|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2008 10:18:53 GMT -5
As I see it, she has 3 choices under Parliamentary procedure.
The way things are going, I have no idea what she'll decide to do.
Now the PC campaign-style radio and web ads are out in full force demanding to let the voters decide....and the Canadian Labour Congress is doing the same for the Coalition.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 3, 2008 11:35:06 GMT -5
It won't be an election. I voted that she'll let the coalition take over, but I suspect that if Harper resigns then she'll let the Cons stay in power.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 3, 2008 11:39:30 GMT -5
I voted stall.
Maybe the coalition will fall apart by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 11:56:03 GMT -5
It won't be an election. I voted that she'll let the coalition take over, but I suspect that if Harper resigns then she'll let the Cons stay in power. She doesn't have the power to "let them stay in power". The Coalition can not take over the government until there is a confidence vote then her only 2 choices are to accept Harper's call for an election (as set under the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure) OR accept the Coalition's claim that they have the confidence of the House. She can allow the proroguement of Parliament .... but that only delays a confidence vote when the House reconvenes. The government HAS to pass a budget which is always a confidence vote .... now Harper will have to pass out alot of concessions to the other 3 parties for them not vote the budget down. That's when you will see the money HA's talking about getting flung around ..... |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Dec 3, 2008 12:00:55 GMT -5
There is going to be an election in February, no doubt in my mind.....the Conservatives are already airing campaign commercials.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 3, 2008 12:04:02 GMT -5
It won't be an election. I voted that she'll let the coalition take over, but I suspect that if Harper resigns then she'll let the Cons stay in power. She doesn't have the power to "let them stay in power". The Coalition can not take over the government until there is a confidence vote then her only 2 choices are to accept Harper's call for an election (as set under the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure) OR accept the Coalition's claim that they have the confidence of the House. She can allow the proroguement of Parliament .... but that only delays a confidence vote when the House reconvenes. The government HAS to pass a budget which is always a confidence vote .... now Harper will have to pass out alot of concessions to the other 3 parties for them not vote the budget down. That's when you will see the money HA's talking about getting flung around ..... Thanks for the correction. I'm not too sure about the GG's role in all this, but that helps. It seems to me the Conservatives would only have to pander to the Bloc to get a budget through. SEPARATISTS!! haha |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 12:10:17 GMT -5
She doesn't have the power to "let them stay in power". The Coalition can not take over the government until there is a confidence vote then her only 2 choices are to accept Harper's call for an election (as set under the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure) OR accept the Coalition's claim that they have the confidence of the House. She can allow the proroguement of Parliament .... but that only delays a confidence vote when the House reconvenes. The government HAS to pass a budget which is always a confidence vote .... now Harper will have to pass out alot of concessions to the other 3 parties for them not vote the budget down. That's when you will see the money HA's talking about getting flung around ..... Thanks for the correction. I'm not too sure about the GG's role in all this, but that helps. It seems to me the Conservatives would only have to pander to the Bloc to get a budget through. SEPARATISTS!! haha Exactly ... but apparently it's ok, or somehow different, if the conservatives play with the devil ....  ... the hypocrisy of it all is why I feel she should let the Coalition have at least a chance. The way it is now, nothing is going to get done ..... people cry over the undemocratic nature of usurping the government when the House has no confidence in it, but no one sees how undemocratic proroguement is? ...It is like taking your ball and going home when you can't get your way? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 12:10:46 GMT -5
It won't be an election. I voted that she'll let the coalition take over, but I suspect that if Harper resigns then she'll let the Cons stay in power. She doesn't have the power to "let them stay in power". The Coalition can not take over the government until there is a confidence vote then her only 2 choices are to accept Harper's call for an election (as set under the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure) OR accept the Coalition's claim that they have the confidence of the House. She can allow the proroguement of Parliament .... but that only delays a confidence vote when the House reconvenes. The government HAS to pass a budget which is always a confidence vote .... now Harper will have to pass out alot of concessions to the other 3 parties for them not vote the budget down. That's when you will see the money HA's talking about getting flung around ..... Yes, she does. Under Parliamentary procedure, if Harper steps down she can ask anyone she wants - including the Conservatives - to try and form a new government. This will of course result in a confidence motion on the appointment of a PM, which the Conservatives will like as not fail if the coalition remains intact. But the government is formed (and dissolved) at her leisure. Technically speaking, she could've, had she wished to, appointed Dion PM after the last election (which would have in all likelihood failed confidence). It happened during the King-Byng affair that the Liberals, who lacked a plurality in Parliament were invited by the governor general to form the government (he had been the sitting Prime Minister before the election, he was not far from plurality in the House, and he, by tradition, had the support of the Progressives in the House). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 12:12:27 GMT -5
She doesn't have the power to "let them stay in power". The Coalition can not take over the government until there is a confidence vote then her only 2 choices are to accept Harper's call for an election (as set under the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure) OR accept the Coalition's claim that they have the confidence of the House. She can allow the proroguement of Parliament .... but that only delays a confidence vote when the House reconvenes. The government HAS to pass a budget which is always a confidence vote .... now Harper will have to pass out alot of concessions to the other 3 parties for them not vote the budget down. That's when you will see the money HA's talking about getting flung around ..... Yes, she does. Under Parliamentary procedure, if Harper steps down she can ask anyone she wants - including the Conservatives - to try and form a new government. This will of course result in a confidence motion on the appointment of a PM, which the Conservatives will like as not fail if the coalition remains intact. But the government is formed (and dissolved) at her leisure. Technically speaking, she could've, had she wished to, appointed Dion PM after the last election (which would have in all likelihood failed confidence). It happened during the King-Byng affair that the Liberals, who lacked a plurality in Parliament were invited by the governor general to form the government (he had been the sitting Prime Minister before the election, he was not far from plurality in the House, and he, by tradition, had the support of the Progressives in the House). But again ... it all boils down to a confidence vote. Thanks for correcting me though.. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2008 12:17:02 GMT -5
There is going to be an election in February, no doubt in my mind.....the Conservatives are already airing campaign commercials. That's what the PCs want. And IMO, it's been their plan all along....to get that majority before the Libs get a sweetheart as leader. They set the trap....the opposition took the bait and are now caught "in bed with separatists". It all rests on what the GG decides. If it's prorogue (which will still result in non-confidence...just a delayed one, and likely an election), or dissolve now and call another election, Harper stands a great chance of getting his majority, as he will bombard the public with the spin. He's going to address the nation tonight at 7. The Coalition will not run as such...but as separate parties...with Dion and Layton as separate leaders. Harper in a landslide. Too bad he's put his majority aspirations ahead of the economic crisis. Tick, tick, tick. By this action, he too is guilty of not accepting the voters' decision of a few weeks ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 3, 2008 12:26:39 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction. I'm not too sure about the GG's role in all this, but that helps. It seems to me the Conservatives would only have to pander to the Bloc to get a budget through. SEPARATISTS!! haha Exactly ... but apparently it's ok, or somehow different, if the conservatives play with the devil .... ... Oddly enough, there hasn't been one mention of this in the papers I've read. Not on in my books. Good point Skilly. As I was saying earlier I'll be the first one in line if the poles open. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 12:27:06 GMT -5
Yes, she does. Under Parliamentary procedure, if Harper steps down she can ask anyone she wants - including the Conservatives - to try and form a new government. This will of course result in a confidence motion on the appointment of a PM, which the Conservatives will like as not fail if the coalition remains intact. But the government is formed (and dissolved) at her leisure. Technically speaking, she could've, had she wished to, appointed Dion PM after the last election (which would have in all likelihood failed confidence). It happened during the King-Byng affair that the Liberals, who lacked a plurality in Parliament were invited by the governor general to form the government (he had been the sitting Prime Minister before the election, he was not far from plurality in the House, and he, by tradition, had the support of the Progressives in the House). But again ... it all boils down to a confidence vote. Thanks for correcting me though.. It's a small distinct, but also an important distinction, and worth noting. As I've said elsewhere this is in many ways an exciting time in our Parliament as we are charting into new waters. The choice Mme. Jean makes will set a precedent, one way or another, that will change the political makeup of our country forever. The King-Byng affair led to the Statutes of Westminster, which made the Governor General beholden not to the British Government but to the Sovereign his or herself. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 3, 2008 12:31:03 GMT -5
There is going to be an election in February, no doubt in my mind.....the Conservatives are already airing campaign commercials. That's what the PCs want. And IMO, it's been their plan all along....to get that majority before the Libs get a sweetheart as leader. They set the trap....the opposition took the bait and are now caught "in bed with separatists". It all rests on what the GG decides. If it's prorogue (which will still result in non-confidence...just a delayed one, and likely an election), or dissolve now and call another election, Harper stands a great chance of getting his majority, as he will bombard the public with the spin. He's going to address the nation tonight at 7. The Coalition will not run as such...but as separate parties...with Dion and Layton as separate leaders. Harper in a landslide. Too bad he's put his majority aspirations ahead of the economic crisis. Tick, tick, tick. By this action, he too is guilty of not accepting the voters' decision of a few weeks ago. I brought this up at the bowling alley last night and you should have seen the reaction I got. The faces the guys showed told me first and foremost that they'll be voting for the Tories. They weren't mad, they were pissed off. CH, I honestly can't believe that Harper or his cronies methodically planned their strategy this way. I do believe, however, that what goes around comes around and it's coming around on Harper, not so much the Tories, but Harper ... big time! Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 12:55:13 GMT -5
That's what the PCs want. And IMO, it's been their plan all along....to get that majority before the Libs get a sweetheart as leader. They set the trap....the opposition took the bait and are now caught "in bed with separatists". It all rests on what the GG decides. If it's prorogue (which will still result in non-confidence...just a delayed one, and likely an election), or dissolve now and call another election, Harper stands a great chance of getting his majority, as he will bombard the public with the spin. He's going to address the nation tonight at 7. The Coalition will not run as such...but as separate parties...with Dion and Layton as separate leaders. Harper in a landslide. Too bad he's put his majority aspirations ahead of the economic crisis. Tick, tick, tick. By this action, he too is guilty of not accepting the voters' decision of a few weeks ago. I brought this up at the bowling alley last night and you should have seen the reaction I got. The faces the guys showed told me first and foremost that they'll be voting for the Tories. They weren't mad, they were pissed off. CH, I honestly can't believe that Harper or his cronies methodically planned their strategy this way. I do believe, however, that what goes around comes around and it's coming around on Harper, not so much the Tories, but Harper ... big time! Cheers. I agree. The whole "Harper and the Conservative planned this from the start" is a bit - let's say outlandish - for me to buy. If he did orchestrate this, then the man is by far the most cunning leader we've had in a long time - I'd much prefer him to Dion or Layton, who walked open-eyes into his 'trap' (to say nothing of Chretien or Broadbent who worked so diligently behind the scenes to orchestrate this - and Jean was quite the crafty SOB himself). I do think that Harper's spin doctors will burn Dion for this if an election is called. That's kind of unfortunate, but when you make deals with the BQ you have to expect that the rest of the country - well, most of the rest of the country anyways - is going to turn away from you really quick. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2008 12:55:25 GMT -5
Dis, why else would Harper introduce legislation as if he had the majority to push it through? And why would that legislation not address the economic crisis?
IMO, it was deliberate.
They knew they couldn't be defeated without help from the Bloc.
And so, now that the trap has been sprung, the "Economic Crisis" has become a side issue. The old, reliable "National Unity Crisis" is now front and centre.
That's how it will be presented to English Canada.....and with Dion the "weak" still the leader of the Libs....it will result in a PC majority.
I hope I'm wrong....but that's the way I see it.
Backroom strategic sessions happen in all Parties.
--------------------------------------------
Of course, it all depends upon what the GG decides.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2008 13:02:04 GMT -5
I agree. The whole "Harper and the Conservative planned this from the start" is a bit - let's say outlandish - for me to buy. If he did orchestrate this, then the man is by far the most cunning leader we've had in a long time - I'd much prefer him to Dion or Layton, who walked open-eyes into his 'trap' (to say nothing of Chretien or Broadbent who worked so diligently behind the scenes to orchestrate this - and Jean was quite the crafty SOB himself). I do think that Harper's spin doctors will burn Dion for this if an election is called. That's kind of unfortunate, but when you make deals with the BQ you have to expect that the rest of the country - well, most of the rest of the country anyways - is going to turn away from you really quick. So, as your second paragraph states, it's really not THAT outlandish. (And it's not really that cunning if I thought of it.  ) The "coalition" blinked. And the PCs pulled out the National Unity card. How else were they going to get their majority? Wait for the Liberals to get a strong leader? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 13:12:42 GMT -5
I agree. The whole "Harper and the Conservative planned this from the start" is a bit - let's say outlandish - for me to buy. If he did orchestrate this, then the man is by far the most cunning leader we've had in a long time - I'd much prefer him to Dion or Layton, who walked open-eyes into his 'trap' (to say nothing of Chretien or Broadbent who worked so diligently behind the scenes to orchestrate this - and Jean was quite the crafty SOB himself). I do think that Harper's spin doctors will burn Dion for this if an election is called. That's kind of unfortunate, but when you make deals with the BQ you have to expect that the rest of the country - well, most of the rest of the country anyways - is going to turn away from you really quick. So, as your second paragraph states, it's really not THAT outlandish. (And it's not really that cunning if I thought of it. ) The "coalition" blinked. And the PCs pulled out the National Unity card. How else were they going to get their majority? Wait for the Liberals to get a strong leader? It's not outlandish that Harper will use Dion's misstep to his full advantage. It is outlandish to believe that Harper has somehow orchestrated this in an attempt to garner a majority. The first requires one to believe that Mr. Harper, like all politicians, would work the spin on an issue that might bring him down so as to turn it to his advantage (just like the Dion-Layton coalition will "spin" the coalition as an attempt to unify Canadians). The second requires one to believe that Mr. Harper (or some ally of his) is a master manipulator who convinced Gilles Duceppe, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Jean Chretien and Ed Broadbent - all smart, well respected men, one of whom is known to be among the most devious and crafty politicians to ever come out of Canada - to commit the equivalent of political suicide and ally themselves (well, Gilles will come away smelling of roses anyways - this is a very good deal for him). And Occam says the first is much more simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 13:13:04 GMT -5
What I find baffling is that people talk as if only the Liberals and NDP have ever made a deal with the BQ .... it was only 6 short years ago that Harper himself discussed a coalition with the Bloc (oh wait, that's different right, because it wasn't on paper and its, well, the conservatives) ... and did the Canadian voting public run from the Conservatives?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 13:17:47 GMT -5
What I find baffling is that people talk as if only the Liberals and NDP have ever made a deal with the BQ .... it was only 6 short years ago that Harper himself discussed a coalition with the Bloc (oh wait, that's different right, because it wasn't on paper and its, well, the conservatives) ... and did the Canadian voting public run from the Conservatives? Talking and signing a formal deal are two different things Skilly. Talking says we will try and form a stable government. Singing an accord says we will support all confidence motions in the house for the next 18 months (and means something is going the other way). (also, there's a joke here about you knowing that anything written by Harper isn't worth the paper it's written on I'm sure, I just can't find it (-  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 13:18:07 GMT -5
So, as your second paragraph states, it's really not THAT outlandish. (And it's not really that cunning if I thought of it. ) The "coalition" blinked. And the PCs pulled out the National Unity card. How else were they going to get their majority? Wait for the Liberals to get a strong leader? It's not outlandish that Harper will use Dion's misstep to his full advantage. It is outlandish to believe that Harper has somehow orchestrated this in an attempt to garner a majority. The first requires one to believe that Mr. Harper, like all politicians, would work the spin on an issue that might bring him down so as to turn it to his advantage (just like the Dion-Layton coalition will "spin" the coalition as an attempt to unify Canadians). The second requires one to believe that Mr. Harper (or some ally of his) is a master manipulator who convinced Gilles Duceppe, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Jean Chretien and Ed Broadbent - all smart, well respected men, one of whom is known to be among the most devious and crafty politicians to ever come out of Canada - to commit the equivalent of political suicide and ally themselves (well, Gilles will come away smelling of roses anyways - this is a very good deal for him). And Occam says the first is much more simple. Not if as some suggest, this was premeditated and Harper knew that the three were discussing a coalition and all they needed was a little push .... Harper has eyes and ears everywhere, big brother is watching or is that listening, (tape recorders and all ... doesn't everyone tape every conversation? Cadman, Harper, etc ...its en vogue!  |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 13:24:50 GMT -5
It's not outlandish that Harper will use Dion's misstep to his full advantage. It is outlandish to believe that Harper has somehow orchestrated this in an attempt to garner a majority. The first requires one to believe that Mr. Harper, like all politicians, would work the spin on an issue that might bring him down so as to turn it to his advantage (just like the Dion-Layton coalition will "spin" the coalition as an attempt to unify Canadians). The second requires one to believe that Mr. Harper (or some ally of his) is a master manipulator who convinced Gilles Duceppe, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Jean Chretien and Ed Broadbent - all smart, well respected men, one of whom is known to be among the most devious and crafty politicians to ever come out of Canada - to commit the equivalent of political suicide and ally themselves (well, Gilles will come away smelling of roses anyways - this is a very good deal for him). And Occam says the first is much more simple. Not if as some suggest, this was premeditated and Harper knew that the three were discussing a coalition and all they needed was a little push .... Harper has eyes and ears everywhere, big brother is watching or is that listening, (tape recorders and all ... doesn't everyone tape every conversation? Cadman, Harper, etc ...its en vogue! Yeah, I still don't buy it. Too much hangs on the GG to believe it as a credible plot. If the GG decides to offer the government to the coalition, then it's all for naught and Harper will be dropped by his party so fast its not funny. What is possibly more likely is that Harper knew about it, and used the party funding issue to bring it into the open. Once he had done so he figured he would make a few concessions, break up the coalition quickly and do more PR damage to the Liberals (for joining forces with the BQ). Unfortunately (for him) the coalition didn't crack, and now he's got a {expletive deleted}-storm on his hands. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 13:32:47 GMT -5
Not if as some suggest, this was premeditated and Harper knew that the three were discussing a coalition and all they needed was a little push .... Harper has eyes and ears everywhere, big brother is watching or is that listening, (tape recorders and all ... doesn't everyone tape every conversation? Cadman, Harper, etc ...its en vogue! Yeah, I still don't buy it. Too much hangs on the GG to believe it as a credible plot. If the GG decides to offer the government to the coalition, then it's all for naught and Harper will be dropped by his party so fast its not funny. What is possibly more likely is that Harper knew about it, and used the party funding issue to bring it into the open. Once he had done so he figured he would make a few concessions, break up the coalition quickly and do more PR damage to the Liberals (for joining forces with the BQ). Unfortunately (for him) the coalition didn't crack, and now he's got a {expletive deleted}-storm on his hands. Which is why he should be ousted .... for willfully creating a " {expletive deleted}-storm in the face of a potential national crisis. It shows that the national crisis is not at the fore-front of his agenda, when it clearly should be. This situation cries out for a PM who is going to promote stability and co-operation, not play games that can and will effect the markets more .... |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Dec 3, 2008 14:07:14 GMT -5
CH, I honestly can't believe that Harper or his cronies methodically planned their strategy this way. Cheers. I have no doubt they planned it, they had phone conversations recorded that they were planning to oust the government after the budget was released. So the Conservatives had over 2 months to plan this out. So why not do it on their terms not the Liberals, NDP's terms. Then they can release the budget that they wanted in the first place without worrying about the repercussions. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2008 14:35:14 GMT -5
Well here is one GG's take on it all ....
Former GG says he would support coalition
Former governor general and NDP premier Edward Schreyer says if he were still the Queen's representative he would have no choice but to support the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition government in Ottawa.
Schreyer, appointed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, served as Canada's governor general between 1979 and 1984. He is the former premier of Manitoba.
He said the legitimacy of the proposed coalition between the Liberals and New Democrats, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, is "unquestionable," because it has been formalized by written agreement.
"We are a parliamentary democracy," Schreyer said. "And governments are elected according to whether or not they have and are able to maintain the confidence of a majority in Parliament. And if we are to remain a parliamentary democracy, then the parliamentary will must not be ignored, nor must it be avoided or evaded."
Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean is expected to arrive Wednesday in Ottawa, where she is expected to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to hear his views on the crisis.
It's up to her to decide if the coalition is fit to run the country should the Harper government fall.
Political intrigue 'rather exciting'
Schreyer noted the past week of political intrigue has been an engaging one for Canadians. "It's rather exciting for Canadians," he said. "It just goes to show that Americans get their excitement before election day and Canadians get their excitement after election day."
He said he would be obliged, if he were still governor general, to give the proposed coalition a chance to govern, should the present government fall in a no-confidence vote.
"If it's solemn, formal and written, I could only speak for myself, I'd certainly feel obliged to proceed accordingly," he said, adding he was not giving the current governor general advice.
Schreyer said going to another election so soon after the last vote is not really a viable option.
"Eventually it has to come to a vote in Parliament," Schreyer said. "If it were the third or fourth year of a mandate you'd say well, if there were a sudden loss of confidence, then the most practical course is issue writs for new election.
"But here there's a very clear precedent," he said, noting the Ontario government of David Peterson was supported by the NDP in 1985.
"In the aftermath of a new election, if any group that presumes to be government is not able to command majority in Parliament, then if there's any other group that’s able to say in writing … they believe they do have confidence of Parliament, then the obvious course of action is to give them the commission to form a government. It's very clear cut."
The question of cutting the current session of Parliament short by prorogation is more murky, Schreyer suggested.
"Proroguing Parliament doesn't solve the problem, it only postpones it," he said. "I don't want my remarks to be interpreted to say there ought to be no prorogation allowed," he said, adding he had not thought this question completely through.
"That's a close judgment call. A prorogation request and the granting of it might be reasonable depending on a well-understood timetable. Are we talking a day, a week, or at most a month? One thing is clear — prorogation can't be used in the longer term as a means of evading, avoiding and thwarting the expression of the parliamentary will. We are a parliamentary democracy. We are not a cabinet government."
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2008 14:39:12 GMT -5
And Occam says the first is much more simple. Occam is not concerened with simplicity or complexity...only that things not pertinent to the situation be excluded. Everything is pertinent when it comes to politics. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Dec 3, 2008 14:50:01 GMT -5
Prorogue? Is he some undrafted kid we found somewhere in the "Q"? And is this Harper fella his coach? And why would GG be making hockey-related decisions; aren't those left to BG exclusively?? Is the team thinking of dissolving because of a lack of confidence?? Why in hell have I not read, heard or seen this anywhere else!? Coalition?? What coalition!!? What the hell is goin on!!!  I'm gonna go take a nap. (i voted to give this Prorogue and his coach a shot; ya never know) |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 15:09:51 GMT -5
Yeah, I still don't buy it. Too much hangs on the GG to believe it as a credible plot. If the GG decides to offer the government to the coalition, then it's all for naught and Harper will be dropped by his party so fast its not funny. What is possibly more likely is that Harper knew about it, and used the party funding issue to bring it into the open. Once he had done so he figured he would make a few concessions, break up the coalition quickly and do more PR damage to the Liberals (for joining forces with the BQ). Unfortunately (for him) the coalition didn't crack, and now he's got a {expletive deleted}-storm on his hands. Which is why he should be ousted .... for willfully creating a " {expletive deleted}-storm in the face of a potential national crisis. It shows that the national crisis is not at the fore-front of his agenda, when it clearly should be. This situation cries out for a PM who is going to promote stability and co-operation, not play games that can and will effect the markets more .... Sure. I have no problems with removing Harper from power. If you think him playing a political game of chicken with his adversaries is a crime worthy of removing him from power, then by all means, remove him. But put the choice in the hands of Canadians, not politicians. If Dion was saying "our coalition will form, pass a budget and an economic stimulus package and then dissolve Parliament" I could handle it. I might even endorse it (for what my endorsement is worth). But they're not. They're saying we intend to continue governing beyond the immediate crisis which we feel Harper has caused without consulting with the people of Canada if they wish us to. That's arrogant, and offensive. Dion knows he won't win at the polls. Layton knows he won't win at the polls. And so they will endeavor to keep the power out of the hands of the people for as long as possible. That is wrong. Damn wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2008 16:22:12 GMT -5
My wife told me she heard a report on CTV this afternoon that PCs were calling certain Liberals as early as last weekend and offering cabinet positions if they'd walk across the floor.
Still trying to find it on the web.
Could just be more spin.
What a circus.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 3, 2008 16:24:05 GMT -5
My wife told me she heard a report on CTV this afternoon that PCs were calling certain Liberals as early as last weekend and offering cabinet positions if they'd walk across the floor. Still trying to find it on the web. Could just be more spin. What a circus. Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened *cough*Stronach*cough*. And I can't imagine all of the Liberals are happy with the idea of a coalition with the NDP and the BQ. In fact I'm surprised Dion enjoys the support from his part he seems to. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2008 16:47:20 GMT -5
Too true.
|
|
... the hypocrisy of it all is why I feel she should let the Coalition have at least a chance. The way it is now, nothing is going to get done ..... people cry over the undemocratic nature of usurping the government when the House has no confidence in it, but no one sees how undemocratic proroguement is? ...It is like taking your ball and going home when you can't get your way? 
)
