canadian government about to fall?

The liberals have themselves to blame; they've been strutting all summer as if they have a majority, and it was a matter of time before the opposition tried to put them in their place.

My fear is that this sabre rattling means that the parties involved have rebuilt their war chests. In BC, we've got an election that the NDP NEED to do well in next May, and a federal election before or near that time would spell out another 4 years of Gordo.

...and then we'll unite with Cuba and conquer America. Unite!

The thing is, everyone in all parties knows this. They're just trying to put TEH FEAR into the Libs right from the start of the new govt., as if to say "you guys have been running the show for ten years, but things work differently now so don't forget that we have the power to fuck shit up".

voters elected 308 Members of the House of Commons.
155 seats must be held by a party in order for it to form a majority government.

results for the last federal elections june 28 2004:
liberals got 135 seats
lil cowz got 99 seats
bloc got 54 seats
ndp got 19 seats
not affiliated got 1 seat

There is no majority so now the leading party seeks cooperation with other parties, alliances are made between parties to make one, politiking like that.

the "fall" thing = nothing can get done since everybody opposes the leading party so another election is called. It's not very practical to make 2 elections in so little time, people have other things to do, but as time passes since the last election, when the other parties will think the timing is good they'll call for an election to mess with the leading party.

sym; yes, most likely. We just joined the party a month ago so we could vote in the local nomination race this December. barring anything unforseen, we'll be helping out in the riding(van-kingsway) in May. I've half a mind to pitch in for the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection right now, having grown up out there.

I couldn't find a new thread on the current crisis in Ottawa, so I thought we could discuss it here.

Can you explain it all, plz? I've been trying to follow it and I R confused.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081202.wlivegeigerharper1202/BNStory/specialComment/

That link may help to shed a little more light on the situation, but it is quite a confusing mess in which nobody is the "good guy" and Canadians lose regardless of how it turns out.

under our wacky system - if you lose a confidence vote (which is any monies bill) in the house - your government is basically done and you normally would have an election. the opposition can also put forward a non-confidence motion if they feel the PM is an arrogant douche bag whom they can not work with. but since we JUST had an election the Governor General can decide to give control to the opposition instead - provided they prove they can cobble together a coalition and not immediately get toppled themselves. and that's what's happened in a nutshell.

xpost - oh i'd say a coalition might not be as bad as people are making it out to be

Most folks I know are very excited about this. Kinda weird that the Quebec seperatists will have a hand in governing the rest of the country though? It's not surprising the regional press are so against it.

they're just going to "support" the government - not run it. cabinet will be shared between the Liberals and NDP.

I'm not afraid of it, but it does seem unusual. The press here in BC are getting apocalyptic with headlines like "Pact With The Devil", "Parties Sell Soul In Lust For Power" etc.

I am no fan of Stephen Harper, and the only reason why we're even in this mess is because he's such a monumental douchebag, but I just don't think that this coalition is necessarily the answer. We just had an election, and both the Liberals and NDP failed to make their cases to enough Canadians in order to allow them to form the government. Stephane Dion, who was not popular in his own party before the election, was beaten worse than almost any other Liberal leader in history. Now as a lame duck leader waiting for his replacement to be named, he may end up being Prime Minister? It simply lacks legitimacy. And even though I voted for him (well Peggy Nash really), Jack Layton has been unable to expand his base beyond union activists and educated city dwellers. The Bloc only compete in one province and were founded on the principle of secession from Canada. Why should they have a say in anything?

As a student of politics, this situation utterly fascinating. But as a guy who pays taxes, and would like to see his government get its shit together in order to deal with a looming economic crisis, it's depressing.

Yeah, I'm fascinated but not sure what to think. Some of my NDP buddies are dead against it for various different reasons. They hate the Libs as much as the Tories and they think it's undemocratic. Gotta say that installing Dion after he tanked in the election doesn't seem like a great idea. Canadians don't like unelected PMs (Paul Martin, Kim Campbell).

In Canada, the "governing" party is whichever party owns the most seats in the House of Commons. That party can then choose whoever they like to be Prime Minister.

For the past several elections, Canada has had a "minority" government - which means that no party received more than 50% of seats. (This is, relatively speaking, very rare in Canadian history.) In this scenario, it's still the party with the most seats that governs and chooses the prime minister, but they are more vulnerable. We're currently in our second-in-a-row Conservative minority government - they have 143 of 308 seats. The election a couple months ago didn't result in any major changes, although all the parties except the Conservatives spent all their money fighting it.

Why are minority governments more vulnerable? Since the other parties together form a majority, they can bring on an election if they reject any "money" bill - eg. a budget.

Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to stamp all over the other parties. He put forward a motion that would cut public funding to political parties. Since the Conservatives are the only party sitting on a pile of cash, this would essentially take out the Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois at the knees.

Harper was being a bully. As he saw it, either the other parties would have to take a poison pill - or else vote "no confidence" and cause a Christmas election. Canadians do NOT want an election right after the last one, particularly at this time of year, and they would probably punish the Liberals/NDP/etc for causing one - ie, vote the Conservatives into a majority.

The only other possible course of events is a COALITION. This involves several parties teaming up and promising not just that they're going to cooperate passing laws (this has to happen in any minority situation), but that they're actually going to GOVERN together. A mixed cabinet, etc. This has not happened in 91 years!

Harper was doubtless confident that a coalition isn't possible. No "federalist" party would want to be seen fraternising with the separatist Bloc. Besides, the Liberals - who are I think the only other party to have governed federally in Canada, - are in semi-disarray. Their leader, Stephane Dion, resigned after their last election defeat. While he's staying on until a leadership conference in the spring, he's essentially a lame duck. Surely, Harper must have thought, Dion won't somehow receive the backing of a majority of MPs and become PM!

But it looks like, well... he very well might.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc have all agreed to a coalition - with Dion as PM until the Liberal leadership conference (when his replacement would step in). If they defeat the budget bill (as expected), it falls weirdly to the appointed, generally non-political Governor General (ie, rep of the Queen) to decide whether the right thing is to go to an election, or to give the coalition a chance to govern. It seems likely that she'll choose the latter.

Harper's arrogance seems to have shot him in the foot - and he's presently apoplectic as a result.

It was a game of chicken that was instigated by the Tories and now it looks like they are going to lose (AND THE COUNTRY! if you read the papers).

to play devil's advocate you could argue people voted against the "green shift" as much as they did Dion. and obviously the green shift is not going to happen should Dion get put into office.

Jack Layton has been unable to expand his base beyond union activists and educated city dwellers

dude! what about taking the majority of northern Ontario?! and the NWT?! the NDP has some decent support among rural Canadians.

woah x-posts!

by-the-by, did anyone else see on the news yesterday - in the house when Jim Prentice got up to speak the opposition started shouting "leader"!
looked like Harper was having a good cry on the inside!

Yeah, okay, the Harperfraude is delicious that cannot be denied. But how much legitimacy would a Liberal led government have outside of the cities. They have only 25 seats outside of Ontario and Quebec. Here in BC we're Tories or NDP. Is there not some truth to those who argue that we are being marginalized.

well it's basically the lesser of three evils really. either 1: have Harper running roughshod over Parliament (marginalizing most of non-alberta Canada if you want to phrase thing that way) or 2: have another stupid election or 3: put Canada in the hands of a coalition that together makes up the majority.

Third option looks the best, for sure, but the chances are that we will still be having another stupid election pretty soon anyway (within a couple of years possibly) and Dion (if he becomes PM)will lose.

Unless the NDP and the Libs form a more permanent alliance, which would be an interesting experiment. I would like to see them trying to work that out.

and it's not like the blame for this can be put on the Liberals or NDP or the Bloc or the GG. this whole situation came about because of Harper. if western Canada wants to hop back up on it's cross they will have to put the blame squarely on PM Harper. he had his chance - he blew it.

xpost

well - if their plan pans out - the Liberals will have a new leader by the next election. the NDP and Bloc are guaranteeing stability for a coalition for a certain amount of time. if there wasn't such a promise the GG would probably not allow any sort of coalition.

"dude! what about taking the majority of northern Ontario?! and the NWT?! the NDP has some decent support among rural Canadians."

While I can't speak to the NWT, there's no doubt that the NDP's strong showing in northern Ontario was due in part to the support of unionized workers in the forestry, steel and mining industries - all of which have seen better times. They're still a part of the base I described in my original post. The NDP will have really broken through when they can take significant numbers of seats in Quebec, Alberta and the 905 region of southern Ontario.

We Will Have Influence In Coalition, Greens Say

OTTAWA — The Green Party - which failed to elect a single MP in the last election - will have influence in the proposed new coalition government and possibly even a Senate seat, Green Party leader Elizabeth May said Tuesday.

A senate seat for Elizabeth May! LOLs.

Although it's part of a different discussion, some would argue that a party that receives (nearly) a million votes, which translates to around 7% of the votes cast, shouldn't be shut out of parliament.

If May gets a senate seat, what the Bloc asking for?

Who knows what the Bloc wants? It might be enough for them that they finally get to play with the big kids, although that seems unlikely.

I'm hearing rumours of six senate seats for the Bloc but I can't find anything about it on the net. Could just be Tory spindoctoring.

Again, the rationale behind wanting to sit in the senate of a country you're dedicated to seceding from escapes me, but Canadian politics are nothing if not utterly ridiculous.

We started talking about it here. It's great, and it seems to me that a coalition comprised of co-operating parties who together got a majority of votes is a more democratic ruling force than a party that won less than 40% of the vote.

Individually their vote counts were pretty paltry: 26%/18%/10%. No-one's going to rep for a PM who only got 26% of the vote. And it's difficult to see much common ground between the three, other than wanting to oust Harper and have some control of power. And, I guess, to take advantage of the opportunity that Harper stupidly handed them.

there's enough common ground between the three. more than any of them would have with the sitting PM

to put it another way:
a coalition of three out of four, willing to work together > the largest of the four, willing to work with no one.

Thermo OTM on both counts. I really gotta disagree about the "common ground" thing. (I esp feel that the Liberals and NDP had been moving closer to each other ideologically for the last while and the Bloc is certainly in the same ballpark on non-Quebec issues.)

They are in the same ballpark as Dion on certain Quebec issues too. Like he has said that a Quebec referendum would be enough to allow them to seperate, ignoring constitutional amendments, aboriginal considerations, input from other provinces etc.

There you go!

(BTW, I'd really have to question the rationale of any Dipper who hates the current Liberals as much as the current Conservatives.)

I'm not exactly sure what a "Dipper" is, but I dislike the current Liberals only slightly less than the Conservatives. My main problems with the Conservatives revolve around their divisive, regressive, right-wing, neo-con ideology, not to mention the fact that from their leader down, they have the unfortunate tendency to behave like jerks.

The Liberals on the other hand have come to think of themselves as Canada's "default" party. Much like the Republicans in the States, they feel as though they are somehow entitled to govern by simple virtue of existing. They lack a clear and coherent vision for the country and are completely bereft of any new ideas. The upcoming leadership race being contested by two 60 year-old men is a good example of that. The Liberals have taken a certain segment of the population completely for granted for decades now, and I hope that the Greens and NDP will shake them out of their arrogant complacency.

My main problems with the Conservatives revolve around their divisive, regressive, right-wing, neo-con ideology, not to mention the fact that from their leader down, they have the unfortunate tendency to behave like jerks.

And this isn't enough for you????? BTW you forgot to mention mean-spirited, spiteful, misogynist, devious, backward, smug, etc. etc.

Nice benefit for Quebec:

Even the sovereignty movement can put up with Stéphane Dion as prime minister of a coalition government in Ottawa if it means an additional $1 billion in equalization payments for Quebec, Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois said last night.

Turning the news that the separatist Bloc Québécois is part of a coalition propping up the federal machine along with the Liberal and New Democrats into something positive, Marois said the immediate consequence of the agreement is the Conservative formula for equalization payments is dead in the water.

Instead of a $75-million increase in transfer payments, which Marois had denounced as too little to help the province through the economic crisis, Quebec now stands to bag $1 billion in 2009-2010 because the old formula will apply.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1020204

Shit they should give us some of that dough! We need it to pay for the fucking olympics.

A couple more reasons why an NDP supporter would prefer the status quo:

Chretien and Martin did more damage to social programs than Harper ever has. Especially cuts to education and health care.

NDP folks are strong on democratic principles. Harper just won an election by winning more seats than any other party. Now he may be replaced by someone chosen by the caucus of the losingest Liberal MPs in history. Fuck that, as the saying goes.

Harper has no one to blame but himself (and probably Tom Flanagan). He's the one who, after being directed by the Cdn electorate to work WITH the opposition parties (ie returned to minority gov't), chose to treat that directive with contempt.
If the coalition can keep it together for more than one bill, it might be the best possible gov't in a minority situation. Aside from the whole sovereignty thing, Duceppe's Bloc seems to be pretty reasonable, and, y'know what? They represent their constituents' interests.

I must confess to a certain measure of schadenfreude over this entire fiasco. This is the equivalent of Harper's gun accidentally going off, and shooting him in the thigh. Or more accurately, Harper aimed the gun at someone else, pulled the trigger, and the bullet ricocheted and hit him in the balls.

good luck ca

Harper just won an election by winning more seats than any other party. Now he may be replaced by someone chosen by the caucus of the losingest Liberal MPs in history.

Right, so, this makes zero sense. Because Lib-NDP-BQ are forming a coalition, and -- OK, I haven't done the math -- but I'm pretty sure number of supporters of each of the parties that, in turn, support that coalition adds up to more than the Tories.

Similarly, in the states, when the Working Families party supports the Democratic candidate, and the Democratic candidate wins, it would be insane for Republicans to point to the Working Families party and say that their votes are somehow undemocratically stolen.

Anyway, coalition-building seems good, as does tempered government (and a tempered Lib party), as does ousting Harper, especially for his hubris. And most of the people I know are all giddy about this.

maybe they can all form the Canadian Party and then lez up

<Q>Harper just won an election by winning more seats than any other party. Now he may be replaced by someone chosen by the caucus of the losingest Liberal MPs in history. Fuck that, as the saying goes.</Q>

Conservative popular vote: 37.6%
coalition that would be running Canada (Lib + NDP) popular vote: 44.4% (26.2 + 18.2)
sfu, as the saying goes!

oops

anyways - that's not even including the popular vote of the parties that have officially lent their support to the coalition (Bloc + Green) = another 16.8%

My intention was to describe one reason that NDP voters may be against the coalition. And many of them are. The percentages you would only be valid if we had proportional representation but yeah obviously the coalition in some way represents a majority. But though the party leaders have lent their support to the coalition, the voters who make up those percentages certainly haven't. How would they have voted if before the election, Jack Layton, say, had said: "blah blah blah...we have the means to govern..blah blah blah...and even if we lose, we'll team up with the BQ given the first opportunity to do so". This is like the David Emerson thing all over again. You think you're voting for one thing and you end up with something quite different.

I don't quite understand the point Causistry is making upthread about the Democrats and Working Families. In your example they have stated their intention prior to the election, right? At least folks know what they're voting for.

Naomi Klein is using the situation to try to sell some books:
"What I think we are seeing is a clear example of the shock doctrine in the way the Harper government has used the economic crisis to push through a much more radical agenda than they won a mandate to do. At the same time we are seeing an example of what I call in the book a "shock resistance," where this tactic has been so overused around the world and also in Canada that we are becoming more resistant to the tactic"

Pro rallies on Thursday
Anti rallies on Saturday

This is the only opinion poll I've seen:

In the midst of a coalition showdown, Canadians are deeply divided on whether the Conservatives deserve to stay in power, with 35 per cent saying the party should continue to govern and 40 per cent wanting change, according to an Angus Reid Strategies poll for CTV News.

If the government does collapse, respondents were equally split on whether a coalition government would be the best option for Canada.

Slightly more than a third of Canadians said they would support a coalition government formed by the opposition, when asked about their preferred solution if the government falls:

Opposition coalition: 37 per cent
Holding a federal election: 32 per cent
No sure: 24 per cent
Allowing the opposition to run by accord: 7 per cent

If the opposition ran the House of Commons by accord, it would mean one ruling party with the support of one or more parties who do not have MPs with cabinet posts.

The online poll, conducted on Dec. 1 and 2, also asked Canadians about their comfort level with the Bloc Quebecois involved in the coalition, and whether they wanted Liberal Leader Stephane Dion as prime minister.

According to the survey, 57 per cent agreed with the statement that they were "worried about the Bloc Quebecois becoming involved in the federal government." Another 30 per cent disagreed.

In Quebec, only 36 per cent agreed, while 47 per cent disagreed with the statement.

Meanwhile, 64 per cent of Canadians across Canada said they would be uncomfortable with Dion as leader of the government, while just 25 per cent said they would be fine with the idea.

In Ontario, where the Liberals traditionally pick up the lion's share of their votes, 60 per cent said they would be uncomfortable with Dion as prime minister. In Alberta, the Conservative heartland, it was 83 per cent.

Under the terms of the coalition, Dion has said he would govern until a new Liberal leader is chosen at a convention in May.

The survey also asked respondents about the issues that sparked serious discussion between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc about a
coalition: the need for a significant stimulus package for the economy, and whether political parties should receive public funding.

A full 75 per cent thought the government should implement a stimulus package as soon as possible, while 17 per cent disagreed.

Thirty-four per cent supported political parties receiving public funding based on $1.95 per vote in the general election, while 48 per cent sent thought the parties should rely solely on their own fundraising.

why can't you just hold another election? seems the least shitty choice at this point.

Surely anything that can fuck up Stephen Harper must be good news!!

Now he may be replaced by someone chosen by the caucus of the losingest Liberal MPs in history.

John Turner 1984: Never Forget

Individually their vote counts were pretty paltry: 26%/18%/10%. No-one's going to rep for a PM who only got 26% of the vote.

Unless you prefer an exclusively two-party system, these types of arguments are totally pointless. Once you have three or more parties then there's always some chance of a minority govt and 50% of the voters claiming that the PM isn't legit because most people preferred somebody else to lead the country.

These lines from a CBC article pretty much sum it up:

Wiseman dismissed Harper's attacks on the coalition, who reportedly called it an "undemocratic seizure of power."

"The Conservatives are arguing it's undemocratic, but actually elections don't elect governments," said Wiseman. "They elect Parliaments. Parliaments make a government. Parliaments can break a government."

otm.

and i don't think this is even close to the Emerson scam. he switched parties almost immediately after being elected. which is pretty much fraud imho - since the money he accepted to run was based on the idea he was a liberal.
no one has switched parties here - no one has done an ideological 180º. everyone is still represented by the same MP - wearing the same political colours - that won their riding in the election.

the fact that Harper broke his word when he said he would try to work with the other parties. that he planned to put forward inflammatory legislation once the house was back which he never campaigned on - Parliament (and democracy) would be failing us if it didn't hold him to account for his actions.

At least folks know what they're voting for.

You knew who you were voting for here, too. You're voting for an MP and their party. So if you vote NDP, you're voting for whoever the NDP thinks should lead the country -- whether it's Layton or Dion or Ignatieff. And now you're getting a Liberal gov't with a disproportionate NDP influence, which seems better for then NDP than a Tory gov't with a near lack of NDP influence.

why can't you just hold another election? seems the least shitty choice at this point.

Another election would presumably have the same effect: the Tories would get the most seats of any one party, but the NDP and Libs would be allied to support the Lib leader as PM, so Dion would still end up as an immediately lame duck PM. The election would just waste money and make people go vote in the snow.

xpost. Good point well made. And yet....Meanwhile, 64 per cent of Canadians across Canada said they would be uncomfortable with Dion as leader of the government, while just 25 per cent said they would be fine with the idea.

And now you're getting a Liberal gov't with a disproportionate NDP influence, which seems better for then NDP than a Tory gov't with a near lack of NDP influence.

And yet, Jack Layton himself didn't understand this concept when he triggered the 2006 election (thereby getting us into this Tory mess to begin with) by withdrawing his party's support of the Paul Martin govt ...

xpost that poll forgot to mention that 99.9999% of Canadians are overwhelmed/confused/clued out by what's going on, which is why so many people seem to believe that the coalition takeover is undemocratic or equivalent to a coup, when in fact it's a perfectly legal and sensible course of action in any minority parliament. Polls like the one's you're mentioning are basically meaningless because this hasn't happened before so people are overwhelmed and giving weirded out answers.

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

whoa:

The Bloc official added that the discussions with Mr. Chipeur included compromises on contentious issues, such as a promise to respect a straight majority of 50-per cent plus one in the event of a future referendum on Quebec sovereignty. The move would have gone against the Liberal Clarity Act, which calls for a stronger majority.

Oh man, the Tories are sooooooo fucked ...

That's Dion's position on Quebec sovereignty too, isn't it?

Dion is the author of the Clarity Act ...

Just listening to Harper's speech right now. Sounds condescending as ever. Doesn't look like he's going to admit to being a dick or anything.

Doesn't look like he's going to admit to being a dick or anything.

that's kinda the first sign that you are a dick.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup_nlp.html?http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/news/features/harper-address-081203.wmv

Doesn't look like he's going to admit to being a dick or anything.

that's kinda the first sign that you are a dick.

― Oh Why, Sports Coat? (Dr. Superman), Wednesday, December 3, 2008 6:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Ha ha.

Btw, I'm Western Canadian, voted NDP in the last GE, and I'm overjoyed at the possibility of removing the dangerous Stephen Harper from any semblance of power. Admittedly, the schadenfreude is probably influencing my joy, but still... priority one, at this point: remove neocons!

If a new election gets called, the coalition should run as a true coalition party, fielding only last election's strongest non-Conservative in each riding.

Wiseman dismissed Harper's attacks on the coalition, who reportedly called it an "undemocratic seizure of power."

"The Conservatives are arguing it's undemocratic, but actually elections don't elect governments," said Wiseman. "They elect Parliaments. Parliaments make a government. Parliaments can break a government."

word to those few journalists & media outlets who aren't encouraging the freakout of the uninformed

i'm originally from western canada but have lived in quebec for several years and the sentiment from the west (conservative types mostly, but others as well, it seems) about 'why should the bloc have any say' is totally lols to me in its ignorance.
and as if Harper's main concern is nationalism?? or even federalism?? i just don't see it from this vantage point; i see the coalition as much more representative of canada. harper's minority government's latest tactics smack of the kind of falseness and propagandizing that Samuel Johnson was surely referring to when he said this:
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Wow, I guess I'm alone in being both a Harper-hating lefty and someone who doesn't feel the idea of this coalition at ALL. I mean, not at ALL. The only argument I've seen in its favour on this thread is, "Harper is a dick." That's some longview of the situation, and a great reason to spin the government into turmoil, while placing faith in the poorest leadership the Liberals have had in eons. (Also, it's entirely reasonable to distrust the motives of the Bloc, at least on the national stage; their interests are simply not Canada's interests. Their interests are Quebec's and Quebec's alone, and they make no bones about it. Why do people tie themselves in knots over this?)

I also don't get this loony idea floating around that somehow a coalition is more "democratic" because in the last election more people voted for the Liberals and the NDP combined, like voting for one automatically meant a vote for the other. Ridiculous.

Harper will fall on his own, for Chrissakes. Let's not kill the opposition also. (And BTW, I'm intrigued by the idea of an organized, pre-thought-out coalition at some point between the Liberals and NDP, but a genuine coalition built on common interests and ideas, not one rushed together to fill a perceived vacuum.)

Oops, I've actually scrolled further up to realize there are some sensible "coalition = not such a swell idea" comments.

BTW, I'd really have to question the rationale of any Dipper who hates the current Liberals as much as the current Conservatives.

Don't hate them nearly as much -- not ideologically opposed for the most part -- but am less trusting than I've ever been of their abilities to accomplish jack shit (I've always voted for them and will likely continue to do so). I was hoping after the election that they'd do some serious rebuilding, elect a viable leader, etc. But this coalition business is going to sidetrack all of that and will backfire horribly in my view. There are vast swaths of Canada where the Liberals are loathed, and this isn't going to help at all.

Aside from the whole sovereignty thing, Duceppe's Bloc seems to be pretty reasonable, and, y'know what? They represent their constituents' interests.

I dunno, "the whole sovereignity thing" is something I can't really look past. It's like saying of George Wallace, "Aside from the whole segregationist thing..."

And sure, to some degree the Bloc "represent their constituents interests" but this is the Federal government we're talking about, not the provincial one, and they don't represent Canada's interests, as a (and I don't know any non-hokey way to put this) unified nation.

BTW, "Gino Vanellyville" is the greatest pseudonym ever.

Canadians want to be bureaucrats, study says

Given a choice, 34 per cent of Canadians would rather be government bureaucrats than any other profession, an RBC survey suggests, followed by 27 per cent of Canadians who would rather be rock stars.

Fuckin' gold!

That's some longview of the situation, and a great reason to spin the government into turmoil, while placing faith in the poorest leadership the Liberals have had in eons.

Asking the party with the 2nd largest amount of seats in parliament to govern is not at all uncommon in other countries. It hasn't been happening in Canada because we usually haven't had enough parties represented in parliament. Minority governing, by definition, depends completely on the governing party's ability to work with other parties to put their policies into effect. The collective power that the opposition parties have -- to defeat the sitting govt in a no-confidence vote -- ensures that the govt represents the will of the voting public by maintaining some level of bipartisanship in parliament. This is the opposite of "government in turmoil". The choice is between one governing party that antagonizes and alienates the other parties and turns every piece of legislation into a dogfight, and a proposed coalition of governing parties that, due to the coalition's very existence, have already shown their willingness to compromise on issues and work together to get things done.

Don Newman pwning John Baird = classic!

xp
Hmm, that's a persuasive argument, and don't get me wrong, the Conservatives brought this on themselves (the situation seems fucked anyway you slice it). I guess just given how weakened the Liberals are right now, I don't see them holding a coalition together well (and the reliance of the coalition on Bloc votes is troubling too... I'd be more receptive to this if the NDP/Libs had enough on their own to tip the balance). And it'll probably annoy some people to hear me say that Dion's endless public floundering about disqualifies him in my view as a credible leader in the public eye, I don't care how "smart" any of his ideas are.

He managed to have parliament suspended until January. Harper dodged a bullet here, but you have to think that he's weakened his standing in the eyes of a lot of Canadians, and his own party as well. What a dick.

Faced between suspending parliament, handing over power to a coalition, or calling an election, the first choice is by far the least risky one if you're the GG and want to limit your involvement in Canadian affairs. So I guess this should have been expected all along.

"Canadian affairs", I meant "Canadian intra-governmental affairs", of course

I hope she consulted with the queen for her advice first.

Great. So now we have to look forward to two months of PR, polls, bullshit patriotism, rallies and endless editorialising. Except without an election at the end of it.

Except without an election at the end of it.

not too sure about this

xp
I'm confused... I thought this meant an election is almost a sure thing? I mean, didn't Harper just slow down the oncoming bullet?

I mean "merely slow down the oncoming bullet"?

Not if the Tories manage to suck away the support for the coalition. Certainly some NDP and Liberal MPs might well be mysteriously absent for the no confidence vote if it becomes clear that their constituents are dead against it, with an election likely to happen any time.

An interesting article from today's Globe and Mail (printed prior to the GG's decision) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wparlmartin04/BNStory/politics/?query=

re Bloc:
They've been legally elected to P'ment, and their MPs are no more regionally-fixated than most Conservative Party MPs, and in the fall campaign, there was little-to-no mention of separation. In fact, Duceppe's campaign was very policy-based, and he was probably the most ardent and eloquent critic of Harper's gov't out of all the opposition parties.

and seriously...the only people talking about separation right now are fuckhead Albertans.

ok maybe the answer is just "Harper = dumbass", but what does Harper hope to achieve after a) passing a not-so-subtle partisan funding motion, and b) blatantly shielding himself from what he knew would be a backlash against him?

More to the core, can Harper say to all the left-of-Conservatives in the interim "but you see, the campaign funding cut motion wasn't what you thought! It's like THIS, see?" and manage to get any of them on his side? Will this become a game of Which Liberal Or Separatist Gets The Hush Money Bonanza?

This seems like a cops reality show, except they're strolling to drag out lame prime ministers instead of pulling skinny guys out from underneath couches.

Then again, could Harper just "undo" the party-funding motion in some way, and then have a possibility of the government remaining as is?

Will this become a game of Which Liberal Or Separatist Gets The Hush Money Bonanza?

Why would anyone think about doing this when we're still looking at a no-confidence motion come January? Breaking with the party on votes of confidence would get you fired and put on the fast track to early political retirement. Unless your name is Belinda Stronach.

Unless your name is Belinda Stronach.

Well, yeah, call me paranoid, but I could believe anything at this point. Your point is taken (thankfully).

(that is, about other MPs possibly going all Stronach on their respective parties, not Stronach herself switching back. Yes, it's paranoid.)

Great. So now we have to look forward to two months of PR, polls, bullshit patriotism, rallies and endless editorialising.

my thoughts exactly. fuck a GG rubber stamping everything the PM begs for. it's not her job to save his skin. it's not her job to usurp the will of Parliament.

I am really looking forward to hearing her rationale for this decision. Though we may not get it until her term is up, if at all.

ya, the lovely thing about being appointed is never having to explain shit to nobody!

So not gonna happen?

I don't get it. Igniateff didn't want the Tories to collapse?

rather wait until the economy hits bottom?

Ignatieff's first, and really only priority, should be doing what's best for the country. If he feels that his party can work better with the Tories than they can with the NDP, then supporting the budget (with preconditions and amendments) is a reasonable move. He also needs to factor in the poor public support for the coalition (or for another election).

Of course, Jack Layton doesn't care that the opposition has the Tories by the balls and can use their leverage to push through amendments to the budget (thereby benefiting Canadians). He only cares about playing cowboy, maximizing his own power, throwing around insults, and trying to undermine his opponents. Why anybody still puts up with this clown is beyond me.

It's taken a few days for this second proroguing to really get me pissed off. I was immediately against it, along with 100% of my friends and colleagues, but now having read a bullshit thing in the National Post I'm really steaming (not going to link it as I doesn't deserve any hits and I'm sure your imagination will suffice).

Rick Mercer came through today in the Globe and Mail. I wrote to my MP for the second time ever. The Facebook group is up at around 65,000. Canadian outrage flameout in 5-4-3-2-.....?

And fuck the GG too.

seriously. it's fucking insane.

It's not like there is any reason given, only denials of everyone's speculations - mostly the Afghan torture committee now being abandoned or re-jigging the fucking Senate (which is a whole other bag of bullshit)

Canadians don't care about the Afghan detainee issue says Harper

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And fuck the GG too.

I'm not very savvy about Canada's government, is there anything she could do?

She could say no.

Though by all accounts asking the GG is considered 'a formality' anyway...

No GG has ever refused a request to prorogue parliament but she could have perhaps asked for an explanation from Harper, or even requested that he met with her to discuss it. Instead he phoned her to let her know, let his secretary tell the country (on Hogmany, at the same time as the Olympic Hockey team was being announced actually) and then said fuck all for a week until the above interview.

xpost. Everything to do with the GG is a formality. Such a waste of space.

That's just a sideline. The real issue is Harper's conceit and cynicism.

She could say no.

Wouldn't that tend to be seen as too much of a 'monarchical' foray into democratic politics, especially as she's got less than a year left?

The GG has a duty to intervene in the political process as little as possible, in order that the elected officials be allowed to work it out themselves. The key is "as little as possible". Surely the suspension of the political process itself is grounds for the GG's intervention?

The otherk thing is that the GG is supposed to to act on any constitutional advice from a PM who commands a majority in the House of Commons. Harper doesn't.

So as I see it, she could indeed have said no, with the approval of most Canadians.

The whole thing is essentially an act of self-preservation at the expense of the democratic process and is absolutely dispicable.

Does she have the power to disband parliament or force new elections in the case of a political crisis? I believe the Queen did this in the 60's (50's?) to many people's chagrin.

Obv the Queen did it in the UK.

Er...not sure about that actually. The GG has the powers of the constitutial monarch so if the Queen did it in the UK then my guess is that theoretically the GG could do it here. Prime ministers have been made to resign but that was more than 80 years ago.

Not sure of her prerogative, but I got the precedent wrong. I was thinking of the appointment of Alec-Douglas Home as PM over Rab Butler when Macmillan resigned in '63.

The whole thing is essentially an act of self-preservation at the expense of the democratic process and is absolutely dispicable.

If it's so despicable, won't the country punish him and his party at the next election?

Here's hoping. Meanwhile a whole bunch of bills have died (I think about 30), the budget is prepared without parlimentary input, the torture enquiry committee is disolved etc etc. We should have just had another election back at the beginning of 09.

When does he have to call another election?

fall of 2012, though I would assume the opposition will get tired of the conservatives shit at some point and demand an election.

Would the NDP and the Liberals and the Bloc cooperate on a vote of no-confidence? Has he sufficiently pissed them all off? Will they come out better than they are now?

They could vote against the budget, which is being presented in March, after parliament re-opens. That would trigger an election. The way things are, Harper would probably win again, with another minority government. The Liberals' current position is that they don't want an election right now and said they would support the budget.

I haven't seen much about the opposition parties being pissed off actually. My MP (NDP) tells me they are "discussing their options for keeping Parliamentary action alive" which no doubt means nothing.

The problem right now is that the Conservatives are still by far the most popular party. The Liberals are at close to their lowest ebb, and it's Harper (not the NDP) who has picked up most of their points.

discussing their options for keeping Parliamentary action alive" which no doubt means nothing.

Or means that leaving the Conservatives in power till 2012 might lead to bigger opposition gains than kicking them out in March and necessitating new elections. How are the Liberals/NDP/Bloc getting along with each other?

They don't get along at all well. There are fundamental differences that are not likely to be resolved anytime soon.

Who knows though. I've cooled down since this morning and am now thinking that anything might happen. It seems the public is just now getting over the holiday malaise and starting to wake up to this. Rallys are being organised, politicians are asking questions. Things can change quickly.

One week since the above discussion and two weeks since Harper took this action, the Conservatives' 13 point lead in the polls has fallen to 1 point. Hurrah!

before the last prorogue there was at least some question of whether or not it'd be allowed, the big meeting with the governor-general, etc. but this time it was no problem. jack layton's bullshit ads about getting the job done keep coming up while i watch tyra. i'd like to know what he's talking about, what he intends to do, why it's even worth doing. all i got out of it was that he wasn't going to trigger an election. well. thank you, jack, keep getting things done.

i just moved to a conservative riding, actually. richmond. alice wong, who seems to be less enmeshed in the conservative party thing and more just sees the conservative party as fitting in with her vision of the glories of entrepreneurship and rotary clubs, which is sort of refreshing, coming from the prairies, where you get fliers in the mail about the conservative party stopping indian crime and stopping the flood of foreign workers.

Agreed about Alice Wong who I've met a couple of times. I kind of liked her and thought that she would probably make a decent Liberal MP if the demographics of Richmond were different.

Haven't seen the ads but I'm in the camp that considers Jack to be a lame duck. I'm glad I don't have a TV so I don't absorb that soundbite perspective on things like this.

why do the demographics of richmond tend to result in centre-right candidates?

having written that question out, i can make some guesses, but i'd like to hear a more informed opinion.

i guess i missed this thread getting revived last week. but this new poll is great news - and the only thing i really have to add is FUCK STEPHEN HARPER.

although i'm skeptical Canadians will stay outraged for more than a few months over this.

why do the demographics of richmond tend to result in centre-right candidates?

It's firmly middle and upper-middle class, with an influential business/small business community, so the votes often go to whoever between the Conservatives and Liberals are currently seen as being best for business and the economy.