"Economic Update"

[Birdy]

You don't think the others are playing partisan politics? Really? This is the most outward display of partisan politics I've ever witnessed. Ever.

I agree that Harper totally fucked up, quite possibly ruined his political career, lost the confidence of the House, but for the Opposition to continue to insist that this isn't about them feeling threatened on the partisan level, but rather is about his economic policy... well, that hasn't changed since the campaign and the election, and they've yet to address that he got elected on these grounds. The foot they plunge forward on is a foot already voted on by Canadians and won by the CP.

So in that regard, i'm left to think this is nothing other than a power grab by all of the Opposition parties, the NDP for obvious reasons (Cabinet Ministers!), the Bloc for obvious reasons (Quebec first!) and the Liberals for ? (what else can we do to look credible!?).

Honestly if there was an election to come out of this, I would seriously consider not voting.

[Thorgnor]

Seems to me this is how they form governements in a lot of European countries. None of the people who sit in parliament lost the election, their parties may have fewer or more seats, but the loosers are guys like Jaffer. It seems petty and more than a little partisan to me too however I would venture to say that most of these coalitions looked that way at first, until they have a moment to function. They are by nature reaching out to one another, even if it is on the grounds of defeating a government they have no confidence in. I would actually have been more comfortable if some Conservatives would quickly cross to the other parties to alter the grand agenda of the coalition. I'm glad that May is supporting them, she'd make a great environment minister...

[mattm]

I think the cons should dump harper and select someone else that's willing to work with the other parties and lets just leave it at that.

This is all too much. We don't need these stupid political squabbles right now, we need leadership and we need someone to help us canadians out of whatever hardships are to come. Harper is out to get the other parties, the other parties are out to get harper, no one is out to help canada stay afloat. There might be good reason to oust harper based on the economy but that's not the real reason that the coalition is happening and we know it.

This whole thing feels like highschool to me. Petty fights and top priorities being getting the most popularity but lacking the responsibility that comes with age in that popularity isn't all there is and that there are many other things, many other issues that are vastly more important than who's the king of the class. One of the most important things I've learned in life is that it's not all about me and my ideas or views, that others have different views and that some of them, if I actually give some time to listen, are quite favorable to mine, etc, etc. Some views I might not like but if I really think about them, I know that they are the best thing and that sometimes you have to agree even if you don't want to.

So, having said that, I'll finish by saying that as much as I don't like a con government, I think the best option is as stated above, kick harper out, pick someone new and then GG tell the parties to get along.

[Birdy]

Opportunism.

What happens when the coalition is no more and we go back to the old days of voting for the NDP, the Liberals, the Greens, the Bloc, the Cons, etc.?

You hope some Cons quickly cross to other parties? For what? To argue policy with an NDP cabinet minister? To somehow completely forget that they are right-wing in ideology and vote in favour of left-wing policy, which ultimately will pass regardless of their vote, because the Bloc has promised to make it happen? To snuggle up to Dion in hopes of being given some glorious cabinet position, which they will never get? To sell-out their voters?

TB, what's your answer to Ollie's question?

Sorry for being snarky, but I feel Canadians in general have just been had, in a very big and bad way.

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

...he got elected on these grounds. The foot they plunge forward on is a foot already voted on by Canadians and won by the CP.

The CP won 37% of the vote. The majority of Canadians voted for somebody else. Something like 37,000 people in Calgary voted directly for Harper. Let's not forget that we have a parliamentary system. Stephen Harper has lost the confidence of ALL of parliament it seems, including the members of his own party. I somewhat agree with mattm. While Ireally don't like the PCs, it might be best if they choose a new leader and that perosn becomes PM. HOWEVER, is there a moderate available? Maybe McKay? On the other hand, the PC plan for the environment is extremely shortsighted, and thus I'm also of the mind that the coalition would be better as they might actaully get something done on that front. and without an environment there is no economy either in the long run.

[can-o-phish]

Opportunism.

What happens when the coalition is no more and we go back to the old days of voting for the NDP, the Liberals, the Greens, the Bloc, the Cons, etc.?

You hope some Cons quickly cross to other parties? For what? To argue policy with an NDP cabinet minister? To somehow completely forget that they are right-wing in ideology and vote in favour of left-wing policy, which ultimately will pass regardless of their vote, because the Bloc has promised to make it happen? To snuggle up to Dion in hopes of being given some glorious cabinet position, which they will never get? To sell-out their voters?

TB, what's your answer to Ollie's question?

Sorry for being snarky, but I feel Canadians in general have just been had, in a very big and bad way.

C'mon Birdy, I look forward to reading your posts but to say that "Canadians in general have just been had"???

Why do we have a minority government again? Simple. There isn't one party that the majority of Canadians feel can run our country and keep our best interests safe. If there was a party or a leader that had insight and inspired his party and the majority of people we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in now.

Harper really fugged up. Up until last week the Liberals did not really have a leader. Then Harper played the "chicken game", thinking that because he'd just won an election that he could hide his "political agenda, ie - cutting party funding" behind allocating funds to help the economy and get away with this after just having an election. There were most definitely advisors that warned Harper of the possible reaction. Giorno cannot take the blame for this. Harper is the leader of the Conservatives and the Prime Minister. He entered into a game of "Political Chicken" and it's backfired big time.

A smart leader would have put aside political agendas and tackled the most important issue, THE FRICKIN' ECONOMY. If he had chosen to work with the opposition to find the best approach to begin addressing the failing economy he would have come across as a true leader. But instead he chose the other road.

We have most certainly not been "had"...We haven't had one person or party to pick and win a majority of us over. Simple as that.

Layton is quite happy with a coalition as it will be the closest he will ever be to an actual Prime Minister. His party will have more "power" than they do at the moment.

Dion gets to be Prime Minister if only for a short time. And that's all thanks to Harper because up until a week ago Dion was off the radar and had faded into the sunset.

But all this will only happen based on the GG's decision.

[mattm]

The environment is the only real thing that makes me kinda like the coalition. We have this really stupid idea that it's too expensive to do anything to help the environment, that the economy will suffer but I look at my son and I think that I wouldn't mind some economic suffering right now if it means he can have the same enjoyable life as me, play outside and enjoy the earth instead of having to clean up for my stupid mistakes (and if there's no money to prevent right now then there sure as hell won't be any money to clean up AS WELL AS prevent in the future).

[SaggyBalls]

Canadians have been had by conservatism in general.

"Honestly if there was an election to come out of this, I would seriously consider not voting."

I thought you were smarter than that, Birdy. Maybe it's because your beloved Conservatives are really now the worst choice and you're pouting? I hope that's the case cause to not vote when it's probably the most crucial time to vote is pretty weak.

[can-o-phish]

And it should go without saying that all parties were looking for a reason to bring down the Conservatives if they won another minority. All Harper and his party had to do was sneeze in the wrong direction and there would have been a vote of non-confidence.

I was really hoping that in this time of economic struggle that a leader would emerge and rise above this childish bickering and put our country's best interests first.

Not one of our so called party "leaders" has done this. It's nothing but political agendas now.

What a frickin' circus we now get to watch!

[Kanada Kev]

http://defendourdemocracy.ca/

http://www.liberal.ca/story_15502_e.aspx

[can-o-phish]

http://defendourdemocracy.ca/

http://www.liberal.ca/story_15502_e.aspx

Okay, what a FUGGIN LIE!!!

"The Majority of Canadians" have NOT agreed. The parties have. This is just political propaganda and lies.

Again, now it's NOTHING but Political agendas.

And for the record I am a Liberal, but one that has lost faith in the party and politics in general. Shame on the so called "leaders" for turning our government into a pathetic three-ring circus.

[Birdy]

My position has nothing to do with 'my beloved Conservatives', who were never my beloved and frankly aren't even in my liking books right now.

I honestly get that Harper fucked up royally, and don't disagree with anything anyone has to say in this forum in that regard. I personally would demand his resignation over it. I've thought of Peter McKay as the moderate replacement.

What I don't like is the fact that it's become apparent that the Opposition doesn't want to work with the Government either. They accuse Harper of something, they themselves are guilty of. They say that their push for a coalition isn't partisan in nature, they say it's because of his economic policy. Well, his economic policy hasn't changed. They have taken our election and overturned it with their own partisan agendas. If you're going to debate this with me, acknowledge that the CP economic policy has not changed. This is completely partisan in nature and hence why i said we've been had.

[can-o-phish]

Personally I don't feel like I've been "had" but definitely "taken for a ride"

My invitation to "agree" upon a coalition government must've been lost in the mail!

Not that I'm against a coalition government or democracy but to use the economy as the basis of this coalition is treating Canadians like idiots...a thin veil at best.

[mattm]

quite thin. If it was ice on a lake, we wouldn't be allowed on it...

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

Personally I don't feel like I've been "had" but definitely "taken for a ride"

My invitation to "agree" upon a coalition government must've been lost in the mail!

Not that I'm against a coalition government or democracy but to use the economy as the basis of this coalition is treating Canadians like idiots...a thin veil at best.

we live in a parliamentary democracy. we vote for an MP. why would you be against that MP being part of the ruling party/coalition?

i don't see how this is treating Canadians as idiots. I had always hoped that these guys would come to their senses and form a coalition. never tjought it would happen, but still hoped for it.

Harper claims that the other parties made a promise not to form a coalition. I never got that memo.

[can-o-phish]

Personally I don't feel like I've been "had" but definitely "taken for a ride"

My invitation to "agree" upon a coalition government must've been lost in the mail!

Not that I'm against a coalition government or democracy but to use the economy as the basis of this coalition is treating Canadians like idiots...a thin veil at best.

we live in a parliamentary democracy. we vote for an MP. why would you be against that MP being part of the ruling party/coalition?

i don't see how this is treating Canadians as idiots. I had always hoped that these guys would come to their senses and form a coalition. never tjought it would happen' date=' but still hoped for it.

Harper claims that the other parties made a promise not to form a coalition. I never got that memo. [/quote']

Please re-read my post. I stated that I am NOT against a coalition government.

To say that the coalition government is being formed because of the economy is a thin veil and an insult to Canadians.

It is most definitely an excuse for political agendas.

But that's just my opinion.

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

My invitation to "agree" upon a coalition government must've been lost in the mail!

that's what I was responding to in my previous post.

I dunno. I actually like Dion. and I think the fact that he's not a power hungry politician is what ultimately led to his downfall. Sure political agenda is behind some of this, but ultimately, I think he's doing this because he believes it's best for the country. At least that's what I want to believe.

[AD]

Harper's Options

[larry_llama]

I think that what is more important than the point that canadians "voted harper in to a minority position" is that the majority of canadians actually voted to keep harper out of power - they voted representatives in who would keep him in check.

I think this coalition might be the best way to actually get shit done during this clearly unstable political climate. We need some sort of government over the next couple of years, until the parties are actually ready for another election, which none of them are right now.

A harper minority for the next few years seems totally dysfunctional. the conservatices seem to be completely unable to compromise and see past differences in order to get shit done. If they were able to do so, they'd be the ones in a position to secure power via coalition right now.

SO who are the ones who can't play nice? the 3 parties willing to grind their teeth and get along in order to get us through this? or the one party who can't compromise enough to get ANY non partisan support?

http://neenerneet.net/coalition/

[Thorgnor]

I dunno. I actually like Dion. and I think the fact that he's not a power hungry politician is what ultimately led to his downfall. Sure political agenda is behind some of this, but ultimately, I think he's doing this because he believes it's best for the country. At least that's what I want to believe.

Me too.

But I think you missed the in the post, B.

I was kinda thinking maybe they might be able to get through with a modest c agenda right now in the Lib caucus. Not so crazy methinks... Bryson anyone?

Edited December 2, 2008 by Guest

[bradm]

Harper really fugged up. Up until last week the Liberals did not really have a leader. Then Harper played the "chicken game", thinking that because he'd just won an election that he could hide his "political agenda, ie - cutting party funding" behind allocating funds to help the economy and get away with this after just having an election.

The party funding part is what I can't figure out. As Accordion Guy points out

• The Prime Minister announced a piece of financial legislation to eliminate the public funding of political parties.
  
• Viewed through a strictly Machiavellian, la fin justifie les moyens lens and ignoring all other factors, it’s a clever move. The Prime Minister’s party, the Conservative Party of Canada, are good at fundraising and can live solely off their donations; the others, who for various reasons haven’t got the knack, would be hobbled.
  
• Viewed through the lens of public relations and real-world pragmatism, it’s a dick move. It’s reminiscent of the Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns blocks out the sun to force the people of Springfield to constantly require power from his nuclear power plant for light.
  
• The problem: the Prime Minister’s government is a minority government. It means that while his party has more seats in the House of Commons (American readers: the closest analogue is your House of Representatives) than any other party, it does not have enough seats for a majority vote. That means that in order to get things done, the Prime Minister has to get the cooperation (and votes) of at least one of the other parties.
  
• And therein we see the flaw in the Prime Minister’s plan: the legislation to “cut off the air†to the opposition requires the support of the opposition.
  
• A vote of no confidence in the House of Commons is all it takes to unseat a minority government. Under normal circumstances, this would force a federal election, but since we had one only six weeks ago, the Governor-General can opt to declare another party leader the new Prime Minister if s/he can make a convincing case. The leaders of the three major opposing parties have formed a coalition, picked a leader and are angling to do just that.

I could believe that Harper put the party funding (and three-year public-service strike ban) in the economic update as "sacrificial lambs", bad ideas that were never actually intended to be part of the final, passed bill, because neither of them make sense (especially the strike ban) for a minority government to try. By taking them out, he'd appear to be cooperative and appeasing. His goof was in underestimating how the opposition parties would react. I finder it harder (but not impossible) to believe he goofed in thinking that he could get the economic update passed as it was originally written.

Aloha,

Brad

[can-o-phish]

Like I said previously, Harper was definitely advised about reaction from the opposition towards the proposed legislation and decided to play chicken possibly thinking that the all the opposition parties would not challenge the legislation, especially so soon after an election.

He found out something entirely different.

Most minority governments do not govern for a lengthy period. Harper's Conservatives had a long run...

Why?

Remember a little thing called "The Sponsorship Scandal"? The Liberals knew that they had lost faith and had to implement some damage control and deal with the fallout and knew that some time had to pass before entertaining the idea of a non-confidence vote.

And as I said earlier, you can bet your last dollar that all parties were looking for an excuse to take down Harper and his Conservatives if he won another minority government.

And guess what?

Harper handed several excuses to them on a frickin' silver platter! What the hell was he thinking? That his government was an untouchable majority? The speculations, theories and pondering will continue for quite sometime after the dust settles...

And how that dust settles is still anyone's guess...

And like I said earlier, we're living in very interesting political times, despite it being a three-ring circus!

[bradm]

Like I said previously, Harper was definitely advised about reaction from the opposition towards the proposed legislation

What's your source for this? (I could certainly believe he was advised that way, but I haven't seen any reports that he was.)

Aloha,

Brad

[phishtaper]

His goof was in underestimating how the opposition parties would react.

ahem, i do believe that's misunderestimating

[can-o-phish]

What's your source for this? (I could certainly believe he was advised that way, but I haven't seen any reports that he was.)

Aloha,

Brad

Common sense. Any legislation drafted is viewed from as many angles as possible from whoever drafts it as to how it will be received when introduced.

There was a recent article that I will try to find and post a link dealing with exactly this issue and also spoke about Giorno's part in this fiasco and how blame should not be laid at his feet.

Edit to add: Holy crap, did I just use the phrase "common sense" in a political thread???

Edited December 2, 2008 by Guest