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

[Fishbone Jones]

The Coalition

 

[Reccesoldier]

To Layton, Duceppe and Dion...

"Is there not some chosen curse, Some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven, Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man who owes his greatness to his country's ruin?"
Joseph Addison

 

[Kirkhill]

Good summary Helpup.

Pretty much in agreement across the board.

With respect to Harper himself - I am going to have to Wait Out on him in this case.

As Thucydides said Harper has demonstrated a great degree of tactical skill in the past and has often seemed able to recover successfully, or at least take advantage of opportunities that present themself when he "wrong foots" himself. 

That has happened often enough that at times I am encouraged to wonder how many of those errors are in fact errors.  Are they instances where he let his temper get the better of himself and he has been bright enough to recover?  Or are they instances where he allowed his temper free rein knowing that his histrionics would have a particular effect? 

I don't know.

He could be incredibly smart, or incredibly smart and fatally flawed.

Again, I don't know.

I do know this.

The amount of poking he did in the run up to this he had to know he would provoke a reaction.  And given that any prudent combatant would have a reaction plan in place.

I find it difficult to accept that he didn't see this coming......but I do know other people who occasionally pop the cork and let loose and, in the words of a Hoosier hero of mine:" There ain't nuthin Ah kin do abaht it".

So, as I said, I am on listening watch as far as deciding whether or not Harper is a Machiavellian Genius or merely a man that has difficulty controlling his impulses.

In the meantime, regardless of how we got into this mess, we are in it and I sure don't want to see the alternative running the government.

To those that are concerned about hypocrisy:  I could argue that the difference is that while Stephen discussed a deal with Jack and Gilles and everybody walked away from it, Stephane consummated a deal (apparently the terms were more favourable to all parties concerned).

I could argue that, but I won't.

No.  The key difference is I think Stephane, Jack and Gilles are "Bad".  Stephen is "Less Bad".  Faute de mieux Stephen's actions are justified.  Stephane's actions are not.  Punkt.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

When we received the e-mail, we asked the author's permission to publish it.  When that was given, we published the letter in its entirety, holding back the names of those to whom it was addressed as well as the author's name, at his request.

It seems that CP also got a copy of the letter, and decided to handle things differently:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081203/national/parliament_crisis_brodeur

Classy.  :

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill:  Not a great situation for the country, eh?  I doubt the "Faute de mieux" justifies the gratuitous swipes by the PM that got us here.  But if Mr Harper really is the political genius, who will end up pulling a rabbit and two hares out of the hat,
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012287.html
I still think he will have made a major contribution to the stench of already putrid Canadian politics.  Quoting Parizeau during Question Period without mentioning that the quote is from 1991? Come on.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/12/03/question-period-theme-of-the-day-pm-protecting-only-his-own-job.aspx
http://www.conservative.ca/FR/2459/107805

Bah. Humbug. Fie, fie, fie on all of them :rage:.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[kratz]

That was a short >5min address to Canadians that the PM made.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Nothing new.

"I've got a plan,  just let me present it,
those disgusting separatists can not be good for Canada
they are trying to take away your vote
we will do everything legal we can to stop them"

1) they had their chance to present it
2) the Tories used the bloc in the exact same way
3) they want to take the results of the election and simply use the assigned seats in a different way
4) it is an abuse of power,  to use the power of your office only to stay in office

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think there's still a sliver of possibility that Harper intended to provoke something, but usually the simplest explanation is correct.  He overreached, his expectations being based on prior behaviour of the opposition (all noise, but eventually refusing to pull the trigger).

After reading more commentary and seeing more facts exposed, I understand the Liberal position less and less.  After a few solid years of majority Conservative government, we'll need an exchange of parties.  I'd prefer the Liberals to take their turn back in the seat, preferably with a majority government not beholden to the NDP or BQ.  Neither the Liberals nor Conservatives can reasonably hope to be a permanent government majority.  Each party must be realistic: it will be in opposition some of the time.  Better to choose that time, accept it, and use it to prepare for the next fight.

Dion may have sold that out.

By what I understand so far, this is Layton's deal.  He went to the Bloc, then he went to Dion.  The Bloc should have no aversion to cutting a deal with anyone: all three of the other parties have declared the Bloc's principles anathema.  All Duceppe would have to care about is: what does this deal obtain for Quebec?  Whatever Layton's reasons, he's the initiator.  Advantages are obvious: control of the parliamentary agenda; sell the image of the NDP as a mainstream party and a practical alternative to the Liberals; move in on the Liberal turf; cut short the Conservative agenda.

The Liberals occupy the traditional centre-left/centre/centre-right ground.  The Conservatives are broad enough to cover the centre/centre-right/right.  The NDP covers the left/centre-left.  If the Liberals move too far in the Conservative direction, they yield ground to the NDP and split votes with the Conservatives.  If they move too far toward the NDP they yield the exact centre to the Conservatives and split votes with the NDP.  Their ideal position is exactly where the pundits usually claim it is: the centre.  The Conservatives are already one of the two pre-eminent parties.  Why allow the NDP to become a third?  Is there a long-term advantage for the Liberals in blurring the distinction between them and the NDP?  Is there a short-term advantage other than "PM Dion" and the sheer single-mindedness of being the government, whatever cost to the future?  Is their ego that fragile?

I believe Dion has committed the Liberals to several strategic errors:
1) Taking what the enemy (Layton) offered.  Also: entangling alliances.
2) Fighting an unnecessary battle*.  Harper has backed down on political funding cuts (a necessary battle); the opposition has proved it can win a face-off.
3) Fighting a battle not on ground of their choosing.  Layton chose the ground.
4) Starting a fight looking for victory, rather than seeking the fight after victory is all but assured (waiting to refill the war chests and select a new leader).
5) Believing that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
6) Not looking beyond the current fight to the consolidation/exploitation phase.
7) Lacking internal accord (unity of purpose).

It stretches reason for me to believe that some sane heads in the Liberal ranks will not find a way to avoid disaster.  It will take at least 12 votes the other way, or double the number of abstentions.  Supposedly Ignatieff already controls the loyalty of 50-odd members for the leadership contest.

*I doubt the Liberals seriously believe that Conservative control of the finances is any worse for the country than Liberal control would be.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Nothing new.1) they had their chance to present it
2) the Tories used the bloc in the exact same way
3) they want to take the results of the election and simply use the assigned seats in a different way
4) it is an abuse of power,  to use the power of your office only to stay in office

So, it's okay to use legal means to wrest power from the elected government, and in the process put a party whos sworn mission is to dismantle confederation into the catbird seat, but not okay to use legal means to prevent it?  Interesting take on things you've got there.

 

[reccecrewman]

WHY on earth does Dion or Layton seem to think THEY can put the brakes on a global recession and have Canada alone in the world as a Country that has economic growth and creating more jobs? Do they not realise that the actions of one Country cannot shield them from a global fiasco? Let the government that the Canadian people have elected go ahead and do the job they were asked to do. All this is doing is causing damage to the Country as a whole. Bloc MP's in a federal cabinet is a travesty..... Is Dion that desperate to get into power that he's willing to climb into bed with a group whose main goal is separation from the Country? It was interesting to note that on his broadcast to the Country tonight, he said the Liberals were forming a coalition with the NDP but he failed to mention the Bloc althogether. So, I guess Dion will get his gas tax online if he succeeds..... just as prices were becoming tolerable.

 

[danchapps]

recceguy, I think that picture of the 3 Stooges is offensive and an insult to 3 incredibly smart, talented and well loved men. Now, if you found a picture of 3 rats, or 3 snakes, I feel that may have been more suitable.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>it is an abuse of power,  to use the power of your office only to stay in office

At this point, with all the helpful history refreshers provided in attempts to shore up one side or the other, it would be worth taking a deep breath and admitting the following: No legal or customary parliamentary manoeuvres is an abuse.

We can argue to persuade others that one action or another should be taken (eg. I desire an election, not prorogation or dissolution/new government), but at this point all hands are counting on one infrequently used gambit or another to achieve their end states.

Hence:
- prorogation is OK
- a request by the PM to dissolve, without a non-confidence motion, is OK
- denial by the G-G with a directive to go back and sort it out is OK
- persuading members to cross the floor, vote across party lines, or abstain is OK- a request from the PM for an election is OK
- denial by the G-G with an offer to someone else who can command the confidence of the House is OK
- etc

 

[Sonnyjim]

My personal main concern: Will my FOA I've been banking on be affected if this sloppy joe of a coalition comes to power?

 

[a_majoor]

Although our friend Jack Layton may have been the initiator in all this, look how well he is rewarded. This coalition of the unwitting is demonstrating their total inability to operate as a government before they even get their sweaty hands on the door, much less the levers of power:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wPOLlayton1203/BNStory/politics/home

Layton denied own airtime tonight

JOSH WINGROVE AND GAYLE MACDONALD

Globe and Mail Update

December 3, 2008 at 5:42 PM EST

NDP Leader Jack Layton has failed in an attempt to secure his cut of the television airtime pie tonight, as the nation's broadcasters insisted he must speak alongside Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, within their would-be coalition, after Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper addresses the nation.

Mr. Layton made a late plea Wednesday for each party leader to receive national television airtime tonight, suggesting he'd like to appear independently of Mr. Dion, who would become Prime Minister if the coalition is successful in taking control of Parliament.

Only Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion, on behalf of the coalition that includes the NDP, have been granted airtime this evening. Despite Mr. Layton's request, the broadcasters have said that will remain the case.

But Mr. Layton's chief of staff wrote to broadcasters Wednesday evening to ask that “each of the three leaders of the opposition in Parliament receive equal time and treatment to address the people of Canada” after Mr. Harper's statement, scheduled for 7 p.m. eastern time.

“We respectfully remind broadcasters that the proposed coalition is just that: a proposal to the Canadian people by two of Canada['s] political parties with the backing of a third,” Mr. Layton's chief of staff, Anne McGrath, wrote to broadcasters in what appears to be a hastily typed memo.

“The proposed coalition for a co-operative government will, and could only, take effect [if] the House of Commons demonstrates its lack of confidence in the current Prime Minister and his administration of our country. Until such time, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Part are distinct and functionally separate caucuses in the House of Commons,” Ms. McGrath wrote.

It's not clear what prompted Mr. Layton's request to appear separately from Mr. Dion.

The Liberal-NDP coalition, which has the backing of the Bloc, will nonetheless have 10 minutes to respond after Mr. Harper's request. Mr. Dion and Mr. Layton are each free to speak within that allotted time.

Bob Hurst, president of CTV News, said this afternoon it was news to the networks that this was a “proposed” coalition, as the NDP letter suggests, rather than one that had been agreed upon.

The NDP letter suggests that there is a precedent on the manner, saying that a 2005 address by former Liberal minority Prime Minister Paul Martin was followed by a chance for each party to respond. There was no opposition coalition agreement in place at the time of Mr. Martin's address.

Neither Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe nor Green Party leader Elizabeth May have asked for airtime tonight.

After receiving Mr. Layton's letter, Bob Hurst, president of CTV News, informed Mr. Dion's office that the NDP were asking for their own - and equal airtime. "Mr Dion's office was not aware Mr. Layton was asking for time," said Mr. Hurst. "Mr. Layton's office did not consult with Mr. Dion.

"At 3 p.m. we had an urgent call among all the TV networks to assess, as a common pool, how we were going to address the Jack Layton thing. We all agreed that if the leader of the coalition wanted to divvy up his time – and give Mr. Layton a some time or appear together – that was his choice.

"I was deputized to call Jack Layton's office back. They suggested the PM's office was lobbying us for only one opposition leader to respond. There was no lobbying whatsoever. The PM's office said to each of us that it was our call if we wanted any response on this situation," added Mr. Hurst.

"Regarding the NDP's position, our response was that we had re-read the documents [the coalition originally] presented at the joint press conference. Nowhere in those documents is there a suggestion that the coalition is 'proposed.' It is our view that, in fact, the NDP/Liberal parties are operating as a joint opposition party right now."

Meanwhile, Mr. Dion is urging the Governor-General to reject any attempt by Mr. Harper to suspend Parliament.

It is expected that Mr. Harper will visit Gov.-Gen. Michaëlle Jean on Thursday morning and ask her to prorogue Parliament until late January, allowing his minority government to avoid falling in a confidence vote next week.

If they did fall, Mr. Dion would become Prime Minister, leading the Liberal-NDP coalition that's been supported by the Bloc. (Interpolation: No he would not. Only the GG can make the call, but Mr Dion's position will not change should there be a successful non confidence vote until Prime Minister Elect Stephen Harper consults with Her Excellency and she renders a decision. If Mr Dion really wants to be PM, call an election. Bring it!)

In a letter Wednesday, Mr. Dion says Ms. Jean cannot accept prorogation because it is a violation of the Constitution and an affront to parliamentary democracy.

He argues prorogation would simply delay the inevitable defeat of the government, prolonging a parliamentary crisis and exacerbating economic difficulties.

With the three opposition parties having struck a formal agreement to defeat the government and replace it with a coalition, Mr. Dion says Mr. Harper has already lost the confidence of the House.

Mr. Dion's characterization of the formality of the coalition agreement contradicts Mr. Layton's assertion that it's a proposal, upon which he's based his request for airtime.

edit for spelling

 

[Flip]

As Thucydides said Harper has demonstrated a great degree of tactical skill in the past and has often seemed able to recover successfully, or at least take advantage of opportunities that present themself when he "wrong foots" himself. 

That has happened often enough that at times I am encouraged to wonder how many of those errors are in fact errors.

Kirkhill, Due to the odd circumstances of the plot to bring down the government and the invitation to hear the planners boast of their plans....I'm inclined to see Harper as having responded to an extortion attempt by the minority. With the now infamous "update", Harper tipped their hand prematurely. Better now than with Iggy at the reigns.

All of that being said, the opposition may be in a position to take ownership of the recession..... ;D

Just keep reminding people that support for the coalition = support for the Taliban and =  support for seperatists everywhere, and some of the smarter less, emotional liberals will reconsider their parties' position ....... Well, I hope anyway.....  :

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I think there's still a sliver of possibility that Harper intended to provoke something, but usually the simplest explanation is correct.  He overreached, his expectations being based on prior behaviour of the opposition (all noise, but eventually refusing to pull the trigger).

I agree with you. If his plan was to kneecap the opposition he wouldn't have caved in last weekend.

After reading more commentary and seeing more facts exposed, I understand the Liberal position less and less. 

Me, you, and a few million other Canadians, including quite a few Liberals.

After a few solid years of majority Conservative government, we'll need an exchange of parties.  I'd prefer the Liberals to take their turn back in the seat, preferably with a majority government not beholden to the NDP or BQ.  Neither the Liberals nor Conservatives can reasonably hope to be a permanent government majority.  Each party must be realistic: it will be in opposition some of the time.  Better to choose that time, accept it, and use it to prepare for the next fight.

Dion may have sold that out.

All the Liberals had to do was regroup, rebuild and increase their warchest. Yes, it would take years, but it was doable. Just look at the trails and tribulations of the Conservatives (PC-Reform-Canadian Alliance-CPC). In 1993, the PC party was left with two seats in the House. Today they have 143. It took them 15 years, but they did it. The Liberals could have done the same thing. But instead, Dion, allowed himself to be talked into this unholy alliance and in doing so, may have doomed the party. Its almost like Dion said, "the hell with it, if I'm going down, the party goes with me." A Liberal version of Wagner's Götterdämmerung if you will.

By what I understand so far, this is Layton's deal.  ......  Whatever Layton's reasons, he's the initiator.  Advantages are obvious: control of the parliamentary agenda; sell the image of the NDP as a mainstream party and a practical alternative to the Liberals; move in on the Liberal turf; cut short the Conservative agenda.

I posted earlier that I couldn't believe that Layton would seriously consider alienating his western base (half of his MPs are from out west). However, on reflection I think I was wrong. Layton has spent his whole life in central Canada, so the west (the traditional birthplace of the CCF-NDP) is foreign territory for him.  He couldn't care less what they think out west. 

One interesting thing that I found while looking at the Wiki article on Layton was this:

"Further controversy followed as Layton suggested the removal of the Clarity Act, considered by some to be vital to keeping Quebec in Canada and by others as undemocratic, and promised to recognize any declaration of independence by Quebec after a referendum."

Maybe Jack and Giles have more in common then we think??

I believe Dion has committed the Liberals to several strategic errors:
1) Taking what the enemy (Layton) offered.  Also: entangling alliances.
2) Fighting an unnecessary battle*.  Harper has backed down on political funding cuts (a necessary battle); the opposition has proved it can win a face-off.
3) Fighting a battle not on ground of their choosing.  Layton chose the ground.
4) Starting a fight looking for victory, rather than seeking the fight after victory is all but assured (waiting to refill the war chests and select a new leader).
5) Believing that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
6) Not looking beyond the current fight to the consolidation/exploitation phase.
7) Lacking internal accord (unity of purpose).

Agree with most of the above comments ( 1 -7) for the most part, except for 2) - By the time Harper backed down it was to late. Like those troop trains in August 1914, once they left the train station they couldn't be recalled. The same with the coalition.

All for now, I'm tired and out of beer. Bedtime. Ciao!!

 

[Nfld Sapper]

For those that missed it.

Statement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper
3 December 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

 
Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the following statement:

“Good evening,

Canadians take pride in our history as one of the world’s oldest continuous democracies.  During the past 141 years, political parties have emerged and disappeared, leaders have come and gone, and governments have changed.

Constant in every case, however, is the principle that Canada’s Government has always been chosen by the people.  And following the light of this democratic tradition, Canadians have built one of the most peaceful and prosperous countries the world has ever known – a land of hope and opportunity that inspires others around the globe, and has drawn millions as new immigrants to our country.

On October 14, for the 40th time since Confederation, Canadians voted in a national general election.  We are honoured that you returned our Government to office with a strengthened mandate to lead this great country through the most difficult global economic crisis in many decades.  Canada’s Government is acting to deal with the crisis, right now.


Further personal and business tax reductions are coming into effect;


We are doubling spending on infrastructure;


We are ensuring credit for businesses and consumers by injecting liquidity into financial markets;


We are helping seniors who rely on RRIR income;


And securing pension plans.

We are implementing the Automotive Innovation Fund and, working with the Government of Ontario, we are undertaking due diligence on any further requests for assistance from the auto industry.  We are increasing support and incentives for manufacturers, the forestry sector, and others to pursue business opportunities.  We are implementing agreements with the provinces to enhance labour mobility.  And, next month on January 27, we will bring in a budget which will contain additional measures to boost Canada’s economy, while making sure we avoid a long term structural deficit in Canada’s finances.

In preparation for that budget we are consulting widely with Canadians, meeting with premiers of our provinces and territories, and working in collaboration with our international partners in G20.  The Minister of Finance will be consulting with the business community and interest groups.

We are consulting with, and expect to hear more from, the opposition parties in Parliament.  We hope they bring forward specific proposals - we have invited them to do so.  In fact, we have already changed some of our proposals to meet their concerns.  Unfortunately, even before the Government has brought forward its budget, and only seven weeks after a general election, the opposition wants to overturn the results of that election.

Instead of an immediate budget, they propose a new coalition which includes the party in Parliament whose avowed goal is to break up the country.  Let me be very clear:  Canada’s Government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with a separatist party. 

At a time of global economic instability, Canada’s Government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together.  At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada.  And the Opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen.

The Opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent, and without your vote.  This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists; it is the time for Canada’s government to focus on the economy and specifically on measures for the upcoming budget.  This is a pivotal moment in our history.

We Canadians are the inheritors of a great legacy, and it is our duty to strengthen and protect it for the generations still to come.  Tonight, I pledge to you that Canada’s Government will use every legal means at our disposal to protect our democracy, to protect our economy, and to protect Canada.

Thank you, and goodnight.”

 

[Nfld Sapper]

And the Liberal one.

December 3, 2008
Address to the Nation by the Leader of the Official Opposition
House of Commons, Ottawa

Canada is facing the impacts of the global economic crisis. Our economy is on the verge of a recession. Canadians are worried about losing their jobs, their homes, their savings. Every economist in the country is predicting increased job losses and deficits for the next few years.

The federal government has a duty to act and help Canadians weather this storm.

Stephen Harper still refuses to propose measures to stimulate the Canadian economy. His mini-budget last week demonstrated that his priority is partisanship and settling ideological scores.

The Harper Conservatives have lost the confidence of the majority of Members of the House of Commons. In our democracy, in our parliamentary system, in our Constitution, this means that they have lost the right to govern.

Canadians don’t want another election, they want Parliamentarians to work together. That’s our job. Canadians want their MPs to put aside partisanship and focus on the economy.

The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are ready to do this. Jack Layton and I have agreed to form a coalition government to address the impact of the global economic crisis. The Bloc has agreed to support this government on matters of confidence. The Green Party has also agreed to support it.

Our system of government was not born with Canada. It is ancient. There are rules that govern it and conventions that guide it.

Coalitions are normal and current practice in many parts of the world and are able to work very successfully. They work with simple ingredients: consensus, goodwill and cooperation. Consensus is a great Canadian value. In this spirit, we Liberals have joined in a coalition with the NDP. We have done so because we believe we can achieve more for Canadians through cooperation than through conflict. We believe we can better solve the challenges facing Canada through teamwork and collaboration, rather than blind partisan feuding and hostility.

Our coalition is a consensus to govern with a well-defined program to address the most important issue facing the country: the economy. It is a program to preserve and create jobs and to stimulate the economy in all regions of the country. The elements of the program need to be spelled out and this is what we will do if we are allowed to present it to the House of Commons.

We share the frustration Canadians have about a political crisis that has been allowed to take prominence over the more important economic challenges we face. Elsewhere in the world, leaders are working to cope with the recession, to bring forward the kinds of investments that will help their people and their economies. Politicians are working together. Rivals are working together.

Mr. Harper’s solution is to extend that crisis by avoiding a simple vote. By suspending Parliament and continuing the confusion. We offer a better way. We say settle it now and let’s get to work on the people’s business. A vote is scheduled for next Monday. Let it proceed. And let us all show maturity in accepting the result with grace and the larger task of serving Canadians in mind.

Within one week, a new direction will be established, a tone and focus will be set. We will gather with leaders of industry and labour to work, unlike the Conservatives, in a collaborative, but urgent manner to protect jobs.

To stimulate the economy and create good well-paid jobs we will not only accelerate already planned investments, but invest significantly more in our country’s infrastructure. Helping our cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal or Halifax build modern, efficient public transit systems.
Investing in our rural communities so that cherished ways of life are protected for future generations. We can stimulate our economy through investments in clean energy, water and our gateways.

We will invest in our manufacturing, forestry and automotive sectors to protect and create jobs. We believe that in these tough economic times the government has a role to play to ensure that those who are doing their share for the prosperity of our country can continue to provide for the wellbeing of their families.

In times like this our compassion as a country is tested. We believe it is imperative that the government offers Canadians who have already lost their job, whether in the factories of South Western Ontario or the forests of Eastern Quebec and British Columbia, the support they need to live in dignity and develop new skills.

That is precisely what we intend to provide.

Earlier today I wrote Her Excellency the Governor General. I respectfully asked her to refuse any request by the Prime Minister to suspend Parliament until he has demonstrated to her that he still commands the confidence of the House.

If Mr. Harper wants to suspend Parliament he must first face a vote of confidence.

In our Canada, the government is accountable for its decisions and actions in Parliament.

In our Canada, the government derives its legitimacy from an elected Parliament.

Allow me to end tonight on a personal note. If I am entrusted with the role of Prime Minister for the next months that I have left to serve, I will work day and nights to combat this economic crisis, to do what it takes to minimize its effects on Canadians, to protect jobs and to create jobs.

I will serve my country until my time to serve is at an end.

 

[a_majoor]

I think there's still a sliver of possibility that Harper intended to provoke something, but usually the simplest explanation is correct.  He overreached, his expectations being based on prior behaviour of the opposition (all noise, but eventually refusing to pull the trigger).

True, but only if we are looking at the immediate problem. Since we do not know the "commander's intent" we do not understand the expected endstate. In the short to mid term, the CPC may find itself out of power, but:

1. As many in the blogosphere have noted, that might be a good thing during a global recession.

2. The Liberal Party suffers serious damage as the current leadership is exposed as a gang of unprincipled opportunists. The NDP doesn't fare much better.

3. Canadian politics is dramatically reformed on "Left/Right" lines and simplified as multiple parties disappear one way or another. A goodly fraction of centerist Liberal voters (and possibly MP's) move into the CPC fold.

4. The unengaged Canadians suddenly get their faces shoved into the political cesspool. How do you like your introduction to Stephnan Dion, Jack Layton and Giles Ducceppe so far?

5. Stephen Harper has suggested in the past that he would like to see Canadian society shift to the right. After this how attractive will the "Left" look to most voters (especially the new and formerly unengaged voters)?

And I might even be looking in the wrong direction (since I do not know the "commander's intent")

 

[Bane]

Heading and byline of Globe and Mail article.  Linked Below.

Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance:
A document obtained by The Globe and Mail shows that the scheme would have propelled then Alliance leader Stockwell Day to power in the coalition. A lawyer who was described then as being close to Day, says he didn't discuss the matter with the MPs



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wquebec1203/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081203.wquebec1203