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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The NDP is about to take some power.

Socialists, rejoice!

Even the Quebec governments don’t seem as socialistic as the NDP…

One longtime senior Ignatieff backer, under condition of anonymity, confided that “Michael is in a tenuous situation and he is feeling a lot of heat from caucus colleagues and constituents alike. Frankly, we think we got snookered by Bob Rae on this one”. It nets out to this, according to this longtime Liberal and echoed by many other key backroom players: ordinary Liberals across the country, the card-carrying bbq-ing door-knocking envelope-stuffing phone-banking kind who make up the backbone of the party and who would need to be counted on to support his leadership aspirations, are vehemently rejecting the Dion argument that a deal with the separatist Bloc Quebecois is in the best interests of Canada. “Bullsh*t”, said one Liberal power-broker, who was quick to point out Dion is tilting at Liberal history for the sake of a short stint at 24 Sussex. “Dion is nuts”, he told Bourque, “I am ashamed he is leading the party of Laurier, Pearson, Trudeau, and Chretien–my God, Chretien, the guy who poured out his federalist heart against Rene Levesque’s country-killing forces so long ago–I am ashamed Dion is selling us out.”

BTW, Bourque’s is a liberal Liberal news aggregator.

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

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.

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

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.

JannyMae on December 2, 2008 at 6:27 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.

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

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.

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

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.

I am very much for the conservatives, but this is how parliamentary dynamics work.

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.

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 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.

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:

Conservatives: $10 million
* Liberals: $7.7 million
* NDP: $4.9 million
* Bloc Quebecois: $2.6 million
* Green Party: $1.8 million

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.

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.

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

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).