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.

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.