Canada’s opposition tries a coup, of sorts
posted at 8:52 am on December 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In America, elections have consequences. In Canada … not so much. Despite losing the last national elections to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, the other three parties have agreed on a ruling coalition that will wrest control of Canadian government from the party with a plurality of seats for the first time in its history. Canadian voters who thought they’d endorsed Harper may discover that they’ve gotten a bait-and-switch:
The Liberals and New Democrats signed an agreement on Monday to form an unprecedented coalition government, with a written pledge of support from the Bloc Québécois, if they are successful in ousting the minority Conservative government in a coming confidence vote.
The accord between parties led by Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe came just hours after Liberal caucus members agreed unanimously that Dion would stay on to lead the Liberal-NDP coalition, with support in the House of Commons from Bloc MPs.
The six-point accord includes a description of the role of the Liberal and NDP caucuses, which would meet separately and sit next to each other on the government benches in the House of Commons, Dion told a news conference alongside Layton and Duceppe.
Dion said he has advised Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean in a letter that he has the confidence of the Commons to form the government should Stephen Harper’s Conservatives be defeated in a confidence vote.
Well, the one thing you can say about parliamentary systems is that they’re never dull. Normally a no-confidence vote would result in another election. However, the Conservatives didn’t get a majority, and that leaves them vulnerable for this kind of attack. In a parliamentary system, this is perfectly legal.
However, it’s a little mystifying. Not only will the three parties combine to give Canadian voters what they clearly didn’t want, they’re going to yank control from Harper just when the economy is tanking. A wiser opposition would allow Harper to stumble for a while, then call a national election and take the issue to the voters. Instead, the opposition wants to take charge now — and potentially all of the blame for what follows. In fact, they’ll also take the blame for taking control of the government and throwing its economic plans into turmoil.
Small wonder these guys lose elections. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see Harper smiling at being taken off the hook in such a manner, and at the prospects of voter backlash when it falls apart.
Update: A Canadian ex-pat, Alex B, tells me that this is the second time in Canadian history that this has happened, assuming they can pull this off. In 1925, the Liberals and Progressives took control over the plurality of Conservatives in Parliament. Mackenzie King governed as Prime Minister for that coalition.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Leftie trolls aside, here’s a background piece for non-Canadian readers.
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 12:02 PM
:)
progressoverpeace on December 2, 2008 at 12:03 PM
And here’s a Canadian leftie on this.
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Only half true. Although in some States, The EC can vote for anyone, most states are constitutionally mandated to reflect the will of the people. It goes state by state on this one.
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I am a Canadian and I am absolutely appalled at our opposition’s pathetic attempt at seizing power from the Conservatives.
This was planned from the moment the election was called in the Tories’ favor while the opposition parties would have the world believe that this is because Harper is failing at governing. Well, government only resumed a short while ago and Harper has not lost the confidence of the House. The loons that represent the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc are basing this power grab off of their personal displeasure with the Conservative Government from last term. Canadians have spoken and they said to give Harper a bigger mandate.
I hope there is another election so we can punish the left so hard in this country and seize a majority to put an end to their circus. Before people complain about Checks and Balances with a majority government please realize that all MPs in the Majority still have to agree with the party to pass a majority vote on any issue and threatening to kick someone from the caucus only diminishes the power of the majority.
Jeff_55, your friend has it a bit wrong. If a Government loses a vote of confidence or a Money Bill, the Prime Minister can resign and allow another MP to form a government or request the GG dissolve Parliament to call an election. The GG can dissolve Parliament at any time.
The purpose of the coalition is to force Harper out first, followed by the Conservatives. The Torries can still form the Government in this situation if the PM resigns and permits another Conservative MP to form the Government.
Thuja you’re off on your statement about preference of the Liberals to the Conservatives. The combined left would have greater support from those that voted but the combined left does not equal the Liberals. All three parties are very distinct when it comes to social and financial issues.
It is stupid to vote for the Bloc because they do not represent Canada, they represent only Quebec and only a part of Quebec at that. No party should be allowed a seat in Parliament if they do not represent a base in all of Canada.
Lehner on December 2, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Lehner,
Why don’t you go rewrite the constitution first then come back and make some of those claims. When the Reform Party was just a Western Canada party, I hope you also stood up against that party as well.
Also, you said “Canadians have spoken and they said to give Harper a bigger mandate.”
A bigger mandate? Sure. Just like 30 cents is more than 25 cents.
The conservative only got 37% of the vote and did not get a majority of the seats. Why don’t you deal with this like a rational person?
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 12:14 PM
The Libs have no effective leader and, if they take power now, they won’t have time to get one. They simply can’t have a leadership race while they’ve got one of their own in the PMO (and, yes, Dion will be the PM is this goes).
Remember he led the party to fewer seats in the last election. The voters have seen him in action (such as it is) and they asked “Who else you got?”
The fact is that the Liberals have to do this end run because;
a) they have just been rejected by the electorate,
b) they don’t have a leader that can win on the national stage (see above), and
c) they’re too broke to run another election.
The Libs spent the last few years regularly threatening to bring the government down in a no-confidence vote and they never had the balls to do it. They had no interest in doing anything but sniping from the sidelines.
The beautiful part of this, is that there is virtually no downside for the Conservatives in all this. They get to play the part of the loyal opposition and let the nutters tear themselves apart. Which they most certainly will.
The only question is whether the GG will dissolve Parliament or defer to the status quo.
landshark on December 2, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Don’t be so convinced. All it takes is for the Liberals to pick a good leader and for things to get a bit better and I promise you the conservative will stay where there are.
It’s not for no good reason that the Liberal party is considered the natural party to lead Canada.
Personally I very much dislike Stephane Dion. I might even prefer for conservatives to keep power. But the bottom line is that all the people whining should realize that this was a minority government. Conservatives needed to extend a hand to a group on the other side or take the risk of being toppled.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I’d like it so much if Alberta seceded and joined the Union as the 51st State. This “Coalition of the Shilling” just might be Alberta’s ticket to freedom. The Coalition is a solid supporter of Kyoto, for which Alberta will pay through the nose. If that happens, then Alberta would have no choice but to secede. Sorry Canada but you destroyed yourselves with your greed and ambition.
KillerKane on December 2, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Yes. I should have been clearer on that. Although, I don’t know what would happen if those electors voted differently. They would be violating their state law, but I don’t know what would happen at the federal level, since I don’t think there is any federal law they would be in breach of.
The BHO case provides a perfect example of that possible problem for electors from such states (if he were truly ineligible - which I think is very likely the case), though I don’t think we have enough people with any guts left in this nation to do the right thing against popular demand. Of course, in this case, the failure rested, first, with the SecState who allowed him on the ballot without checking, then with the courts for not forcing him to prove his eligibility …
progressoverpeace on December 2, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Our system has its problems, to be sure, and they are greatly modified by our plethora of political parties which make it increasingly difficult for a majority government to be elected.
But a parliamentary majority government has great advantages over the US system, where President often lock horns with a congressional majority of the opposite party and are unable to implement their own domestic policy.
ProfessorMiao on December 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Stephen Harper has only himself to blame for being so full of hubris that he caused the opposition to unite against him. The only thing that could save the Conservative minority government now is for them to can Harper as their leader, but it’s really too late for that now.
starfleet_dude on December 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM
id.
You’re joking, right? You do know that French evolved from Latin, right?
ProfessorMiao on December 2, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Agreed, they should never have been granted status as a federal party. But I guess Mulroney was so crushed by Lucien Richard’s defection that he just let it go, along with virtually any hope for future majority governments.
ProfessorMiao on December 2, 2008 at 12:42 PM
If this Coalition comes to power, will the CIA intervene? They overthrew Allende in 1973 because they feared a government hostile to the US. Here’s another chance.
KillerKane on December 2, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Are some of you retarded?
In the US, you directly elect your president. In Canada, you elect an MP - and the party (or group) with a majority of MPs gets to choose the leader of the country.
That is their system. If that is what they want to do (and they obviously do) - your arguments about Perot are just plain ignorant idiocy.
A Axe on December 2, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I would argue that the cases aren’t comparable: The BQ is explicitly provincial in its mandate, and has never intended to run candidates outside Quebec. The Reform Party didn’t frame itself as the party of one or two provinces, and within a few years was running candidates outside the west.
Perhaps more important, the BQ’s ultimate goal is the seccession of Quebec and that alone should make it ineligible for federal party status.
ProfessorMiao on December 2, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Ed,
I’m a bit puzzled by your comments.
If the Conservatives only achieved a plurality, then it isn’t at all clear that the majority would not want this.
OBQuiet on December 2, 2008 at 12:46 PM
The US system is individualistic (the individual is the fundamental political entity) while the euro-parliamentary systems are tribalistic (the party is the fundamental political entity). The tribalistic systems are unstable and weak. There is no competition between the US system and the Euro systems. Politically individualistic societies are more productive, creative, dynamic, freer, … than politically tribalistic societies.
progressoverpeace on December 2, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Perhaps Canadian across Canada should respect the choice made by the people in Quebec just like the people in Quebec respect the choices made by Canadians in the ROC.
People in Quebec have a right to be represented by whom they chose, and that includes a party that advocates for the separation of Quebec.
Otherwise, you are proposing to have the voice of 38% of the people in Quebec to be “ineligible” to be represented. Doesn’t sound very Canadian to me.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 12:54 PM
I really wonder if these clowns of Coupgate understand how badly this will backfire. If they think the flames Western separation won’t be fanned, they are sorely mistaken. They can also kiss goodbye any support they have out here.
We have a MINORITY government but that still means that they are the governing party. Period. If they want to from this coalition of losers, perform a vote of non-confidence, start a brand new party, submit a policy, and go to election against the conservatives and have the people decide. These idiots may not like the outcome, but, again, the party was elected to govern. It’s called DEMOCRACY.
I’m from Western Canada and I can tell you there is alot of anger about this. If this happens, it could be a historic turn for Canada as we know it.
Kevin on December 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM
How could it ever possibly be better to be governed, by the unelected? How is it ever better to have appointed leaders vs. elected ones? Don’t you want to actually put an X beside the leaders of your own choosing on an actual ballot? How is it better to have your Head of State an unelected hereditary monarch foreigner? Are you OK with the idea of your Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces as a foreign monarch? When is it OK to have not one but two unelected foreigners have veto power over your half elected Parliament? When is it OK to have a Senate comprised of appointed paternalistic hacks instead of regional elected representatives?
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 1:21 PM
I say that Alberta, and the lone conservative town in Saskatchewan and B.C., declare independence from the Retards of Windsor Castle, and join the USA as the 51st State.
Stephen Harper could run for President. Harper / Palin 2012!
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I strongly disagree. I think that the Constitutional Amendment that screwed America is the 26th Amendment.
thuja on December 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM
The conference call tape of Taliban Jack about making a deal with the Separatist BQ was made “long before” the financial update was announced, let alone had its details released.
BTW, there are rumours that Green Party cluster-f*ck, Elizabeth May, might be getting a Senate appointment or a Cabinet post; and that the BQ is to get six Senate appointments.
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM
What is with all of these people insisting that these 3 parties combined is equal to the will of the Canadian people? It’s a multi-party system. The will of the Canadian people was a Conservative plurality. That these other three parties are politically similar (NOT the same) is completely irrelevant. If they’d wanted a leftist government, they would have supported the Liberals or NDP in a more emphatic fashion, now wouldn’t they?
The Orwellian quote of the day has got to go to Green Party leader Elizabeth May:
Oh yeah. There’s nothing more creative for democracy than subverting the will of the Canadian voter.
Red Cloud on December 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Al Franken for Prime Minister! Given Canada’s ties to England there has to be something amiss in the ancestral DNA that’s driving both societies toward cultural suicide. When will prayer rooms and footbaths appear at Centre Block?
dmann on December 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Kevin on December 2, 2008 at 1:34 PM
This puts stability of US energy supplies at risk - oil, natural gas, and hydroelectric power fed from Quebec and Labrador into the eastern seaboard grid.
This coalition basically gives control of Canada to the Bloc Quebecois, which has as its mission to separate Quebec from Canada.
It’s time for English speaking Canada to form a political union with the United States, and let the Quebec socialistes try to earn their own way.
There is very big medicine brewing in the Domented Dominion to your north.
shaken on December 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM
shaken, given it was the defection of the BQ from the Liberals that led to the election that put a minority Conservative government in power in the first place, it’s silly to get scared about oil supplies and such now.
Also, if you want to secede from Canada, your complaint about the BQ wanting to separate seems somewhat hypocritical.
starfleet_dude on December 2, 2008 at 1:45 PM
President-elect Stephen Harper and Vice President-elect Palin gave a press conference today giving the good people of Quebec credit for getting the ball rolling on the new State of Alberta.
“Without the true leadership and vision of our separatist Francophone allies, we would have forever been succumbed to the soft tyranny of a non-representative government controlled by a foreign monarch. How excited must the newly sovereign citizens of Alberta be to this very day elect not only a home-boy as Leader of the Free World, but elect for the first time their own Governor, federal Senators and local judges. How excited they must feel for the first time ever, to possess inalienable rights, which previously had only been afforded to Royalty and Peers. How powerful and proud they must feel.”
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 1:54 PM
It’s funny, but the people in Quebec feel much closer to Americans than the rest of Canadians, to a certain extent. They were the ones pushing for free trade with the US. They don’t like monarchy. They are more likely to spell english words with the US spelling.
It’s the rest of Canada that is traumatized by the US, and always try to show how different they are from their American cousins down south. (And north for the ones in Alaska)
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM
You’re not reading me; the Liberals cannot make this maneuver and then look for a new leader. I don’t know if you’re Canadian or not but parties do not have leadership conventions unless;
a) the leader is retiring (or, God forbid, dies), or
b) they perform poorly in an election
If they pull this off, their guy will be the PM. If Liberals start searching for a new leader when their current leader is PM, they might as well come right out and say that the guy they picked to lead the party is not qualified to lead the country. They’d get eaten alive by the Conservatives, the media, and (you’d better believe) the NDP & Bloc.
It would be a meltdown of epic proportions.
landshark on December 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM
I did not vote for this evil triumverate. I voted for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The only thing missing from this coup are the AK47’s in the hands of Duceppe the Dunce, Layton the commie and Dion the Pansy. This is nothing short of a hostile takeover of my country!
Please! Sign the petition:
http://www.nocoalition.ca
sunflower on December 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Many questions is a logical fallacy that you have chosen to engage in whether conciously or not.
I don’t have to rewrite the Constitution of Canada to make the claims I have made and in fact that very Constitution provides a key factor as to why I’m allowed to make those comments but that is trivial.
When the Reform party was created, I was two years old however I do know that in the 1990s they expanded eastwards and were the first party in Canada to place an elected Senator in power. I hope you are aware that they attempted to expand eastwards for national representation where the Bloc has not.
As for your concern with a bigger mandate, Harper gained 19 seats, over a 15% gain. This is significant when dealing with minority status whether you agree with it or not.
Finally, I have been dealing with this as a rational person but you left rationality at the door with your logical fallacies including an ad-hominem.
Lehner on December 2, 2008 at 2:38 PM
We kept telling Ed that a plurality of voters voted for Al Gore, but I’m not sure he was very receiptive to that argument.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM
To claim that 37% of the vote is not a majority in light of there being 4 parties is some pretty fuzzy math.
The conservatives made gains, yet the “coalition,” should have power, when the voters DID NOT VOTE for the “coalition?”
This is garbage, whether the “Parliamentary” Canadian government allows for it or not. It is a clear usurpment of the “will of the Canadian voters.”
JannyMae on December 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM
You don’t want that, believe me, it would mean the Dems winning every election forever even without amnesty and citizenship for millions of illegals. You want any Western Canadian entity to become an independent nation.
Actually, they’re completely indifferent to it and all polling of the past 40 years has shown that Canada becoming a republic wouldn’t change anyone’s mind in Quebec to support federalism more or have them sign on to the Constitution.
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Stop saying you voted for the PM. PM is an apointed position! You did no such thing. You voted for an MP, and nothing more.
The powers that be selected Harper for their own purposes and then appointed him as per Canadian tradition, and not law
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 2:55 PM
It could very well be that he/she is in Harper’s riding thus 6 weeks ago they did, in fact, vote for the Prime Minister.
Law provides for the appointment of party leaders btw.
Are you Canadian? I’m curious.
Lehner on December 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM
This has never been codified in the Constitution or any other body of law…ever! If I’m wrong,which I am not, then point to the statute.
I am a US citizen, a political refugee from Canada. I was tired of having 60% of my income siezed and then re-distributed by the Queen’s Government.
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 3:12 PM
I am very much for the conservatives, but this is how parliamentary dynamics work. It’s also a good illustration of why the Euro-parliamentary systems suck.
But, it could be worse. Look at Israel. They got stuck with a failed government that refused to step down after almost destroying the country, more than once. For years, Israelis had a government that was hated by almost all Israelis, and was only finally brought down by indictments of Olmert. This is what you get with tribal parliamentary systems, as opposed to our system of individuals and a permanent government, with frequent and well-defined elections for seats in the federal government.
P.S. and then you have the other side of unstable parliamentary systems, where no one can ever really form a government, as in post-WWII Italy (until very recently).
progressoverpeace on December 2, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Wow, I’m glad the US Constitution is not as ambiguous as the Canadian one. A single discussion is all it takes.
BKennedy on December 2, 2008 at 3:43 PM
If Canadians cannot vote for a PM, then the parties should not promote their leaders for the position during campaigns.
Effectively, campaigns are run promoting party leaders as PM. To retreat from that position is to attempt to win on a technicality (dangling chads, anyone?).
There is a recording of Dion up on CTV stating categorically that he would not form a coalition with the NDP, recorded during the recent election. He lied. And is rewarded for that lie with the highest political office in the country. It’s insane.
shaken on December 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM
I’d guess mycowardice once took a 101 level course on Canadian politics written by a leftard yankee and got a C.
Your cute quote of the Liberal party being the natural ruling party was coined by Liberals. It’s hardly shared by a majority of Canadians.
epluribusunum got his education from the same sort of woefully fact less source. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen? That is amazingly wrong right there.
Canadians did not vote for a coalition of separatists and socialists led by a man just dumped by his own party. I hope they pull it off though. A winter of fun ahead and sure knowledge that the Liberal party will pay the ultimate price within a month or two.
BL@KBIRD on December 2, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I think Harper should go ahead and introduce a bill to eliminate the $1.95 per vote subsidy, make it a matter of confidence, and force the ‘coalition of the left’ to vote him down on it. That along with all of the other ‘perks’ like on site massage, etc that they were planning to cut.
At least that way, if he chooses to die on a hill, at least it’s a hill worth dying for.
ANd before anyone goes and says that it’s an attack on democracy, take a look at the amounts each party gets:
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 2, 2008 at 5:09 PM
I didn’t state there was a statute. However, it is a convention within the Canadian Constitution that provides for there being a Prime Minister and a Cabinet (all of which are appointed rather than voted). Additionally the selection of the Party Leader to become Prime Minister if the ruling party wins is part of accepted and uncodified British Conventions.
I realize you said codified in any other body of law but it’s myopic to expect key parts of Canada’s election process to be codified in a single document. Additionally please yield to the fact that both written and unwritten sources form the complete Constitution and because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, law provides for the appointment of party leaders and therefore the PM.
I don’t agree with the system as I am for electing the leader of a country outright.
60% sounds a bit much as the most you can pay combined is 54%. At that rate you would have to live in Quebec (and file as a resident) and meet some extraordinary circumstances to pay that much.
It’s nice to see you could gain US Citizenship as a result. I too hope I can do the same as I don’t like the political climate in this country and this upcoming coup might actually help me meet my goals.
Lehner on December 2, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Wouldn’t a coalition of 3 of 4 parties equal a majority? Which means the majority of Canadians would support it?
Whereas a majority of Canadians don’t want Steve Harper to lead their country.
PresidenToor on December 2, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Um. This may be ALLOWABLE under this Parliamentary system, but that doesn’t mean it’s “how it works.” Nor does it change the obvious fact that the coalition effort is a deliberate attempt to subvert the Canadian voters’ will.
Since this hasn’t happened since 1925, I continue to maintain that it’s a disgusting power grab of the highest order, and it’s garbage.
Pure, anadulterated garbage.
JannyMae on December 2, 2008 at 6:27 PM
A majority of Canadian citizens, ie, more than 50% did not vote for any ONE party.
Why would you assume that people who voted for the Conservative party’s opposition would support this takeover by two or three other parties that they DID NOT VOTE FOR? That simply makes no sense.
The Canadian citizens have not voted for a “coalition.” What is it that you don’t “get” about that.
JannyMae on December 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM
By that logic anyone who voted for Ralph Nader is also a big supporter of George Bush, as well as a big fan of Obama, depending on who he throws his support behind.
sharrukin on December 2, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Of course it’s garbage. But these euro-parliamentary systems are garbage. They are unstable and weak, and even worse, power is heavily concentrated once governments are established. Basically, the opposite of the thinking that went into the structure of the US government.
I understand that this is outside the tradition of Canadian parliamentary operations, but it is what other euro-parliaments all over the world do all the time. There is still the possibility to force early elections, but if the voting doesn’t change appreciably, what’s the point?
Like I said, it’s just much better to have a permanent government, with permanent branches, whose seats are populated by individuals.
progressoverpeace on December 2, 2008 at 6:45 PM
I meant majority as in 50%+1.
Did the conservative really make any gains? While they got more seats that last time around, they only got 37% of the vote in 2008 when in 2006 they had 36.3%. You call that “the will of the people”? A big change?
There was no “will” of the Canadian people. Over a third wanted the Conservatives. The rest wanted the Liberals, the Bloc or the NDP. Assuming people went to booth to vote for the party the preferred the most. Or hated the least.
The conservative needed a coalition to rule as well. They needed support from some other party. They didn’t get it. Deal with it.
People in Quebec are not indifferent to Monarchy.
http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/020401eng.pdf
This is a recent survey of Canadians on this topic.
Question: Elizabeth II is currently the Queen of Canada. Do you, YES or NO, want Canada to maintain the monarchy?
… Yes/No/Don’t know
Quebec 29% 65% 6%
Ontario 56% 38% 6%
…
British Columbia 63% 30% 8%
Canada 50% 43% 7%
As you can see, 2/3 of the people in Quebec would rather have Canada NOT maintain the monarchy, where as in the ROC it’s the opposite.
Whether or not Quebec wants to stay in Canada is irrelevant on this point. Of course, the real problem is that the ROC is in love with this symbol of Canada’s colonial past.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 7:33 PM
From what I can tell, most of the ROC are finally fed up with the Quebec tail wagging the Canadian dog, and want it to make good on its threat to separate. It won’t of course, because that cuts off the cash flow that supports its very socialistic and very comfy lifestyle.
shaken on December 2, 2008 at 7:48 PM
And Liberals are starting to fight the coalition idea, too. [Michael Ignatieff is one of the Liberal Party leadership contenders as is Bob Rae.] Sorry to ruin your leftie wet dreams, guys.
BTW, Bourque’s is a liberal Liberal news aggregator.
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 8:00 PM
The NDP is about to take some power.
Socialists, rejoice!
Even the Quebec governments don’t seem as socialistic as the NDP…
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 8:00 PM
I’m Canadian and Harper is a joke. He’s a big government neocon wannabe. And most of Canada voted against the guy. So this talk about elections not meaning anything is complete garbage.
Minority governments are supposed to form coalitions to get the required 50%. If they don’t form a coalition (as Harper is refusing to do so), the other parties are perfectly free to form one of their own. As long as 50% of the people are reperesented, the election has the expected consequence. Minority governments have ZERO claim to govern the country. That’s why it’s called a ‘minority’ government.
And about NDP, they’ve moved to the center in the last few elections and are calling for more fiscal responsability. The socialist party is shouting a conservative agenda??? How sad is it that the socialist party is more conservative than all the other parties. So I voted for NDP because it was the only party I could find that had any inkling of conservatism in them. I sure as hell ain’t voting for liberals or neocons.
MrX on December 2, 2008 at 9:41 PM
The NDP is conservative in what way?
The federal NDP has released a platform calling for a national minimum wage of $10 per hour indexed to inflation, and a ban on the use of replacement workers in strikes and lockouts.
* withdraw Canadian forces from the Afghanistan combat mission with reasonable advance notice and in consultation with our allies
* monitoring and regulating fuel prices at the pumps
* maintain a moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the coast of B.C.
* give a $1,000 grant to all undergraduate or equivalent students who qualify for student loans
* create 150,000 child-care spaces in the first year, rising to 220,000 spaces per year by the fourth year
* establish a poverty-elimination office within Human Resources Development Canada
* establish a national prescription drug program and maintain a strict ban on direct-to-consumer drug advertising
* meet the commitments of the Kelowna accord by investing $5 billion over five years in First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities
* ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Harper government rejected at the UN
* ensure that residential-school survivors left out of the current agreement will be compensated
* implement net neutrality
* stop the decline in family reunification under Canada’s immigration system and work to meet the target of allowing immigration to reach one percent of the population per year
* implement an appeal division under the Immigration Act go give refugee claimants an opportunity to have decisions reviewed without going straight to the Federal Court of Canada
* a $750-million per year “Green Collar Jobs Fund” to train workers and retrain displaced workers as well as a job-protection commissioner to investigate major layoffs and shutdowns
Drugs are bad for you! Very bad apparently.
sharrukin on December 2, 2008 at 9:53 PM
50% doesn’t cut it in Parliament MrX. Minority governments have a lot of claim to government the country, it is written in law and accepted in convention and unwritten source. It is called a minority because they have the most seats in Parliament without reaching the status necessary to have a majority of the seats. Under the single-plurality system that we have, that is their claim to guide and lead the country. These are not facts you can wish away with your beliefs.
The NDP is about bigger government and taking more from the purses that are not theirs. They are about bigger spending on social initiatives rather than to eliminate unnecessary spending. It’s a falsehood to state that the NDP is the only movement with any conservatism in their platform.
Lehner on December 2, 2008 at 11:41 PM
And if they can’t lead because no one will follow, a coalition governement is an acceptable outcome as well.
mycowardice on December 3, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Only to you. The rest of Canada rejected Dion as a leader and increased Harper’s share of the vote. Political back room deals are the only way that loser could ever hope to become Prime Minister. Dion is the one that the country has no confidence in and that was made clear in the last election.
sharrukin on December 3, 2008 at 12:27 AM
The conservative got roughly the same percentage of the vote in 2008 as in 2006. I really don’t see how this is a big deal, except for conservatives who should be mad Harper overplayed his hand.
mycowardice on December 3, 2008 at 1:05 AM
None of which alters the fact that Canadians rejected Dion as a leader. We have the threat of him being placed as Prime Minister, and when or if he resigns, an unelected party flunky replacing him. That is bullshit.
sharrukin on December 3, 2008 at 1:16 AM
sharrukin, you’re still thinking of the post of PM of Canada as an elected one, and it isn’t. The PM is the head of a majority, and Dion’s coalition is democratically legitimate. even if it’s disagreeable to conservatives.
starfleet_dude on December 3, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]