"a viable alternative government " / "un gouvernement de rechange viable"

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

The Bish wrote:

Man, why can't Gilles Duceppe run for I party I can vote for?

Ahh... many people I know feel your frustration! Wink

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

Another example to add:

[URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wPOLbrison11...Why the Liberals are acting now[/URL]
Finance critic Scott Brison answers questions on his party's desire to bring
down the government and what it would [do] for the economy

 

Quote:

Liberal finance critic Scott Brison

Liberan finance critic Scott Brison. (Yvonne Berg for The Globe and Mail)

The Globe and Mail

 

Adam Radwanski, globeandmail.com: Thanks for taking a bit of
time on such a busy day, Mr. Brison. We've now heard that the
opposition plans to bring forward a non-confidence motion on Monday.
What makes that so necessary and urgent?

Scott Brison, Liberal finance critic: Last week, Mr. Harper
promised a new spirit of co-operation and constructiveness in the House
of Commons in order to deal with the economic crisis. This week, he has
poisoned the atmosphere of House of Commons and demonstrated that his
words were hollow. More importantly, his economic statement provided no
plan for the Canadian economy at a time when Canadians are justifiably
worried about their savings and their jobs.

The non-confidence motion (1) denounces the Conservatives' handling
of the economy, (2) expresses that the House has lost confidence in the
Conservative government, and (3) expresses that in the opinion of the
House, an alternative government can be formed from existing Members of
the Parliament.

Adam Radwanski: There's a widespread sense that much of the
opposition anger arises from the plan to cut public funding to
political parties. If the government were to abandon that plan
entirely, would that affect the Liberals' thinking on the confidence
motion?

Scott Brison: Earlier today, the government actually
presented its Ways and Means motion without the political finance
measures. As such, the government has already backed down on that.

Now the government expects opposition parties to support its Ways
and Means motion. Once again, Stephen Harper has proven that he's out
of touch, because for the opposition parties, our focus is on people,
not politics. Mr. Harper miscalculated this week by trying to change
the channel from the economy to politics. We're changing the channel
back to the economy and we're deeply concerned that Mr. Harper either
lacks the will or the ability to provide a real economic plan to
Canadians during these difficult times.

(Continued)

KenS

I agree pretty much 100% with Scott Reid's strategic analysis:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081129.WReid29/BNStory/politics

Scott Reid was Paul Martins flack- the beer and popcorn guy.

V. Jara

The Bish wrote:

Man, why can't Gilles Duceppe run for I party I can vote for?

I also thought Duceppe gave the best speech. Layton's was good though, very fired up.

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

No, why would it? The Tories have not in any way backed down on getting rid of party funding. All they have done is take it out of the bill to be voted on on Monday - they are still committed to scrapping the funding in a stand alone bill in coming weeks.

The Liberals would have to be NUTS to let the Tories survive on a vote on their broad economic policies and then vote them down in two weeks in a vote purely on the party funding.

I doubt the second vote would be a confidence vote. If they had any brains, the Conservatives would, or would have, tried to cut, not eliminate the funding. Particularly as a stand alone bill, it would make it more difficult for the opposition to oppose.

Peter3

It is going to be very interesting to watch what happens on the street over the next few days. As deeply suspicious as I may be of Liberals, I think that a coalition is needed to rid the country of a serious menace.  But it is a high risk move that will need to be managed skilfully. There are plenty of ways for this to blow up like a trick cigar.

Harper is going to be pulling out the stops to dictate the agenda.  I think that part of that is going to be an "ordinary Canadians" onslaught, with all manner of putative just plain folks stuck in front of microphones to decry the selfishness and lust for power of the opposition party leaders. They're also going to be driving every wedge they can find between the opposition parties.

The CPC flacks have piles of cash to throw at it.  We got zilch.  Seems there are two answers to that.  1) A bit of nerve is all that is required to get through the next week to the confidence vote.  Criticism be damned.  2) Winning hearts and minds is going to require a bit of imagination and a whole lot of organizational effort on the cheap.  It would be nice if the union leadership now calling for this coalition and the various talking shops waxing enthusiastic about it got their machinery in gear and mobilized some visible, grassroots support. It would help hold things together to see a serious display of support for this swamping the Harper PR machine. 

kim elliott kim elliott's picture

Pierre Beaudet blogged on this today also:

"The Bloc on the other hand are ambivalent. Their left-leaning heart tells them to support the anti-Stephen alliance. Their realpolitik head tells them that Stephen is the best enemy they can have. In the end, however, they understand popular moods; they will come on board. The NDP probably has the most to gain although a similar alliance with the Liberals in the 1970s did not yield an increase in support for them.

Can these politicians have a sense of what is at stake and overthrow the right-wing revolutionaries? It requires that the the Liberal establishment refuses the lousy deal that Stephen will without doubt offer, like scrapping the cutback in party financing. But fundamentally, it requires that citizens wake up and come out and shout, ‘throw the bums out'"

 

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

Policywonk wrote:

I doubt the second vote would be a confidence vote. If they had any brains, the Conservatives would, or would have, tried to cut, not eliminate the funding. Particularly as a stand alone bill, it would make it more difficult for the opposition to oppose.

 

FYI, They've already reversed the funding issue to no avail.

Essentially Harper struck a nerve in the neck of the Liberal Party and they are fully prepared to create a formal coalition, funding issue or not.

Ratbert

The thought of Jack the double dipper influencing increases in both taxes and government debt as part of a Liberal coalition is frightening.

The prudent course for economic stimulation is to wait for Obama's direction and tailor Canada's stimulus accordingly rather than throwing taxpayers' money at Ontario's auto industry and Quebec's forest industry. This leaderless coalition of the grasping is doomed to disintegrate but it can do lasting damage to Canada in the meantime.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
The thought of Jack the double dipper influencing increases in both
taxes and government debt as part of a Liberal coalition is
frightening.

Really? That's what frightens you? The budget officer's report that says Canada is ill prepared for recession because Harper just gave away tens of billions of revenue, however, keeps you warm and comfy at night? Interesting.

Quote:
The prudent course for economic stimulation is to wait for Obama's
direction and tailor Canada's stimulus accordingly
So Canada's strong economic leader ought to dither then follow? That would seem to have been the plan so far ...

Quote:
This leaderless coalition of the grasping is doomed to
disintegrate but it can do lasting damage to Canada in the meantime.

As opposed to a school boy prime minister more interested in spit balls than running the country that determines the prosperity and qualityy of life for every single one of us?

Sure. No wonder I don't (can't) respect Conservatives.

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

Ratbert wrote:

The thought of Jack the double dipper influencing increases in both taxes and government debt as part of a Liberal coalition is frightening.

The prudent course for economic stimulation is to wait for Obama's direction and tailor Canada's stimulus accordingly rather than throwing taxpayers' money at Ontario's auto industry and Quebec's forest industry. This leaderless coalition of the grasping is doomed to disintegrate but it can do lasting damage to Canada in the meantime.

 

I highly doubt any tax increase to corporations is likely to go through in this potential coalition. However, it is unlikely that they would cut corporate taxes anymore either. Also,every single country in the developed world is prepared to go into deficit to deal with this crisis, and most of them were already before this crisis struck. Jack has no special status in this, as the liberals are prepared to spend more in this time of need. 

I imagine you've failed to notice but Obama is already directing policy in this 'lame duck' session of Congress. It doesn't take a genius to figure out generally where he is going on this or even where the rest of the world is going.

 Money should not be blindly 'thrown' at the auto industry and even the Democrats in Congress are not prepared to do such a thing. The only way money should be invested in the auto sector should be on conditions of major reform, and that is what the opposition wants to be a part of as Congress has already started that process.

Personally I think they need to go bankrupt in order for major changes to happen, but I'm not strictly against any support, however deserving the big three need a kick in the ass.

The forestry industry is failing all across canada, not just in quebec, and it is largely to do with US consumer demand. 

The lasting damage to Canada you are referring to is already being done by the Conservative Government, and they need to be replaced.

There is rising consensus that Dion will remain as leader and will become Prime Minister for the time being.

Webgear

I am not sure where to place this rant but here seems like a good spot.

 

I watched the members of parliament working on Thursday evening night for about 1 hour around. I had a few hours to kill before meeting a friend, so I thought I would go to Parliament Hill and observe the politicians at work,  I was not impressed with the conduct of the professionalism and so called leadership of this country.

 

The speakers I witness were horrible, none of them were clear or concise. Their statements lacked common sense, and direction. It was nothing but personal attacks against the opposite parties.

 

Mr. Layton was the best overall, however he was too quite for my liking, there was passion in his voice however it seemed to scripted.

 

Hardly anyone paying attention when a member was speaking, there were at least 4 groups of MPs having there own personal discussion, another dozen were too busy playing with their blackberries and I saw some MPs just looking at the roof for minutes on end. There were countless and unnecessary comments from other parties against the speaker.

 

I can not believe what I saw, it was like sitting in a daycare centre and the kids were let lose to do whatever they wanted.

 

What a sad state of affairs this county is in.

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

Webgear wrote:

I am not sure where to place this rant but here seems like a good spot.

 

I watched the members of parliament working on Thursday evening night for about 1 hour around. I had a few hours to kill before meeting a friend, so I thought I would go to Parliament Hill and observe the politicians at work,  I was not impressed with the conduct of the professionalism and so called leadership of this country.

 

The speakers I witness were horrible, none of them were clear or concise. Their statements lacked common sense, and direction. It was nothing but personal attacks against the opposite parties.

 

Mr. Layton was the best overall, however he was too quite for my liking, there was passion in his voice however it seemed to scripted.

 

Hardly anyone paying attention when a member was speaking, there were at least 4 groups of MPs having there own personal discussion, another dozen were too busy playing with their blackberries and I saw some MPs just looking at the roof for minutes on end. There were countless and unnecessary comments from other parties against the speaker.

 

I can not believe what I saw, it was like sitting in a daycare centre and the kids were let lose to do whatever they wanted.

 

What a sad state of affairs this county is in.

That is what has happened since cable.

I will back you up on most of this. I should know I worked there for a bit. MPs will all pack into the house behind someone speaking at the correct tv angle in order to give the illusion that the house is full. Most of the speeches are directed for the camera. There are tvs in every office where MPs and the like will monitor the goings on of the house without being present. 

 It's terrible! Question Period is the worst. Heckling is just so lame! I've seen some of the younger Con MPs playing video games on their laptops in house even. Most of the activities in the house are partisan and scripted. The less partisan activities tend to happen in committies although that has been largely tainted since the conservatives gained power as well. The real stuff generally happens in the lobbies behind both sides of the house as well as elsewhere around the hill outside the eye of the public. There is generally more cooperation behind the scenes than appears on tv. It's not all bad, but it certainly is generally quite disturbing! Frown

KenS

It occurs to me that in all these threads over the last few days, I can't remember seeing a comment from any of the long time Green partisans. [With the possible exception of WCG, whose comments do not always have something to do with the GP].

It also occurs to this might be because the coalition being considered will shrink the political space for the Green Party.  Especially for May, considering all her proclivities and past pronouncements?

 ??

bush is gone ha...

Has any other provincial governments other than Quebec spoken on the issue yet?  If not endorsing along the lines of "we'd be happy to work with such a coalition government"  then why not?  Prefer the CONs?  or afraid of the hand that feeds *or rather starves* them if the coalition plan evaporates?

 

.....gonna make my morning java...snow again! I just shoveled!...

---------------------------------------------------------

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?

Ratbert

Really? That's what frightens you? The budget officer's report that says Canada is ill prepared for recession because Harper just gave away tens of billions of revenue, however, keeps you warm and comfy at night? Interesting.

Your statement is rather disingenuous because what you refer to as"gave away tens of billions of dollars of revenue" is actually allowing owners to keep their funds rather than government taxing it and "giving it away" to others

KenS

The message from Harper Crew seems to be:

"If that isn't enough of a climb down, we'll go further."

Apparently they are now going to remove the party financing cut legislation entirely, not just delay it. And Flaherty is going to make some announcements today....

I'm still trying to figure out the logic of what they had in mind. Clearly they were bullying again and way overplayed their hand this time. But I still cannot figure what was supposed to work.

The best I could come up with is that they planned all along to just say that the party financing cuts would be part of the confidence vote and then say they weren't. That would be assuming that the Liberals were going to cave on the economic update... and catch them in the headlights when as the Libs changed their story about how they would vote when the part financing was no longer part of the package.

Makes sense, and that's what it looks like. And it has never seemed possible the Cons thought the Liberlas would vote for cutting the party funding even with a confidence vote. But....

It doesn't really make sense. Because that assumes the Liberals were going to cave on the economic package. Not an unwarranted assumption given their performance to date- not to mention Dion's indications he was going to keep doing it.

So fine, the Liberals were reasonably expected to cave. That is by far the main action for Harper Crew. Then what would the threat/withdraw of  manouver be for?

It wouldn't have anything to do with helping cow the Liberals line.

So I guess the ploy was just thrown into the mix so that when the economic package [presumably] passed with the usual caving from the Liberals... they weren't going to be staisfied with just getting it passed.

They also wanted to duck the inevitable follow up commentary taht they were not actually doing anything about the economy. Put the spotlight on the Liberlas instead.

Not that it really matters exactly what they had in mind. Whatever that was, it was a product of extreme arrogance and hubris. Including a demonstration of how even as we do the inevitable caving to Keynesianism, we'll do at our own pace, and with our own little twist of extreme bashing out at civil servants and more humiliation of our opponents.

 

KenS

Interesting:

Conservatives for Prentice as Leader  http://conservativesforprentice.blogspot.com/

 

[Near as I can tell that URL link thing- which was never much good- now either does not work at all, or is too difficult to figure out.]

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

"Your statement is rather disingenuous because what you refer to as"gave
away tens of billions of dollars of revenue" is actually allowing
owners to keep their funds rather than government taxing it and "giving
it away" to others"

That statement demonstrates the deep ignorance behind Conservative thought. Taxes pay for all of the serviices including police and military and the hardware little Conservative minds liove not to mention bailouts for profitable banks. Conservatives are the very people always demanding that free lunch on the dime of the people who do pay taxes - the middle-,  and working-classes.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

KenS wrote:

It occurs to me that in all these threads over the last few days, I can't remember seeing a comment from any of the long time Green partisans. [With the possible exception of WCG, whose comments do not always have something to do with the GP].

It also occurs to this might be because the coalition being considered will shrink the political space for the Green Party.  Especially for May, considering all her proclivities and past pronouncements?

??

May supports a coalition. Sorry to burst your irrational partisan bubble.

Quote:
And that is something worth fighting for. Do not watch this from the
sidelines. We don't have to take over an airport to get a change in
government. All we have to do is support Parliamentary Democracy and
make it clear the Canadian people support a Coalition and want the
Governor General to give it a chance.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/8619 

josh

Sources told the Star last night that high-level talks are afoot to choose someone other than departing Liberal leader Stéphane Dion as the interim leader of a coalition government. One prominent name being mentioned is former Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale.

"It can't be Dion because Canadians so massively rejected him," said one senior Ontario Liberal.


http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/546135

Wilf Day

If Canada is to have an interim prime minister until the Liberal convention -- heading Canada's first true coalition government -- a minority government relying on external support from the Bloc -- that doesn't sound terrible comforting to financial markets. Someone with the reputation and credibility of Ralph Goodale would be a good choice. Coming from Saskatchewan, he's not allergic to seeing the NDP in power. It's up to the Liberals to choose their leader or interim leader. But Goodale wouldn't bother me.

remind remind's picture

Frustrated Mess wrote:
That statement demonstrates the deep ignorance behind Conservative thought. Taxes pay for all of the serviices including police and military and the hardware little Conservative minds liove not to mention bailouts for profitable banks. Conservatives are the very people always demanding that free lunch on the dime of the people who do pay taxes - the middle-,  and working-classes.

You are absolutely correct!

Moreover, if we are talking oil company profits, or natural gas profits, or any other resource extraction profits, we are talking about profits made off of the exploitation of Canadian resources. To which, in my mind, they do not have the right to  make excessive profits off of, in the first place, let alone have those profits become essentially, tax free.

That is saying nothing also, about the use of publically funded  infrastructure that they use to make their profits from, but apparently have no desire to support and sustain.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

gram swaraj

the BQ should decide between Lib/NDP leader as to who'd be PM.  Reviewable every year or change-of-leader (of lib/ndp)

=========================================

http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.html

Mojoroad1

gram:

Interesting idea! ....But bad for two reasons:

1. political calculation of the Bloc will not be to just install the best PM, it would be to install the best PM FOR THIER PURPOSES. Whomever they see as more of a threat, as an election draws near, would be  Duceppe's tactical calculation not "who's best leader for the the country", which could be either/or and would depend on the Govm't popularity.

2. OPTICS. The Cons will get some but (I bet) very little milage for saying the Coalition has the support of separatists as they will not be a formal part of the of the coalition. HOWEVER, giving them the discretion of picking the PM is a completely different story.

 

 

Tommy_Paine

"I am not sure where to place this rant but here seems like a good spot."

I heard, not long ago, someone observe that this sort of behavior would not be tollerated anywhere else in Canada.  Not at any Union Meeting, not at any meeting of a Board of Directors.   

The fact that M.P.'s carry on like this even in front of visiting school kids on class trips is unforgivable.

And they wonder why the generic public view of politicians is so negative.

 

 

gram swaraj

mojoroad, You're right, it was just a thought of the moment, to help keep the BQ support...

=========================================

http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.html

gram swaraj

Tommy_Paine wrote:

And they wonder why the generic public view of politicians is so negative.

We need to fix the system, it's broken. Bring on PR.

=========================================

http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.html

ottawaobserver

KenS wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out the logic of what they had in mind. Clearly they were bullying again and way overplayed their hand this time. But I still cannot figure what was supposed to work.

The best I could come up with is that they planned all along to just say that the party financing cuts would be part of the confidence vote and then say they weren't. That would be assuming that the Liberals were going to cave on the economic update... and catch them in the headlights when as the Libs changed their story about how they would vote when the part financing was no longer part of the package.

Makes sense, and that's what it looks like. And it has never seemed possible the Cons thought the Liberlas would vote for cutting the party funding even with a confidence vote. But....

It doesn't really make sense. Because that assumes the Liberals were going to cave on the economic package. Not an unwarranted assumption given their performance to date- not to mention Dion's indications he was going to keep doing it.

My hypothesis on this, for what it's worth at this stage, is that the Conservatives somehow believed the NDP would implicitly or quietly support them, or at least not oppose them so forcefully as to prevent it passing.

I think the Conservatives had convinced themselves that the NDP would conclude that it could survive without the funding while the Liberals and Greens couldn't, and we would see that as a worthwhile enough strategic objective to try and achieve.

Where that went wrong is that (i) philosphically, the NDP is the most wedded to the concept of public financing of the political process to keep private interests out of it, and (ii) practically, the Conservatives presented a fiscally dishonest and ideologically vicious statement that the NDP could never support on either score.  Harper forgot that the D in our party's name stands for "democrats".

And in general the Conservatives made it pretty clear that the talk about unprecedented cooperation across the floor was nothing more than the usual BS talking point, meaning that the writing was on the wall in terms of what we could expect from them going forward.  It was clear they were going to try and use the economic crisis to advance conservative ideological makeovers of the Canadian state and political culture, and that was just a bridge too far for Layton and the Caucus, one that had to be stopped in the interest of the country.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

The Bish

KenS wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out the logic of what they had in mind. Clearly they were bullying again and way overplayed their hand this time. But I still cannot figure what was supposed to work.

I've been trying to figure this out as well, and I've come up with two possible solutions:

1. The cynical/conspiracy side of things would suggest that the Conservatives were deliberately trying to bring down the government to force an election so that they could actually get their majority.  Either that or let the Liberals have the reins during the worst of the crisis, then attack them for being useless.  I don't really believe in conspiracies though, and I think that's giving the Cons too much credit.

2. The Conservatives massively misread both the public and the opposition parties, especially the Liberals.  Watching them bungle around trying to fix this mess, probably realising at this point that the train has pretty much left the station, seems to support this view.  I think they got greedy and arrogant, believed they were impervious, and made a series of tremendous strategic blunders.

KenS

Frustrated Mess wrote:
KenS wrote:

It occurs to me that in all these threads over the last few days, I can't remember seeing a comment from any of the long time Green partisans. [With the possible exception of WCG, whose comments do not always have something to do with the GP].

It also occurs to this might be because the coalition being considered will shrink the political space for the Green Party.  Especially for May, considering all her proclivities and past pronouncements?

??

May supports a coalition. Sorry to burst your irrational partisan bubble.

I'm aware May supports the coalition. Duh.

And you didn't answer my question. Although it was addressed to Green partisans, or someone who wants to guess what they think. You are not a Green partisan, and you said nothing about what they are thinking/doing.

Of course the coalition is a good thing. But they are quiet. even the Green blogs have had little to nothing to say on this.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Well,, DUH! What would you have them say? They are not in the game and their party leader has spoken for them. Sometimes obvious just isn't enough ...

Wilf Day

KenS wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out the logic of what they had in mind. Clearly they were bullying again and way overplayed their hand this time. But I still cannot figure what was supposed to work.

Neither can I. If they really wanted to bankrupt the Liberal Party, they would have waited until they won a few confidence votes. This was so premature, it was juvenile. Harper's reputation as a master strategist is in tatters.  

Quote:
Around the country, many Conservatives were furious that Harper's inner circle had failed to consult more widely before delivering the fiscal update.

One senior Conservative said Harper had shot himself in the foot for ideological reasons — much as he did when he announced $45 million in arts funding cuts last summer, which cost his party seats in Quebec in the Oct. 14 federal election.

"These guys think it's campus politics, so they get too cute by half and then f--- everything up," he said.

"We're in the middle of an economic crisis and they pull a stunt like this?"

bush is gone ha...

KenS wrote:

Interesting:

Conservatives for Prentice as Leader  http://conservativesforprentice.blogspot.com/

 

[Near as I can tell that URL link thing- which was never much good- now either does not work at all, or is too difficult to figure out.]

 

 

Conservatives for Prentice? wow, I can hear the sharpening steel clash with a dagger. Heads will role either way.

---------------------------------------------------------

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Harper has set a nice trap for the opposition, and the NDP is about to fall into it with the other parties.

The Harper Conservatives know there is nothing they can do to stop the economic crisis that is only just beginning to be felt in Canada, and for which they bear a large part of the responsibility. They would rather let the opposition parties try - and fail, as they ultimately will - to "fix" the economy while the Harperites stand aside and criticize.

When the next election rolls around, the  voters will be ready to hand Harper his majority. After all, there will be no other alternative to the coalition than a Conservative government.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

So from mean and aloof to cold, shuttered and aloof. Lot of talent in those Con ranks, eh?

Stockholm

I suspect that we hear nothing from the so-called Greens because they are 100% irrelevant to what is going on. In order to have any role whatsoever to play in this drama - you have to have representation in parliament - and the Greens don't - so who cares?

on top of that it must be driving EMay nuts to see the NDP - the party she hates with all her heart - playing such a major role in dumping the Tories. She is like a child with her nose pressed against the glass window of a candy shop watching all the other parties having fun - while all she can do is watch. In this case "green" means green with ENVY.

Unionist

M. Spector wrote:

Harper has set a nice trap for the opposition, and the NDP is about to fall into it with the other parties.

What precisely do you suggest the NDP do right now, if not bargain some kind of formal arrangement to replace the current government - and tell us how you see your alternative playing out.

Bookish Agrarian

I am waiting for the ratchet up of rhetoric by the Conservatives over the next week. I think we have only seen the very begining of a full court press.

I am begining to wonder if it isn't Stevie who will be making the trip to see the GG thus plunging us into an election based on his abhorrance of our parliamentary democratic system.  Stevie really wants to be President, but we don't have one.

Stockholm

Let's take a look at what happened in Australia in 1975. The GG there DISMISSED the Labour Party PM Gough Whitlam and appointed the Liberal leader as PM and he then held an election and won in a landslide.

I wonder if there might be a scenario where Michaelle Jean simply fires Harper.

Unionist

He can't go see the G-G unless his government falls. And if it falls, it will either be with a coalition ready to go (in which case the G-G will select the coalition) or not (in which case there will be another election). Either way, it would appear that he no longer controls the outcome here.

Oh, and remember "fixed election dates" LOL?? Mme Jean may be enough of a lackey that she agreed to the October election (which she didn't have to do) - do you think she's been well-enough paid to grant Harper a second wish contrary to his own lying hypocritical law?

Probably...

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

I wonder if there might be a scenario where Michaelle Jean simply fires Harper.

She's a lackey. See my post above.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Stockholm wrote:

it must be driving EMay nuts to see the NDP - the party she hates with all her heart - playing such a major role in dumping the Tories. She is like a child with her nose pressed against the glass window of a candy shop watching all the other parties having fun - while all she can do is watch. In this case "green" means green with ENVY.

You don't read anything you haven't wrote yourself, do you? No wonder political discourse in this country borders on the infantile.

 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I am begining to wonder if it isn't Stevie who will be making the trip
to see the GG thus plunging us into an election based on his abhorrance
of our parliamentary democratic system.  Stevie really wants to be
President, but we don't have one.

Even if he does, the GG can still ask the opposition to try and form a government.

The magnitude of Harper's childish blunder must finally be coming home to him. He has set in motion wheels not easily stopped.

 

 

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

He can't go see the G-G unless his government falls. And if it falls, it will either be with a coalition ready to go (in which case the G-G will select the coalition) or not (in which case there will be another election). Either way, it would appear that he no longer controls the outcome here.

Oh, and remember "fixed election dates" LOL?? Mme Jean may be enough of a lackey that she agreed to the October election (which she didn't have to do) - do you think she's been well-enough paid to grant Harper a second wish contrary to his own lying hypocritical law?

Probably...

Actually Unionist Harper can visit the GG and ask for an election whenever he wishes.  He would have to make the case that Parliament is deadlocked and he does not have the confidence of the House.  She went for it once, who is to say it wouldn't happen again. 

I think the Conservatives have backed themselves into a corner and are now in desperation mode.  Nothing fights harder than a pig blocked off from the trough.

remind remind's picture

Nonsense of course, mspector. You do not know that they will fail, nor do you know how big the fall out will be once the cooked books of the Cons are exposed.

Moreover, Canadians might like the coalition framework, and thus PR would be a go.

I see your arguments as that of arguing for status quo and for the continuation of FPTP, and those 2 issues continuing is unacceptable. It seems, to me, that you would rather sit on the side, and be able to complain bitterly about the current system's failures, than you would try to create positive change.

Moreover, there would be no difference in allowing Harper, to govern as if he had a majority, than if he actually had one. Just to be able to say "I stood on my principles" is not good enough.

Harper, seriously fucked up, do to his hubris, petty personality and his being out of touch with the majority of Canadians. It as nothing to do with a "trap".

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Webgear

Tommy_Paine wrote:

"I am not sure where to place this rant but here seems like a good spot."

I heard, not long ago, someone observe that this sort of behavior would not be tollerated anywhere else in Canada.  Not at any Union Meeting, not at any meeting of a Board of Directors.   

The fact that M.P.'s carry on like this even in front of visiting school kids on class trips is unforgivable.

And they wonder why the generic public view of politicians is so negative.

The behavior and actions of our government officials that I witness would not be tolerated at any of the organizations I belong too.

There was a small group of kids that were acting in a better manner than the MPs, I believe there average age was around 10. These kids were obviously more interested in the proceeding of the government than the politicians themselves.  

I would like to have fired all 308 of them after watching them perform for an hour.

 

bush is gone ha...

so... they want to bump up the budget up to January? 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/30/politics.html 

those CON posts are a real psyops campaign. 

---------------------------------------------------------

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?

madmax

The Conservatives are going to do everything to save power. They will come back with an economic stimulus package. They will mount a media campaign at the general public which doens't grasp what is happening or why. And from what I hear in the coffee shops only reconfirms what I feel personally. Anyone backing DION will be held in contempt by the voting public, who really don't like this guy. I do not hear, "Oh, I would like Dion to be Prime Minister. " I hear, not that idiot. I didn't vote for that moron. The guys a goof"  Its too much to bear.  People following the process seem to believe in the coalition, but people not following politics are confused. The CPC can exploit this and they will. Meanwhile Dion doesn't score the coalition any points. So while people don't like Harper, they don't like Dion more then Harper, he is still the person with low teen acceptance.  There has to be a strong leader to guide the coalition, and not the weakwilled leader that Harper has kicked around. Only the media is pressing DUD to STUD, but after a coalition is formed, you will have a DUD that people view as a DUD. He is too hot to handle. Unfortuneately the LPC field for leaders, let alone interim leaders is very weak. But anyone presents better then DION.

In the meantime, the CPC attack dogs and spin doctors are at work, there is no way they are going to give the coalition the right to govern without a fight.

Believing that this is some strategic move by Harper to hand over government during an economic crises is rediculous. No government intends to hand over the reigns of power. He didn't campaign in September to lose, and they don't intend to lose in 8days.

The Coalition better have it together, get a real leader, and press as hard as possible to make history, or this bizarre period in Canadian Politics will be a brief footnote.

 

Once there is a real leader in charge of the coalition, the public needs to be onboard and reassured.  Let the CPC activist whine and complain and scream until they are out of breath. Like is done with misbehaving children.

 

If the coalition does come to power, they have the hardest job and most to lose.

 

If the coalition does not come to power, they have served notice that Harper is going to be bullied back. (He can't change).

remind remind's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
I think the Conservatives have backed themselves into a corner and are now in desperation mode.  Nothing fights harder than a pig blocked off from the trough.

Yes, I agree, but this fighting back might actually turn people off, as you can bet those muzzled MPs, will not remain muzzled. Moreover, the majority of Canadians voted against Harper, and they/we are not going to change position, to one of acceptance, when they can see the ugly face of the Harper Cons really exposed.

 Harper's fighting will only consolidate his already consolitdated base. And a lot of swing voters may be really turned off. They expected calmness and non-partisanship.

 

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Webgear

gram swaraj wrote:
Tommy_Paine wrote:

And they wonder why the generic public view of politicians is so negative.

We need to fix the system, it's broken. Bring on PR.  

 

I do not see how the daily actions of our elected members would change through PR.

 

I witnessed 308 people that were not performing their jobs at any level of competence. All I witness was 308 people living off their high life style entitlements; there was not one person in building that represented the average Canadian.

 

If I were to act in a manner similar to them in my workplace, I would end up in prison and the fired.

 

Pages

Topic locked