Coalition for Canada

[jagermeister]

I know there are a lot of canucks on here and if you keep up with the news you must know that Harper is (hopefully) about to get the boot out of office.

Any Canadians (or any muggles as we call them) have any thoughts on this?

I think its great based solely on the fact that I fucking hate Harper with a passion. But I'm a little turned off by Stephane Dion being our interim-PM since IMO he's an incompetent, babbling idiot.

[oddwithoutend]

It's an anti-democratic movement. It's also one where three different parties are joining sworn enemies for the sake of power, and not for the better of our country. The people of Canada will not like this. The conservatives will gain ground, and the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc will lose backing from this.


Dion is a complete embarrassment to our country; Harper is one of the few PMs to keep his pre-election promises, and did so without ever having a majority government.

The reasoining these three parties are using to commit this act of terrorism on Canada is that Harper is not going to save our ecomonmy with his plan. The budget has not been announced yet; it's confusing as to why they wouldn't wait the extra week and see the budget before doing this.

[Burning Star IV]

This whole coalition is a shame. No wonder voter apathy is so high right now. I am by no means endorsing Harper, but neither the NDP or the Liberals are able of running head office right now.

[1Roth4]

For people as upset about this as I am, I urge you to call your local MP and either show your support or distaste for what the government is doing.

Also, e-mail the Governor Generals office at; smcook@gg.ca (their info e-mail address has broken down)

Also, there are rallies being planned in every corner of the country. Please go to; www.rallyforcanada.ca for times and places.

I urge everyone to make their voice heard on this issue, because there is no other way around this situation.

All the best,

[Machu505]

OK so what's going on in Canada?

[saysmydoctor]

I heard something about the Quebec Separatists have made some sort of agreement and the entire time I was thinking Star Wars.

[oddwithoutend]

I just phoned the governor general to express my opinion.

[jagermeister]

I just phoned the governor general to express my opinion.

haha must have been expensive calling her in Prague!

[oddwithoutend]

how do you know where i am?

[Machu505]

So... what is happening that is making you guys so angry?

[oddwithoutend]

Well, there is currently a minority government in Canada. This government can be brought down by way of a vote of non-confidence in the parliament. Traditionally, this would call for an election. However, the liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois are dealing with eachother behind the backs of Canadians and organising a government that they can set up. This new government would include a 1/3 liberal cabinet, 1/3 NDP cabinet, and 1/3 Bloc cabinet. It would also result in Stephen Dion, the leader of the liberal party who got only 26% of the vote in the past election, being Canada's new prime minister.

So when Stephen Harper approaches the Governor General, as he must after the vote of non-confidence, instead of the Governor General calling for an election, Stephen Dion will step forward and say that they have a government ready to take the place of the current one. This would bypass the election, and swiftly change our government around without any say from Canadian citizens.

[Machu505]

Now I see. I've always thought it was kinda weird in a country like Canada for their leader to be a conservative.

[1Roth4]

our conservative is your democrat. they aren't true conservatives.

[1Roth4]

just like our poutine, is your freedom fries......with gravy......and cheese.

[Lueda Alia]

I'm personally very happy about this.

It's an anti-democratic movement.
I don't see how anyone could say that knowing our Constitution/system. So that's completely false.

[jagermeister]

Well, there is currently a minority government in Canada. This government can be brought down by way of a vote of non-confidence in the parliament. Traditionally, this would call for an election. However, the liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois are dealing with eachother behind the backs of Canadians and organising a government that they can set up. This new government would include a 1/3 liberal cabinet, 1/3 NDP cabinet, and 1/3 Bloc cabinet. It would also result in Stephen Dion, the leader of the liberal party who got only 26% of the vote in the past election, being Canada's new prime minister.

So when Stephen Harper approaches the Governor General, as he must after the vote of non-confidence, instead of the Governor General calling for an election, Stephen Dion will step forward and say that they have a government ready to take the place of the current one. This would bypass the election, and swiftly change our government around without any say from Canadian citizens.

Wrong.

NDP will have 25% of the Cabinet while the Liberals take the rest. The Bloc is only backing the coalition in confidence votes among other things as they are not a legitimate member of it.

And I really don't support this whole thing. I voted NDP because I despise the Liberals and COnservatives. I feel like my vote was worthless in the end.

[JesusV2]

Involving the bloc is going to piss off a lot of Canadians.

Even though I strongly oppose Harper doing this will have bad long term effects

Conservatives will def have a majority government come the next election.

[1Roth4]

I'm personally very happy about this.


I don't see how anyone could say that knowing our Constitution/system. So that's completely false.

This is not just angering Conservatives. I have taken calls from angry liberals as well as angry New Democrats about their dislike for this.

I am not sure how you appoint a Prime Minister that was so widely rejected by his own party, as well as the Canadian people. Remember, this was the worst showing by the Liberals since Confederation. How that is awarded with a majority is beyond me.

I keep saying this to people, and it seems to resonate. If this had happened two years or one year into a new session of parliament, I wouldn't be so frustrated about it. A lack of confidence in the House during these times is never a good thing. We are exactly 51 days after the election, Parliament has barely had 3 weeks in session, and the budget hasn't been delivered. This was a deal that was cut prior to anything that Harper or the Conservatives proposed.

To a country (and a continent for that matter) that holds some of the most apathetic voters in the world, it would be a shame to make them feel more and more like their vote does not count. And that is a shot in the face of democracy.

[1Roth4]

Involving the bloc is going to piss off a lot of Canadians.

Even though I strongly oppose Harper doing this will have bad long term effects

Conservatives will def have a majority government come the next election.

yup. Can't wait.

[1Roth4]

Wrong.

NDP will have 25% of the Cabinet while the Liberals take the rest. The Bloc is only backing the coalition in confidence votes among other things as they are not a legitimate member of it.

And I really don't support this whole thing. I voted NDP because I despise the Liberals and COnservatives. I feel like my vote was worthless in the end.

It was reported today that the bloc would also receive Senate seats as well as increased equalization payments.

This is the scary aspect of this process. Nobody knows the inner-workings of the deal. They know who will hold Cabinet seats, but not really. I also heard to today that Elizabeth May would be the Minister of the Environment. She didn't even get elected, so I am not really sure how that would work.

Nobody knows the actual details of the deal.

All the Conservatives need is the support of 12 MP's to stop this.

If you live in a riding with a Liberal or New Democrat, and you are upset about this, call them today. You can find the numbers all over the internet. Simple Google search.

[Machu505]

our conservative is your democrat. they aren't true conservatives.

So they're fake Americans?

[jagermeister]

It was reported today that the bloc would also receive Senate seats as well as increased equalization payments.

This is the scary aspect of this process. Nobody knows the inner-workings of the deal. They know who will hold Cabinet seats, but not really. I also heard to today that Elizabeth May would be the Minister of the Environment. She didn't even get elected, so I am not really sure how that would work.

Nobody knows the actual details of the deal.

All the Conservatives need is the support of 12 MP's to stop this.

If you live in a riding with a Liberal or New Democrat, and you are upset about this, call them today. You can find the numbers all over the internet. Simple Google search.

Source?

[oddwithoutend]

Source?

Did you provide a source? I heard the NDP demanded 1/3 of cabinet seats, and that those seats must include minister of finance and environment minister.

[Just Matt]

I wrote about this on my blog when this whole deal started...


Today the Liberals and the NDP told Canadians that they are in serious talks to form a coalition government. Two weeks from now the federal budget will be voted on in the House and the two parties might reject it, hoping to usurp the current government. I’m really frustrated to hear this, I just cast a ballot two months ago and we’re already thinking of changing governments? It almost seems like democracy is being co-opted when the ruling party is stripped of its power without a vote. I don’t think that the Governor General will let it happen…

…but here’s how our system works.

When updates in the federal budget go before the House for approval Members of Parliament will submit a “confidence vote” on whether to pass or not pass the bill. If the vote fails to pass, the House is said to have “lost confidence” in the current government and the Governor general will ask the Prime Minister to “drop the writ” (dissolve Parliament). The Governor General must then decide if another party can form a coalition that can retain the confidence of the House. If this is possible then the Governor General will call a general election.

History shows that the Governor General will rarely ever take this course of action. The last time it occurred was under exceptional circumstances in 1926 when Lord Byng of Vimy (the Governor General at that time) asked Arthur Meighen to form a coalition government. Prime Minster Willam Lyon Mackenzie King was about to face a vote before the House on government corruption when he opted to step down in order to dissolve Paraliament. If Lord Byng allowed Lyon to do this, it would have disrupted the reprimand of a public official and violated freedom of speech in the House. Lord Byng found it unacceptable to dissolve the House during a motion of censure and asked Arthur Meighen (the opposition leader) to form a minority coalition government.

So now that you know the history, do the math.

the Conservatives have 143 seats, the Liberals have 77, the BQ have 49 and the NDP have 37. The Liberals and the NDP combine for a total of 114 seats. They would need the help of the BQ to pass any legislation whatsoever. Getting me to believe that two parties with different political ideologies are able agree on anything substantial is difficult. Even if you disagree and say that the 2 can form a party, three would be a crowd. Good luck on getting the BQ to cooperate without making massive concessions to Quebec.

We’ve had 3 elections in the past 5 years due to the inability of a minority government to work well with others. I’m not convinced that a Liberal-NDP alliance will successful for long, in fact I’d predict the fastest failure of government since Arthur Meighen’s 10 days in office.

Why did Canadians have to go through another meaningless election for our leaders in Ottawa to decide that it was irrelevant? Constant elections is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money especially when it accomplishes nothing. In all likelyhood the Governor General will not allow the Liberals-NDP to form a new government because there is no precedent. We are going to be thrown back into another election cycle 6 months after our last one.

And also a quick sidenote…

Under Stephane Dion’s leadership the liberal party failed to pick up any additional seats in the last election. Right now the party wants to find a replacement for him. How can a minority coalition work if the party with the most amount of seats isn’t confident even in their own leader? That’s plain bad timing.


Related Links

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/fed-govt.htm (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/fed-govt.htm)l (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/fed-govt.html)
http://www.matthewdevaney.com (http://www.matthewdevaney.com)

[jagermeister]

Did you provide a source? I heard the NDP demanded 1/3 of cabinet seats, and that those seats must include minister of finance and environment minister.

Every single news article says NDP will be getting 25% of the Cabinet's seats. You either can't read, or you make stuff up. The foundation of the coalition was based on NDP agreeing that the minister of finance will be a Liberal.

[Just Matt]

Every single news article says NDP will be getting 25% of the Cabinet's seats. You either can't read, or you make stuff up. The foundation of the coalition was based on NDP agreeing that the minister of finance will be a Liberal.

I am actively following this story and can confirm this is true.

[jagermeister]

I am actively following this story and can confirm this is true.

Thanks!

Good to see Canadians caring about this besides me. And depending on how long we're still all Canadians for this should be interesting!

[Just Matt]

Thanks!

Good to see Canadians caring about this besides me. And depending on how long we're still all Canadians for this should be interesting!

I am quite passionate about this subject as well. If it weren't exam season, I would be writing a new blog on the subject every day. I am against the proposed coalition, and if the confidence vote fails, I think we Canadians should be headed back to the polls.

[oddwithoutend]

Every single news article says NDP will be getting 25% of the Cabinet's seats. You either can't read, or you make stuff up. The foundation of the coalition was based on NDP agreeing that the minister of finance will be a Liberal.

I am actively following this story and can confirm this is true.

It is always refreshing to be absolutely, inarguably correct. I did hear this; it was on CBC I believe. 25% may be correct, but 33% was definitely reported.

[Just Matt]

It is always refreshing to be absolutely, inarguably correct. I did hear this; it was on CBC I believe. 25% may be correct, but 33% was definitely reported.

when the story broke there was alot of opposing information being reported as the media scrambled to cover it.

[Burning Star IV]

Rally for Canada (http://www.rallyforcanada.ca/)

[Just Matt]

Harper and Dion are going to make their case to the Canadian public tonight, 7 PM ET. The channel is not specified but the CBC will likely show it. Should be interesting, I will have to catch the recording when I get home.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/12/03/pm-will-address-the-nation.aspx

[IF_YOU_LIE]

I really hope we won't have elections again because our money should not be wasted in this right now.
I think Harper brought this on himself with his crazy economic plan : he cant' abolish the right to go on strike of the public sector, of course that's going to piss the NDP off. And he took away money from culture in Quebec, so the Bloc is against him.
But I can't believe Stephane Dion is going to be the prime minister.... That's just ridiculous...
I'm kind of curious about what Michaelle Jean is going to do about this now... She actually has to make a decision :P

[Machu505]

The dude with the awesome mustache from the New Democratic Party should be PM.

[1Roth4]

Source?

Gladly (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/02/ezra-levant-ottawa-s-fire-sale-of-patronage-may-include-a-senate-seat-for-elizabeth-may.aspx)

I volunteer for an MP, and that was also the rumour swirling around the office.

My point is that we don't know the inner-workings of the deal. Which is a scary thought.

[1Roth4]

The dude with the awesome mustache from the New Democratic Party should be PM.

of Russia

[1Roth4]

So they're fake Americans?

i guess technically, yes. But i wouldn't say conservatism is an American phenomenon.

[Machu505]

of Russia

lol wut. People with awesome mustaches don't have to be Russian! Plus, Stalin was actually Georgian.

i guess technically, yes. But i wouldn't say conservatism is an American phenomenon.

It's a little joke we have here in the States about Sarah Palin. And of course conservatism isn't an American phenomenom.

[mattybobviously]

I like this.

[TheOtherAndrew]

hahahaha wow. this shit is crazy.

[Machu505]

Who knew there was so much conflict in Canada?

[TheOtherAndrew]

I'm not a fan of the conservative party but this seems pretty fucked up.

[1Roth4]

lol wut. People with awesome mustaches don't have to be Russian! Plus, Stalin was actually Georgian.



It's a little joke we have here in the States about Sarah Palin. And of course conservatism isn't an American phenomenom.

oh ya, i got it. i tune in to more american politics than canadian, but this shit is tough to turn a blind eye to.

can you imagine if this shit happened in the U.S? There would be chaos

[1Roth4]

This (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=51442165364&ref=mf) Facebook group at 8pm EST last night (Dec. 2nd) has 27,000 members.

This morning at 7am EST (Dec. 3rd) had 43,000 members.

Tonight at 8pm EST (Dec. 3rd) has over 71,000 members.

Think people aren't caring?

[1Roth4]

And also a side-note about the facebook group. when did facebook get so big? :unsure:

[Machu505]

oh ya, i got it. i tune in to more american politics than canadian, but this shit is tough to turn a blind eye to.

can you imagine if this shit happened in the U.S? There would be chaos

Yeah, we call it impeachment.

[Lueda Alia]

This is not just angering Conservatives. I have taken calls from angry liberals as well as angry New Democrats about their dislike for this.

I wonder if these Conservatives had a problem with Harper wanting to do the same thing with the BQ back in 2004, when he wanted to oust Paul Martin? Hmm, I wonder why he didn't see the BQ as separatists back then and was willing to form a coalition with them.

I am not sure how you appoint a Prime Minister that was so widely rejected by his own party, as well as the Canadian people. Remember, this was the worst showing by the Liberals since Confederation. How that is awarded with a majority is beyond me. Let's not forget that only 38% of the voters wanted Harper in power, or 22% of our overall population.

I keep saying this to people, and it seems to resonate. If this had happened two years or one year into a new session of parliament, I wouldn't be so frustrated about it. A lack of confidence in the House during these times is never a good thing. We are exactly 51 days after the election, Parliament has barely had 3 weeks in session, and the budget hasn't been delivered. This was a deal that was cut prior to anything that Harper or the Conservatives proposed. Harper has already made it clear that he won't play ball with the other parties, so I don't know why anyone is so surprised that the other parties reacted like this.

A minority government has to make concessions with other parties in order to make parliament work and when the Harper government came in session with a legislative agenda that wasn't featured in their campaign and that implemented measures that are unacceptable to the representatives of the other three parties in the House that all together form a majority, then it's no wonder that, not wanting to go into yet another election, the idea of a coalition government surfaced.

To a country (and a continent for that matter) that holds some of the most apathetic voters in the world, it would be a shame to make them feel more and more like their vote does not count. And that is a shot in the face of democracy. The same argument could be used the other way around. Maybe the people that voted for all the left wing parties and the BQ - which make up over 60% of the actual voters - felt the same way when a Conservative government came into power? A minority party that represents only 38% of the popular vote in the country isn't exactly representing the majority, and to me that's much less democratic than the 44% (or 62% if you include the BQ and Greens) that we could get with this coalition.

Yes, the party that has most seats in the House of Commons is the party with executive power, but that mandate is only clear and irreversible when that party alone has a majority of seats, which the Conservatives do not, which is why they're called a minority government. It also means that while they're the party that has won the most seats, there remains a majority of Canadians who didn't vote for the Conservatives and the Conservatives have to take that fact into account when they govern, which they haven't.

A coalition government is perfectly legal and constitutional. We had a coalition government during World War I. If the Harper government is hell bent on making no concessions and doesn't come up with an initiative to face the economic crisis at hand, then a coalition government, where 3 separate parties, representing together a majority of Canadians, can find something that works for their respective interests, has more legitimacy than a unilateral Conservative government.

I'm personally more comfortable with a coalition government because not only does it represent more clearly to me a spirit of cooperation but I have more in common regarding the economy, the environment, the foreign policy and the social issues with those 3 parties than I do with the Conservatives so that is why I'd be willing to see how a coalition government could handle the country. Any Liberals that have a problem with this because they think it's "un-democratic" need to study their own Constitution and legal system, because they're getting angry for no reason whatsoever. If anything, they should be happy that someone like Harper is about to get booted out.

[Lueda Alia]

I also want to know how people feel about the fact that the Conservatives/Harper wiretapped an NDP conference call? Because that's completely illegal, and I do hope that the NDP does something about it.

[1Roth4]

I also want to know how people feel about the fact that the Conservatives/Harper wiretapped an NDP conference call? Because that's completely illegal, and I do hope that the NDP does something about it.

I will respond to your above posts tomorrow when I get a chance, but I felt compelled to respond to this first.

This is complete speculation. And If an investigation takes place that finds him guilty of this action, I would be embarrassed to be in anyway associated with the Conservative Party.

[Lueda Alia]

I will respond to your above posts tomorrow when I get a chance, but I felt compelled to respond to this first.

This is complete speculation. And If an investigation takes place that finds him guilty of this action, I would be embarrassed to be in anyway associated with the Conservative Party.
What exactly makes it a speculation? Because from what I've read, it's pretty much a fact.

[1Roth4]

Let's not forget that only 38% of the voters wanted Harper in power, or 22% of our overall population.

That is the failings of our electoral system.
22% accepted Dion as a Prime Minister. Now which is more deplorable? Elections are in place for a reason.


Harper has already made it clear that he won't play ball with the other parties, so I don't know why anyone is so surprised that the other parties reacted like this.

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

He has taken a hard nosed stance in the past, and to that he is just testing the waters. He is ready to co-operate, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that this coalition was not formed out of spite for his policies or lack of participation. They are a personal grudge these parties hold on the Conservatives, where their poor electoral performance isn't excusable. We couldn't have provided an easier target in Stephen Harper.


A minority government has to make concessions with other parties in order to make parliament work and when the Harper government came in session with a legislative agenda that wasn't featured in their campaign and that implemented measures that are unacceptable to the representatives of the other three parties in the House that all together form a majority, then it's no wonder that, not wanting to go into yet another election, the idea of a coalition government surfaced.

The same argument could be used the other way around. Maybe the people that voted for all the left wing parties and the BQ - which make up over 60% of the actual voters - felt the same way when a Conservative government came into power? A minority party that represents only 38% of the popular vote in the country isn't exactly representing the majority, and to me that's much less democratic than the 44% (or 62% if you include the BQ and Greens) that we could get with this coalition.

Yes, the party that has most seats in the House of Commons is the party with executive power, but that mandate is only clear and irreversible when that party alone has a majority of seats, which the Conservatives do not, which is why they're called a minority government. It also means that while they're the party that has won the most seats, there remains a majority of Canadians who didn't vote for the Conservatives and the Conservatives have to take that fact into account when they govern, which they haven't.

A coalition government is perfectly legal and constitutional. We had a coalition government during World War I. If the Harper government is hell bent on making no concessions and doesn't come up with an initiative to face the economic crisis at hand, then a coalition government, where 3 separate parties, representing together a majority of Canadians, can find something that works for their respective interests, has more legitimacy than a unilateral Conservative government.

I'm personally more comfortable with a coalition government because not only does it represent more clearly to me a spirit of cooperation but I have more in common regarding the economy, the environment, the foreign policy and the social issues with those 3 parties than I do with the Conservatives so that is why I'd be willing to see how a coalition government could handle the country. Any Liberals that have a problem with this because they think it's "un-democratic" need to study their own Constitution and legal system, because they're getting angry for no reason whatsoever. If anything, they should be happy that someone like Harper is about to get booted out.

You're comfortable with a coalition government that is made up of; 1. A Party that just recorded their lowest performance in a General Election since Confederation, and probably their most controversial and despised leader in history, 2. An NDP government who's economic policies were found to LIBERALS as being, to socialist, and bad for the economy, and 3. A Bloc who's sole purpose may not be to 'separate' Canada, but their intentions do NOT reflect that of Canadian intentions.

I do not agree with the majority of tactics used by Mr. Harper in this session thus far, but you cannot side with a coalition that has provided NO details to the Canadian public on their arrangement. Oh, they have a stimulus package. So..... what does it entail?

It is ludacris that the budget has not even been presented yet, which tells me this action was pre-emptive. Pre-Emptive to the Speech from the Throne, and the Economic Update.

These actions are in-excusable. Legal, YES, but In-Excusable.

[1Roth4]

What exactly makes it a speculation? Because from what I've read, it's pretty much a fact.

It makes it speculation when they haven't been convicted of anything.

[oddwithoutend]

The same argument could be used the other way around. Maybe the people that voted for all the left wing parties and the BQ - which make up over 60% of the actual voters - felt the same way when a Conservative government came into power? A minority party that represents only 38% of the popular vote in the country isn't exactly representing the majority, and to me that's much less democratic than the 44% (or 62% if you include the BQ and Greens) that we could get with this coalition.

How is a minority government elected by 38 percent of voters (the people) less democratic than a decision to form a majority government decided by 0% of people? You throw around a number like 60% as if it means something. How many people voted for the "Liberal-NDP-Bloc Party of Canada" in the past election? Zero; the party didn't exist, and for good reason.

You can't just say "Maybe 60% of voters felt a certain way". Democracy isn't based on maybes. Democracy isn't based on assuming the people's feelings, or we wouldn't have an election. We'd have mind-readers like you in charge.

Edit: And if the Liberals, NDP, and BQ were all about democracy, they would join each other in their supposed attempt to save the economy, but still let the people have an election after the upcoming vote of non-confidence. It seems they would rather dictate the decision.

[jagermeister]

Wow, so much has happened since I last checked this. I'm going to block off an hour this afternoon to read all of this. Good to see the conversation is starting!

ps. Parliament has been prorogued! Meaning no coalition until January at least!!!
(just so I don't get accused of Nazism like I did on Facebook, or being a dirty Conservative, I voted NDP in the election but never will again!)

[1Roth4]

Wow, so much has happened since I last checked this. I'm going to block off an hour this afternoon to read all of this. Good to see the conversation is starting!

ps. Parliament has been prorogued! Meaning no coalition until January at least!!!
(just so I don't get accused of Nazism like I did on Facebook, or being a dirty Conservative, I voted NDP in the election but never will again!)

The governor general made the right choice. There was no other option.

[Lueda Alia]

That is the failings of our electoral system.
22% accepted Dion as a Prime Minister. Now which is more deplorable? Elections are in place for a reason.
I don't necessarily want Dion in power, but even if I did, he wouldn't be anyway. He would leave in May when another leader is picked. But over 60% of Canadians did not want the Conservatives in power. So Harper needs to keep that in mind when making decisions and telling the other parties to, well.... go to hell.

He has taken a hard nosed stance in the past, and to that he is just testing the waters. He is ready to co-operate, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that this coalition was not formed out of spite for his policies or lack of participation. They are a personal grudge these parties hold on the Conservatives, where their poor electoral performance isn't excusable. We couldn't have provided an easier target in Stephen Harper.
You have got to be kidding me. He's just testing waters? Wow. Ok, let's play with our country's economy! That definitely sounds like a good idea at a time like this.

The coalition was formed because the Conservatives are acting as though they have a majority. Which they do not. So if anything, they are the ones acting that way out of spite for the Liberals.


You're comfortable with a coalition government that is made up of; 1. A Party that just recorded their lowest performance in a General Election since Confederation, and probably their most controversial and despised leader in history, 2. An NDP government who's economic policies were found to LIBERALS as being, to socialist, and bad for the economy, and 3. A Bloc who's sole purpose may not be to 'separate' Canada, but their intentions do NOT reflect that of Canadian intentions.
All that says to me is that these parties are willing to work together for the betterment of our country. Clearly I'm the only one on this forum that places any importance on that whatsoever.

I do not agree with the majority of tactics used by Mr. Harper in this session thus far, but you cannot side with a coalition that has provided NO details to the Canadian public on their arrangement. Oh, they have a stimulus package. So..... what does it entail?
As opposed to what? The Conservatives' plan? Oh wait, they don't even really have one. At least not one that would help the country.

These actions are in-excusable. Legal, YES, but In-Excusable.
Next time a team member doesn't take your opinion in a group project and acts like a bully, come tell me how inexcusable it would be if you were to walk out on him.

How is a minority government elected by 38 percent of voters (the people) less democratic than a decision to form a majority government decided by 0% of people? You throw around a number like 60% as if it means something. How many people voted for the "Liberal-NDP-Bloc Party of Canada" in the past election? Zero; the party didn't exist, and for good reason.

You can't just say "Maybe 60% of voters felt a certain way". Democracy isn't based on maybes. Democracy isn't based on assuming the people's feelings, or we wouldn't have an election. We'd have mind-readers like you in charge.
You clearly don't understand how our system works, so I'm not surprised that you couldn't come up with any better replies than this. Why is Harper's government called a minority?

Having the majority of elected MPs - who are actually willing to work together! - rule over the minority is pretty Democratic if you ask me. If you have a problem with them, I suggest you go protest against our system, instead of a coalition that is simply following our legal system.

Edit: And if the Liberals, NDP, and BQ were all about democracy, they would join each other in their supposed attempt to save the economy, but still let the people have an election after the upcoming vote of non-confidence. It seems they would rather dictate the decision.
I'm not sure how anyone can say that after what the Conservatives have done since they were elected.

Wow, so much has happened since I last checked this. I'm going to block off an hour this afternoon to read all of this. Good to see the conversation is starting!

ps. Parliament has been prorogued! Meaning no coalition until January at least!!!
(just so I don't get accused of Nazism like I did on Facebook, or being a dirty Conservative, I voted NDP in the election but never will again!)
I personally don't understand how anyone, especially a left-winger, can possibly believe that Harper is the right person to lead our country. It boggles my mind. If you dislike Bush, then I don't really quite understand how you can possibly like his Canadian clone. It's pretty scary.

For all Harper's high-minded talk of democracy, I fail to see how suspending the House and stopping a confidence vote like this is so much more democratic then allowing the vote to occur and the government to fall. And for the next month, we'll have to endure a desperate, scorched-earth PR campaign from the Conservatives to spread fear and hatred amongst various groups in the country (French/English, East/West, etc.), like they already have started to. In the meantime the various crises facing the country - economic, environmental, etc.. will go unaddressed. I hope all of you still have a job in the next 6 months!

I would maybe feel slightly different on this whole situation if Harper would step down and let someone else take over his party.

[Lueda Alia]

It makes it speculation when they haven't been convicted of anything.
I'm not quite sure how that makes it just speculation. Their conversation was recorded, and that's a fact. I guess you believe that everyone that's guilty does eventually get charged/convicted? Because that would be pretty naive.

Again, it amazes me how some people complain so much about Bush's tactics, and yet, they're willing to support a man who is trying to follow those very same footsteps. Oh and that is clearly not directed at you, since you have no problem with Bush and the Republicans in the US.

[ascitiesburn101]

i know far too little about Canadian politics.

:-(

[Just Matt]

All that says to me is that these parties are willing to work together for the betterment of our country. Clearly I'm the only one on this forum that places any importance on that whatsoever.
Liberals and NDP working together that's great, we need to see that happen more often. But the only thing that the Bloc Québécois is interested in is what's in it for Quebec and promoting sovereignty. With the BQ holding so many seats, we are going to see alot more minority governments in our future so its clear we have to find a consenus somewhere else to get work done. I would love to see a fourth major national party, maybe the Greens or someone else.

Let's be honest thought, if they had a Manitoba party you can be sure as hell that I'd vote for it because they would be fighting for whats best for me. (Okay, now typing that out I know how ridiculous a thing it is to say).

For all Harper's high-minded talk of democracy, I fail to see how suspending the House and stopping a confidence vote like this is so much more democratic then allowing the vote to occur and the government to fall. And for the next month, we'll have to endure a desperate, scorched-earth PR campaign from the Conservatives to spread fear and hatred amongst various groups in the country (French/English, East/West, etc.), like they already have started to. In the meantime the various crises facing the country - economic, environmental, etc.. will go unaddressed. I hope all of you still have a job in the next 6 months!

And on the other hand, I couldn't really see the Governor General asking the coalition to form a government. While it is completely legal, and the GGs call on whether or not it would work and there is no precedent for this to happen. Last time this happened was in 1926, and the only reason the coalition was asked to govern was because a motion of censure was going on in the House. The Liberals-NDP are playing to win, but the role of governing without an election (in my view) is not in the purse.

Also, not a fan of having a "lame duck" Prime Minister. If everyone knows that Dion is on the way out, who is going to take him seriously? Having the Liberal caucus vote on for our next Prime Minister makes me feel slighted. Honestly, any Liberal leader who takes that role without being voted for as the party leader has an uphill battle ahead of him/her in winning my confidence.

Love the passionate discussion going on here

[Just Matt]

ps. Parliament has been prorogued! Meaning no coalition until January at least!!!
(just so I don't get accused of Nazism like I did on Facebook, or being a dirty Conservative, I voted NDP in the election but never will again!)

Haha, the commenting system on Facebook is allowing for some pretty spirited discussion. As one person on my friends list put it to another.

i disagree- harper is a dumbass and doesn't deserve to run this country into the ground- it should be all three of the other idiots to do it lol

You would get along well with voters in my riding, the area has been NDP ever since I've been born. Can't say I've voted for them once though. My MP Jim Malloway campaigned in the Federal election making a civic issue (to replace a local bridge) over which the city presides, the cornerstone of his strategy.

And the next most likely to win was a former Winnipeg Jet... only in Winnipeg...

[oddwithoutend]

You clearly don't understand how our system works, so I'm not surprised that you couldn't come up with any better replies than this. Why is Harper's government called a minority?

Having the majority of elected MPs - who are actually willing to work together! - rule over the minority is pretty Democratic if you ask me. If you have a problem with them, I suggest you go protest against our system, instead of a coalition that is simply following our legal system.

The fact that they are following our legal system does not make it any more democratic. The fact that they are willing to work together does not make it any more democratic either. You might like it more, but it is not more democratic. Democracy actually has a strict meaning; you can't simply apply it to things you like.

Why should I protest the system instead of this particular coalition government? If an election were coming up, and I was suggesting reasons why one should not support the liberal party, I wouldn't be protesting against the election, only the liberal party. Likewise, I am suggesting reasons why one should not support the coalition. It's pretty straightforward from there.

[Lueda Alia]

Liberals and NDP working together that's great, we need to see that happen more often. But the only thing that the Bloc Québécois is interested in is what's in it for Quebec and promoting sovereignty. With the BQ holding so many seats, we are going to see alot more minority governments in our future so its clear we have to find a consenus somewhere else to get work done. I would love to see a fourth major national party, maybe the Greens or someone else.

You think that the BQ's support for the coalition is scarier than the language that Harper has been using lately? As I mentioned earlier, he is creating tension/hatred to simply stay in power. I find that wrong on so many levels.

Let's be honest thought, if they had a Manitoba party you can be sure as hell that I'd vote for it because they would be fighting for whats best for me. (Okay, now typing that out I know how ridiculous a thing it is to say).
I don't know, I can't really relate to that, I guess. In my opinion, all Canadians - in every part of Canada - should be looked after and taken care of.


And on the other hand, I couldn't really see the Governor General asking the coalition to form a government. While it is completely legal, and the GGs call on whether or not it would work and there is no precedent for this to happen. Last time this happened was in 1926, and the only reason the coalition was asked to govern was because a motion of censure was going on in the House. The Liberals-NDP are playing to win, but the role of governing without an election (in my view) is not in the purse.
I simply believe that when a minority government is not willing to work with all the other parties and find a common ground, they should be kicked out. It just feels as though the Conservatives are playing with this country's future just to show what they're capable of or how much power they have, which isn't much since they only have a minority government.

Also, not a fan of having a "lame duck" Prime Minister. If everyone knows that Dion is on the way out, who is going to take him seriously? Having the Liberal caucus vote on for our next Prime Minister makes me feel slighted. Honestly, any Liberal leader who takes that role without being voted for as the party leader has an uphill battle ahead of him/her in winning my confidence.

Love the passionate discussion going on here
Anyone would be better than Stephen Harper. The current crisis is showing his true colors and just how far he's willing to go to remain in power.

Am I the only one that finds it incredible appalling that the Parliament was suspended without any piece of legislation being passed?

[Lueda Alia]

The fact that they are following our legal system does not make it any more democratic. The fact that they are willing to work together does not make it any more democratic either. You might like it more, but it is not more democratic. Democracy actually has a strict meaning; you can't simply apply it to things you like.

Well, if that's not Democratic, then suspending the Parliament isn't, either.

Why should I protest the system instead of this particular coalition government? If an election were coming up, and I was suggesting reasons why one should not support the liberal party, I wouldn't be protesting against the election, only the liberal party. Likewise, I am suggesting reasons why one should not support the coalition. It's pretty straightforward from there.
Because the system gives these parties the right to form a coalition and take the power away from the current administration. And you clearly have a problem with that notion. So instead of fighting against these parties that are simply following our legal system, you should fight against the legal system itself. After all, if the legal system was different, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.

[oddwithoutend]

Well, if that's not Democratic, then suspending the Parliament isn't, either.


Because the system gives these parties the right to form a coalition and take the power away from the current administration. And you clearly have a problem with that notion. So instead of fighting against these parties that are simply following our legal system, you should fight against the legal system itself. After all, if the legal system was different, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.

He does happen to be the Prime Minister the people of Canada voted into power. He also happens to be preventing a movement that most people in Canada are opposed to. And, he is stopping an anti-democratic movement. Look at it this way: he had no way of opting for an election, and the Liberals, NDP, and BQ did. The Liberal/NDP/BQ leaders had an option to proceed democratically, and opted to dictate the decision instead. Harper had no such opportunity.

Edit: And the fact that it is not democratic is only one of several reasons I am against the coalition. It was done in secret, with the inner workings of the deal not being released. Also, the reasoning that was being used is that Harper is not going to save the economy, when they could have easily waited to see the budget before making such claims. Also, it was partly due to the fiscal update which would eliminate government funding for political parties, an update which I am completely for. Parties should do their own fundraising instead of keeping themselves alive through taxes. You know, like find people that actually support your party.

[jagermeister]

I don't necessarily want Dion in power, but even if I did, he wouldn't be anyway. He would leave in May when another leader is picked. But over 60% of Canadians did not want the Conservatives in power. So Harper needs to keep that in mind when making decisions and telling the other parties to, well.... go to hell.


You have got to be kidding me. He's just testing waters? Wow. Ok, let's play with our country's economy! That definitely sounds like a good idea at a time like this.

The coalition was formed because the Conservatives are acting as though they have a majority. Which they do not. So if anything, they are the ones acting that way out of spite for the Liberals.



All that says to me is that these parties are willing to work together for the betterment of our country. Clearly I'm the only one on this forum that places any importance on that whatsoever.


As opposed to what? The Conservatives' plan? Oh wait, they don't even really have one. At least not one that would help the country.


Next time a team member doesn't take your opinion in a group project and acts like a bully, come tell me how inexcusable it would be if you were to walk out on him.


You clearly don't understand how our system works, so I'm not surprised that you couldn't come up with any better replies than this. Why is Harper's government called a minority?

Having the majority of elected MPs - who are actually willing to work together! - rule over the minority is pretty Democratic if you ask me. If you have a problem with them, I suggest you go protest against our system, instead of a coalition that is simply following our legal system.


I'm not sure how anyone can say that after what the Conservatives have done since they were elected.


I personally don't understand how anyone, especially a left-winger, can possibly believe that Harper is the right person to lead our country. It boggles my mind. If you dislike Bush, then I don't really quite understand how you can possibly like his Canadian clone. It's pretty scary.

For all Harper's high-minded talk of democracy, I fail to see how suspending the House and stopping a confidence vote like this is so much more democratic then allowing the vote to occur and the government to fall. And for the next month, we'll have to endure a desperate, scorched-earth PR campaign from the Conservatives to spread fear and hatred amongst various groups in the country (French/English, East/West, etc.), like they already have started to. In the meantime the various crises facing the country - economic, environmental, etc.. will go unaddressed. I hope all of you still have a job in the next 6 months!

I would maybe feel slightly different on this whole situation if Harper would step down and let someone else take over his party.

Please don't think I support Harper because I'd love to see that man in a morgue somewhere. I am just against the coalition because I find it to be undemocratic and an unfair way for the NDP to get cabinet seats, and I am even more against proroguing parliament, too because again, its undemocratic. We have some very, very terrible leaders in this country right now.

I want to resurrect Trudeau.

[1Roth4]

I'm not quite sure how that makes it just speculation. Their conversation was recorded, and that's a fact. I guess you believe that everyone that's guilty does eventually get charged/convicted? Because that would be pretty naive.

Again, it amazes me how some people complain so much about Bush's tactics, and yet, they're willing to support a man who is trying to follow those very same footsteps. Oh and that is clearly not directed at you, since you have no problem with Bush and the Republicans in the US.

Are you really comparing Bush to Harper? You need to start seriously considering thinking before you speak.

I mame, believe in something called due process. I agree that sometimes the guilty go free, but I also believe in "innocent until proven guilty", because the innocent also get proven guilty. And you mame, would be pretty naive if you didn't think that.

I will try and respond to your other comments later.

And you quoted me on something I didn't say. It started with "edit".

[1Roth4]

I don't necessarily want Dion in power, but even if I did, he wouldn't be anyway. He would leave in May when another leader is picked. But over 60% of Canadians did not want the Conservatives in power. So Harper needs to keep that in mind when making decisions and telling the other parties to, well.... go to hell.

82% didn't want Layton in office. 74% didn't want Dion in office. So you're telling me it is democratic to have a PM that 74% of the country did not want, and then in May elect one which 0% of the country wanted? To me that makes no sense. It is in their constitutional right to form a coalition government, and I realize this has been done in other countries, but you will not convince me that it was a policy initiative that set off the formation of this coalition, because that is not true. This was in the works prior to the results of the election. Which begs the question, who is being un-cooperative?


You have got to be kidding me. He's just testing waters? Wow. Ok, let's play with our country's economy! That definitely sounds like a good idea at a time like this.
The coalition was formed because the Conservatives are acting as though they have a majority. Which they do not. So if anything, they are the ones acting that way out of spite for the Liberals.

And by testing the waters, I mean testing as to what policies he can pass. That is why they dedicate over a week in the House of Commons to reviewing the speech from the throne. He's not "playing with the economy". He is consulting with people within his administration, as well as those in the opposition to form a stimulus package. This isn't coming from my mouth, this is coming from an MP who converses with Mr. Harper daily. But when he tries to consult with opposition leaders, only ONE shows up. The leader of the Bloc. Now who is being un-cooperative?




All that says to me is that these parties are willing to work together for the betterment of our country. Clearly I'm the only one on this forum that places any importance on that whatsoever.

These are the same parties that campaigned against each other. Mr. Layton who said he would never form a coalition with the Bloc. Mr. Dion who said that the NDP's economic policies would throw the economy into an even worse recession. So this begs the question, are they liars? You're not the only one who thinks that these parties need to work together. I am not naive to the fact that Mr. Harper has a minority government. And with that, you are not going to pass everything that you want to promote. You do need some sort of consensus across party lines in order to get anything done.


As opposed to what? The Conservatives' plan? Oh wait, they don't even really have one. At least not one that would help the country.

And you know this because you have read their budget? They were asked to come up with an economic update. This wasn't a detailed budget like what would have been introduced at the beginning of the new session. This government had promised to provide a budget quicker than any other government in the history of Canada. They were prepared to do this, except a coalition formed that was determined to kick them out of office before they could propose this. If they had have come up with a budget in the average amount of time, it would have been delivered in April. But they moved that up to January. The opposition is demanding action on the economy, and the Conservatives have shown a commitment to this by dealing with their administration as well with others to cut taxes on business, in order to create jobs and allow businesses breathing room to remain in Canada. They have had several strategies to help the economic system in Canada, and none of which were listened to, or commented on by the opposition.

They are not however willing to throw money at a problem, they are strategically looking at ways to inject liquidity into the markets, and waiting for the United States to come to terms with a bailout plan for the Big 3 Auto-Makers.

Mr. Harper is not just presenting nothing.


Next time a team member doesn't take your opinion in a group project and acts like a bully, come tell me how inexcusable it would be if you were to walk out on him.

I've gone over this. Nobody in the opposition commented on how the economy should be handled. Nobody proposed how the update on the economy should be handled. This is not just one team member, and no opinions were given. This is not indisputable, this is a fact. Nobody of the 2 National Opposition Party were there for the discussion.


You clearly don't understand how our system works, so I'm not surprised that you couldn't come up with any better replies than this. Why is Harper's government called a minority?

Having the majority of elected MPs - who are actually willing to work together! - rule over the minority is pretty Democratic if you ask me. If you have a problem with them, I suggest you go protest against our system, instead of a coalition that is simply following our legal system.

Your condescending comments don't accomplish anything.

I realize it is within their right to form a coalition government. What is not right is how a leader who steps down from their party, and 74% of the country did not want, is the leader of our country. We did not vote for this coalition, it is simply appointed. And if it were a viable alternative, the Governor General would have not granted the prorogation.

You're right though, the coalition is not "illegal" and i've never claimed it was.


I'm not sure how anyone can say that after what the Conservatives have done since they were elected.



I didn't say this, so I'm not sure how I got quoted as saying it, but I feel compelled to comment.
They haven't been given the opportunity to do anything since they were elected. And you can thank the opposition for wasting our time.


I personally don't understand how anyone, especially a left-winger, can possibly believe that Harper is the right person to lead our country. It boggles my mind. If you dislike Bush, then I don't really quite understand how you can possibly like his Canadian clone. It's pretty scary.

For all Harper's high-minded talk of democracy, I fail to see how suspending the House and stopping a confidence vote like this is so much more democratic then allowing the vote to occur and the government to fall. And for the next month, we'll have to endure a desperate, scorched-earth PR campaign from the Conservatives to spread fear and hatred amongst various groups in the country (French/English, East/West, etc.), like they already have started to. In the meantime the various crises facing the country - economic, environmental, etc.. will go unaddressed. I hope all of you still have a job in the next 6 months!

I would maybe feel slightly different on this whole situation if Harper would step down and let someone else take over his party.

The fact that you think the Canadian Conservatives resemble the Republican Party in the United States is beyond me. If you talk to any professor of political science, they will say this comment is crazy. Our Conservatives resemble the Democrats in the U.S. Our Liberals are not that different than the Conservatives. And the NDP is farther left than the Liberals. I've never understood the Bush-Harper comparison.

Obviously the Governor General thought a coalition government was not a viable option. Obviously she thought that Canadians were not ready for another election. The only other choice she had was to prorogue Parliament. This isn't outlandish.

The Conservatives will come with a new Speech from the Throne, and a new budget the day after, and hopefully we have a little more co-operation this time around. If not, lets go to the polls.

I'm not sure why people are so upset with the prorogation of Parliament. Parliament was only in session next week and then they were done until the 26th of January anyways. So its only a week lost. And I would gladly give them a week off so I didn't have to hear another question period like what we've seen in the last week.

But Lueda, I do want to say I admire your tenacity on the issue, and your commitment to a side. I respect your opinion, and obviously I do not see government through the same light as you. But I do believe good things will come in the near future, and I do hope their is more co-operation in the House, and I know the constituents for my area want the same thing.

[SameSecret001]

Don't know if anyone here is from Toronto, but this weeks issue of NOW Magazine (both free and online) ran a series of adds condemning Harper and giving reasons to support the coalition. Rather than retype the whole thing, I'll just put down a few interesting points. The first one comes from a section called "5 Reasons Harper Must Go."

5. The Tories are not a truly national party
Yes, the Conservatives won 144 seats in the lsat election, but the vast majority of their support, almost half their seats, are west of the Saskatchewan border and in mostly rural chunks of Ontario.
In the prairie provinces, Conservatives received roughly twice the votes of the Liberals and NDP but took seven times as many seats, thanks to the vagaries of our first-pas-the post electoral system.
In the countires biggest centers, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, where a quarter of the population resides, the Tories have, with a handful of exceptions, virtually no presence. Voters didn't get the Parliament they wanted.
Ironically, the government's own Throne Speech last week proclaimed that "Parliament should be an expression of our highest ideals and deepest values," and that "these ideals can only be achieved in Parliament truly reflects the character and aspirations of the Canadian people."

...oops. Among the other 4 reasons for why Harper must go include the idea that the PM has lost the moral authority to lead, noting that some Conservative MP's refuse to stand for the "customary leaders ovation." They also note that he's lost touch with mainstream Canada, with riding around in his limousine like a little bitch and hiding from the Canadian people. He also spent an unprecedented amount on his security detail last year, something like $9 million, or, 1/3 of the amount Harper planned to pull from political parties.

At this point, I am vehemently against Stephen Harper and believe him to be both a liar and a detriment to Canada's progressive ideals that I've come to believe in.

For more from NOW check out: http://www.nowtoronto.com/coalition/

One last personal note: Fuck you, Stephen Harper.

[Machu505]

Haha, sounds like Harper is Canada's Bush.

[oddwithoutend]

The Tories are not a truly national party
Yes, the Conservatives won 144 seats in the lsat election, but the vast majority of their support, almost half their seats, are west of the Saskatchewan border and in mostly rural chunks of Ontario.
In the prairie provinces, Conservatives received roughly twice the votes of the Liberals and NDP but took seven times as many seats, thanks to the vagaries of our first-pas-the post electoral system.
In the countires biggest centers, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, where a quarter of the population resides, the Tories have, with a handful of exceptions, virtually no presence. Voters didn't get the Parliament they wanted.

You know you're running out of actual reasons to be against Harper when you're forced to complain about where his votes come from. The West is just as Canadian as the East, and the rural areas are just as Canadian as the urban areas. This argument is ridiculous because no matter how you spin it, the conservatives collected more votes than any other party. So, you are using the fact that Harper got the most votes to reason that he should not be our prime minister. Maybe I should make a list of reasons why Harper should STAY. My first point would definitely be: 1. He got the most votes in the past election.

I dont agree entirely with our system of democracy either, but you can not say that the vote breakdown is a reason why Harper should leave, when his party is the one with most votes.

If the Tories are not truly a national party, then every other party is even less of a national party.

[1Roth4]

I won't post a long message because I am on my cell phone, but when we are talking about national parties, we talk about parties that run candidates in more than one province. And how it is wrong that the party that will hold the balance of power in the coalitio would be the Bloc. The Bloc only runs candidates in Quebec, and only cares about the well-being of Quebec and it's voters. Rightfully so, and that's not a bad thing. But you can't think highly of a coalition government where the balance of power lies with a party that is not concerned with the problems of Canadians, only Quebeckers. And that's not what anyone wants. (Well maybe Quebeckers)

Post a better point than that, that holds no water with Canadians.

[1Roth4]

I apologize for my typos. Haven't gotten the hang of this bb.

Hope to see people out at Queens Park tomorrow. I'll be there with my Member of Parliament. Not very often you see Conservatives at a ralley, should be fun.

[SameSecret001]

Booo Queen's Park. I would be a Nathan Phillips Square if I didn't have an exam.

[Lueda Alia]

Are you really comparing Bush to Harper? You need to start seriously considering thinking before you speak.

I mame, believe in something called due process. I agree that sometimes the guilty go free, but I also believe in "innocent until proven guilty", because the innocent also get proven guilty. And you mame, would be pretty naive if you didn't think that.

I will try and respond to your other comments later.

And you quoted me on something I didn't say. It started with "edit".
The steps that Harper has taken are very similar to Bush's. I'm not comparing our Conservatives to the Republicans, so I'm not sure where you got that from. I'm only comparing the two "leaders." Both seem to have the "my way or the highway" attitude, and both have tried to pass legislation that doesn't really seem very ethical to me.

[Lueda Alia]

Haha, sounds like Harper is Canada's Bush.
Here (http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2008/12/03/what_is_happening_in_canada.html)'s a blog that explains the whole situation really well. Everything will make more sense to you Yankees if you read it!

[1Roth4]

The steps that Harper has taken are very similar to Bush's. I'm not comparing our Conservatives to the Republicans, so I'm not sure where you got that from. I'm only comparing the two "leaders." Both seem to have the "my way or the highway" attitude, and both have tried to pass legislation that doesn't really seem very ethical to me.

When you compare the two, you can understand where I thought you were comparing party policies, which are nothing alike. Mantality wise as a leader, yes they have similar modo's. With a strengthened mandate yoy can understand why Mr. Harper was ambitious with his policies. Still, comparing Bush to Harper is impossible. Bush has a veto power, where Harper does not. Therefore Harper has to somewhat look at how he can get consensus with policies where Bush does not. And you will then say "he hasn't looked for consensus" and I reply; "he has" as I stated earlier.

Different systems, different roles, different ideologies. The comparisons hold no water.

[Lueda Alia]

When you compare the two, you can understand where I thought you were comparing party policies, which are nothing alike. Mantality wise as a leader, yes they have similar modo's. With a strengthened mandate yoy can understand why Mr. Harper was ambitious with his policies. Still, comparing Bush to Harper is impossible. Bush has a veto power, where Harper does not. Therefore Harper has to somewhat look at how he can get consensus with policies where Bush does not. And you will then say "he hasn't looked for consensus" and I reply; "he has" as I stated earlier.

Different systems, different roles, different ideologies. The comparisons hold no water.
How does the comparison not hold any water when you just admitted that they have the same attitudes?

Oh and having the same power as Bush is Harper's biggest dream. Clearly.

Anyway, we'll never reach an agreement on anything regarding politics. I'm a "bleeding-heart" Liberal (perhaps even a Socialist), and you're a staunch Conservative (perhaps more Conservative than the average Canadian Conservative? It seems that way from what I've read in the last few years, since you tend to support the Bush administration). So yeah.

[oddwithoutend]

How does the comparison not hold any water when you just admitted that they have the same attitudes?

He probably said the comparison holds no water because usually when comparing politician/leaders it is the policies that are important, and not the attitude or personality.

[SameSecret001]

Rick Mercer has a great piece on the Globe and Mail website today. He points out a lot of things that no one else is reporting. Example:

During the past week, while the nation wondered if the government would fall, junior Conservative staffers were ordered to be outside 24 Sussex Dr. by 6:15 in the morning. Their job was to stand there in the dark with the temperature well below zero and wait for the PM to appear. Their instructions were to applaud, wave and sing O Canada loudly as the motorcade pulled out of the gates and drove Stephen Harper to work.
Mr. Harper, by all accounts, actually believed that the young people were there of their own accord and represented a groundswell of love and support for his actions. Staffers in the Prime Minister's Office know that he is easier to handle when being applauded and not questioned.

What an idiot. That being said, although I do not support Mr. Harper, I think that the main issue here should NOT be partisan politics, but rather working on some sort of economic bailout. Coming from Southern Ontario (Leamington/Windsor) I know how many jobs have been lost in the auto sector. My Father works in it, my mom used to work in it, my grandparents and uncles and aunts worked in it. I've had friends move away because their parents lost their jobs and had to move elsewhere to find work. Something needs to be done to create good paying jobs in Canada. However, rather than a bullshit economic plan put forth by the U.S., which, up unto this point, seems to have both driven the economy further into the group and also wasted enormous amounts of money, has done nothing. I think Stephen Harper and the Conservatives should attempt to work with the Coalition (yikes) to create some sort of plan that will work and make people who accept the money accountable. If the budget fails to pass at the end of January, then Canada would go to another election and we would see what happens from there (Conservative majority.)

Also G&M link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wPOLmercer1205/BNStory/politics/home
It's a good read.

[Machu505]

Here (http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/archives/2008/12/03/what_is_happening_in_canada.html)'s a blog that explains the whole situation really well. Everything will make more sense to you Yankees if you read it!

Thank you, that was quite informative. But I do have one question: If Harper's government was the minority in 2006, why did he become the prime minister? Wouldn't that title belong to the leader of the majority party.

[Just Matt]

Thank you, that was quite informative. But I do have one question: If Harper's government was the minority in 2006, why did he become the prime minister? Wouldn't that title belong to the leader of the majority party.

We don't have a majority party in Canada right now. Harper is the leader of the party with the largest amount of seats.

the Conservatives have 143 seats,
the Liberals have 77,
the BQ (Bloc Quebecois) have 49
the NDP (New Democratic Party) have 37,
and there are 2 independent candidates

[Machu505]

We don't have a majority party in Canada right now. Harper is the leader of the party with the largest amount of seats.

the Conservatives have 143 seats,
the Liberals have 77,
the BQ (Bloc Quebecois) have 49
the NDP (New Democratic Party) have 37,
and there are 2 independent candidates

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh I see now. I read that and I was like "what?". Thank you.

[Machu505]

I must say though, Harper apparently has a large vinyl collection and is a fan of The Beatles, so he knows what good music is.

[Lueda Alia]

He probably said the comparison holds no water because usually when comparing politician/leaders it is the policies that are important, and not the attitude or personality.
That doesn't make any sense. Harper's tactics are very similar to Bush's, so it's not just their attitudes that are the same.

[Lueda Alia]

I just want to know how everyone who opposed the coalition because it was "un-democratic" can be for the prorogue of the Parliament? If that's not un-Democratic, then I don't know what is. Harper stomped on the rights of the elected representatives just to hold on to power. It's pathetic.

[oddwithoutend]

I just want to know how everyone who opposed the coalition because it was "un-democratic" can be for the prorogue of the Parliament? If that's not un-Democratic, then I don't know what is. Harper stomped on the rights of the elected representatives just to hold on to power. It's pathetic.

It's simple. The prorogue is an effort to stop an anti-democratic movement. Harper had the choice to allow an anti-democractic movement, or to stop it with an anti-democratic movement. The coalition had a democratic choice and failed to use it; Harper had no such choice. I am against the coalition because it is an antidemocratic movement when there is a clear democratic alternative to it.

Also, as I've listed previously, the fact that it is not democratic is one of several reasons I am against it.

[oddwithoutend]

It's similar to being against violence but for self-defense.

[Lueda Alia]

It's simple. The prorogue is an effort to stop an anti-democratic movement. Harper had the choice to allow an anti-democractic movement, or to stop it with an anti-democratic movement. The coalition had a democratic choice and failed to use it; Harper had no such choice. I am against the coalition because it is an antidemocratic movement when there is a clear democratic alternative to it.

Also, as I've listed previously, the fact that it is not democratic is one of several reasons I am against it.
That makes you a hypocrite, then. To be against one action because it's not Democratic, and then to turn around and say that you support another un-Democratic movement.

Anyway, the coalition is not un-Democratic by any means. Our Parliamentary system allows for majority, minority and coalition governments. So the coalition as just about as un-Democratic as Stephen Harper's minority government is. Harper himself agreed with this back in '04, but I guess many of you have already forgotten all about it.

[oddwithoutend]

That makes you a hypocrite, then. To be against one action because it's not Democratic, and then to turn around and say that you support another un-Democratic movement.

Anyway, the coalition is not un-Democratic by any means. Our Parliamentary system allows for majority, minority and coalition governments. So the coalition as just about as un-Democratic as Stephen Harper's minority government is. Harper himself agreed with this back in '04, but I guess many of you have already forgotten all about it.

I am not a hypocrite; I explained myself quite clearly. And to the bolded: how is that logical at all? Just because two things are equally "allowed" doesn't make them equally democratic.

And I am not defending Harper's views; I am defending my own.

[mattybobviously]

Cannot believe this is being slimed as an un-democratic movement. If you want to use that as an excuse, you should've changed the rules of your government first.

[Lueda Alia]

[/left]

I am not a hypocrite; I explained myself quite clearly. And to the bolded: how is that logical at all? Just because two things are equally "allowed" doesn't make them equally democratic.

And I am not defending Harper's views; I am defending my own.
Actually, our system does make them equally Democratic. That's how it is logical.

[Lueda Alia]

Cannot believe this is being slimed as an un-democratic movement. If you want to use that as an excuse, you should've changed the rules of your government first.
That's exactly my point. Anyone who seriously believes that it's un-Democratic to form a coalition does not know how our system actually works.

[Tristan Needler]

The coalition is not undemocratic, regardless with which political party you align.

[Machu505]

You crazy Canadians and your parliamentary democracy.

[Lueda Alia]

From here (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081208.wquebecelection1208_ 1/BNStory/politics/home).

"In this period of economic uncertainty, Quebeckers understood the need for political stability and chose to elect a majority Liberal government," Mr. Charest said. "I will be the Premier of all Quebeckers."

I freaking love you, Quebec.

[PadraicPrincess]

I feel so uneducated about the country I live in. I honestly don't even really know what is going on. Can someone please explain why a coalition was only made once before? Is it because there was more of a majority towards one side?

[oddwithoutend]

I feel so uneducated about the country I live in. I honestly don't even really know what is going on. Can someone please explain why a coalition was only made once before? Is it because there was more of a majority towards one side?

The simple answer is that a vote of non-confidence usually results in an election,and not a coalition government. There are many reasons why coalition governments are not very popular...

1. It would almost always result in a loss of backing due to the fact that they are choosing to form a new government themselves instead of allowing people to vote ( Polls were done this time - the majority of people in every single province would have rather had an election than a coalition government).

2. It would almost always result in a loss of backing because it forces you to join with other parties that you are against ( Before the last election the Liberals promised not to join with the Bloc Quebecois).

3. Also, consider how difficult it is for three parties to negotiate this kind of deal.

4. Usually the official opposition will time a vote of non-confidence so it happens when they believe they can win an election because obviously, they would rather be able to appoint a cabinet by themselves and do whatever they want instead of having to let two other parties share power.

Hopefully that makes things a little bit clearer to you.

[PadraicPrincess]

The simple answer is that a vote of non-confidence usually results in an election,and not a coalition government. There are many reasons why coalition governments are not very popular...

1. It would almost always result in a loss of backing due to the fact that they are choosing to form a new government themselves instead of allowing people to vote ( Polls were done this time - the majority of people in every single province would have rather had an election than a coalition government).

2. It would almost always result in a loss of backing because it forces you to join with other parties that you are against ( Before the last election the Liberals promised not to join with the Bloc Quebecois).

3. Also, consider how difficult it is for three parties to negotiate this kind of deal.

4. Usually the official opposition will time a vote of non-confidence so it happens when they believe they can win an election because obviously, they would rather be able to appoint a cabinet by themselves and do whatever they want instead of having to let two other parties share power.

Hopefully that makes things a little bit clearer to you.

So why did harper temporarily shut down parliament?

[Machu505]

So why did harper temporarily shut down parliament?

I guessing because he wants to keep his job for a little while longer.

[Lueda Alia]

So why did harper temporarily shut down parliament?
Because he did not want the other Representatives (Liberal, NDP, Bloc - which make up the majority) to overthrow his government.

[jagermeister]

So why did harper temporarily shut down parliament?

Because he is a shitty Prime Minister.

[Machu505]

Because he is a shitty Prime Minister.

Probably that too.

[1Roth4]

So why did harper temporarily shut down parliament?

It was either that, or let a coalition take power in the house.

Obviously the Governor General didn't see the coalition as a viable alternative.

A coalition with no budget, no platform, just a desire to be relevant.

[Lueda Alia]

It was either that, or let a coalition take power in the house.

Obviously the Governor General didn't see the coalition as a viable alternative.

A coalition with no budget, no platform, just a desire to be relevant.
... as opposed to a minority government that thinks it's actually a majority and tries to rule that way.

[1Roth4]

... as opposed to a minority government that thinks it's actually a majority and tries to rule that way.

Are you referring to the 1.95$ per vote?

[Lueda Alia]

Are you referring to the 1.95$ per vote?
I'm referring to everything that Stephen Harper has tried to do.

[1Roth4]

I'm referring to everything that Stephen Harper has tried to do.

So you haven't agreed with one piece of legislation that Mr. Harper has passed? I find that hard to believe.

The speech from the throne was only given a month ago, and the conservatives weren't even given the opportunity to present a budget. The fascination the Liberals and NDP have with the word "stimulus package" is something I will never understand. I guess it is in true Liberal fashion that you need to throw gross sums of money at a problem in order to make it go away.

It really seems like no Member of the Opposition even read the Economic Update, because this "stimulus" they speak of is outlined quite clearly. This "stimulus" has been in place over the last 2 years, and I'm not to sure why nobody knows this.

But this makes sense, because this coalition was in place prior to the economic update, and maybe even before the election results were verified. So the ignorance is understandable.

[1Roth4]

You're a very smart girl, you've shown that. You have to be realistic when you talk about the main purpose behind the coalition. It was an exchange in a difference of opinion, and although Mr. Harper was accomidating before Parliament resumed regarding the Economic Update, it was not recipricated. That is fact.

Mr. Haper pushed buttons in the Speech from the Throne that the opposition didn't take to kindly too. But that point is moot, because this coalition was formed prior to; the economic update, the speech from the throne, and even the conclusion of the election. That is fact.

So by saying that this coalition is a viable alternative is ridiculous. They have never once presented a propsal on the economy, a platform position, or even the terms of their coalition. That is fact.

It doesn't matter if you agree with The Conservatives or not.
It's irrelevent. The coalition would have done nothing good for Canadians. That is also, fact.

[mattybobviously]

It doesn't matter if you agree with The Conservatives or not.
It's irrelevent. The coalition would have done nothing good for Canadians. That is also, fact.
This is the most ridiculous thing you've said in this thread.

[1Roth4]

This is the most ridiculous thing you've said in this thread.

what? that the coalition wouldn't have worked? because they didn't have a platform, economic statement, or details of their deal?

so me saying that is ridiculous?

[mattybobviously]

what? that the coalition wouldn't have worked? because they didn't have a platform, economic statement, or details of their deal?

so me saying that is ridiculous?
Calling it a fact that the coalition could've accomplished nothing good for Canadians is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[1Roth4]

Calling it a fact that the coalition could've accomplished nothing good for Canadians is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

How long do you think it takes to prepare a budget?

What about brokering a deal between three political parties that range from center to far left on the political spectrum?
So how would these three parties agree on a simple policies?

Especially when two of the parties claimed throughout the entire election that their economic policies would throw Canada into a deeper recession.

[Lueda Alia]

You're a very smart girl, you've shown that. You have to be realistic when you talk about the main purpose behind the coalition. It was an exchange in a difference of opinion, and although Mr. Harper was accomidating before Parliament resumed regarding the Economic Update, it was not recipricated. That is fact.

Mr. Haper pushed buttons in the Speech from the Throne that the opposition didn't take to kindly too. But that point is moot, because this coalition was formed prior to; the economic update, the speech from the throne, and even the conclusion of the election. That is fact.

So by saying that this coalition is a viable alternative is ridiculous. They have never once presented a propsal on the economy, a platform position, or even the terms of their coalition. That is fact.

It doesn't matter if you agree with The Conservatives or not.
It's irrelevent. The coalition would have done nothing good for Canadians. That is also, fact.
It's hard to argue with someone who thinks that everything that they believe is a fact. There isn't even a point in doing so. This happened in the Iraqi thread. You make a lot of statements and claim that they are facts without any proof or back up (or you show irrelevant proof?). So, just because you believe all these things, it doesn't mean that any of them are true, or "facts." You simply believe them to be so because of the political party that you support.

I also find it interesting how you never bring up the fact that Harper (Mr.-I wish-I was-a-dictator) tried to cut/limit funding for the other parties until 2011. I really don't know why you, or anyone, would honestly expect the other parties to be fine with that. That is simply ridiculous. What happened with our government is really simple: the Harper minority kept threatening the Liberals with the election if they would not play along. The Liberals couldn't rebel because they knew they could not win in a general election. So, eventually, Harper decides to call an election because he thinks he'll win a majority.... and he doesn't. Sadly, that doesn't change his ways, and he goes back to threatening the Liberals and the other opposition parties until they get fed up and do something about the crappy minority government that the Canadians have been stuck with. That's it.

So if you expect me to be realistic - though I like to think I am - maybe you should take your own advice. You're too blinded by the Conservative propaganda to actually look at all the BS that the Conservatives have put the other parties through in the last few years. I personally find it amazing, and hilarious, that the other parties finally decided to step up and play the same game as the Conservatives. It was about time.

[1Roth4]

It's hard to argue with someone who thinks that everything that they believe is a fact. There isn't even a point in doing so. This happened in the Iraqi thread. You make a lot of statements and claim that they are facts without any proof or back up (or you show irrelevant proof?). So, just because you believe all these things, it doesn't mean that any of them are true, or "facts." You simply believe them to be so because of the political party that you support.

Saying that we know 100% factual evidence about Iraq is ludicrous. I would never say that I know something as fact about Iraq. This is much different.

I am stating three facts;
1. Harper was accomodating to the oppositions thoughts about the budget, but only the leader of the Bloc showed up. The media doesn't cover this. But i know an MP who sat in on the meeting, and they did not show up.
2. The coalition was formed prior to the speech from the throne. You can't argue that. Audio tapes were released discussing this, and I believe it was even before the end of the election.
3. The coalition reported no details about the deal they made with the NDP and the Bloc. They didn't release specifics on their budget. ( which no one knows if it was completed, all you knew is it was going to have the word "stimulus" in it), or even their platform, and how the three parties were going to deal with one another.

These points aren't disputable. They happened. I am careful on what I state as fact, because you guys are SHARP. I posted some points in the Iraqi thread about improvements, and then I started looking at some of their sources, and they were bogus, so I tore it down.

This has nothing to do with the party I support. I hear from card-carrying NDP'ers, and they are pissed off because Laytons promise to organized labour, and the economy has basically been thrown out by joining the Liberals. I've talked to card carrying Liberals, angry about this "back-room deal" at a time where we don't need it. The three points I stated as fact are all points that they have mentioned. My political affiliation has nothing to do with it.


I also find it interesting how you never bring up the fact that Harper (Mr.-I wish-I was-a-dictator) tried to cut/limit funding for the other parties until 2011. I really don't know why you, or anyone, would honestly expect the other parties to be fine with that. That is simply ridiculous. What happened with our government is really simple: the Harper minority kept threatening the Liberals with the election if they would not play along. The Liberals couldn't rebel because they knew they could not win in a general election. So, eventually, Harper decides to call an election because he thinks he'll win a majority.... and he doesn't. Sadly, that doesn't change his ways, and he goes back to threatening the Liberals and the other opposition parties until they get fed up and do something about the crappy minority government that the Canadians have been stuck with. That's it.

You know what I agree with you, about 95% on this one. In theory, it was a good idea. Cutting taxpayer money going to political parties. It was something Obama wouldn't accept, then Canadians should too, right? No way. Well actually, last time I looked at the polls it said somewhere around 60% of Canadians agreed with the policy. But, when the Bloc depends on 85% of their income from the federal government, it is kind of important for their existence. But realistically, if you are a national party, you need to learn how to fundraise. Unfortunately, money wins elections, and if your platform is going to get you donations, and win you votes, then it must represent a large number of Canadians, or you won't survive.

Harper was a little out of his mind to push this with a minority government. I've heard Conservative MP's say this. But that is politics, Liberals have done it when they were popular in the polls. I respect your opinion about why they threatened to do this though, very valid.


So if you expect me to be realistic - though I like to think I am - maybe you should take your own advice. You're too blinded by the Conservative propaganda to actually look at all the BS that the Conservatives have put the other parties through in the last few years. I personally find it amazing, and hilarious, that the other parties finally decided to step up and play the same game as the Conservatives. It was about time.

We have both admitted as to where we sit on the political spectrum, and it is nowhere near one another. So we're going to have disagreements about events like this. Thats fine. All I asked is that you see the other side of things. You don't have to agree with it, but you see it, and you understand it. But you have done nothing but claim I am "wrong".

You talk about Conservative propaganda....in Canada..... come on. So by you claiming I have been so influenced by this "propaganda" I have lost the ability to "think for myself?" Give me a break.

We're not discussing if the coalition is "funny" or not. I think it is. I think its great Harper got burned, and now he has to play nice, or this will be hanging over his head. We are however discussing whether or not they are viable alternative. Which I am claiming they are not.

We could go back and forth all day, and I hope we do, because I can't get out of my house. I'm snowed in. And I'm guessing if you're still in London, you are too.