Coalition Deal To Topple Minority Tory Govt- [Update Parliament Prorogued until Jan]

[Ford Prefect]

I wonder if Stephane will find a way to make his sweetheart Elizabeth May the environment minister?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Unbelievable.

I am truly re-thinking my move back now.

A leader of the Libs who garnered the lowest suppoprt in Canadian Liberal history at the federal level has pretty much just succeeded in taking away a mandate given to someone else by the Canadian electorate.

Awesome.

I see your point here, but the mandate isn't even a majority mandate. If it were there is no issue here.

Originally Posted by C_Rush

Question:

Dion becomes PM until May when the Liberals hold leadership convention and elect new leader (presumably Ignatieff). Now there's a new leader and PM of Canada (unelected by the general public) much like Martin taking over after Chretien retired. Does the new leader call a general election next fall to seek a mandate?

I don't see your point here. This is the way Canadian politics works. Klein did the same thing when he came to power, as did Stelmach. Campbell did the same thing and so would who ever replaces Harper (assuming he were to hold power long enough).

Dion is really no more "unelected" than Harper. Dion is subject to the same constraints of governing as Harper is really, only he has a smaller number of seats for his own party...otherwise he is relying on the coalition to keep him there, just as Harper was/is.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good question. I'd guess they could wait as long as the 30 months, but in the real world everything depends on the political environment. If it looks good for the Liberals we'd probably see an election sooner rather than later. If it looks bad for them, we would get to wait a little longer.

I'd just as soon not see an election for a while. It's time for these jokers to get to work. Harper had better be exploring his options. If he doesn't have a game-changing trick or two up his sleeve, his political career just might be coming to a very ignominious end. I can't see the CPC going into another election with a guy who a) couldn't win a majority against a fractured and terrible opposition and b) pissed away his mandate on an unnecessary confidence motion that he only tabled in order to play chicken with his political opponents.

Here's my crazy idea.

I think Harper has to resign right now. He cannot go any further.
Put the Deputy PM in charge and see where that goes. Then bash the 'coalition' into oblivion. It is something they would not be prepared for.

[C_Rush]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Most likely. Provided the coalition holds.

There's still long odds on this happening.

Harper will prorogue before he loses confidence.

So then the coalition is in effect supporting flushing $300 million+ down the drain for another election when a strong minority has already been given a mandate. How does that jibe with a coalition trying to paint itself as the economic saviour????

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

I see your point here, but the mandate isn't even a majority mandate. If it were there is no issue here.



I don't see your point here. This is the way Canadian politics works. Klein did the same thing when he came to power, as did Stelmach. Campbell did the same thing and so would who ever replaces Harper (assuming he were to hold power long enough).

Dion is really no more "unelected" than Harper. Dion is subject to the same constraints of governing as Harper is really, only he has a smaller number of seats for his own party...otherwise he is relying on the coalition to keep him there, just as Harper was/is.

That's true in a technical sense, but it's hard to deny that Dion is even weaker than Harper. The election showed two things:
1. Harper's support stayed about the same. He failed to gain any ground in the popular vote, though through vote splitting did gain a modest number of seats.
2. Stephane Dion was widely and roundly rejected by Canadians in nearly every region.

In that sense, I think Ignatieff would actually be a better choice--though it's hard to justify picking him over the other candidates. This is just terrible timing for the Liberals in a lot of ways.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's true in a technical sense, but it's hard to deny that Dion is even weaker than Harper. The election showed two things:
1. Harper's support stayed about the same. He failed to gain any ground in the popular vote, though through vote splitting did gain a modest number of seats.
2. Stephane Dion was widely and roundly rejected by Canadians in nearly every region.

In that sense, I think Ignatieff would actually be a better choice--though it's hard to justify picking him over the other candidates. This is just terrible timing for the Liberals in a lot of ways.

Which is why I don't understand why the Liberals have to take this gamble. They can wait a year and let the government do it's thing. Elect Ignatieff as party leader, defeat the government on a non-confidence vote and then kick Harper's behind in an election.

Catering to the NDP and Bloc makes me ill.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by moon

You can't simply transfer votes from the parties and assume that they equal support for the coalition. There are already posters in this thread that voted for one or the other and don't support the coalition.

And there are also people who didn't vote who perhaps would have voted for this coalition, so arguing about voter intent at this point is a moot question.

We had an election and this is how it fell out. Under the laws of this country, these three parties can form a government and legitimately claim a mandate from the electorate based on 1) their total seats and 2) their total votes.

I understand, and to a large extent agree, with everyone's counter argument. I also recognize that Albertans feel disenfranchised by this possibility after one of the greatest successes for this province at the federal electoral level.

However, those arguments can only be fully borne out by holding another election, something that I don't think anyone actually wants and could be a complete toss-up.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's true in a technical sense, but it's hard to deny that Dion is even weaker than Harper. The election showed two things:
1. Harper's support stayed about the same. He failed to gain any ground in the popular vote, though through vote splitting did gain a modest number of seats.
2. Stephane Dion was widely and roundly rejected by Canadians in nearly every region.

In that sense, I think Ignatieff would actually be a better choice--though it's hard to justify picking him over the other candidates. This is just terrible timing for the Liberals in a lot of ways.

I agree with this 100%. I don't really know that the coalition is something I support. That being said I think that a lot of people are missing the point that Harpers mandate is very limited; he didn't get the majority he needed to govern like this and he will either pay the price or be made to feel that he is. While Harper is stronger than Dion in terms of number of seats his power within parliament is actually about the same....that is my main point.

I think that Ignatieff is the better choice to lead a coalition, but I also think that he will not take this role without a leadership vote to put him there.

[transplant99]

The source said the deal also calls for the formation of an economic advisory panel of experts that would include Paul Martin, John Manley, Frank McKenna and Roy Romanow.

God help us all.

I see your point here, but the mandate isn't even a majority mandate. If it were there is no issue here.

Bigger mandate than ANYONE else in the country got...and it is being stolen away from him. A true and definitive coup d'etat (for ronny boy).


n., pl. coups d'état (kū') or coup d'états (dā-täz').

The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

You do know that his budget in January will have all the recommendations of the G20 meetings right? It will also have all of the recommendations of the Provinces too.

I realize that, which is why it's scary that Harper hasn't been able to give a straight answer on what the government plans to do. January is coming up quickly, and there is no reason to not say what his plans are.

It's pretty neat to have a Government that is aware of our place in the Global Economy, and uses the recommendations of the global community when coming up with a plan of action. It's also pretty awesome that our Government took the time to find out the concerns of all of the Provinces and Territories, making sure to include their input in this upcoming budget.

I just find it odd that the U.S., Britain and most Western European countries have already implemented some kind of plan, yet the Canadian government is keeping quiet. Are we really so arrogant to think that Harper knows more than all those other leaders?

Ohhhhh wait... no never mind. I forgot, it's much much better to just jump up and down, screaming really loudly about the planet going to hell and then throw 30 billion dollars at car manufacturers.

My bad.

Again, did I say we should throw any money at auto manufacturers? Why do I keep getting that pinned on me? I just want to know what the plan is... If the plan is to NOT bailout any industries, then for the love of God, just tell us. If the plan is to extend credit to business owners, then tell us...

[peter12]

Firewalls?

Stelmach discusses the possibility of a Western banking hub.

[Ronald Pagan]

What Harper Must Do:

What these people are telling me is that the only course that could avert this disaster for the Conservatives would be a show of humility and non-partisanship from the Prime Minister.
They are saying this would require the removal of Jim Flaherty as Finance Minister, significant changes in the PMO, and a heartfelt statement of apology from the Prime Minister.
It would also be critical for the Prime Minister to make a number of unifying gestures to reduce the toxic atmosphere in Parliament.
Options would include inviting a Liberal Senator or MP to join his Ministry, taking on a prominent moderate public intellectual as a senior advisor, consulting the opposition routinely for advice on the budget, shuffling his Cabinet to introduce more moderates to senior roles, and simply adopting a more collegial tone in the Commons.
But these sources agree that such a move from Stephen Harper would be so uncharacteristic as to be unimaginable.
It's as if the Harper government has found itself in quicksand, and rather than relax and slowly work their way out of the trap, they are struggling to their doom.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/WBSteele/

[transplant99]

he didn't get the majority he needed to govern like this

To govern like what?

He put forth issues that the opposition...well...opposed. He then backed off.

And i would say ANY PM has the right to wait until January to send out his budget, especially in these worst of finacial times and wanting to include all his recommendations from those who know best....whats the harm in that and why wouldnt he have the right to do so?

[transplant99]

I realize that, which is why it's scary that Harper hasn't been able to give a straight answer on what the government plans to do. January is coming up quickly, and there is no reason to not say what his plans are.

Name me a single solitary PM in Canadian histroy that announces exactly what his budget will contain 6 WEEKS before it is tabled.....jeez man, its how the system works.

[transplant99]

I just find it odd that the U.S., Britain and most Western European countries have already implemented some kind of plan,

They have?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Here's my crazy idea.

I think Harper has to resign right now. He cannot go any further.
Put the Deputy PM in charge and see where that goes. Then bash the 'coalition' into oblivion. It is something they would not be prepared for.

I wonder what would be the result if they put an "old school" Progressive Conservative person in as leader instead of a former Reform Party Member. Like Peter McKay- ok maybe not him specifically. Somebody like Mulroney who fits the following criteria:

- Is from Quebec
- Speaks French without an English accent
- Speaks English without a French accent.
- Was a member of the PC party prior to the merger.

That may be what is needed for the CPC to get a majority. I like Harper, and I like him as my PM. But this isn't about what Alberta wants- it has to be about the entire country.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Name me a single solitary PM in Canadian histroy that announces exactly what his budget will contain 6 WEEKS before it is tabled.....jeez man, its how the system works.

How many PMs resided over an economic crisis of this magnitude? Even if it is not the norm, it doesn't mean he can't do it. I don't think either of us can say that it has never happened in Canadian history.

I'm not saying that he should leak the whole budget, but telling Canadians at least in a general fashion how it will work in terms of the special precautions/actions that will be taken as they pertain to the recession would not be that radical of an idea. Like I said, a lot of countries have already done this and didn't have to wait for their next budgets.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by transplant99

They have?

Throwing money around and not understanding what you're doing is a plan. Not a good one, but a plan. Which I guess you could give the US credit for... sort of.

Also, the US for example is in much, much worse shape than we; we don't require urgent action and have time to think through and act properly which is what the prime minister is attempting to do.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

To govern like what?

He put forth issues that the opposition...well...opposed. He then backed off.

And i would say ANY PM has the right to wait until January to send out his budget, especially in these worst of finacial times and wanting to include all his recommendations from those who know best....whats the harm in that and why wouldnt he have the right to do so?

This is exactly where I have a departure from sympathy for Harper. He knew what he was doing in trying to cut the funding for his opponents. He knew full well that these subsidies were the lifeline of the other parties. I think that this was a calculated gamble on his part.

He has pushed for confidence votes time and time again through his past government and this was no different. He figured that because the Liberals are in the midst of a leadership campaign and the appetite for another election is not there, that he could be safe in trying to crush his opponents fiscally. They called his bluff...and he left himself exposed by not acting faster on a stimulus package.

As I stated before I don't know that the coalition is a good thing at all (and personally I have doubts as to whether it comes to fruition). But Harper knew what he was doing here. He was acting as though he had a majority and quite simply he does not.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I wonder what would be the result if they put an "old school" Progressive Conservative person in as leader instead of a former Reform Party Member. Like Peter McKay- ok maybe not him specifically. Somebody like Mulroney who fits the following criteria:

- Is from Quebec
- Speaks French without an English accent
- Speaks English without a French accent.
- Was a member of the PC party prior to the merger.

That may be what is needed for the CPC to get a majority. I like Harper, and I like him as my PM. But this isn't about what Alberta wants- it has to be about the entire country.

But when does the rest of the country care about what the West wants?