- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Thucydides said:Hey there; who's economy are you supposed to be stimulating!
Sunny, warm Texas, according to all of us.
Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition. Will there be another election?
- Thread starter Zell_Dietrich
- Start date
Sunny, warm Texas, according to all of us.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen web site, is an excellent article by Richard Van Loon that explains, quite clearly, why the aborted coalition was and remains unacceptable:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/coalition+doesn+stack/1149585/story.html
Our coalition doesn't stack up
Canada's much-debated alternative government doesn't compare well to properly formed coalitions in other countries
BY RICHARD VAN LOON, CITIZEN SPECIAL
JANUARY 7, 2009COMMENTS (6)
While the furore has abated somewhat with the appointment and subsequent near disappearance of Michael Ignatieff as Liberal leader, the coalition agreement to replace the Conservative government remains formally in place, and the debate continues.
On one side, those opposing the coalition have trumpeted its illegitimacy on the grounds that Canadians voted to keep Stephen Harper as prime minister, albeit with distinctly limited enthusiasm. Canadians certainly did not, the opponents say, vote for this coalition. The co-operation of the avowedly separatist Bloc Québécois has deeply troubled many critics. Even within the Liberal party itself, doubts about the arrangement have been strong. And certainly Canadian voters, even Liberal voters, have not had the opportunity to vote for any government led by Mr. Ignatieff.
Proponents of the coalition cite the fact that, in early December at least, the PM had clearly lost the confidence of the House, and that only 37.7 per cent of those voting in the 2008 election had voted Conservative as opposed to 43.8 per cent for the two formal coalition partners and 53.8 per cent if the Bloc voters are included. The formal legitimacy of coalitions in the Westminster and virtually all other forms of democratic government is often cited, as is the fact that strictly speaking only about 38,500 voters in Calgary Southwest actually cast ballots with Stephen Harper's name on them. The legitimacy of the coalition is further buttressed in the eyes of its supporters by its willingness to put forward ideas to deal with the current economic recession.
Yet the coalition is not popular with Canadians. In polls soon after the coalition was put forward, 60 per cent of Canadians were opposed to its taking power, and Stephen Harper maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Michael Ignatieff in polls this week as the best person to be prime minister.
In taking Prime Minister Harper's advice to prorogue Parliament, thus effectively rejecting the coalition at least for the time being, Governor General Michaëlle Jean was clearly in line with public opinion if not that of some parliamentary experts and commentators.
Although it is not yet formally dead, the coalition may die either immediately when Michael Ignatieff emerges from hiding or, more likely, if the Harper government can cobble together an economic statement which at least marginally satisfies the Liberals and avoids any further shots amidships of the opposition parties' financial interests.
But should it die so untried and so soon? At first glance I was inclined to say no. But when you look at how coalitions are formed and take power in other democracies, Westminster parliamentary and otherwise, the answer is unequivocally, yes.
Coalitions are a common feature of many European systems and they are not unknown in Westminster parliamentary democracies. They are usually underlain by some form of proportional representation but, much more importantly, voters generally have a good idea that they are voting for a potential coalition partner and, with occasional exceptions, they have a pretty clear idea of what the coalition will look like if the partners are given a mandate.
The 2006 Swedish election is a good example to consider, particularly since it, like the current Canadian coalition but unlike most other coalitions, is not led by the party with the most seats or the plurality of the popular vote in the Swedish parliament, the Riksdag. The current government is a four-party coalition called "The Alliance for Sweden" led by the Moderate Party. The Social Democratic Party, Sweden's long time governing party, actually polled 35 per cent of the vote and won 129 seats compared to the Moderate Party's 26.2 percent and 93 seats. However the Social Democratic prime minister quickly concluded that he would not be able to govern even with the support of minor parties which normally supported his party, and so he resigned and the Alliance took power.
So far this sounds a bit like the Canadian situation, but there is a major difference even aside from the un-Harper-like willingness of prime minister Goran Persson to quickly cede power. The Alliance coalition was formed and developed a platform two years before the election. And while the partners maintained their separate identities -- three of them even publishing their own manifestoes -- it was perfectly clear to Swedish voters that they were voting for a coalition if they voted for members of any of the four Alliance parties. By contrast, Canadian voters in 2008 had no inkling that they might be voting for one. The operative principle is an electorate informed about the possibilities before the vote, and that is the reason Persson so quickly ceded defeat.
In other European countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Ireland or Italy, voters know that a coalition is likely and they generally have a good idea of probable member parties. The normal consequence is that the party with the plurality of votes and seats (since these are proportional representation systems that result is usually guaranteed) form a coalition with one or more sympathetic minority parties and the result, unless one lives in Italy, is often a stable government until the next scheduled election.
Both Australia and New Zealand have had coalition governments. In Australia, the Liberal Party has been in a virtually permanent coalition with the much smaller National Party, the National Party leader holding the position of deputy prime minister in the last coalition government. Government alternates between that coalition and the Labour Party. In practice, while the Liberals and the National Party run separate campaigns, the arrangement is so stable that most analysts tend to treat Australia as essentially a two-party system at the national level. However, for our purposes the important point is that voters always have a clear idea what they are voting for.
New Zealand has had several coalition governments as far back as the 1930s and they have sometimes been controversial. After the 1996 election, the National Party which had a plurality of seats in Parliament bolstered a tenuous hold on power by a coalition with the anti-immigration New Zealand First Party, a coalition which eventually disintegrated.
This coalition was formed after the election, the first held under a new mixed-member proportional system, and it would be fair to say that voters did not know that it was likely.
Prior to the next election in 1999, the Labour Party, recognizing the probable impact of the new proportional representation system, came to a public agreement with the smaller Alliance Party that they would form a coalition, and so it was viewed as legitimate and was supported by other minor parties following the election. Labour Party prime minister Helen Clark then led three consecutive coalition governments, although her coalition partners changed over time.
Arrangements known in advance proved more stable and legitimate than one formed after the election. But even in the latter case, the lead party in the coalition had a plurality in Parliament, something which does not apply in the Canadian case.
Both Britain and Canada have had coalition governments during wartime but these have been in response to dire national emergencies and have been led by the party with a plurality or, more often, a majority in the House of Commons.
So what really makes a coalition legitimate?
International precedents suggest three conditions. One is that the country faces a compelling national emergency, usually a major war. A second, broadly applicable in less troubled times, is that voters must know in advance that they are voting for potential members of a coalition, one which will govern if its members can claim a majority of seats in the legislature immediately after the election. A third is that a party with a plurality, already in government or immediately after an election, forms the coalition and immediately seeks support of the legislature. But as the New Zealand experience in the late 1990s suggests the latter is not always a successful strategy. Stable coalitions in peacetime are virtually always underpinned by the results of an election in which voters were aware of the possibility of their formation.
The current coalition agreement in Canada does not meet any of these tests. While it may be formally possible under the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracy, it is not democratically legitimate and it does not meet international standards. If Stephen Harper's government proves not to have the confidence of the House, the Governor General should dissolve Parliament.
Richard Van Loon is former president of Carleton University and is now professor emeritus at Carleton's Graduate School of Public Policy. He is co-author of The Canadian Political System.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------
In other words, if Iggy really wants to be PM all he has to do is say, during the campaign, is: “Vote for either your Liberal or NDP candidate, it matters not, ‘cause if we get a combined majority we’ll form a coalition – we Liberals believe in the NDP’s economic, social, defence and foreign policies.”
Equally, if he really wants to be Deputy PM, all Taliban Jack Layton has to say, during the next election campaign is: “Look, my fellow Canadians, I know you don’t want me to be your PM but Olivia and I really, really want chauffeured limos and all that so we approve of all things Liberal and we’ll join them in a coalition. Anybody but Harper, right?”
Then we can have a coalition … if any Canadians want one.
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/coalition+doesn+stack/1149585/story.html
Our coalition doesn't stack up
Canada's much-debated alternative government doesn't compare well to properly formed coalitions in other countries
BY RICHARD VAN LOON, CITIZEN SPECIAL
JANUARY 7, 2009COMMENTS (6)
While the furore has abated somewhat with the appointment and subsequent near disappearance of Michael Ignatieff as Liberal leader, the coalition agreement to replace the Conservative government remains formally in place, and the debate continues.
On one side, those opposing the coalition have trumpeted its illegitimacy on the grounds that Canadians voted to keep Stephen Harper as prime minister, albeit with distinctly limited enthusiasm. Canadians certainly did not, the opponents say, vote for this coalition. The co-operation of the avowedly separatist Bloc Québécois has deeply troubled many critics. Even within the Liberal party itself, doubts about the arrangement have been strong. And certainly Canadian voters, even Liberal voters, have not had the opportunity to vote for any government led by Mr. Ignatieff.
Proponents of the coalition cite the fact that, in early December at least, the PM had clearly lost the confidence of the House, and that only 37.7 per cent of those voting in the 2008 election had voted Conservative as opposed to 43.8 per cent for the two formal coalition partners and 53.8 per cent if the Bloc voters are included. The formal legitimacy of coalitions in the Westminster and virtually all other forms of democratic government is often cited, as is the fact that strictly speaking only about 38,500 voters in Calgary Southwest actually cast ballots with Stephen Harper's name on them. The legitimacy of the coalition is further buttressed in the eyes of its supporters by its willingness to put forward ideas to deal with the current economic recession.
Yet the coalition is not popular with Canadians. In polls soon after the coalition was put forward, 60 per cent of Canadians were opposed to its taking power, and Stephen Harper maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Michael Ignatieff in polls this week as the best person to be prime minister.
In taking Prime Minister Harper's advice to prorogue Parliament, thus effectively rejecting the coalition at least for the time being, Governor General Michaëlle Jean was clearly in line with public opinion if not that of some parliamentary experts and commentators.
Although it is not yet formally dead, the coalition may die either immediately when Michael Ignatieff emerges from hiding or, more likely, if the Harper government can cobble together an economic statement which at least marginally satisfies the Liberals and avoids any further shots amidships of the opposition parties' financial interests.
But should it die so untried and so soon? At first glance I was inclined to say no. But when you look at how coalitions are formed and take power in other democracies, Westminster parliamentary and otherwise, the answer is unequivocally, yes.
Coalitions are a common feature of many European systems and they are not unknown in Westminster parliamentary democracies. They are usually underlain by some form of proportional representation but, much more importantly, voters generally have a good idea that they are voting for a potential coalition partner and, with occasional exceptions, they have a pretty clear idea of what the coalition will look like if the partners are given a mandate.
The 2006 Swedish election is a good example to consider, particularly since it, like the current Canadian coalition but unlike most other coalitions, is not led by the party with the most seats or the plurality of the popular vote in the Swedish parliament, the Riksdag. The current government is a four-party coalition called "The Alliance for Sweden" led by the Moderate Party. The Social Democratic Party, Sweden's long time governing party, actually polled 35 per cent of the vote and won 129 seats compared to the Moderate Party's 26.2 percent and 93 seats. However the Social Democratic prime minister quickly concluded that he would not be able to govern even with the support of minor parties which normally supported his party, and so he resigned and the Alliance took power.
So far this sounds a bit like the Canadian situation, but there is a major difference even aside from the un-Harper-like willingness of prime minister Goran Persson to quickly cede power. The Alliance coalition was formed and developed a platform two years before the election. And while the partners maintained their separate identities -- three of them even publishing their own manifestoes -- it was perfectly clear to Swedish voters that they were voting for a coalition if they voted for members of any of the four Alliance parties. By contrast, Canadian voters in 2008 had no inkling that they might be voting for one. The operative principle is an electorate informed about the possibilities before the vote, and that is the reason Persson so quickly ceded defeat.
In other European countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Ireland or Italy, voters know that a coalition is likely and they generally have a good idea of probable member parties. The normal consequence is that the party with the plurality of votes and seats (since these are proportional representation systems that result is usually guaranteed) form a coalition with one or more sympathetic minority parties and the result, unless one lives in Italy, is often a stable government until the next scheduled election.
Both Australia and New Zealand have had coalition governments. In Australia, the Liberal Party has been in a virtually permanent coalition with the much smaller National Party, the National Party leader holding the position of deputy prime minister in the last coalition government. Government alternates between that coalition and the Labour Party. In practice, while the Liberals and the National Party run separate campaigns, the arrangement is so stable that most analysts tend to treat Australia as essentially a two-party system at the national level. However, for our purposes the important point is that voters always have a clear idea what they are voting for.
New Zealand has had several coalition governments as far back as the 1930s and they have sometimes been controversial. After the 1996 election, the National Party which had a plurality of seats in Parliament bolstered a tenuous hold on power by a coalition with the anti-immigration New Zealand First Party, a coalition which eventually disintegrated.
This coalition was formed after the election, the first held under a new mixed-member proportional system, and it would be fair to say that voters did not know that it was likely.
Prior to the next election in 1999, the Labour Party, recognizing the probable impact of the new proportional representation system, came to a public agreement with the smaller Alliance Party that they would form a coalition, and so it was viewed as legitimate and was supported by other minor parties following the election. Labour Party prime minister Helen Clark then led three consecutive coalition governments, although her coalition partners changed over time.
Arrangements known in advance proved more stable and legitimate than one formed after the election. But even in the latter case, the lead party in the coalition had a plurality in Parliament, something which does not apply in the Canadian case.
Both Britain and Canada have had coalition governments during wartime but these have been in response to dire national emergencies and have been led by the party with a plurality or, more often, a majority in the House of Commons.
So what really makes a coalition legitimate?
International precedents suggest three conditions. One is that the country faces a compelling national emergency, usually a major war. A second, broadly applicable in less troubled times, is that voters must know in advance that they are voting for potential members of a coalition, one which will govern if its members can claim a majority of seats in the legislature immediately after the election. A third is that a party with a plurality, already in government or immediately after an election, forms the coalition and immediately seeks support of the legislature. But as the New Zealand experience in the late 1990s suggests the latter is not always a successful strategy. Stable coalitions in peacetime are virtually always underpinned by the results of an election in which voters were aware of the possibility of their formation.
The current coalition agreement in Canada does not meet any of these tests. While it may be formally possible under the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracy, it is not democratically legitimate and it does not meet international standards. If Stephen Harper's government proves not to have the confidence of the House, the Governor General should dissolve Parliament.
Richard Van Loon is former president of Carleton University and is now professor emeritus at Carleton's Graduate School of Public Policy. He is co-author of The Canadian Political System.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------
In other words, if Iggy really wants to be PM all he has to do is say, during the campaign, is: “Vote for either your Liberal or NDP candidate, it matters not, ‘cause if we get a combined majority we’ll form a coalition – we Liberals believe in the NDP’s economic, social, defence and foreign policies.”
Equally, if he really wants to be Deputy PM, all Taliban Jack Layton has to say, during the next election campaign is: “Look, my fellow Canadians, I know you don’t want me to be your PM but Olivia and I really, really want chauffeured limos and all that so we approve of all things Liberal and we’ll join them in a coalition. Anybody but Harper, right?”
Then we can have a coalition … if any Canadians want one.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Do we really need a coalition if the Liberal leader is trying to outflank the CPC from the right? (The real question is how well the Liberal party will hold together under this violent lurch back towards the centre?)
http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-ignatieff-going-to-outflank-harper.html
Is Ignatieff going to Outflank Harper on the Right?
Are you getting the feeling Michael Ignatieff is going to outflank the Conservatives on the right? That's certainly the impression you get listening to his recent statements on tax cuts, Israel and job retraining.
Indeed, is he sounding more conservative than the Conservatives? And is this why he's got the Liberal Party running even with them?
Here are two things to watch for; his position on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and on Pakistan.
If he says Section 13 of the Human Rights Act should be abolished and our tilt in South Asia should be away from Pakistan and towards India, he will have outflanked the current Government.
He says he is devising tests for the Conservative budget. Well, hey, I'm devising some tests on his positions. I've named two above and I have some others on issues such as gun rights, parole, prisons, the Newfoundland bridge, the Vancouver Island bridge and the Canadian Interprovincial Highway System.
If he passes, and Stephen Harper does not, things could be different at Mesowest, and in the Country. We need a conservative government in Canada, whatever party leads it.
[/quote]
http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-ignatieff-going-to-outflank-harper.html
Is Ignatieff going to Outflank Harper on the Right?
Are you getting the feeling Michael Ignatieff is going to outflank the Conservatives on the right? That's certainly the impression you get listening to his recent statements on tax cuts, Israel and job retraining.
Indeed, is he sounding more conservative than the Conservatives? And is this why he's got the Liberal Party running even with them?
Here are two things to watch for; his position on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and on Pakistan.
If he says Section 13 of the Human Rights Act should be abolished and our tilt in South Asia should be away from Pakistan and towards India, he will have outflanked the current Government.
He says he is devising tests for the Conservative budget. Well, hey, I'm devising some tests on his positions. I've named two above and I have some others on issues such as gun rights, parole, prisons, the Newfoundland bridge, the Vancouver Island bridge and the Canadian Interprovincial Highway System.
If he passes, and Stephen Harper does not, things could be different at Mesowest, and in the Country. We need a conservative government in Canada, whatever party leads it.
[/quote]
- Reaction score
- 4,267
- Points
- 1,260
....the two front-runner parties are neck 'n neck, but respondents seem to want Harper as PM more than Iggy. More detailed numbers in attached news release by the polling company.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is an interesting column by <gasp> Lawrence Martin:
-------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090114.wcomartin15/BNStory/politics/home
Here's how Obama can raise Harper's game
LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 15, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST
Stephen Harper has about as little in common with Barack Obama as John Diefenbaker had with John Kennedy.
It's not just that one is liberal and the other conservative. They clash on myriad levels. One's a visionary, the other more of a plodder. One's a renowned communicator, the other spent almost his first term trying not to communicate.
The Obama approach is that of a consensus builder. The Harper approach is divide and conquer. The Obama world view is of one family. Mr. Harper inclines more toward the "clash of civilizations" template. The new president is about to shut down Guantanamo; the Prime Minister didn't have much of a problem with it. The new president is soon to shut down the Iraq war; Mr. Harper didn't have much of a problem with it.
In style, Mr. Obama is GQ, Mr. Harper Rotary Club. Mr. Obama is a fine wine, Mr. Harper lime juice. Mr. Obama is relaxed, Mr. Harper suspicious. One is inspirational, the other isn't. One makes Americans feel proud. The other makes Canadians - except when he's almost overthrowing his own government - feel indifferent.
Mr. Harper and other leaders suffer unfairly in comparison to Mr. Obama. The new president's gaining all these glorious notices without even having served a day on the job.
But what's striking about the incoming American leader is that he's probably closer to the Canadian mainstream than the Canadian leader, who's closer to the Calgary or Texas mainstream.
As might be expected, Mr. Obama has more similarities to Michael Ignatieff. From his years at Harvard and elsewhere, the Liberal Leader has several close contacts in the Obama camp and will no doubt, with time, be cultivating them.
Put it all together and you might get the impression that Mr. Harper is dreading the advent of Mr. Obama. But you could be wrong. Mr. Obama's arrival has Canadian Conservatives optimistic. In contrast to George W. Bush, who was a barnacle, the Democrat presents Mr. Harper with a big opportunity.
If the PM plays it properly, he can share in Mr. Obama's winds of change. By building rapport with the new president, he can establish for himself a more moderate, modern and attractive leadership personality.
Economic conditions are already forcing a commonality of approach from the two leaders. Deficit spending, stimulus spending and tax cuts are the way each is going. Mr. Harper's outlays will be more along the lines of a dime-store New Deal than Mr. Obama's, but that's because we don't need as much of an overhaul.
On the environment, each favours a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming. The PM has moved slowly on this issue, but Mr. Obama's arrival prompted him to quickly propose a mutual accord on the environment. If he can be seen to be at one with Mr. Obama on this issue, it will help Canadians forget his three years of foot-dragging.
On border barriers, a problem Mr. Harper unsuccessfully raised with Mr. Bush, he should be able to make more headway with the new president. Mr. Obama campaigned against Republican politics of fear, which has led to America's putting up walls around the wall, including along the Canadian border.
Mr. Obama has a vested interest in quickly building rapport with the Harper government. One of his priorities is getting Americans off their dependence on foreign oil from unstable states. For that, he needs Canada. His style is bipartisan, so he won't come at Mr. Harper with a closed mind.
The potential is there for Mr. Harper to bask in some of the Obama limelight for as long as it lasts. The two leaders will never be buddies. At root, Mr. Harper is too different for that to happen.
But if he can be seen as working shoulder to shoulder with the new president in fighting the great recession, he will succeed in doing what he cares about most -- scoring political points. His finding common cause with the exalted American liberal would be too much for Canadian Liberals to bear.
--------------------
Despite the fact that Martin cannot resist the opportunity to paint Harper is a less than flattering light, his main thesis - Obama and Harper ought to get along just fine and this will discomfit, at least, the Liberals - is spot on.
-------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090114.wcomartin15/BNStory/politics/home
Here's how Obama can raise Harper's game
LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 15, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST
Stephen Harper has about as little in common with Barack Obama as John Diefenbaker had with John Kennedy.
It's not just that one is liberal and the other conservative. They clash on myriad levels. One's a visionary, the other more of a plodder. One's a renowned communicator, the other spent almost his first term trying not to communicate.
The Obama approach is that of a consensus builder. The Harper approach is divide and conquer. The Obama world view is of one family. Mr. Harper inclines more toward the "clash of civilizations" template. The new president is about to shut down Guantanamo; the Prime Minister didn't have much of a problem with it. The new president is soon to shut down the Iraq war; Mr. Harper didn't have much of a problem with it.
In style, Mr. Obama is GQ, Mr. Harper Rotary Club. Mr. Obama is a fine wine, Mr. Harper lime juice. Mr. Obama is relaxed, Mr. Harper suspicious. One is inspirational, the other isn't. One makes Americans feel proud. The other makes Canadians - except when he's almost overthrowing his own government - feel indifferent.
Mr. Harper and other leaders suffer unfairly in comparison to Mr. Obama. The new president's gaining all these glorious notices without even having served a day on the job.
But what's striking about the incoming American leader is that he's probably closer to the Canadian mainstream than the Canadian leader, who's closer to the Calgary or Texas mainstream.
As might be expected, Mr. Obama has more similarities to Michael Ignatieff. From his years at Harvard and elsewhere, the Liberal Leader has several close contacts in the Obama camp and will no doubt, with time, be cultivating them.
Put it all together and you might get the impression that Mr. Harper is dreading the advent of Mr. Obama. But you could be wrong. Mr. Obama's arrival has Canadian Conservatives optimistic. In contrast to George W. Bush, who was a barnacle, the Democrat presents Mr. Harper with a big opportunity.
If the PM plays it properly, he can share in Mr. Obama's winds of change. By building rapport with the new president, he can establish for himself a more moderate, modern and attractive leadership personality.
Economic conditions are already forcing a commonality of approach from the two leaders. Deficit spending, stimulus spending and tax cuts are the way each is going. Mr. Harper's outlays will be more along the lines of a dime-store New Deal than Mr. Obama's, but that's because we don't need as much of an overhaul.
On the environment, each favours a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming. The PM has moved slowly on this issue, but Mr. Obama's arrival prompted him to quickly propose a mutual accord on the environment. If he can be seen to be at one with Mr. Obama on this issue, it will help Canadians forget his three years of foot-dragging.
On border barriers, a problem Mr. Harper unsuccessfully raised with Mr. Bush, he should be able to make more headway with the new president. Mr. Obama campaigned against Republican politics of fear, which has led to America's putting up walls around the wall, including along the Canadian border.
Mr. Obama has a vested interest in quickly building rapport with the Harper government. One of his priorities is getting Americans off their dependence on foreign oil from unstable states. For that, he needs Canada. His style is bipartisan, so he won't come at Mr. Harper with a closed mind.
The potential is there for Mr. Harper to bask in some of the Obama limelight for as long as it lasts. The two leaders will never be buddies. At root, Mr. Harper is too different for that to happen.
But if he can be seen as working shoulder to shoulder with the new president in fighting the great recession, he will succeed in doing what he cares about most -- scoring political points. His finding common cause with the exalted American liberal would be too much for Canadian Liberals to bear.
--------------------
Despite the fact that Martin cannot resist the opportunity to paint Harper is a less than flattering light, his main thesis - Obama and Harper ought to get along just fine and this will discomfit, at least, the Liberals - is spot on.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
And to my mind that comparison speaks volumes to Messrs Obama, Martin and the Chatterers generally. Style over Service.
Thank you Mr. Martin.
I too agree that Obama and Harper will find ways to accomodate each others needs.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,557
- Points
- 1,260
In todays society when people can name every kid that the Brangelinas have but not know who the PM is or the Premier of Ontario, that should send a message.
There were some COs I really didn't like, but you knew where you stood with them.
It's all about "style" these days isn't it?
Sad. Really sad.
There were some COs I really didn't like, but you knew where you stood with them.
It's all about "style" these days isn't it?
Sad. Really sad.
Electing Senators
1/15/2009
Article Link
The all-party committee looking at electing Senators in Manitoba has a series of public meeting scheduled for later this month and next.
Since the federal government has committed to moving forward with Senate reform, Manitoba struck a committee to ask Manitobans how Senators should be elected.
The first of the nine meetings will be in Steinbach January 26th. The last is in Winnipeg February 21st.
End
1/15/2009
Article Link
The all-party committee looking at electing Senators in Manitoba has a series of public meeting scheduled for later this month and next.
Since the federal government has committed to moving forward with Senate reform, Manitoba struck a committee to ask Manitobans how Senators should be elected.
The first of the nine meetings will be in Steinbach January 26th. The last is in Winnipeg February 21st.
End
- Reaction score
- 4,267
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 1,292
- Points
- 940
Tories put on probation; coalition declared dead
Article Link
BILL CURRY
Globe and Mail Update
January 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM EST
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said his party is prepared to “swallow hard” and support the Conservative government, provided they agree to table regular updates outlining how they are living up to their commitments outlined in the federal budget.
The Liberals will move a budget amendment today that will force the government to provide reports updating its progress on implementing the stimulus in March, June and December.
The Liberal Leader said he informed his would-be coalition partner, NDP Leader Jack Layton, in advance of his decision. However Mr. Layton told reporters the budget failed to meet the criteria Mr. Ignatieff himself had laid out in advance: that it protect the vulnerable, protect the jobs of today and prepare for the jobs of tomorrow.
As a result, Mr. Layton declared the coalition dead and said Stephen Harper will remain Prime Minister for a considerable amount of time thanks to the support of the Liberals.
“We have a new coalition now on Parliament Hill: It's a coalition between Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff,” said the NDP Leader, who dismissed the Liberal amendment as “a fig leaf.”
“Today we have learned that you can't trust Mr. Ignatieff to oppose Mr. Harper. If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want a new government, I urge you to support the NDP.”
Mr. Layton's decision to oppose the amendment means the Liberal proposal will likely require the support of Conservative MPs when it comes to a vote next week.
More on link
Article Link
BILL CURRY
Globe and Mail Update
January 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM EST
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said his party is prepared to “swallow hard” and support the Conservative government, provided they agree to table regular updates outlining how they are living up to their commitments outlined in the federal budget.
The Liberals will move a budget amendment today that will force the government to provide reports updating its progress on implementing the stimulus in March, June and December.
The Liberal Leader said he informed his would-be coalition partner, NDP Leader Jack Layton, in advance of his decision. However Mr. Layton told reporters the budget failed to meet the criteria Mr. Ignatieff himself had laid out in advance: that it protect the vulnerable, protect the jobs of today and prepare for the jobs of tomorrow.
As a result, Mr. Layton declared the coalition dead and said Stephen Harper will remain Prime Minister for a considerable amount of time thanks to the support of the Liberals.
“We have a new coalition now on Parliament Hill: It's a coalition between Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff,” said the NDP Leader, who dismissed the Liberal amendment as “a fig leaf.”
“Today we have learned that you can't trust Mr. Ignatieff to oppose Mr. Harper. If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want a new government, I urge you to support the NDP.”
Mr. Layton's decision to oppose the amendment means the Liberal proposal will likely require the support of Conservative MPs when it comes to a vote next week.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Just a quick opinion on good old Taliban Jack. To say you will vote against a document without knowing what is in said document reveals a close-minded, ignorant outlook. To have it pointed out to you that the document contains almost everything you called for and you still say you will vote against it, reveals a rather shallow, little man who will do anything to grab a tiny piece of power in an attempt to appear relevant. For someone who constantly brays about cooperation between the parties, just not the conservatives, reveals an out of touch oxygen thief.
Just my 2 pesos.
Just my 2 pesos.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
I'm no political scholar, I'm also no fan of liberal (small and large L) government, however this to me seems like the opposition is doing what the opposition is supposed to do, keep the government in check. I express no grief with the amendment if and when it passes.
- Reaction score
- 4,267
- Points
- 1,260
And the text of MI's speech.....
http://www.liberal.ca/story_15596_e.aspx
http://www.liberal.ca/story_15596_e.aspx
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
If, as the Bank of Canada predicts, the economy turns the corner in June, will the honourable leader of the opposition permit the government to cease and desist on the spending that at that time will have been rendered surplus to Canadian requirement?
Or, is this entire exercise driven by a combination of the opposition wanting to spend and the government having entered into an international agreement to "share the pain"?
To me, beyond the domestic politics, it looks as if the entire OECD has agreed to devalue their currencies to the tune of 2% of GDP in order to bail out the US Treasury.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Following is a long (six part/20,000± word) series by NDP insider Brian Topp about the aborted BQ/Liberal/NDP coalition that rose suddenly and collapsed just as quickly in Dec 08.
Topp is a partisan, as he makes very clear in his caveat in Part VI, but that does not make his recollections any less valuable.
There will be a book, he suggests, but I choose to reproduce the series here, in full, for discussion and comment by Army.ca members, because blogs can be transient things.
A few preliminary comments:
+ Dion was right. Coalitions are not foreign to our system of government; in fact in many Westminster style (responsible) legislatures they are the norm.
+ Harper was right. Canadians would not stomach a coalition that explicitly allowed the BQ a seat at the table and the Liberals and NDP lacked the wherewithal to di it without the Bloc.
+ Michaëlle Jean’s decision to prorogue parliament was constitutionally and politically correct and should never be explained. One of the principles of our constitutional monarchy is that the sovereign’s (or the GG’s) discussions (consultations) with her prime minister are absolutely private. Explaining herself – as so many in the commentariat demand she do – would breach the essential confidentiality that permits her to seek the best available legal, political and constitutional advice and to impose the crown’s will on her government.
This is a pre-season gift for political science fans: Enjoy!
Topp is a partisan, as he makes very clear in his caveat in Part VI, but that does not make his recollections any less valuable.
There will be a book, he suggests, but I choose to reproduce the series here, in full, for discussion and comment by Army.ca members, because blogs can be transient things.
A few preliminary comments:
+ Dion was right. Coalitions are not foreign to our system of government; in fact in many Westminster style (responsible) legislatures they are the norm.
+ Harper was right. Canadians would not stomach a coalition that explicitly allowed the BQ a seat at the table and the Liberals and NDP lacked the wherewithal to di it without the Bloc.
+ Michaëlle Jean’s decision to prorogue parliament was constitutionally and politically correct and should never be explained. One of the principles of our constitutional monarchy is that the sovereign’s (or the GG’s) discussions (consultations) with her prime minister are absolutely private. Explaining herself – as so many in the commentariat demand she do – would breach the essential confidentiality that permits her to seek the best available legal, political and constitutional advice and to impose the crown’s will on her government.
This is a pre-season gift for political science fans: Enjoy!
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Here, collected under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from recent editions of the Globe and Mail web site, is a series of memoirs of the formation and abortion of the coalition from NDP insider Brian Topp:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-prime-minister-makes-a-big-mistake/article1382092/
Next The Shape of Deal
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-prime-minister-makes-a-big-mistake/article1382092/
Next The Shape of Deal
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail web site is the next instalment:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-shape-of-the-deal/article1383166/
Next: The agreement comes together
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-shape-of-the-deal/article1383166/
Next: The agreement comes together
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Another segment, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail web site:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-shape-of-the-new-government/article1385058/
Next: Things come together
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-shape-of-the-new-government/article1385058/
Next: Things come together
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Yet another chapter, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail web site:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-things-come-together/article1386199/
Next: Things Fall Apart
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-things-come-together/article1386199/
Next: Things Fall Apart
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
The fifth and penultimate instalment, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail web site:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-things-fall-apart/article1387799/
Next: Lessons learned
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-things-fall-apart/article1387799/
Next: Lessons learned
Similar threads
