fully committed to defeating the government. The NDP is fully committed to defeating the government. No matter what the Budget contains, the LPC and the NDP WILL vote against it. No question, none.
The Bloc meanwhile, just to show the world, Canadians and Quebec, that they, the Bloc, are the party that is really in control of Canada's destiny, will vote for the Budget. This is assured as the CPC will sweeten the pot AGAIN for Quebec in a sorry attempt to retain and/or gain the LPC's Quebec's seats. The Bloc will say that the Budget is good for Quebec, thumb it's nose at the LPC and the NDP, and vote with the CPC. This will set off the LPC/NDP to say who's in bed with the Bloc now. Chaos continues. The TSX and the Cdn $ contines to go down.
If I am wrong, and the election results in the BLOC in a position to be the Official Opposition, I plead with the CPC to not do this. I do not know how but do not repeat a mistake and have a separatists party as the Loyal Opposition.
 
God I'm getting eye strain following all these lengthy responses.

I want a Progressive Conservative Party, socially progressive and fiscally conservative. But what I have to chose from is two leaders neither of whom I and many Canadians feel are putting the countries interests first.
Most probable outcome...Dion gets dumped, through some mechanism Iggy become Liberal leader and drops the coalition idea.
Harper presents his budget, adopting most of the ideas advocated by the opposition ie. pumping money into the economy as per most other world governments.
 
Sober second thought on how constitutional convention is evolving (and if I were a Liberal, I would also have second thoughts about pulling the plug Jan 26; the electorate will turn you into oatmeal...):

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=1039585

Ignoring our constitutional tradition

As Mulroney did with Meech Lake, the 2008 coalition architects are overstepping their bounds

Michael Bliss,  National Post  Published: Saturday, December 06, 2008

Once again, our political class has unleashed tensions and passions that threaten the future of Canada. How did this happen? One main cause of the problem is a significant misunderstanding of the way our constitution has evolved. Today's elected politicians have an outsized appreciation of their own power.

There are significant parallels between the coalition crisis of 2008 and the constitutional crisis unleashed in 1987 by the Meech Lake Accord. In both cases, elected politicians believed they could make startlingly new deals of vital importance without taking the underlying issues to the Canadian people. Brian Mulroney and the other architects of the Meech Lake Accord argued they had the constitutional mandate to go ahead with their package of change without any mandate from the people. Similarly, the three architects of the 2008 coalition believe they have the constitutional right to assume and wield power in Parliament without having to go through another election.

Given the manner in which Canadian governance has evolved since our 19th-century origins, such a presumption turns out to be profoundly wrong -- in both cases.

The old doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty held that so long as our MPs face voters from time to time in elections, the members of legislatures who command majority support can do practically anything they desire. That's why the Meech Lake proposals were thought to be achievable, and why it was first proposed that son-of-Meech, the Charlottetown Accord, did not have to be submitted to the Canadian people. Similarly, our current coalitionists believe that a majority in our duly elected Parliament can make Stephane Dion (or any other MP) prime minister of Canada without an election, and keep him there for months or years.

Canadian public opinion was outraged by both Meech and Charlottetown. Eventually, the politicians were forced to take the Charlottetown accord to the people in a 1992 national referendum, where it was massively defeated. Canadians didn't want constitutional change -- and they said so once they got a vote on the matter.

Sadly, instead of taking the lesson from this precedent that, in a modern democracy, the will of the people trumps Parliamentary deal-making, the architects of the 2008 coalition trotted out the same old assumptions about Parliamentary freedom, and how little the popular will matters. Their conceit has been that they can legally succeed in what millions of Canadians see as the overturning of the outcome of a democratic election, and do it without giving Canadians the ultimate say in the matter.

This is a huge error of both political and constitutional intelligence. Constitutions are living bodies of precedent, convention, comity and adaptation. Canada has evolved a long way since the era when Sir John A. Macdonald opposed universal suffrage and condemned democracy as an American disease. No constitutional expert -- certainly, no governor-general--can ignore the democratic conventions that have emerged and evolved throughout the 20th century. These conventions have been moving constantly in the direction of shifting sovereignty from Parliament to the people.

Just as it was finally realized that the Charlottetown Accord had to be taken to the people, so the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition proposal would have to go to the Canadian people before it could be legitimately implemented. I am certain that if Mr. Harper loses the confidence of the House at the end of January, and chooses to request a dissolution of Parliament and an election to test voters' will, the Governor-General will grant it. The coalition-without-election idea, I believe, is as dead as the Charlottetown Accord, not least because, now as then, so many Canadians have been deeply angered by the arrogance and egos of parliamentarians whose understanding has failed to evolve beyond the pages of out-of-date constitutional textbooks.

In the Meech-Charlottetown crisis, it was largely arrogant Conservatives, led by Brian Mulroney, who overreached. Today, the Liberal party is probably going to pay a heavy price for its unthinking folly. In both cases, the country pays a huge price, as leaders who have fallen out of touch carelessly reopen the Pandora's box of national unity, turning region against region, Canadian against Canadian.

The one politician whose career spans both of the great unity crises of our time is Bob Rae. In 1992,Mr. Rae was one of the most eloquent and enthusiastic supporters of the idea of implementing the Charlottetown Accord without a reference to the people of Canada. Having learned nothing from that episode, he has repeated his mistakes in 2008 as a passionate supporter of the coalition proposal.

Mr. Rae seems to combine poor political judgment with a deficient understanding of how our democracy has evolved.
His career in national politics is only the most stark example of how damaging it can be when legislators come to believe that their judgment is superior to that of ordinary Canadians. - Michael Bliss is University Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
 
At this point in this whole fiasco, the only remaining good option for the quickest benefit to Canada, economically speaking, is that the liberal party postpone any coalition talk until after they select a new party leader. Surely some of the remaining intelligent liberals can see this and will be content to wait their turn for a run at it again in an election a couple of years from now.

Any other actions just further divide this great country. My wish is that some intelligent liberals can see the country's need.
 
retiredgrunt45 said:
First order of business. If you want to put some Legitimacy behind this coalition.
First off, the coalition has no legitimacy. Here is a good write-up by Micheal Bliss on the coalition. In it he says any idea that the coalition can govern without calling an election is crap. He uses the example of the Meech Lake Accord where politicians thought they could do a deal without going to the people and got shot down for thier troubles. 

The old analogy "You always beat a bully when you confront him" always works. A bullies facade is all smoke and mirrors. Take a way the smoke and all you have left is the mirrors, which reflect the true character of a bully, which is usually a very insecure individual, who uses fear tactics to hide their own shortcomings.
Interesting theory and that's what it is - a theory. From personal experience unless you are as good as a fighter as the bully, you end-up with a black eye and a fat lip. It applies to both politics and the school yard.

The Coalition may or may not hold together until January 26Th,
It will be lucky if lasts until Xmas.

but it's gratifying to know that neither will Mr.Harper come away unscathed. He may still be PM, but he will be in a much diminished capacity.
Probably. However, a lot depends on what the fallout from the Jan 27 budget is. If the government falls and a election is called there is a good chance that he could come back with a majority. Lets face it, by forming this coalition with the Bloc as a major player, the NDP-Liberals have shot themselves in the foot. However, I don't think it will come to that. I'm willing to bet there will be a few Liberals missing if it comes to that. Looking at the results from the last election you notice that there quite a few seats the Liberals won by the hair-of-their-teeth. The last thing these guys want is to have another election with this coalition hanging over theirs heads like the Sword of Damocles (In all fairness I must say the Conservatives also won a few seats by a narrow margin, so they could cancel themselves out, however, I think the Liberals have the most to loose).

He has succeeded in dividing the country on three fronts, politically, regionally and economically
Personally, I don't see any political divisions that don't already exist. The only difference is that the three opposition parties formed themselves a coalition. Regionally, yes the west is peeved off and the separatists are stronger, but that's not Harper's fault. That lies strictly with Dion and Layton for entering into a deal with the Bloc giving them more legitimacy and for peeving off the west in what they saw as another Toronto-Quebec deal. Economically?? Yes, the economy is doing bad, but that has more to do with what's happening overseas and especially in the U.S. Which brings up another point. There is not a heck of a lot that the government can do until we find out what Obama is going to do; and, he's not sworn in until Jan 20th. So it doesn't make sense to send billions to say, the auto industry, when the Americans may decide to let them go into Chapter 11. 

he is now assured a place in Canadian history as one of the most narrowminded, dubious PM's ever to have sat in the PM's chambers. If there was a grand prize for stupidity, Mr. Harper would have been front runner for it last week.
"In Canadian history??" That's a pretty loaded statement!! Yes, he miscalculated the reaction from the opposition parties and plunged Canada into a unnecessary crisis. However, if you are going to assign blame, leave some for the NDP-Bloc who sat down together and started scheming. They then convinced Dion into joining this coalition and to try to topple the government. And lets be honest with ourselves, the coalitions statements about this being about the lack of a Conservative economic stimulus is crap; its not, its about the loss of the funding subsides - nothing more, nothing less.

Okay, its getting late, and I have to get up early. Yes, I understand that RTG45 is peeved off, especially when looking at loosing your job is on the horizon. Yes, Harper and the Conservatives screwed up in cutting off the subsidies, not that its a bad idea, just the wrong time. And lets be clear, if the boot was on the other foot, the Liberals would do the same thing in a flash. Politics is a blood sport and if you can take your opponent down, you do it - show no mercy. If you want to understand how politics works, read Machiavelli's "The Prince." And as I mentioned above the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition are not blameless. Also, remember there are things happening in the U.S. and Europe that effect Canada and which the present government have very little control of. That's it for know talk to you all later.
 
Pretty much says it all; a serious tactical miscalculation by Harper brings forward a solution few Canadians find acceptable, and the separatists enjoy an outcome that is, ipso facto, bad for Canada.

I couldn't agree more. Mr. Duceppe can now go back to Quebec and shout "victoire, Freedon pour Québec!" once and for all. There's no closing the door on this one, because it's a clear victory for Quebec and the separatist movement. We thought that in 1995 we had finally closed the lid on the "yes" side. It's Ironic, that this time it was Ottawa that reopened the "yes" bottle and let out the ugly genie. We're in for some very stormy weather and I can't see a clear sky anywhere for the foreseeable future.


Caught this on MSN just now, that Dion is resigning on Monday and Leblanc is pulling out of the race to back Ignatieff.

Posted with usual caveats.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is expected to resign Monday and Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the leadership race and will support rival Michael Ignatieff, CTV News has learned.

Link to the full story: http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081206%2frae_ignatieff_081207

The fighters are sent to their respective corners and so the battle begins. Tune in on January 26 for the complete blow-by-blow coverge.

 
ArmyVern said:
Wrong again. The Tories did what an elected minority is supposed to so.

They put a propostion onto the table, even if it were one that the Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Green parties find belligerant. They voiced their displeasure as the Opposition is supposed to do. Then, the minority pulled the bit that they all found "belligerant" (the 1.95 per vote bit) from that propostion in return ... just as a governing minority is supposed to so. Parliament then carries on compromising and deal-making like normal. NOT.

Then, instead of making some proposals for the budget, the three flaming flamingos announced their little "coalition of the fuktards" and announced that it had been pulled together because the PM hadn't an inkling what to do abut the economy. What a load of no-longer-being-distilled scotch that is. The little dictators had been planning it well before Mr Harper gave them the opportunity to use "the lack of addressing the economic crisis" as an excuse.

etc, etc, etc.

ArmyVern

Couldn't have said it better myself!! Good post.
 
retiredgrunt45 said:
The fighters are sent to their respective corners and so the battle begins. Tune in on January 26 for the complete blow-by-blow coverge. 

Really, I expect the blow by blow coverage to begin within 1.2 seconds of Celine Dion making his anouncement official. The media will scoop in like vultures (they're already circling) ...a dn as the flesh is stripped from his carcass ... Mr Ignatief, as the interim leader, will announce in no uncertain terms that the coalition is just as dead a Dion.

Dollars to donuts.
Ignatief already has the speech written; that's the best thing (only thing??) the Liberal Party could do at this point in time.
 
Potential good news regardless of your party of choice.  Too bad it still seems to keep the coalition alive.
Ignatieff could be Liberal leader by Wednesday
Updated Sun. Dec. 7 2008 9:56 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is expected to resign this week and Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the leadership race and will support rival Michael Ignatieff, CTV News has learned.

...

Ignatieff said the opposition party leaders should wait until they can read the Conservative budget before deciding the current government's fate.

....

Ignatieff defended the proposed coalition, which threatened to turf Harper's minority government from power during a confidence vote this week, before Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean accepted Harper's advice to prorogue Parliament.

The coalition offers an alternative to an election should the opposition parties choose to vote down Harper's budget, Ignatieff said.

...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081206/rae_ignatieff_081207/20081207?hub=TopStories
 
And now for a "Tin Foil Hats and Black Helicopters" moment...

Who are the people currently pushing hardest for this coalition?  ???

Jack Layton, NDP
Bob Rae, NDP (let's not kid ourselves)
Ken Lewenza, CAW leader and NDP banker.

It has been established that the coalition was proposed if perhaps not actually organised prior to the official 'last straw.' Was it perhaps planned rather further in advance? Perhaps, as far back as when Bob Rae switched to the Liberals with the intent of going for the top job?

(Yes, Buzz Hargrove was the CAW leader then. I don't insist on the full thesis...  ;))

I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories, but hey - I came up with this one all on my own, so there's a little pride of ownership happening!  ;D
 
ArmyVern said:
Wrong again.

Hey at least I'm consistent.  ;)  But a difference of opinion of the duties of a minority government doesn't make me wrong. (nor you of course) I like to think I can disagree without being disagreeable. 

ArmyVern said:
...  The Tories did what an elected minority is supposed to so.

They put a propostion onto the table, even if it were one that the Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Green parties find belligerant. They voiced their displeasure as the Opposition is supposed to do. Then, the minority pulled the bit that they all found "belligerant" (the 1.95 per vote bit) from that propostion in return ... just as a governing minority is supposed to so. Parliament then carries on compromising and deal-making like normal. NOT.
And the funding cut would have cost them more money than any other party.  It wasn't just about the funding issue, it really is about the lack of action on the part of the Tories.  Given how the Tories play 'pass this or it is election time' over and over,  the opposition took this extraordinary measure to stand up to them.  You have three parties that want to invoke demand side economics right away and one advocating supply side economics.  (supply side economics aka trickle down theory aka pissing on the poor)

ArmyVern said:
They shouldn't have a couple of narcissts deciding that they actually are entitled to run the country instead; Canadians had just told those people with their votes that they were NOT entitled to head the nation.
The narcissist you speak of were elected.  Elected with sufficient numbers to form a majority in the house of commons.  It is democratic and legal. 

Tank recce,  I agree with you fully,  sans the tinfoil hat.  This is largely an NDP thing.

I think I said it before,  you'll be able to tell how seriously the Liberals take their ability to form Government by how quickly they turf Dion.  Many don't want him to have his painting up with the other Prime Ministers.  An interim leader, ... God... please  anyone but Ignatiff.
 
The Globe and Mail’s political columnist Lawrence Martin has never been a fan of Stephen Harper and here, in a column reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, he discards the last shreds of objectivity and blasts Harper and his other arch-fiend, Dion (because he lost the last election):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wcomartin08/BNStory/politics/home
Our Robert Mugabe moment, and other unpleasant memories

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
December 8, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

From the nine Ottawa days that shook and debased our little political world, there was madness and mischief and moments that won't, unfortunately, abandon the memory for a good deal of time.

Our Robert Mugabe moment

Surely whoever made this comparison was joking. But read the headlines in The New York Times, on CNN, in papers across the globe: "Canadian leader suspends Parliament to stay in power." Would Robert M. approve? A prime minister promises the Opposition a confidence vote. A prime minister sees he will lose that vote. A prime minister moves to shut down the House of Commons, lock the doors of Parliament.

Maybe you wouldn't get much argument from the African strongman. We were told our House was dysfunctional in August when the PM overturned his own fixed-election-date law to go to the polls. We were effectively told again last week it was dysfunctional when, like then, it wasn't.

And did a great rush of disgust from our citizenry greet the lockdown?

Not really. As polls suggested, most Canadians, beholding the ineptitude of the opposition Liberals, applauded.

Governor-General zips her lips

The G-G makes a decision of historic proportion. She decides, in effect, that Stephen Harper remains in power. She issues not a word of public explanation. No one complains about her cone of silence. It's convention, we are told. In this democracy, we are not entitled to hear the reasons. Simple as that. And everyone rolls over and lets the convention stick. Back to your tea, G-G.

The Hogwash Hall of Fame

Falsehoods being a leader's best friend, our Prime Minister rolled out at least a half dozen complete canards, some of which should be candidates for the Hogwash Hall of Fame: He claimed there was no flag at the coalition ceremony, that the opposition would be allowed a confidence vote, that it was forming a separatist coalition, that the Liberal leader was not entitled to form a government, that the Bloc had a veto over the coalition, that the Bloc was promised seats in the Senate.

All dead wrong.

But so what if the bullshine meter goes off the charts? We're so used to politicians putting the truth to death that it doesn't matter any more.

If it's commonplace, it's not news. The PM paid no price. He won last week's PR campaign in a walk.

Demagoguery pays

Canadians democratically elect MPs to their federal Parliament. Whether they be separatists, botanists, or snow boarders, they have a perfect right and responsibility to partake in our governing process.

Bloc Québécois MPs have performed responsibly in the House of Commons for 15 years. They reached an agreement not to bring down an NDP-Liberal coalition for 18 months. In high dudgeon, the PM portrayed the opposition grouping as a separatist coalition, as the next closest thing to a separatist takeover. The Liberals were out "to destroy Canada." He stoked anger across the Prairies, revived the long-silent separatist issue, and skillfully changed the debate terrain from his pilloried economic statement to national unity. It showed again - remember his painting all Liberals as anti-Israeli and non-war supporters as pro-Taliban - that demagoguery works. Oversimplify, hyperbolize, prey on people's base instincts. Score big.

Liberals as losers

For all Stephen Harper's handiwork, the performance of Stéphane Dion, who must resign now, was worse. The Liberals had the government on the run. They let the occasion pass them by - and won't get another chance like it.

Through their ineptitude, they brought Gilles Duceppe, having said he wasn't a coalition member, to the coalition-signing agreement.

For a critical national TV broadcast, they brought in an embarrassing video of their dazed leader. They kept star player Michael Ignatieff in the shadows. They let Stephen Harper set the terms of the debate.

In the Commons they were pitiful. When it was apparent that Mr. Harper would break his vote promise and cut and run to the Governor-General for mercy, they could have had him. Like the Conservatives who used most every question in the House to lambaste a separatist coalition, they should have used every question to label Mr. Harper a coward, a leader too scared to face the music, a leader who was indeed about to dip into Third World tactics - going beyond even his own dirty-tricks handbook - and shut down Parliament. They could have had him so embarrassed by week's end that he would have looked shameful in running off, tail between his legs, to Rideau Hall.

But they don't know how to mount an attack. They stood there with their chins primed for clobbering - and got clobbered.

The nightmare before Christmas ended up with them - not the prime minister who can't master his demons - at the top of the loser line-up.


Despite my personal distaste for the management of the past couple of weeks, neither proposing a coalition nor proroguing the House was unconstitutional; the Mugabe moment remark is so over the top that the rest of the column can barely be taken seriously.

I will not bore Army.ca members with more of my thoughts on conventions but someone, Sheila-Marie Cook (the GG’s secretary), Stephen Harper, Peter Hogg (a constitutional expert brought in to advise the GG), Michaëlle Jean or Kevin Lynch  - the only people in Rideau Hall who knew who said what to whom, did give Martin’s colleague Michael Valpy a blow by blow account of the proceedings. Mme Jean was well and properly advised by Mr. Hogg as PM Harper was by Mr. Lynch. Martin, and others may not like the decision she made but it is unfair, dishonest even, to insinuate that by following the 150 year old convention that conversations between the head of state and her head of government are absolutely private Mme Jean has, somehow, broken faith with the people of Canada.

There have been lies aplenty over the past two weeks, beginning with the whopper of all whoppers: “We’re not doing this because Harper threatens to bankrupt us – it’s all about a (missing) stimulus package.” That’s the key lie; Harper is an amateur compared to Dion/Duceppe/Layton.

Changing the debate is legitimate – especially now. It is true, as Zell_Dietrich has pointed out, that there is nothing constitutionally unconventional about the idea of a coalition and we do, indeed, elect individual members who, in their turn, decide who should govern and for how long. But our understanding of civics is, doubtless, informed by US conventions and laws and practices and we are atuned to the idea that we should elect both a government and a prime minister. I have no doubt that many, if not most Canadians voted, in Oct, for (or against) Stéphane Dion, Stephan Harper, Jack Layton, etc and not for (or against) their local candidate. It may be time for that idea – we elect governing parties – to become conventional.

At last, some truth from Lawrence Martin: Dion and the Liberals are the big losers. Dion grossly miscalculated the hay that could be made from Harper’s gross miscalculation. That will cost him Stornoway and he will ensure that Edward Blake is not left to be the only Liberal leader who never became prime minister.
 

 
Edward, not that I disagree about Martin being a Liberal shrill, in all honesty though, the Mugabe remark was from an American newspaper article.  From my discussions with Americans on other boards, they have little understanding of our parliamentary process and rules so the prorogation looks like a dictatorial move to them.

Martin is a horrible hack, but his dim-witted assessment is more than counterbalanced by Cristie Blatchfords http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081208.BLATCH08/TPStory/National/columnists

It's so nice to see a little reason in print.  The PM is the PM because he (and every other PM that has ever been elected to that office) likes to win and like most winners they love to defeat the losers.  Conan would be proud. :D
 
Zip said:
The PM is the PM because he (and every other PM that has ever been elected to that office)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've said it before, there was no ballot that stated any of the leaders for the position of PM.  Granted there is voting along partisan lines, but we as a nation do not vote for the position of PM Per Se, and until there is reform to the electoral process, we won't.

The PM's office is filled (for the most part) by the leader of the party holding the majority of seats in Parliament.
 
Feel better Rodahn?

When one votes for their riding's rep, they know who will be PM if that rep's party wins enough seats, no one voted for a rep of the "New Democratic Liberal Separatists Party in any riding.

But feel free to explain whole process to us yet again and pretend that the point isn't understood
 
Rodahn said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've said it before, there was no ballot that stated any of the leaders for the position of PM.  Granted there is voting along partisan lines, but we as a nation do not vote for the position of PM Per Se, and until there is reform to the electoral process, we won't.

The PM's office is filled (for the most part) by the leader of the party holding the majority of seats in Parliament.

Please stop picking fly shit out of pepper, especially when it is quite obvious that the point is not on how the PM is elected (I understand the system quite well) but that he is the PM because he is a partisan warrior that believes his way is the right way and that his political enemies deserve to be driven before him like cattle.

The alternative of that option is to have a PM that tries to govern by the consensus of the mushy middle, who stands for nothing and will stand for anything as long as he gets to continue to warm the seat of that office with his rear end. 
 
Sorry Zip, but you did make the statement regarding elected PM. Which to my mind perpetuates the idea that we elect a PM directly. I get frustrated by the lack of understanding by some people of how the system operates.

It may very well have been picking fly crap out of pepper, but this is one of the perceptions that irks me.
 
Back
Top