# Ready for another Federal election in Canada??



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Won't back crime bills, MPs say
> Opposition vow to block get-tough measures; Tories won't back down


globeandmail.com: Won't back crime bills, MPs say

oh gee wow.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It would be interesting to see the Liberals swallow that poison pill. I'll bet the bill is slightly modified and that the Liberals allow a free vote to prevent the government from falling.

With Liberal finances in shambles, they can't run an election campaign on handshakes and handbills pasted on hoarding.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The Conservatives may have a minority on paper, but they hold a commanding majority with no party daring to cause another election, especially not the Liberals.

Good on them for getting tough on crime and criminals and poo-pooing the namby pamby MPs who might object by making it a confidence motion.

Well done. :clap:


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Bring it on! Just watch how much the Liberals will *LOSE* in the 416 area.

Toronto residents are fed up. We're tired of gang bangers playing shoot 'em up on our streets with innocent bystanders getting killed. In almost every single case the accused is "known" to police. Most often they are out on multiple bails, conditional sentences or house arrest.

How about the lives of 2 innocent women who unfortunately lived next door to a violent criminal in house arrest?

How about child molesters who can never be rehabilitated yet they are placed back into society to do their dastardly deeds over and over again?

And don't just watch Toronto. Peel Region is reeling this year. So much so it has Hazel crying for something to be done.

The Liberals would be wise to arrange a flu bug going around on this vote.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Not ready, but I would go an vote for the best person once again if need be. We shall see.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Bring it on! :lmao:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Ready, Aye Ready!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

All for tougher crime legislation, however you with the brains better check carefully... Harper wants to send some as young as 14 to prison for life.

I agree the Young Offenders Act has become a joke, but whatever happened to better parenting, better education and any number of things to try first before sending a youngster to prison for life. 

Gets the lazy parents of today off the hook nicely...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Meh._ Too many elections. Too much spending, too much circus action. I'm content to wait awhile.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Maybe our election will be covered on CNN? We shall see.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

I'm thinking Ripley's Believe It Or Not.



MazterCBlazter said:


> More like the National Inquirer.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Careful with the "premature joculation" Doc - champagne goes flat quickly you know.

The Liberals are in no position to fight an election, so despite their grandstanding and saber rattling when a confidence motion comes up they will capitulate.

Harper knows this, so he can continue to rule as though he had a majority.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

PenguinBoy said:


> Careful with the "premature joculation" Doc - champagne goes flat quickly you know.
> 
> The Liberals are in no position to fight an election, so despite their grandstanding and saber rattling when a confidence motion comes up they will capitulate.
> 
> Harper knows this, so he can continue to rule as though he had a majority.


Somehow, I think that's prety much what I said, isn't it?



SINC said:


> The Conservatives may have a minority on paper, but they hold a commanding majority with no party daring to cause another election, especially not the Liberals.
> 
> Good on them for getting tough on crime and criminals and poo-pooing the namby pamby MPs who might object by making it a confidence motion.
> 
> Well done. :clap:


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> Somehow, I think that's prety much what I said, isn't it?


It is pretty much the same thing - but then we ******* Albertans all pretty much think the same, unlike the enlightened folks from the rest of Canada who just *know* the natural ruling party (tm) will be back in power after the first confidence motion


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> _Meh._ Too many elections. Too much spending, too much circus action. I'm content to wait awhile.


You were just asking for our elections to have more panache 24 hours ago. Philistine!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What's the cartoon say to you, 'Doc?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"What's the cartoon say to you, 'Doc?" Yes we can ............ just not with Harper as PM.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

An interesting pic, Sinc. Of all people who can now help those climb out of this hole, and to help lead the way to fill in the hole and rebuild, Obama is the person of the hour. "Many are called but few are chosen". We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It has started. Go to this link, as advertised here in ehMacLand via banner, and try to register from NL. We are missing/gone/taken out of confederation. 

https://www.freecreditreportsincanada.ca/freecreditreport/ca/fcri/lp/257-n5vf/


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> It has started. Go to this link, as advertised here in ehMacLand via banner, and try to register from NL. We are missing/gone/taken out of confederation.
> 
> https://www.freecreditreportsincanada.ca/freecreditreport/ca/fcri/lp/257-n5vf/


In the Southwestern US, Texans are generally viewed as non-American. Perhaps NL and Texas could join up with Alberta to form a new nation. Of course our respective shares of the National debts would be left behind for other less enlightened taxpayers to bear.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harpers solution to lost jobs .....



> Economy adds 9,500 jobs but mostly election-related
> Updated Fri. Nov. 7 2008 9:08 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


CTV.ca | Economy adds 9,500 jobs but mostly election-related

let's have MORE elections!!!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

So... what's your point... your comment is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the article...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

It's certainly a shame when able bodied Canadians have to work for money isn't it MD?  

MD's solution to lost jobs:

Raise the GST and increase welfare handouts.

Let's have MORE freeloaders eh!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"In the Southwestern US, Texans are generally viewed as non-American. Perhaps NL and Texas could join up with Alberta to form a new nation." Add SK into this new nation, and Nova Scotia becomes the oil producing province in Canada.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> "In the Southwestern US, Texans are generally viewed as non-American. Perhaps NL and Texas could join up with Alberta to form a new nation." Add SK into this new nation, and Nova Scotia becomes the oil producing province in Canada.


Given how many of the Greenies live here in AB, actually including SK might be as redundant as fixing a pro wrestling match.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan, I included SK for its natural resources. With NL/AB/SK/swTX as a new country, we would have most of Canada freezing this winter. Still, my Canada includes NL/AB/SK.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> eMacMan, I included SK for its natural resources. With NL/AB/SK/swTX as a new country, we would have most of Canada freezing this winter. Still, my Canada includes NL/AB/SK.


'Course if we included every province that feels alienated from Ottawa we would end up exactly where we started minus Ontario plus Texas. May be better to stay where we are.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> 'Course if we included every province that feels alienated from Ottawa we would end up exactly where we started minus Ontario plus Texas. May be better to stay where we are.


I disagree, even Ontario feels alienated by Ottawa.

Texas has no idea where Ottawa is, nor do they care, unless say, Toby Keith or Trace Atkins was playing there...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Here we go......*



What the hell is Harper thinking about after chatting up the cooperation bit then pulling the partisan ****e with cutting the vote funding.....what a idjit. 



> *Confidence vote: Opposition parties say they will vote no*
> 
> JOAN BRYDEN
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> What the hell is Harper thinking about after chatting up the cooperation bit then pulling the partisan ****e with cutting the vote funding.....what a idjit.


He's doing the right thing, especially when taxpayers are on the hook for supporting the Bloc. What a novel concept. Give them our money to attempt to separate.

Good on the Conservatives and if the opposition parties defeat the government, it will be the surest way I know to guarantee a Conservative majority in the next election. Speaking of idjits, uh, the NDP, Bloc and Libs look far worse right now than the Harper government in forcing an election.

I suspect they will come to their collective senses by Monday and fold like a house of cards.

If not, bring on another election.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Speaking of idjits, the opposition parties are rumoured to be considering some sort of last minute coalition so they can bring down the government and propose the "Anyone But Conservatives" coalition government to the governor general: Governor General, Chretien said to have roles as confidence vote approaches. If this is true, not only are they idjits, they are delusional.

While I have no doubt that the cancellation of the vote subsidy was intended at least in part to cut funding to the opposition, I believe it is the right thing to do as I argued here: http://www.ehmac.ca/757468-post43.html.

I also doubt that this will hurt the Conservatives - most of the folks howling the loudest about this aren't likely to vote Conservative anyway, and the other parties will be spanked by the voters for bringing down the house over something like this.

Either the opposition parties capitulate and cut off their own air supply, or they bring down the house and give the Conservatives another shot at a majority - either way Harper wins with this one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> Either the opposition parties capitulate and cut off their own air supply, or they bring down the house and give the Conservatives another shot at a majority - either way Harper wins with this one.


I agree. And what will the Liberals use to fund their next campaign?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The coalition representing 2/3 of Canadians who detest Harper is what should have occurred two years ago if Layton had bothered to think about it then.

No Dion to beat up on.

Poor calls about the economy.

Flaherty's slash and burn mentality emerging ( and the same kind of liar's denial that led him to cover up Ontario's black hole ).

Sorry but I'll take the TD assessment of what is coming down the pike over Flaherty's.

Wartime crisis coalitions have worked in other nations and this IS a crisis and Harper has acted partisan and irresponsibly the needed deficit spending that even Bill Gross says MUST be done.



> Since winning the election, his government has changed tact amid signs that slumping stocks and waning consumer confidence may push the economy into a recession. Harper said last week there was ``recognition'' at the Washington meeting that monetary policy moves by central banks to lower interest rates and inject liquidity in money markets weren't sufficient to lift the world economy out of its malaise.
> 
> ``It's quite possible that *our agreement to participate globally in the stimulus program* could well result in us going into deficit'' next year, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, 58, said in a Bloomberg interview Nov. 15. ``We may have to do more in terms of stimulus in the next months.''


....talk about waffling.......

I'm QUITE sure the three parties can find common ground for quite a while and I'm QUITE sure GG Jean will accommodate.

Enough of this partisan acrimonious political farce Harper's megalomania has fostered 

I actually had some thought that Harper had grown up with the talk of a new spirit of civility and discussion........he lied. .


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The coalition representing 2/3 of Canadians who detest Harper...


While there are no doubt some Canadians who detest Harper, I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near 2/3. "Didn't vote for" doesn't imply "Detests".


MacDoc said:


> I'm QUITE sure the three parties can find common ground for quite a while and I'm QUITE sure GG Jean will accommodate.


Careful with the premature jockulation Doc - champagne has a way of going flat!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> He's doing the right thing, especially when taxpayers are on the hook for supporting the Bloc. What a novel concept. Give them our money to attempt to separate.
> 
> Good on the Conservatives and if the opposition parties defeat the government, it will be the surest way I know to guarantee a Conservative majority in the next election. Speaking of idjits, uh, the NDP, Bloc and Libs look far worse right now than the Harper government in forcing an election.
> 
> ...


You realize that your Stephen Harper Conservative government also began as a separatist party, yes? Remember the WCC? Western Canada Concept> Later transmogrified into the Reform, then Alliance, then Conservative-Reform-Alliance-Party (C.R.A.P.) and now the Conservative party? Be careful of hypocrisy when you argue against money going to separatist parties.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> He's doing the right thing, especially when taxpayers are on the hook for supporting the Bloc. What a novel concept. Give them our money to attempt to separate.
> 
> Good on the Conservatives and if the opposition parties defeat the government, it will be the surest way I know to guarantee a Conservative majority in the next election. Speaking of idjits, uh, the NDP, Bloc and Libs look far worse right now than the Harper government in forcing an election.
> 
> ...


You realize that your Stephen Harper Conservative government also began as a separatist party, yes? Remember the WCC? Western Canada Concept> Later transmogrified into the Reform, then Alliance, then Conservative-Reform-Alliance-Party (C.R.A.P.) and now the Conservative party? Be careful of hypocrisy when you argue against money going to separatist parties.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Wowee, eh?

Harper and the boys sure know how to put the FU back in Fiscal Update. (Borrowed from a Macleans blogger).

So Harper's solution to the economic crisis is to save $30 million by starving his political opposition of funding? Shhhh ... let's not mention the unnecessary $300 million dollar expenditure Steve put us through last month so that we could get a Parliament that would work, according to his convenient logic in September for the necessity of breaking his promise.

Of course, if this plan to eliminate this funding was set to phase out after the next election, instead of this April, before the expected money that the parties borrowed against to fund last months election is paid, you could argue that this was strictly a cost-cutting measure, rather than what it clearly is, which is an unvarnished Machiavellian attempt to destroy his political opposition. I guess this is what he had in mind for getting Parliament to work. All parties except for his would be facing major economic problems or possibly bankruptcy and would not even be able to contemplate fighting an election.

Seems Mr. Harper likes his high-stakes political poker. He's going "all-in" with this move. He thinks he has a winning hand here and he could be right. If the opposition knuckles under and enough of their MPs have the flu to let this plan pass, then he's won. The Libs will be whipped for quite some time until well after their leadership convention. But if they call his bluff and manage to cobble together some kind of coalition rather than settle for being Harpo's cellmate bottom for the next year or two, things might not go so swell for him.

Gather round folks, it's High Noon on Parliament Hill. Warm and fuzzy sweater vest boy is long gone. We got Stevie the steely-eyed political thug back — clickin' his spurs and reachin' fer his side-arm.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Hopefully you won't have to do that MB, unless that's what you want? 

What is so sickening about this so-called "rag" Flaherty calls his Fiscal Update is that all in all it's a sound document IMO. And then... wait... there it is... Harper just has to throw in something he knows is anti-democratic. I see no problem with the parties (yeah, even the stupid Cons) getting $1.95/per vote in a federal election. If I don't want a particular party to get "my" $1.95 I don't vote for them... quite stupidly simple really. 

How do you have a democracy with one strong party and no others? Yeah well... 

Harper is using the current economic situation to deliver as devastating a blow as he can to his rivals. 

It's been well know that ever since his NCC days that Harper has been in favour of larger, much larger corporate donations being allowed. See if he doesn't change those limits next... I bet he raises it from the current $1,000 I think it is, to about $5,000 at least. 

The leopard has not changed his spots one iota. 

The public really have this one in their hands as well though, if everyone who normally votes Liberal, NDP, Green or whatever sends their party a donation of just say $10... they've got more than the $1.95 anyway.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Well... GA just beat me to it and said it much better than I usually do as usual...  :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MazterCBlazter said:


> If they hold another election right away, I'm voting Conservative. Give Harper a majority.
> 
> I voted Green last time.


People will be incensed enough to vote Conservative to shut up lame duck Dion and Jumpin' Jack.

I want no part of any governing coalition that includes a party that wants to separate from Canada and anyone who thinks that is a good idea should hang their heads in shame.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Seems Mr. Harper likes his high-stakes political poker. He's going "all-in" with this move. He thinks he has a winning hand here and he could be right. If the opposition knuckles under and enough of their MPs have the flu to let this plan pass, then he's won." I agree, GA. However, I have a sense that the opposition will play hard ball this time as well. Still, going to the GG over this issue, rather than the issue that this "update" did little for the average Canadian, is foolish. We shall see.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Enough of this partisan acrimonious political farce Harper's megalomania has fostered
> 
> I actually had some thought that Harper had grown up with the talk of a new spirit of civility and discussion........he lied. .


Amen MacDoc. Amen.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Of course, if this plan to eliminate this funding was set to phase out after the next election, instead of this April, before the expected money that the parties borrowed against to fund last months election is paid...


This would be a reasonable compromise position, and would give the parties some time to get their grass roots fundraising sorted out.

As stated previously, I don't like the idea of allowing either public funding or large corporate donations for political parties, but I agree that the way things stand this looks like "an unvarnished Machiavellian attempt to destroy his political opposition."


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But if they call his bluff and manage to cobble together some kind of coalition rather than settle for being Harpo's cellmate bottom for the next year or two, things might not go so swell for him.


Not a chance that this will work.

The Liberals can't even agree among themselves these days, the Bloc are a regional special interest group with no interest in forming government, and the NDP under Jack Layton are likely to go "mad with their moderate amount of power" and make the whole thing fall over.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If it comes to an election, this will be perceived as a fight by the opposition to preserve about $20 million in pork that they're currently chowing down on. I can't see any way these clowns could shake it if Harper wanted to fram it that way. And who would head the Liberal Party this time?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, let those dummies force another election. Bring it on. It's a sure way to install a Conservative majority. The electorate won't stand for anything less next time around.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep, let those dummies force another election. Bring it on. It's a sure way to install a Conservative majority. The electorate won't stand for anything less next time around.


The dummies will be the electorate if they fall for this one. It's so obvious it's painful.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> The dummies will be the electorate if they fall for this one. It's so obvious it's painful.


You're right of course, mrjimmy. The Canadian public will rally around the Liberals and NDP to stand up for those parties' rights to feather their nests without asking first.

Either bring this one ON...or time for Dion and Layton to get off the potty.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Hmmm, seems Steve, having gone eye-to-eye with the opposition, decided to blink -- "Conservatives back down."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is just a trial balloon and brinksmanship. The country has already seen how eagerly the Liberals and NDP would have set off a new election of such a picayune issue.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Yes, I think Steve was testing the waters and found it a lot cooler than the last parliament.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> This would be a reasonable compromise position, and would give the parties some time to get their grass roots fundraising sorted out.
> 
> As stated previously, I don't like the idea of allowing either public funding or large corporate donations for political parties, but I agree that the way things stand this looks like "an unvarnished Machiavellian attempt to destroy his political opposition."


Interesting that the current scheme for public funding was brought in by Chretien. It was brought in to quell the criticism of the Libs who seemed to have the lock on the majority of large corporate donations. So they outlawed corporate and union donations and dropped the donation ceiling to $1,100. Then to make up for that they brought in the $1.95 per vote plan to put all of the parties on a more even footing.

Of course nothing Chretien ever did was without some ulterior motive. It was widely seen as a concession to a more democratic funding model at the time by the well-funded Libs, but I suspect it was also intended as body blow to the incoming Paul Martin, who represented the more corporate wing of the Liberal party. This knee-capped a sizeable chunk of his potential election funding.

With this move Harper is once again proving that he thinks the public is stupider than they actually are. He hopes nobody will notice that this isn't a cravenly partisan move by him in a Parliament where it was supposed to be all about finding common solutions to the economic crisis and getting down to working together. He has publicly taken his blue sweater vest and set it on fire in front of the Parliament building and almost everyone can see this. His image advisors told him he had to ditch the perception of being a partisan bully if he wanted to get beyond his base support but he still isn't able to do this. This move solidifies his true image.

Now if this move was really about his stated purpose of saving a few bucks why not just remove the tax exemption for political donations? I can donate the maximum and get a tax break for $600. This has got to be costing the government a great deal of money as well. If the taxpayer shouldn't be involved in any public funding for those seeking office (which I don't agree with, by the way) then why should the taxpayer be giving tax credits to those who can afford to contribute a grand to their party? But of course this would then kneecap the Cons along with the other parties.

So it's clear that the fig leaf of this being a money-saving proposal is just that and Harper's naked ambition is on display for all. This might have a lot to do with why he can't ever seem to get much beyond his smallish 37% support.




PenguinBoy said:


> Not a chance that this will work.
> 
> The Liberals can't even agree among themselves these days, the Bloc are a regional special interest group with no interest in forming government, and the NDP under Jack Layton are likely to go "mad with their moderate amount of power" and make the whole thing fall over.


A coalition may not work, and going back to an election would not work at all, but bowing down to this overt bully tactic is not something the opposition wants to do either. They are in a corner and any way out is fraught with risk.

I think a coalition, either formal or informal, while maybe not being ideal for the opposition, might be preferable than being forced to publicly announce to the world that they are now Steven Harper's new bitch, which is what they will be saying if they cave to Harper's power play.

In leaving them nothing but unpleasant choices, Harper thinks they will take the less unpleasant choice (in his opinion) of just knuckling under, but he may have underestimated just how unpleasant that choice would be for the opposition. Faced with that, they may find the will to force themselves to co-operate on some level of partnership. I guarantee you that today they are actively exploring every possible way to see if this can be made to work.

One way this might possibly work, is if Dion would promise to step aside for an interim leader until the convention, either immediately or within a short time. It is rumoured that having Dion as PM is a deal-breaker for the NDP. The parties could also agree to a pact of Parliamentary co-operation, rather than a formal coalition, based on a package of limited legislative initiatives that avoid their areas of main disagreement. I understand this is how the Ontario Liberals and NDP formed their coalition under Peterson. They could probably get the Bloc to sign on to something like this, which would side step the charge of having them as an active part of government. This is something they could take to the GG to make their case for giving them a shot at governing.

If the legislative package was mainly focused on the economy and seen as a true co-operative effort it might be something the public could support (well, except for the hard-core Harper supporters).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Brainstrained said:


> Hmmm, seems Steve, having gone eye-to-eye with the opposition, decided to blink -- "Conservatives back down."


OK, this just changed the assumptions of my last voluminous post.

I would suggest that the Opposition should keep talking to each other about potential coalition scenarios because this is obviously not the last time Harper will attempt to play chicken with them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now if this move was really about his stated purpose of saving a few bucks why not just remove the tax exemption for political donations? I can donate the maximum and get a tax break for $600. This has got to be costing the government a great deal of money as well. If the taxpayer shouldn't be involved in any public funding for those seeking office (which I don't agree with, by the way) then why should the taxpayer be giving tax credits to those who can afford to contribute a grand to their party? But of course this would then kneecap the Cons along with the other parties.


Your logic is convoluted.

A tax deduction to the "individual" tax payer is in by no means the same thing as a "subsidy" paid to all political parties with tax dollars collected from everyone. One is a *choice* of the individual and they choose who to give it to, the other is a compulsory payment of the government to ALL parties (albeit in varying amounts). They are NOT the same thing at all or even close.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Yes, it would appear that there is rationale for opposition parties to work together (a lesson that apparently must be constantly re-learned).

It seems that if anyone can unite the centre-left, it is Steve.


----------



## Niagaramark (Jul 20, 2007)

Its time for Harper to start serving as the PM for _all _of Canada. He's obviously no statesman....When will this guy realize that he has to earn the respect and support of Canadians in order to get his coveted majority? He appears to be so focused on securing a legitimate 4 year term as PM that he is willing to put his own aspirations before the good of the country he wants to lead.
It's time for Steve to get to work on fixing the mess he has helped create over the past few years while he spent/fritted Billions of our tax dollars and surpluses in strategic Tory ridings in search of his Majority. Canada needs strong leadership. He promised Leadership, but so far has failed to deliver.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL! So true. The more Harper simply follows his urges, the better it will be for his enemies to make political hay of said inclinations.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The government won't include a controversial proposal to end public subsidies of political parties in an upcoming confidence vote on the fall fiscal update, a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office confirmed Friday."

Conservatives drop party-funding cuts from key motion


Harper blinked first.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Umm calling a $300,000,000 election over a $30,000,000 perk is pretty typical of modern economics. One would hope that the Governor General would say the current economic climate is too critical to call an election, tell Harpo to remove his head from Bush's heiné and get on with dealing with the economic crisis, he and others worked so hard to create. beejacon

As an aside; Harpo has the perfect opportunity to go down in history as a truly great Prime Minister. Let's hope he realizes this and can forgo partisan politics long enough to get the countries affairs in order.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The federal Liberals plan to bring down the Conservative government in a confidence motion on Monday, saying they have a viable alternative, the Canadian Press reported Friday.

But Harper could still avert the immediate defeat of his minority government, re-elected six weeks ago, through procedural tactics.

A source says the opposition parties have agreed that Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion would lead the government for the next few months."

Harper blinked ................... and they still threw snow in his face. We shall see what Monday brings.

Liberals will try to bring down government: report


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Former PM Jean Chrétien and the former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent will be co-PMs under this new coalition government. Neither is in the House, but Dion and Layton will speak in their place. Not sure where the Bloc fits in to all of this but rumor has it that the coalition will offer Quebec control over Labrador and all of its resources. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be allowed to keep the name Labrador on its letterheads.

We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Friday that the federal government won't make changes to its economic update, even though opposition parties are threatening to vote against it." 

Flaherty throws snow back at the Liberals/NDP/Bloc.

Harper says, "Keep both Newfoundland and Labrador .......... we don't need them anyway."

US oil companies Chevron and Exxon are estatic since now they won't have to pay NL royalties and they can expropriate the four major offshore wells.

What next???????????


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Your logic is convoluted.
> 
> A tax deduction to the "individual" tax payer is in by no means the same thing as a "subsidy" paid to all political parties with tax dollars collected from everyone. One is a *choice* of the individual and they choose who to give it to, the other is a compulsory payment of the government to ALL parties (albeit in varying amounts). They are NOT the same thing at all or even close.


Yes, they aren't the same thing. But they are both a form of government money going to a party.

If I choose to give a thousand bucks to a party, the government subsidizes this choice to the tune of $600. (approximately) They give me a rebate on my taxes that I would otherwise have given to them. So that gift to the party costs me $400 and the government pays for the rest.

If I choose to vote for a party, the government subsidizes the party I vote for directly by giving them $1.95. I choose where the $1.95 goes by marking an X.

The alternative to some kind of public financing of the expenses of running for office is the bad old days of no contribution limits, meaning those with the wealthiest friends win, and then become beholden to those friends, which is what this plan was a reaction to. That said, maybe there's another public financing alternative to the $1.95 per vote plan that could work better.

There is also additional public financing through the candidates being able to get rebates from the government for 50% to 75% of their election expenses, depending on the percentage of votes won.

Anyway, my central point wasn't whether public financing was good or bad, but that this Harper move had nothing to do with saving revenue, but was being used a political club against the opposition. They could have saved $30 million in any number of ways, including not calling the last election, which didn't change anything.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Niagaramark said:


> Its time for Harper to start serving as the PM for _all _of Canada. He's obviously no statesman....When will this guy realize that he has to earn the respect and support of Canadians in order to get his coveted majority? He appears to be so focused on securing a legitimate 4 year term as PM that he is willing to put his own aspirations before the good of the country he wants to lead.
> It's time for Steve to get to work on fixing the mess he has helped create over the past few years while he spent/fritted Billions of our tax dollars and surpluses in strategic Tory ridings in search of his Majority. Canada needs strong leadership. He promised Leadership, but so far has failed to deliver.


I don't Harper can help himself. When he sees an opening at a chance to get his foot on the neck of his enemy that becomes his priority above all else. He proved it before he was PM (Grewal affair, Cadman affair) and has shown it clearly several times since.

Now with the confidence motion being threatened does he now become the one who is forced to back down? I don't think compromise is part of Steve's vocabulary, but we'll see soon enough.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Former PM Jean Chrétien and the former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent will be co-PMs under this new coalition government. Neither is in the House, but Dion and Layton will speak in their place. Not sure where the Bloc fits in to all of this but rumor has it that the coalition will offer Quebec control over Labrador and all of its resources. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be allowed to keep the name Labrador on its letterheads.
> 
> We shall see.


Just what we want, two retreads pulling the strings of two other retreads.

I think that if the Opposition tries to mount a coup d'etat against the legitimately elected Government, then it is time for the people to mobilize against these depraved sinners. if they can't work with the Government, they should be given their permanent leave of Parliament and be exiled out of the hatred they have for the Canadian people.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I think that if the Opposition tries to mount a coup d'etat against the legitimately elected Government, then it is time for the people to mobilize against these depraved sinners. if they can't work with the Government, they should be given their permanent leave of Parliament and be exiled out of the hatred they have for the Canadian people." Interesting point, EP.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Gee, collectively the NDP and the Grits collected about 45 per cent of the popular vote, add in the Blocheads, that comes to almost 55 per cent compared to the Tories' 37 per cent. 

Explain to me, EP, how what might happen Monday -- a Grit-NDP coalition with Bloc support -- is any less legitimate than a Tory minority government?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If I choose to give a thousand bucks to a party, the government subsidizes this choice to the tune of $600. (approximately) They give me a rebate on my taxes that I would otherwise have given to them. So that gift to the party costs me $400 and the government pays for the rest.


I thought the tax break was 75% of the contribution. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Anyway, my central point wasn't whether public financing was good or bad, but that this Harper move had nothing to do with saving revenue, but was being used a political club against the opposition. They could have saved $30 million in any number of ways, including not calling the last election, which didn't change anything.


Of course this was a political move. There is no way it could have been anything else. 

There is a reason the Conservatives only allowed for a $100 million surplus… they didn’t want to appear willing to run a deficit and a surplus of three digits sounds better than one with two digits. The opposition isn’t going to say for them to cut more. If the Conservatives called for a deficit they would be unable to take the fiscal moral high ground in the future. Now the opposition will be unable to use it against them. This posturing is pretty predictable. 

I don’t think the Liberal / NDP coalition idea is very credible. The Liberals are likely afraid of mixing with the Bloc and diluting their brand by compromising with the NDP. It’s easy to gang up in opposition (e.g. voting a party out), but teaming up to form a government is a completely different matter. In any case, the Liberals and NDP don’t have the finances to go to the polls now. 

If they bring the government down, they risk allowing a Conservative majority. But, in the long term, that is probably better for the Liberals as it enables the party to be rebuilt and form traction on issues they can pin against the Conservatives. With a soft economic outlook, there probably won’t be a shortage of such issues in the next few years.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The NDLPB = The New Democratic Liberal Party Block.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The people of this nation are oppressed by those who have been elected. We do not have those things that in the US are held to be "self evident" at all. Our true and natural freedoms have been subverted to the false idolatry of "rights" - rights that treat people unequally, rights that allow for institutionalized discrimination and segregation. And even with the shreds of a democratic impulse - even the will of the People is subverted for the triffling political games played on Parliament Hill.

We look foolish, proclaiming to the world the need for tolerance and hatred, even though intolerance and hatred is ingrained in the statutes of this nation. We look foolish when we say that Mugabe should step aside and let democracy take root in Zimbabwe - while here we say that the legitimately elected Minority of this nation should step aside for the carpetbaggers and scalawags who seek power as a pathway to opulence and as a weapon to use against the people.

We say that all people should be free - while providing shelter to criminal scum who have murdered the innocent. We advocate the prosecution of war criminals in international courts - while providing shelter to thousands of war criminals from around the world. Our nation is nothing more than a state of hypocrisy.

So when the Opposition rises and attempts to grab power, to grab power that they were not allocated in a fair and free election, and election where the People imposed their values and virtues upon their nation - it is time to rise up, to overthrow the Oppositioners of the Will of the People.

Canada is being tested, and if the Opposition manages to finagle some kind of coup d'etat - then it is high time for the people to impose a suitable punishment for these crimes of high treason and sedition.

Perhaps it is the truth, that no nation can be forged in peace, as a business deal - but only out of the blood, iron and sweat of a People in a struggle against the oppressers of that People.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Brainstrained said:


> Gee, collectively the NDP and the Grits collected about 45 per cent of the popular vote, add in the Blocheads, that comes to almost 55 per cent compared to the Tories' 37 per cent.
> 
> Explain to me, EP, how what might happen Monday -- a Grit-NDP coalition with Bloc support -- is any less legitimate than a Tory minority government?


Because it is grandstanding of the worst kind. If they had intended on making a coalition, then it should have been done then and there - before the Government-Elect was legitimized by being sworn in.

If the Opposition really wanted to do something, they should stand up, be real men (and women), stop playing the kindergarten games, and topple the Government by pulling a Vote of Non-Confidence after the obligatory 6 month pause.

This stunt, if it comes to fruition, will be the biggest disaster imaginable for the 'Coalition" Parties, as they will be utterly reliant upon the repugnant Bloc - and the people will punish them.

The People demanded a Minority, the People elected a Minority, the People want to continue with a Minority.

As for the percentage of votes, our system does not work that way - however, the Tories managed to nail the largest percentage of votes of all of the parties - and thus, without a Coalition coming to the fore before the swearing in of the Government - any ruse by the "Coalition" to take power is nothing more than a Putsch of the Government that was rightfully elected and sworn in by the People.

If the percentage thing is really a predilliction - then it is time to change the system, and have a series of run-off elections until all members are elected with a solid majority in each rding, and the Government itself controls a majorty of the members and has a majority of the votes in total. Very few ridings see members returned to the House with a majority, and under your scheme, all of these members would be illegitimate. Perhaps one could look at the current house, based on the results, and figure out which ones were legitimate and which ones were not - and then figure out who would form the Government from those that were legitimately elected by a majority - because this is what in fact, you are asking of the system.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

> If they had intended on making a coalition, then it should have been done then and there - before the Government-Elect was legitimized by being sworn in.


Circumstance changes. Harpo was talking co-operation then, not poking them in the eye with a pointy stick like now.



> If the Opposition really wanted to do something, they should stand up, be real men (and women), stop playing the kindergarten games, and topple the Government by pulling a Vote of Non-Confidence after the obligatory 6 month pause.


That's what they seem to be doing now at the obligatory six-week pause.




> This stunt, if it comes to fruition, will be the biggest disaster imaginable for the 'Coalition" Parties, as they will be utterly reliant upon the repugnant Bloc - and the people will punish them.


Maybe, maybe not. To quote a famous man, "We shall see."



> The People demanded a Minority, the People elected a Minority, the People want to continue with a Minority.


And the Liberals and NDP plan to give them that minority -- with fewer seats but a greater popular vote.



> As for the percentage of votes, our system does not work that way


Some would say it doesn't work at all, but more votes always equals greater legitimacy.



> the Tories managed to nail the largest percentage of votes of all of the parties - and thus, without a Coalition coming to the fore before the swearing in of the Government - any ruse by the "Coalition" to take power is nothing more than a Putsch of the Government that was rightfully elected and sworn in by the People.


You'll have to show me the rule on that one, because our system truly doesn't work that way. And the Liberal-NDP "coalition" in the 1985 Ontario election and aftermath demonstrates that.



> then it is time to change the system


No objection. Let's find a better one.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> any ruse by the "Coalition" to take power is nothing more than a Putsch of the Government that was rightfully elected and sworn in by the People.


There is nothing at all undemocratic about a coalition government. The rules of Parliament are that the government must have the confidence of the majority the MPs of the House. If an arrangement of parties can garner this confidence after voting that they don't have confidence in the party holding the largest number of seats it is perfectly valid under Parliamentary rules.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I thought the tax break was 75% of the contribution.


Yes, maybe it is. I think there is a $600 maximum but I may be wrong on that. Anyway the figures were meant as an example.



Vandave said:


> I don’t think the Liberal / NDP coalition idea is very credible. The Liberals are likely afraid of mixing with the Bloc and diluting their brand by compromising with the NDP. It’s easy to gang up in opposition (e.g. voting a party out), but teaming up to form a government is a completely different matter. In any case, the Liberals and NDP don’t have the finances to go to the polls now.
> 
> If they bring the government down, they risk allowing a Conservative majority. But, in the long term, that is probably better for the Liberals as it enables the party to be rebuilt and form traction on issues they can pin against the Conservatives. With a soft economic outlook, there probably won’t be a shortage of such issues in the next few years.


Like I said earlier I don't think a coalition would be their ideal choice, and is fraught with risk for them, but when Harper left them with no alternative but either knuckle under with their tails between their legs or go to an election, this might have started to look like a better alternative to them. Now that they appear to have done some consulting with each other on how it might work, they seem to be emboldened, so I think they now see it as a possible way to go.

My sense is that I think they would be happier to not have to exercise that option and if Harper would back down off the "My way or the highway" posture they would withdraw the confidence motion. I'm pretty sure none of them want to have anything to do with an election anytime soon though.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I find it interesting just how few here really understand what a Parliamentary system of government within a Constitutional Monarchy means. When you voted, you voted for who was going to be your member of parliament. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or any other law of the land that prevents a member from join one party or another or switching parties. If members on mass left their current party to form another that is a completely legitimate thing to do.

Parliamentary rules are simple and if the Liberals and the NDP with the support of the Bloc can form a coalition and convince the Governor General that they can form a government then that is a completely proper and legitimate course action.

What I find interesting is that the rhetoric of the Conservatives claiming that they are "entitled" to form the government. Clearly they fail to appreciate how our system of government works. The fact that they only have the support of 37% of the population whereas a Liberal/NDP coalition has 45% of the popular vote, who has the more "democratic" position here?

Coalitions are often formed in other countries who have Parliamentary systems, there is plenty of precedence for this. I for one would completely support a NDP/Liberal Coalition.

These are interesting times...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now that they appear to have done some consulting with each other on how it might work, they seem to be emboldened, so I think they now see it as a possible way to go.


Threats of action and actual action are two very different things. The Liberals and NDP have to make their threat of action appear feasible or it undermines their position. Just because they act emboldened doesn't mean for a second they are more likely to take this action.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Threats of action and actual action are two very different things. The Liberals and NDP have to make their threat of action appear feasible or it undermines their position. Just because they act emboldened doesn't mean for a second they are more likely to take this action.


I would agree. You or I or the media really doesn't know how likely the opposition parties are to follow through with this.

My "sense" of it is that they would rather not, but that they could if Harper left them no other choice. It's definitely a "feasible" course although not without political risk. But knuckling under or simply triggering an election look to be riskier.

Now the question is for the Cons, do they know that the opposition will back off of a confidence vote? It sounds like they are already doing some major back-pedalling, which leads me to believe that they think the opposition is serious.

I wonder how much weight that Harper and his Con strategists gave to this possibility. It seems that they knew they were boxing the opposition in and believed that there was no way they would risk triggering an election, so they believed that the only choice was to knuckle under. But did they give any serious thought to a potential coalition or did they just discount it out of hand, as some are doing in this thread?

Maybe this talk of coalition has already gone past the point of no return. I guess we'll find out soon. But I think the ball is now in Harper's court, unless he truly believes that the opposition won't do this. 

As the idea of a coalition filters out around the country over the weekend I think we'll find out if it is something that Canadians will support and that's what it will hinge on. I would say as a base that a major chunk, if not most, of the people that voted NDP and Lib won't mind the idea, with the proviso that Dion still plans to step down. As far as the Bloc supporters go, I'm not sure, but they know that the proposed funding changes would destroy their party funding, as they get 80% from the per vote subsidy.

Who said that Canuck politics is boring, eh?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Me said:


> As far as the Bloc supporters go, I'm not sure, but they know that the proposed funding changes would destroy their party funding, as they get 80% from the per vote subsidy.


Looks like the Bloc is onboard:



> BQ leader Gilles Duceppe told reporters he laid out conditions for Bloc support for a coalition, and that he is quite open to the idea.
> 
> “We said that we won’t be part of a coalition and having ministers from the Bloc; this is very clear. But we’ll consider a coalition that would respect more Quebec values and interests.”
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | Conservatives delay vote on fiscal update

So the proposal is shaping up to be a Lib/NDP coalition government, with a joint cabinet and Bloc vote support in the House.

*Cons fearful?*


> Conservatives who spoke off-the-record appeared surprised that Harper’s gambit appeared to bring the government to the edge of a cliff, little more than a week after the 40th Parliament began sitting. Several speculated that Harper may have thrown in too many controversial measures in one economic package.



*Harper confused about parliamentary government?*


> [Prime Minister Harper] said Canadians did not elect "Prime Minister Stephane Dion," a reference to possibly leader of the coalition.


Mr. Harper must know that Canadians did not elect him either. He happens to be the leader of the party that elected more MPs than the other parties. If enough MPs from the other parties choose to band together as a coalition, after his party loses the confidence of the House, than whoever they choose to lead that coalition would have as much legal claim on the job as he does.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I, too, suspect the opposition parties would rather not do this. But given Harpo's tendency to bully and the Liberal's previous inclination to quickly fold like a house of cards, they need to establish a new relationship. That means being willing, if not eager, to form a government.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm lurking on an NDP partisan board and they're already speculating on Cabinet posts.

Most seem in favour, one or two are cautious "They'll use us".

Of course they'll use you, — till they use you up — it's politics.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Harper delays confidence vote
> 
> Prime Minister pushes opposition motion back one week, to Dec. 8; Chrétien and Broadbent provide support as Liberals,
> 
> ...


Broadbent would get a lot of support as coalition leader. 

I'd call Harper's delay a size large BLINK.

I wonder if while Harper was away Flaherty cooked this up.

Harper flat out said at the summit he would participate in the coordinated stimulus program and did the Bill Davis avuncular act post election.

Just where did the stupidity emerge of no stimulus, crippling political funding move. 

Daft is far too mild.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As the idea of a coalition filters out around the country over the weekend I think we'll find out if it is something that Canadians will support and that's what it will hinge on. I would say as a base that a major chunk, if not most, of the people that voted NDP and Lib won't mind the idea, with the proviso that Dion still plans to step down. As far as the Bloc supporters go, I'm not sure, but they know that the proposed funding changes would destroy their party funding, as they get 80% from the per vote subsidy.


Right now I figure that NDP and Liberal supporters that follow politics closely probably support the coalition. They (rightly) see the move to end the per vote subsidy as an attempt to cut off the oxygen supply to the opposition parties.

Mainstream voters are only now starting to become aware of the possibility of a coalition. I expect there will be a well crafted campaign to paint this as an opportunistic power grab by the opposition.

The opposition can *not* allow this to be seen as being about the per vote subsidy - so they have to claim it is about "stimulating the economy". I expect that Harper will add some more "economic stimulus". If he does this, and still eliminates the per vote subsidy, he could (rightly) claim that the opposition wanted to hold on the their share of the pork, and would rather plunge the country into a constitutional crisis rather than make government work.

Personally, I like the idea you posted a while back about eliminating the subsidy at the next election. This would get rid of government funding for political parties - which I see as a good thing - while still allowing the parties time to get their grass roots fundraising machines tuned up. It would also give them a good incentive to delay the next election as long as possible...


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Who said that Canuck politics is boring, eh?


Interesting times, in the Chinese proverb sense!


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm lurking on an NDP partisan board and they're already speculating on Cabinet posts.


You - on an NDP board?!?!!! I would *never* have suspected that...


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i think harper will drop the party financing part of the legislation.

power is too important to him to lose it over this.

i wonder if joe flathead will get his ass thrown out of cabinet?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Coalition first task.

Appoint Harper as speaker so he can't vote 
or talk.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> You - on an NDP board?!?!!! I would *never* have suspected that...


I only lurk there. My point of view, not being a strictly partisan cheerleader of the NDP and being in sympathy with some Green Party ideas is not a popular one there. There's a bit too much partisan groupthink on that board for my taste.

On the other hand I also sometimes lurk on con and Con friendly blogs and boards. Occasionally I have to take a shower afterwards with a few. Ever been to freedominion.com ... yikes! They don't have groupthink there, they just have group hate.

......

So Harper sounded pretty snippy at his press conference this afternoon. I'm inclined to think he didn't think the opposition would go where they appear to be going. His backing off of a vote for a week only gives them more time to think about how they can make a coalition work and get used to the idea. Maybe even grow to like it.

I think Harper's plan is to now try and head this off by seeding the media with the talking points about this being a "backroom deal" and a "coup". I heard Baird on the radio earlier trying to raise the scary spectre of "Finance Minister Layton". That approach may have some traction, but I get the feeling that coming from the guy who tried to play his hardball "kneecap the opposition" game just the other day it might fall short. Not to mention that Harper has never been one to shy away from backroom deals. Ask ex-PC leader McKay or Liberal MP-for-a-day David Emerson. But his spin may not work if the public on the whole are aware that a coalition government is completely acceptable and legal under parliamentary rules.



TroutMaskReplica said:


> i think harper will drop the party financing part of the legislation.
> 
> power is too important to him to lose it over this.


I think he's already effectively dropped it. It'll get buried in committee now. The thing now is will he alter the terms of the Financial Update (FU) to be more acceptable tot he opposition. The other poison pill for the NDP will be the proposed strike ban. If he backs down any more he's giving the opposition the power to push him around on all sorts of legislation going forward, by threat of a confidence motion.

Whatever happens going forward, I can't say I'm sad to see that insufferable smugness get wiped off Harper's face.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> On the other hand I also sometimes lurk on con and Con friendly blogs and boards. Occasionally I have to take a shower afterwards with a few.


You have group showers with Conservatives? Pretty wild island you got there.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I'd like to see a coalition government of the opposition parties. That would also wipe the smug smile off of Harper's face, as he'd have to tolerate the "lefties" forming a majority government for the next four years. Minus 7 weeks, of course, keeping in mind the new election law.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You have group showers with Conservatives? Pretty wild island you got there.


Ya gotta watch them Cons though. They sneaky! Always droppin' the soap.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> I'd like to see a coalition government of the opposition parties. That would also wipe the smug smile off of Harper's face, as he'd have to tolerate the "lefties" forming a majority government for the next four years. Minus 7 weeks, of course, keeping in mind the new election law.


If the coalition comes through, I expect it will be unstable and short lived. I can also see it being damaging to the Liberals in the long run, as they would need to move to the left of the mainstream to find common ground with the NDP, and constantly whore themselves out to win the support of the Bloc.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yes, they aren't the same thing. But they are both a form of government money going to a party.
> 
> If I choose to give a thousand bucks to a party, the government subsidizes this choice to the tune of $600. (approximately) They give me a rebate on my taxes that I would otherwise have given to them. So that gift to the party costs me $400 and the government pays for the rest.
> 
> ...


The point that you you keep avoiding is that of choice. If I choose to donate to a party it is my choice who I am supporting. The vote subsidy comes out of general Revenue and in fact that money is paid for by all Canadians. So when someone votes for the BQ or any other party, I am paying to support them as well, whether I like it or not.

A tax credit means I pay less tax. These are not monies taken out of Revenue because they were not there in the first place (only in the instance that the credit results in tax refund would this be the case), these are monies that are simply left in my pocket allowing me to flow them back into the economy through spending or allowing me save for retirement etc. So in fact, a tax credit of this sort can be seen as actually being stimulative to the economy, since over 70% of GDP is based on consumer spending. 

Additionally, many if not most Canadian's are (were) unaware of the vote based subsidy to political parties and (being that I work on Parliament Hill) I have received numerous e-mails and phone calls from outraged Canadians who were unaware that their tax dollars are being spent on Parties that they do not support. If nothing else, this move has served to educate the public regarding this little known subsidization of political parties.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Because it is grandstanding of the worst kind. If they had intended on making a coalition, then it should have been done then and there - before the Government-Elect was legitimized by being sworn in.
> 
> If the Opposition really wanted to do something, they should stand up, be real men (and women), stop playing the kindergarten games, and topple the Government by pulling a Vote of Non-Confidence after the obligatory 6 month pause.
> 
> ...


Hell has frozen over. I completely agree with EP.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Vandave said:


> I thought the tax break was 75% of the contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent points, well thought out and articulated. Finally someone who is willing to call a spade a spade devoid of partisanship. To thinks that any of what is unfolding is devoid of political strategizing and manipulation on both sides is naive.

However, I still agree with the move to remove the vote based subsidy. The timing to do is obviously opportunistic, but what isn't in politics. That it is opportunistic does not mean that it is not the right thing to do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The fey manner in which these opposition leaders are carrying out their coup---the stalling, back slapping and chortling--are indicative of a couple of bloodless characters who have no sense of momentum or real purpose. 

They act like a couple of kids who have retreated to the snow fort to make plans to kick over a snowman.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Hell has frozen over. I completely agree with EP.


Ditto.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

da_jonesy said:


> I find it interesting just how few here really understand what a Parliamentary system of government within a Constitutional Monarchy means. When you voted, you voted for who was going to be your member of parliament. There is NOTHING in the Constitution or any other law of the land that prevents a member from join one party or another or switching parties. If members on mass left their current party to form another that is a completely legitimate thing to do.
> 
> Parliamentary rules are simple and if the Liberals and the NDP with the support of the Bloc can form a coalition and convince the Governor General that they can form a government then that is a completely proper and legitimate course action.
> 
> ...



The general reality is that such coalitions are struck PRIOR to an existing Government being formed and the electorate understands what they are voting for. 

You can say what you like about voting for an individual MP, which is of course systematically true, but the reality is that people vote also in anticipation of the member of the party that there are voting for forming Government (aside from the Bloq). They also vote strategically to try and deny a party from forming Government. To try and pretend that this is not the case is either naive or deliberately deceptive on your part.

I think in a political landscape in which there are 5 parties it should be pointed out that while the Conservatives did not form a Majority Government based on seats won in the House (50% of all seats +1). They did receive the *majority of votes and seats AMONGST PARTIES*. Clearly the majority of Canadians, given the choices they were presented with, chose the Conservatives to form Government. To see it otherwise is to be blind to the political reality in this country.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The top four political parties in Switzerland have had a working coalition going since 1959.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> The top four political parties in Switzerland have had a working coalition going since 1959.


Yes and the people know what they are voting for going in. Additionally Switzerland is a small and relatively culturally, ethnically and religiously homogeneous society, not exactly a good comparison or model to be applied in Canada.


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

*Even the National Post Knows Where the Problem Lies*

Don Martin: Harper has no one to blame but himself - Full Comment

Harper has only himself to blame


You know, I really tried to keep an open mind about Harper this time around. More correctly tried to open my mind, to the possibility that Harper really was a pragmatist and that he would take a different approach in the current parliament.

A long time friend of mine was recently elected as MP in the riding of Kitchener-Waterloo and we had a chance to visit and catch up on news shortly after the election. Following our discussion I was feeling cautiously optimistic that Harper and his inner circle would chart a different course this time, if only by avoiding the extreme partisanship that places party before country and by realizing accommodations would have to be made in a minority configuration in parliament.

Well, my bad big time.

This most recent move confirms what I really believed to be the case all along, this man and his party are incapable of pursuing any other agenda than their own. 

I recall reading an explanation of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans that suggested the Democrats believed politics and elections were contests of ideology. Those with the better ideas, if communicated effectively would prevail. For the Republicans, politics is a war in which the goal is not to offer the better ideas and convince the public, but to destroy your opponents so that they are unable to fight another day. Well the parallels between the GOP and CPC couldn't be any clearer than they are today. And like their American role model, the CPC seems prepared to risk the greater good of the national interest and its institutions in pursuit of power, control and future political hegemony.

But then I knew that, I guess I was just hoping I would be proven wrong.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Screature, the problem I would have with this coalition is that the Bloc is included.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Screature, the problem I would have with this coalition is that the Bloc is included.


Well yes for sure, but there are bigger problems than that alone.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The country is moving toward regional Federalism - it's time.

••••

sheeps clothing or perhaps sweater vest slips.....



> *Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear*
> 
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> ...


globeandmail.com: Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Brainstrained said:


> Circumstance changes. Harpo was talking co-operation then, not poking them in the eye with a pointy stick like now.


Except that I see nothing that is pointy stick about anything Harper has done. If a business can not make enough money to stay in business - they go bankrupt. And thus, if the Liberals can not attract enough funds to stay afloat, they either have to scrap some of the opulence they are accustomed to, or they will need to fold up shop. If the Liberals can't get their own books and expendatures in line with reality - how can anyone trust them with the treasury?

Harper put out a belt tightening program, something that is obviously popular with voters when it comes to all levels of government - and the Opposition stomp it out of existence. So sure, in the near term, they can attempt a Putsch, they can grab the power - but when an Election arises again, they will be branded with the scarlet letter saying "yeah, we couldn't tighten our belts during a crisis - we deserve opulence and extravagance - even though you, as voters, are on the pogey..."



> That's what they seem to be doing now at the obligatory six-week pause.


As I have long thought, whichever party triggers an Election will suffer the consequences. The last Election was a face off, with no clear party hving pulled the trigger - but this time, if the Putsch succeeds and is lead by Dion and the Liberals - I think their party will end up disappearing. In this time of economic recession, there is not one voter that will not think about the $300 Million wasted on an Election when he have just had an Election two months prior.



> And the Liberals and NDP plan to give them that minority -- with fewer seats but a greater popular vote.


And they will do that through mounting a Putsch - creating a coalition that will grab power weeks after they could have grabbed power legitimately. And really, they are idiots to do so, since the world is sliding into an ever worstening recession - and governments that bear the brunt of recessions generally do not survive. Perhaps it is Harper's plan - to let the Liberals rot through the worst of what we are going to be dished, then return to power and "rebuilding" the economy to score even more political points.

As for your whole idea - sure, we can talk popular vote - but we can also talk about a coalition that will not represent much of the West - with at least one fifth of the provinces without any voice at the table of government...



> You'll have to show me the rule on that one, because our system truly doesn't work that way. And the Liberal-NDP "coalition" in the 1985 Ontario election and aftermath demonstrates that.


It demonstrates how destructive a Coalition of such nature can actually be. Ontario was brought to the brink of ruin by that Coalition, and by the subsequent impotent Peterson regime, and the destruction of Rae. These retards took the province that was the font of wealth for the entire nation and converted it into a basketcase, filled to the brim with poverty.

I think Canadians need a dose of the Dion Liberals - to see their true nature and to witness the destruction of the Liberal font of evil that has held Canada back for a century from making any real porgress in the world.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

screature said:


> The general reality is that such coalitions are struck PRIOR to an existing Government being formed and the electorate understands what they are voting for.


Considering how few coalition governments Canada has had - one since Confederation and that one was almost 100 years ago - this is a bit of a stretch.

And we're still not sure what form this Liberal-NDP deal is going to take. The talk has been coalition, but it could be an accord just like Peterson-Rae in Ontario in 1986. Or it could even be as informal as the gentlemen's agreements the Liberals had with the NDP in the early 1970s or the Creditistes in the early 1960s.

Also if one looks at British parliamentary systems outside of Canada, coalitions have been regularly formed after elections when the dust has settled. 



> They did receive the majority of votes and seats AMONGST PARTIES. Clearly the majority of Canadians, given the choices they were presented with, chose the Conservatives to form Government.


No, they didn't. The Tories won the most votes, 37 percent, and the most seats, a PLURALITY in both cases. But a greater plurality, if not arguably a majority of votes and seats, went to parties to the left of the Tories.

Clearly the majority of Canadians DID NOT choose the Conservatives to form the government. 

As a whole, Canadians chose the Conservatives to form a minority government with the co-operation of opposition parties. That means they do not have the unfettered right to divine rule.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Except that I see nothing that is pointy stick about anything Harper has done. If a business can not make enough money to stay in business - they go bankrupt


 rant 


Wow - Koolaid drowning alert


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Greenlion, I read The National Post in my local coffee shop not an hour ago. I was astonished that it had taken this tack, given its usual political proclivities. It underscores the deep nature of Harper's blunder. I see even the Sun's headline reveals the extent of the fissures Harper has opened up with this one ill-advised move.

Plenty of people would like to see campaign financing change, especially where it concerns the public purse. But this move of Harper's was never on the table before... it's timing is crucial and it's clearly not about saving the public 30 million smackeroos - it's more about gutting the opposition parties. The commentary in the Post noted that those same parties would take some time to streamline their fundraising mechanisms as they have grown lazy and complacent. Well said. It was a good, balanced commentary.

Harper is a conniving megalomaniac whose willingness to gamble on his hate-ons eclipses all other priorities, including those of his own party. He's a rogue agent. Whatever positive and intelligent qualities he possesses pale against his darker instincts. There's feisty competitiveness and then there's epic vanity. Prime Minister Harper has to wear this one. Perhaps Flanagan or another shadow figure whispered in his ear, but when all is said and done it was on Harper's watch and apparently he personally ordered the offending bit be inserted in Flaherty's speech. _Whoooops._


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Brainstrained said:


> Considering how few coalition governments Canada has had - one since Confederation and that one was almost 100 years ago - this is a bit of a stretch.


Not talking about coalitions in Canada as the OP was referencing other countries.  




Brainstrained said:


> No, they didn't. The Tories won the most votes, 37 percent, and the most seats, a PLURALITY in both cases. But a greater plurality, if not arguably a majority of votes and seats, went to parties to the left of the Tories.
> 
> Clearly the majority of Canadians DID NOT choose the Conservatives to form the government.
> 
> As a whole, Canadians chose the Conservatives to form a minority government with the co-operation of opposition parties. That means they do not have the unfettered right to divine rule.


Your understanding is only one meaning of the word majority:

majority |məˈjôrətē; -ˈjär-|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 the greater number : in the majority of cases all will go smoothly | [as adj. ] it was a majority decision.
• the number by which votes for one candidate in an election are more than those for all other candidates combined.
*• Brit. the number by which the votes for one party or candidate exceed those of the next in rank.
• a party or group receiving the greater number of votes.*

Your argument is one of semantics (which has mixed interpretations and meanings at best) and is not substantial. 

The fact is more Canadians voted for the Conservatives than any other single party and when you consider that there were 5 parties running and they obtained 37% of the vote, it is actually quite a substantial *majority* (as I said before and seemed to be beyond your comprehension, a relative majority, use the word plurality if that makes you feel semantically better, i.e. the majority of votes votes amongst competitors) of the votes cast.

It is also quite laughable that you consider the Libreals to be on "the left". There would be many, many, many (probably the majority) card carrying Liberals who would strongly disagree with you, they see themselves as being centrists.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> OPINION
> 
> *Don't let a good crisis go to waste*
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Opinion | Don't let a good crisis go to waste

Exactly :clap:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> The point that you you keep avoiding is that of choice. If I choose to donate to a party it is my choice who I am supporting. The vote subsidy comes out of general Revenue and in fact that money ... etc, etc,


Whatever, I don't have the time or inclination to get into a nitpicky argument about the relative merits of different types of political funding. If you've got what you think is a better idea to fund the parties - groovy, good for you.

I'll say it again - my point in bringing the subject up was that if the Cons had a better idea and were truly bringing in the funding changes as a cost saving measure as they claim, they would have given the opposition parties some time to adjust to the new regime, or warned before the last election that they were going in this direction. As it stands now with the Cons proposal, money that the parties expected would be coming based on votes garnered a few weeks ago, that they borrowed against to run their elections will be cut off starting in April. Meanwhile the Cons, if they were truly going to be fair didn't touch the method that provides much of their funding, the political contribution tax credit.

This was clearly a partisan attempt to cut the opposition's ability to continue to be competitive and to cause them maximum financial distress or even bankruptcy and was NOT about budget-cutting since it represented a miniscule portion of the federal budget and less than 10% of the expenditure Harper caused by calling an unnecessary election in September. It was a brazen and blunt attempt to force the opposition to knuckle under to the government's every demand. Harper wanted to govern as if he had a majority he didn't have. 

Canadians didn't elect Steven Harper as President, a minority of Canadians voted for the party which he happens to lead, but a majority of Canadians disagree with his and his party's approach. He has a _minority government_ and it is incumbent upon him to work with others in the House to continue to govern, especially during a looming economic crisis. Yet he choose to do nothing except engage in an outright power grab, that left his opposition without much to lose. The "master strategist" should have known that you never leave your opponent with nothing to lose.

I'll hand it to him, Harper seems to have done what no one else could do, — unite the opposition.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This was clearly a partisan attempt to cut the opposition's ability to continue to be competitive and to cause them maximum financial distress or even bankruptcy and was NOT about budget.


Clearly partisan how when it affects the Conservatives MORE in terms of dollars than other parties? Fully 1/3 of the $30 M.

It is only partisan for those on the left that feel it is their entitlement to receive tax dollars as their means of existence. I said it before and I'll say it again, you want to be a viable political party get off your duffs, volunteer, donate, pound the pavement, get online and convince Canadians that you and your ideas are worth supporting.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...represented a miniscule portion of the federal budget...


But actually 1/3 of the projected surplus of $100 M.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Harper put out a belt tightening program.


Deceive yourself if you want, but Harpo was playing politics and it blew up in his face. Last week he was talking spending to stimulate the economy, this week he's cutting spending by less than half a percent to tighten our belts? :lmao: 

Look, I agree that ultimately the voters will punish or reward the opposition for this gambit. I admit I'm not sure which, though as you noted Ontario voters rewarded Peterson for his "putsch".

I am sure though, that Harper deserves the blame for everyone being focused on politics, instead of the economy and other important issues. And that if we have another election, he is as much to blame as the others.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Brainstrained said:


> Deceive yourself if you want, but Harpo was playing politics and it blew up in his face. Last week he was talking spending to stimulate the economy, this week he's cutting spending by less than half a percent to tighten our belts? :lmao:
> 
> Look, I agree that ultimately the voters will punish or reward the opposition for this gambit. I admit I'm not sure which, though as you noted Ontario voters rewarded Peterson for his "putsch".
> 
> I am sure though, that Harper deserves the blame for everyone being focused on politics, instead of the economy and other important issues. And that if we have another election, he is as much to blame as the others.



You people are too funny. You say stimulate the Economy, but don't put us into deficit. In your eyes the Cons were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

You also forget that the Opposition was ready to defeat the Government based on the Throne speech alone, let alone the Economic Update.

If you think the removal of the vote subsidy was tactical take a look in the mirror, the left Opposition was just waiting to pounce, so much for their willingness to work with a sense of co-operation.

This situation is the making of the Oppostion thinking they have a position of outrage to overthrow the Government, for what you have been calling a pittance. If it is a pittance then why is it worth a completely destabalizing act like this one will provide?

What is transparent here is the willingness of the Opposition to gain the reigns of power no matter what the potential consequences.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: No need to quote at length from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.Their articles are so predictable I suspect they just fill in the blanks on six or seven lefty prototype articles which they rotate endlessly.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Clearly partisan how when it affect the Conservatives MORE in terms of dollars than other parties? Fully 1/3 of the $30 M.
> 
> It is only partisan for those on the left that feel it is their entitlement to receive tax dollars as their means of existence. I said it before and I'll say it again, you want to be a viable political party get off your duffs, volunteer, donate, pound the pavement, get online and convince Canadians that you and your ideas are worth supporting.
> 
> ...


There are some on the left who felt that the per vote subsidy wasn't the best method of funding also. It was partisan because Harper chose to use it as a club to cripple the other parties. He knew that the other parties had borrowed against the expected money to fund their campaigns and he knew that his party was the only one that could live without it. If he wasn't being partisan he would have phased this in with a timetable for all the parties to transition to another method in the future. It's clear even amongst traditional Harper supporters that this was being used as political club to cut off his opposition's ability to compete.

You can pretend all you want that this move wasn't a political power play, but you'd be living in a fantasy world.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Even if it was a power play, it was the right idea. And it also revealed just how bankrupt the opposition parties are, in threatening to call an election over $20-million between them.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Screature, obviously that explains why Harpo operates as though he has a majority -- he does, though his majority only consists of one in three voters. :lmao: :lmao: 

And yes, the Liberals are to the left of Harpo's government.

And no, coalition governments outside of the British parliamentary system are often not created until after the election so that the government can reflect the strengths and weaknesses of its various parties -- and possibly exclude or include some parties.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Even if it was a power play, it was the right idea. And it also revealed just how bankrupt the opposition parties are, in threatening to call an election over $20-million between them.


I think you'll find there are many Conservative MPs who would now wish that Harper hadn't come up with it. And now he has backed down and shunted it off to some committee, so it's off the table.

*Breaking news*: Hilarious, just heard this minute on the radio, the Cons announced they are reversing their proposal ending the per vote subsidy.

I guess even Harper has now decided it might not have been a good idea. The "master strategist" admits to a strategic error?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wanna bet it woun't work?? My sense is "the knives are out" and this is what should have happened two years ago if Layton hadn't been such a dickhead.

There is a ton of legislation that can be undertaken by three socially progressive parties especially if Broadbent works his magic in the background.

What Harper has done is let slip the Bill Davis curtain he was trying to pull around him - and the neoCon "small minded ideologeu" has emerged for all to see.

No putting that genie back in the bottle.....serious error.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> There is a ton of legislation that can be undertaken by three socially progressive parties especially if Broadbent works his magic in the background.


I rarely laugh so hard I spew my coffee, but the idea of Broadbent working his
"magic" is a thought so tragically funny I couldn't help myself.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Harper will pull a fast one. He will ask Brian Mulroney to broker him into the deal, and the coalition will be between the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. Harper will retain his role as PM, and we will all get back to the business of thinking about Canadians.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Harper will pull a fast one. He will ask Brian Mulroney to broker him into the deal, and the coalition will be between the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. Harper will retain his role as PM, and we will all get back to the business of thinking about Canadians.


Speaking of coffee-spewing ... Good one Dr.G. :lmao: 

Yes, he's the "Master Strategist"™, everybody knows that. This is all part of his genius grand plan to conquer everything.

Here's another take on his Über-Strategy:



> *Super genius Stephen Harper is, as always, thinking eight moves ahead. I’ll prove it.*
> 
> *Move 1* – Propose elimination of subsidy that federal parties rely on for bulk of funding. Infuriate opposition. Spark backlash. Stroke chin knowingly – Master Plan K4357/BB7 is in effect.
> 
> ...


http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/28/...g-eight-moves-ahead-i’ll-prove-it/#more-20526


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The BNA act has been supplanted--this is clearly a fantasy!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm guessing that right now Steve is having the exploding/melting opposition heads fantasy.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Nov 28, 2008:


> The opposition has every right to defeat the government but Stéphane Dion does not have the right to take power without an election.



Opposition leader Stephen Harper, in a letter to former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson signed by himself, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, Sep 9, 2004:


> As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program.
> 
> *We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.* Your attention to this matter is appreciated.


Ooopsie. Past statements contradict current talking points, once again.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Brainstrained said:


> And no, coalition governments outside of the British parliamentary system are often not created until after the election so that the government can reflect the strengths and weaknesses of its various parties -- and possibly exclude or include some parties.


Ah, yes they are, ever hear of a place called Israel?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Screature you need to go back to school to review the purpose of commas.

The point was and is that coalition governments are often cobbled together after elections and that includes Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Germany . . . .


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, Harper could also dissolve Parliament and declare marshal law, citing a potential overthrow of the government. Troops will imprison all Liberal, NDP and Bloc MPs, along with the two independent MPs. They will be held in the Calgary Saddledome ............ until the Calgary Stampede in July. 

Then, there will be a race in the chuck wagon races and winner takes all. Harper will gather a crew of four of the finest chuck wagon racing horses in Alberta ............. and the opposition will be given these four fine animals to pull their chuckwagon (see below). Whoever wins, will retain the office of the Prime Minister. 

So, between Pearl Harbor Day, and mid-July, Harper will rule as "The Ultimate Ruler", and he shall guide our country out of darkness and into ................ we shall see.

http://www.ehmac.ca/attachments/eve...08005-shangri-la-clubhouse-cowboy-doxie-1.jpg

http://www.ehmac.ca/attachments/eve...08005-shangri-la-clubhouse-cowboy-doxie-2.jpg

http://www.ehmac.ca/attachments/eve...8005-shangri-la-clubhouse-cowboy-doxie-3-.jpg

http://www.ehmac.ca/attachments/eve...7997-shangri-la-clubhouse-cowboy-doxie-4-.jpg


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How times and Harpers COTU view changes....



> From an interview with Harper from about 2 years ago. Funny how his positions changed ever since he's in power.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Brainstrained said:


> Screature you need to go back to school to review the purpose of commas.


Excuse me!! I sure as hell don't need to be schooled by you about anything. "The purpose of commas?!!" Keep your smart a** inane comments to yourself.

Hey Brainstrained, (how appropriate) why don't you give it a break, some of your mental capacity, not to mention your civility may come back! beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The BNA act has been supplanted--this is clearly a fantasy!


The BNA Act is still in force, though renamed The Constitution Act of 1982, with some added sections.

The King-Byng Affair was in 1926, not 1936. The Affair saw to the end of Meighen's leadership of the Conservatives - replaced with Bennett - Chairman of the E.B. Eddy Company.

Some of this "mess" was cleaned up with the Westminster Agreements, which placed some limits on the discressionary powers of the Governor-General - though attempts to formalize this within the Constitution Act have failed on a number of occassions.

There is no clear policy or path when it comes to forming a Coalition within the Westminster system, and this has lead to a number of constitutional crises, especially in Australia, where Governments are open to Double Non-Confidence votes, where both the elected House and elected Senate pull the plug - but the Governor General refuses to drop a Writ.


----------

