Does anyone know how much the "Leaders" from the Liberal Party and NDP have donated to their own parties? If even the leaders of the party do not support it why should tax-payers support the party?

No party that refuses to support their own, with their own money, has the right to demand so much as a nickel from any Canadian.

Fine. Then let Harpo and his minions pledge to forgo
ALL taxpayer support, including all rebates and all tax credits.

According to Jack, if political parties without financial supporter can't feed at the public trough, it is an attack on democracy.

Uh, I think that's what he's saying there Manny. Ironically, the CPC would lose the most under Harper's plan. The way things are now the Libs would have to rename themselves the Taxpayer Party of Canada since that's who supports them.

Manny - your skull has got to be bullet proof. That kind of density is amazing.

Manny,

Unlike the socialists, most Conservatives would see the elimination of government support for parties as a reason to focus harder on fundraising.

Now, I can understand why the Liberals and NDP dislike fundraising so much ... Every time the Liberals ask for money they get asked "Didn't you steal enough of my money already?" while every time the NDP ask for money their supporters say "The government should do something about that!"

Do you notice how the Libs and the Dippers are constancy saying "Canadians are saying this or Canadians are saying that yada yada yada". Bullsh-t! A solid 2/3 are saying NO DAMNED WAY to this power heist.

They won't have to worry about funding. If they are able to seize power in this Junta. Canada is finished as a National Dominion. They will be hounded by their own people when it comes. There will be no going back.
If nothing else its shows the insular mindset of Toronto & Quebec. They honestly have no idea how real Canadians view this outside Toronto. They are so far removed from any truth outside of there inner circles, it has made them imbeciles. We are not French out West to play the separatist game for gain. We will just up & leave first chance we get from the Eastern pustules of greed.

I think the libs still owe the taxpayers something north of $10 million.

Uh, I think that's what he's saying there Manny.

Uh, no, "thinker", he's only talking about the per vote funding, not the tax credits nor the campaign rebates.

BC, Alta and Sask hook up with Alaska and then join the US. They'll leave Manitoba to be the Newfoundland of the West -- the way the Bombers play, they belong in the East anyway.

Uhh, manny to be fair, shouldn't you say all political parties should forgo all taxpayer support, including all rebates and all tax credits?

After thinking about this, I've come to the conclusion that the NDP missed the opportunity of a political lifetime for the short term chance of a few cabinet posts. What I mean is, the Liberals and Bloc have a lot more to loose when the $1.95 cut happens. The Liberal party machine is broken and the NDP would naturally fill the vacuum. In Quebec, the socialist leaning voters could vote NDP if the Bloc fails to campaign effectively and without money, that is a lot harder. If on Thursday, instead of screaming their heads off likes Pat Martins' "This means war.", they took the reasonable approach with their usually talking points about not enough help for the poor, etc they would be in the position to support the $1.95 cut. This would help their long term interest as a viable leading opposition party. Alas, it shall not be.

Bring on the $1.95 election.

I will not comment on Manny's comments only because the level of reasoning contained in them is beneath that of my Yorkshire Terrior. I hope that others will refrain from feeding that troll.

No, qwerty, let the right wingnuts practice what they preach or shut the hell up.

Manny, shouldn't everybody play by the same rules. So, no taxpayer support, whatsoever, for any political party. Is that what you're advocating?

For the rest who actually think before they post, here's an idea I'd like to float. Tories keep the subsidy in place, but refuse to take it themselves.

Manny and his ilk are laughable. Anybody who thinks Libs and NDP are trying to seize power because they disagree with economic statement are truly delusional. Harper withdrew that aspect from the economic statement and lo and behold, the idea of a non-confidence motion, rather than voting against the statement came out, before Flanagan's statement was even on Hansard.

Read the G&M article today about how Chretien and Broadbent hatched the coalition idea out of reaction to the trial baloon of removing subsidy was put out.

Manny, where is the opposition's plan, other than to defeat the government and try to seize power. For the lucid, sorry this isn't business as usual in parliament. Yes, the rules allow for this type of thing, but it is still a quite rare event, and the events today simply don't align with a minority coalition seizing power with help of separatists, where the defeated government would have more seats than the coalition.

It's a total pipe dream anyway that's going nowhere. I guarantee GG wants no part of this. Spare us the 62% of Canadians voted against Harper - it doesn't follow logically that they would be in favour of this coalition. BTW, that would mean 74% voted against Dion in government, 81% against NDP in government, and 90% against Bloc in government.

If the NDP and Liberals had run together under a single platform (which they both explicitly rejected BTW), IMO that would have resulted in CPC majority.

This back door BS simply won't fly on any level. Just because on a technical or legalistic (ie-theoretical) level, this could happen, it does not pass a reality test.

Libs should be careful what they wish for. If by some miracle they got GG to go along with this hairbrained scheme of minority coalition (no precedent for this one folks) with Bloc support, Harper would immediately launch court challenge and we would end up in election.

If opposition is so sure this is what Canadians want, then they should defeat the government and face voters in election. They don't want to do that, because they know what happen.

I believe they also know the GG will not be party to this either, so they are just playing asinine games when, yes Ted, Canadians (sorry buddy that isn't just Liberals) want leadership.

But Ted and Manny, thanks for the laugh though.

If the socialist trio manages to concoct their plan and become administrators of the state, it will be a de facto communist regime.
Taliban Jack Layton in any cabinet post is unthinkable based only on his genuflecting to the taliban and admirer of Castro.
Bob Rae the "crypto-communist" and French citoyen Dion as the prime Minister would signal the death knell of Canada if former communist card carrying Duceppe's voice was required in lawmaking.
Western Canadians would rebel and I for one would be willing to encourage them from here in Ontario.
I don't want to live under any communist regime, and I know in my heart those individuals would not be long in taking the road of Chavez and Castro.
The most frustrating part is the blindness of Canadian MSM to the consequences of this axis of obscenity the three joned party's represent to Canada.

Just a reminder that there still exists the tax rebate for political donations that is quite significant:

$1100 (max) donation gets you a $508.33 rebate
$500 donation gets you a $350 rebate
$100 donation gets you a $75 rebate

The liberals can't get people to donate money... The conservatives can.

So I suppose the next move when the Liberals take power would be to make this rebate disappear.

I'm sending $500 to the Conservative Party.

Go Harper Go. Merry Christmas to us all!

If I understand Manny correctly, three different forms of taxpayer support is vital to maintain democratic viability in Canada.

Apparantly our political parties are so fragile that this financial arrangement is vital. Of course this couldn't be the same Manny who rails against government support for the agriculture industry.

That Manny considers ag support to be akin to theft.

Syncro

Oh my, the right wing, open mouth, rush limbaugh wannabe blowhards are positively apoplectic, if this Green yahoo on 980 is any indication. I do believe he may blow a gasket. Pantload Harpo cannot be gone soon enough.

A dozen people, huh...
Taber, Fife, Oliver, Newman, Robertson, WK,......

Manny,

Can you list 10 things the Harper government has done which is so awful (or so much different from what the Liberals did) that made you dislike them so much?

NoOne - why would you or anyone give a flying you-know-what!

A possible solution that I posted on a G&M thread [of course, this wouldn't happen in a week, but still poses an interesting scenario]:

" If Sarah Palin was to bring Alaska into Canadian Confederation, that could give the Conservatives a majority, and perhaps we could enjoy her as Vice-Presdent, er: Vice Premier, or whatever. Think of the endless advantages. Wow! "

Note: Sorry Kate, you were my first choice, but can you bring Alaska into Confederation?

Fine. Then let Harpo and his minions pledge to forgo
ALL taxpayer support, including all rebates and all tax credits.
And how much did you contribute,manny???And that is exactly what PMSH wants to do.Where did you learn your logic? At the Socialist school for commies?

Oh. And BTW.....manny...haul your nose out of K's a%%s...Okay?

Sorry, I can't resist feeding the troll.
Manny wants Stephanie to pay for his Penial Inversion so he can sleep with the new P.M.

Does any one know how long it takes polling firms to commission a poll and release the results? All of the online polls I've seen support the $1.95 cut from 60 to 85 percent. I figure once the Liberal and NDP see these kinds of numbers from independent polling firms and their associated drop in popular support they may reconsider. Or is the quest for power blinding them?

Some other economists - those who didn't attend the prestigious University of Calgary's Stephen Harper School of Economical Type Things And the Liberals Totally Suck - have weighed in.

It's not pretty. From the Globe:

“That’s precisely the thing not to do,” said Carlos Leitao, chief economist at Laurentian Bank Securities. Rather than a balanced budget, he believes, what we need right now is new spending of $15 billion or more to do things like bail out provincial budgets and boost benefits to the unemployed. This would translate into a deficit of about the same size, but it would prevent economic damage worth far more.

“I think a lot of us were a bit flabbergasted by the government’s priorities,” said Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets. “Who exactly are they trying to impress” with the deficit-fighting rhetoric? he asked, since Canadians know very well that temporary deficits are far preferable to a deepening recession.

“This policy will not do anything to moderate the recession and it may worsen it,” said McGill University economist Jagdish Handa. The principle that government should sustain economic activity and employment by running deficits during a slump, far from being controversial, is “at the core of current economic thinking,” he noted.

Manny have you asked yourself why you post on a right of centre blog? The need to aggravate those that pay no attention to you in life reminds you that your mom had to tie a pork chop around your neck for the dog to come.

Also from the Globe:

"The Harper government will abandon a plan to end subsidies for political parties, backpedalling from a move that outraged the opposition and pushed the country towards a political crisis."

So now it gets even more interesting. The Liberal - NDP coalitions with their shadow partner the Bloc want to come out with a big "stimulus" while the Conservatives take a vigilant wait and see approach. With the party funding off the table what comes next?

Again - this is a disgrace; it is an outright rejection of democracy. How dare you - Mr. Dion, Layton, Ignatieff, Rae, Duceppe - how dare you treat the parliament and the electorate with such contempt. How dare you so abuse our system to gain power. ET

To all of those Tory supporters fuming with outrage at the possible “overthrow” of Harper’s minority government in an “undemocratic coup” and who are especially aggrieved at the thought of the Bloc’s participation in a progressive coalition government, please read the following letter from your Dear Leader to then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson dated September 9, 2004:

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
That letter was signed by all three opposition leaders: Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper.
h/t red tory

You're a guest here manny. But that can be remedied if you venture again into insulting your hostess.

The rest of you can stop feeding her, and all of you can drop the insults.

Manny ...

... spoken like a true Liberal with one's nose in the public trough of entitlement!

Simple ... If Liberals are such generous folk , then put your collective money where your collective mouth is and donate to the Liberal party.

... otherwise shut up and go away !

Kaplan: "“I think a lot of us were a bit flabbergasted by the government’s priorities,” said Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets. “Who exactly are they trying to impress” with the deficit-fighting rhetoric? he asked, since Canadians know very well that temporary deficits are far preferable to a deepening recession."

Porter may be right about the usefulness of temporary deficits, but to say that Canadians "know very well" that they are preferable to a recession is ridiculous. All that most Canadians have heard for 15 years is that deficits have to be avoided at all costs, since they nearly bankrupted the country. The Conservatives are talking about avoiding a deficit because they know they'll be skewered by the opposition if/when one occurs. But the opposition will also crucify the govt. for not concocting a massive "stimulative" package that will rack up a huge deficit. If Porter can't see the politics behind this, then he isn't very smart -- and no judge of what "most Canadians" are thinking.

I can scarcely imagine the thoughts running through the Librano braintrust right now ............. economic stimulus = Adscam x billions , plus carbon tax . Let the good times roll . Liberal times are good times baby .

Manny does have a point on the whole "coalition" thing. CPC supporters can't complain about what the opposition is doing right now when Harper tried the exact same thing just a few short years ago...

He's out to lunch on the rest though...

“I think a lot of us were a bit flabbergasted by the government’s priorities,” said Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets."

"will not do anything to moderate the recession and it may worsen it,” said McGill University economist Jagdish Handa.

Big deal! How many economists have we heard lately speaking on the subject of recession? 12 different economists will give 12 different opinions. The reality is that there is simply no silver bullet.

Pardon me if I've got this wrong but this coalition of Libs and Dips that is being cobbled together by Chretien/Broadbent/Dion/Layton/Rae/Ignatief to assume power will have, according to the last election, a total of 114 seats in the HoC while the CPC will have 143 seats therefore the coalition will require 30 plus seats more to pass any legislation that they table. Even to the trolls here it must be fairly evident that those seats or votes can only come from the Bloc. So I'd like an explanation of how or why the Libs/Dips would allow the RoC to be governed (?, - coerced, extorted, forced, intimidated, you pick) by 30 representatives who's only raison d'etre is to seperate and ultimately break up Canada! When given the chance to cooperate with the incumbent government last September Dion, Layton, and Duceppe all refused now they are going to jump into bed with each other for their grab at power. The only thing that will happen with this manage-a-trois is that Canadians are going to get skewered and I for one am tired of these Trudeaupea/Socialists trying to force me into their daisy chain. If it takes another election to get rid of this socialist mind set then bring it on, I'm going down to my MP's office this week to pony up and hold the line. (OT maybe the new party should be named the Manage-a-Trois party....naw couldn't happen there's not a man among them!!!!)

Given that Canada is recognized to be in the best financial shape of all the G20 countries, why should we be like lemmings and follow those other countries [the story of the 3 little pigs comes to mind here, with Canada having built its house of bricks]The UK just reduced their GST thereby following what Canada did 18 months ago. The Americans have not released their stimulus package and as mentioned elsewhere we would be crazy to release funds until we see what the Yanks do after all it is the US auto industry.
The Liberals see this as an opportunity to replenish their war chest.The Dipper get a chance to play Government which they will never do through the popular vote.The Bloc are rubbing their hands at the prospect of blackmailing the other two parties.

Richard Evans, do you recall what was happeneding in 2004, after Sheila Fraser revealed details of Adscam?

The public was in a total uproar, and The Opposition had every right to write a letter of non-confidence in the government, on the public's behalf.

This time The Opposition are not fighting for the public, but out of concern for losing *their* entitlements from the taxpayer.

manny:
Progressive coalition government
Progressive in what way? Communism!!!
I don't know if you have noticed but the word progressive has come to mean thought police, tax theft, power mongering, contempt for electors, freedom for child killers, lovers of criminals, idiots in the bush moaning over Mother Earth.
Give it up Manny your just a 2 buck Nazi with the usual feral arrogant mindset of the Elite. With utter contempt for any other view point. I hope this does succeed. Its the end of having to listen to faux Canadians like you when we leave.
Its stinkers like your bunch of socialists, that are going to bring on a new holocaust. Just like your fellow travelers have always done . From Russia, Germany, china ,Rwanda, Cuba, to Cambodia. It now looks like SA may be visited with the progressive Tolerance & compassion we have all been accustomed to from progressives. The bulldozer for the bodies.

Happy Trails or would that be tarred & feathered rails? After the killing fields have ended.

I agree with Kate one hundred percent that the Chretien formula for political party subsidy should be repealed, along with removing the tax credit given for individual political donations, which is a subsidy as well.

If members of any organization are unwilling to support said organization without the benefit of a tax break it should cease to exist.

Bingo, BB. The scope and scale of the call for a coalition is not even close to being equal.

I live in Saskatchewan where we have one (thank God not more than one) Liberal MP - none other than Ralph Goodale. "Ralph" is what I want to do when I think of this eastern Liberal-a$$kisser). If the government is defeated on this, in the next election, I will travel to Regina and spend time campaigning in Goodale's riding of Wascana in an effort to defeat him. I hope that many, many others are as fed as I am with Ralphie and get out there and do the same. We must get out a big effort to get rid of this man.

I have not seen anyone in the MSM look at this from the voters perspective. All of the anointed ones seem to forget about the spirit of democracy and the will of the voters. The proposed coalition is not legitimate because they have not presented a platform that has been approved by Canadians.

Is it Dion's the Liberal Greenshift (that was rejected in the election)? The NDPs anti business agenda? The Blocs separatists agenda?

If the opposition is hot to form an alliance that is fine. But they should first have a platform to present to voters and then call an election. All voters should get to see the coalitions intentions before being forced the accept this arranged marriage by Chretien and Broadbent. The opposition and GG should not presume that Canadians have given them a mandate to govern based solely the fact that they are all left of the conservatives. The GG should force them to present themselves to voters as a united coalition.

I used to have a lot of respect for Ed Broadbent, but this is ridiculous. As for Chretien I will never forgive him for his encouraging the federal Business Development Bank to fire and harass President François Beaudoin because he balked at further loans for a friend of Chretien's. I see this thug Chretienis still getting honorary degrees from universities.

And Harper should consult with party members before pulling a stunt like this.

Roy Green had SUPERB 3 hours of coverage on this constitutional crisis today. In case you missed it, I've provided links here.

The best part was Libby Davies in the 2nd half of the first hour. Roy well represented the outrage many of us are feeling!!!

Yes, Robert W, I listened to it while monitoring the issue on this blog. Roy said that he has never - no make that NEVER seen so many e-mails to him on one issue. People are really pissed about this and I am one of them. They cannot be allowed to get away with this. I will be sure to listen in to Roy's radio show tomorrow also.

"Manny does have a point on the whole "coalition" thing."

No he doesn't. That letter said that if the governing party asked the GG to dissolve Parliament, she consider all of her options, including the possibility of a coalition of the opposition parties. It didn't say a thing about the opposition parties asking her to remove the governing party to install them instead.

Manny, what does it feel like to be the resident pet troll here? I trust you realize that you are advocating the non-election of a coalition that includes a group of people who want to dissolve Canada? Supporting this coalition means supporting Gilles Duceppe because we all know that we will be pulling the strings of Dion & Layton at every turn. This makes you non-Canadian, sir.

What's most hilarious at this juncture is that now that the Conservatives have withdrawn the idea of removing the taxpayer supported political contributions, precisely on what actual points are the 3 parties in the Cabal standing on? I can only think of two: Power & Ego.

The public was in a total uproar, and The Opposition had every right to write a letter of non-confidence in the government, on the public's behalf.
This time The Opposition are not fighting for the public, but out of concern for losing *their* entitlements from the taxpayer.

The "motivation" of the opposition is irrelevant in the eyes of the constitutional framework that allowed the current situation. Granted, motivation can and will play a role in any action the GG takes after the coalition pulls the trigger but as far as actually pulling the trigger goes, it's completely legal and democratic as outlined in our governing documents.

It sucks, but it is what it is. Sniveling about it makes us look like hypocrites...

Supporting this coalition means supporting Gilles Duceppe because we all know that we will be pulling the strings of Dion & Layton at every turn.This makes you non-Canadian, sir.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Kathryn: No he doesn't. That letter said that if the governing party asked the GG to dissolve Parliament, she consider all of her options, including the possibility of a coalition of the opposition parties. It didn't say a thing about the opposition parties asking her to remove the governing party to install them instead.

Wake up! When the GG is asked to dissolve parliament, on a vote of non-confidence, she has one of 2 options;
1. look at a coalition, or,
2. an election.

We just had an election. 6 weeks ago. The odds of her allowing a do-over are somewhere between slim and none, hence the focus on the coalition...

Conditions have changed since Harper signed that letter, yes, but the rules haven't changed. It's legal and it's democratic. We have to play by the rules as they are, not as we wished they are. Get over it.

As Canada sails into treacherous economic waters, we have far too many political pundits, that appear to support the Liberal Party, in this brazen move to seize power, after being soundly rejected in a general election only a few weeks ago.
Are these pundits now telling Canadians, that Stephane Dion is the best leader ( or are we picking the worst) the country has to lead us in these perilous times? Are these same pundits telling us now, that we must incorporate NDP philosophy into what measures and stimulus we must now give the economy?
Are these pundits telling us that we should give the balance of power and effective control of the government to a separatist party like the Bloc, who have maintained for years they have no interest in what happens to Canada, and are only interested in what is good for Quebec and that they want to see Quebec separate from the rest of Canada.
Now the Liberals and NDP are telling us, we should turn to the Bloc, so we can right the economic ship of the country,and the fact that political pundits aren't jumping out of their skin at this suggestion is a huge disappointment. I have always believed that these pundits are also Canadians, with Canadian values, and were sincere when they wrote and commented about the danger of the Bloc for this country, and why we must take uncompromising measures, and there is no limit to the sacrifice we should make to preserve our country and its' values - I feel abandoned and frustrated.

As Canada sails into treacherous economic waters, we have far too many political pundits, that appear to support the Liberal Party, in this brazen move to seize power, after being soundly rejected in a general election only a few weeks ago.
Are these pundits now telling Canadians, that Stephane Dion is the best leader ( or are we picking the worst) the country has to lead us in these perilous times? Are these same pundits telling us now, that we must incorporate NDP philosophy into what measures and stimulus we must now give the economy?
Are these pundits telling us that we should give the balance of power and effective control of the government to a separatist party like the Bloc, who have maintained for years they have no interest in what happens to Canada, and are only interested in what is good for Quebec and that they want to see Quebec separate from the rest of Canada.
Now the Liberals and NDP are telling us, we should turn to the Bloc, so we can right the economic ship of the country,and the fact that political pundits aren't jumping out of their skin at this suggestion is a huge disappointment. I have always believed that these pundits are also Canadians, with Canadian values, and were sincere when they wrote and commented about the danger of the Bloc for this country, and why we must take uncompromising measures, and there is no limit to the sacrifice we should make to preserve our country and its' values - I feel abandoned and frustrated.

Perhaps it should be time for a forensic audit - could the cash gone to an advertising company?

What the Conservatives should do is advance an economic stimulus package AND make the cuts to the political parties. Then see what the "opposition" parties decide to do. They have been saying all along (actually, they have been LYING all along) that their opposition is not due to the cuts to their parties. Let them prove it.

And to Manny the mouth....the fact is, that Liberals and their socialist and Marxist friends have this sense of entitlement right in their DNA. The world does NOT owe them a living.

The Liberals -- nee the party that keeps the country together -- are going to be hooped by this, one way or another. All that remains to be seen whether or not their pathetic display will, in the interim, hoop the country as well, and at the worst possible time. As with so many other issues that the media lags behind voters on, the Lib/NDP/BQ's fake outrage that it's undemocratic for their supporters to throw them a couple of bucks is going to bite them in the ass.

If the LPC forms a coalition government with the *formalized* -- more on that in a second -- support of a party whose sole raison d'etre is to break up the country, it's going to cost them for many years -- decades -- to come. If, instead, we go to an election, their pathetic, desperate, morally-rudderless climbing-into-bed with the separatists is simply going to cost them sooner rather than later.

An article in the G&M says that there are several scenarios if The Snouts' motion passes:

1) The PM could (and he will, if it comes to that) ask the GG call an election. Ms. Jean could either agree or refuse, but in light of the fact (and this is one of the talking points in the "leaked" memo to Cons mps) that not one single person in the country voted in the last election for a coalition government that includes the separatists, I don't see how she could refuse a request to let the voters, instead of the three losing parties in the last election, decide who forms the government.

2) This next scenario is, IMO, where the long-term harm to the LPC would occur: the Snouts "would have to...make a public commitment to govern as a partnership 'for a period of say, two years'..." In other words, the coalition that not one Canadian voted for would be formally partnered with the Separatists, inasmuch as in order for the GG to give the nod to the Snout coalition, the BQ would first *have to* give her their assurance that they will vote with an NDP/Lib coalition for a period of several years on every single confidence vote -- meaning, a de facto separatist coalition would form Canada's government.

Further, since everyone in the country, including the GG, knows that the Libs are absolutely, positively NOT going to run in the next election, whenever that may be, as part of a coalition party with the separatists, any Snout proposal to form a government would clearly be not sincere, not long-term, not conducive to stability, and not in the best interests of the country.

PS: How did this thread become about Manny? No wonder he comments here so eagerly.

This is for those who believe by voting you donate $2 to your party. NO,you did not.If there are ten of you sitting around a table at Starbucks and you all voted liberal,you did not donate $20 to the liberals. What you did was take $20 out of the treasury and passed it on to the liberals,and that is $20 less to run the programs that you covet so much. Now,on the other hand if you actually took a twenty out of your pocket and sent it directly to the Liberals,then you could feel smug.

Manny let's review, so you can understand what is actually happening. The opposition is not interested in the dissolution of parliament leading to an election. They want GG to give them power, but first refusing to dissolve parliament, and then meeting with them and granting them government.

Now listen carefully - WITHOUT AN ELECTION.

Harper never approached, or proposed to approach GG, when Martin was PM. He was clear that he wanted an election.

How many times do people have to be told there is a difference between a minority and coalition government. A minority situation is where parties support the government, informally or otherwise, so they can pass legislation. A coalition is a shared power situation, where not only do other parties support the government, but they are part of the government, with cabinet representation (ie-Gilles Duceppe as Deputy PM and in Cabinet, with Jack Layton as say, Environment Minister).

Manny, can you point to a single example, in Canadian history, of two parties in a coalition, where they still needed the minority support of a third party (Hint: it has NEVER happened).

And it won't happen here either. When we see a legislative agenda proposal with all three opposition parties, signed on as part of the government, with cabinet ministers from all three parties, then we start to enter the realm of possibility.

That would require separatists sitting at the cabinet table with Duceppe likely Deputy PM (after all he more seats than NDP).

Canada is not in crisis right now; there is no World War like there was in the last coalition government (and I think the only one in Canadian history).

Almost as rare is a situation where a minority gets cobbled together and replaces sitting government without benefit of election. Are NDP and Libs proposing to defeat Harper government, and then go to election as coalition? Not from what I've heard. Combining their votes/seats at last election is irrelevant - they ran as separate parties with separate platforms (remember Layton saying he was applying for job as PM?)

Now do you understand why this isn't going to happen. These nuances actually matter, and would colour, big time, the decisions of the GG if she were approached with this.

History shows that is Mr Harper approached her for disolution, she would likely grant the request. That's why this coalition idea is a pipe dream, ungrounded in history, convention or law. There is no precedent for a coalition of two parties taking power when they don't have a majority of seats.

Isn't it amazing how there are so damned many instant experts on constitutional matters?

It's speculation gone amok intertwined with partisan wishful thinking.

However, we can probably assume the GG will need a great deal of advice to get through this crisis created by lust for power by the Liberals. The NDP is more than a willing whore, it may be their only chance in history of getting their grubby hands on the kitty. Scary times. Hold onto your wallets.

Canadians haven't heard from the western separatists yet, regarding the socialist / communist plot by including Duceppes's blockheads.
But I am sure they will.

Richard, people are so not snivelling this time around!

They are angry!

And that is when things start to shift in politics!

For that we can be grateful, and that is about the only thing we could be grateful for this time around.

Richard, people are so not snivelling this time around!

When we're complaining that it's "undemocratic", even after our own team used the exact same tactics, not that long ago, we're sniveling.

If we, as conservatives, are going to come out of this ahead of the game, there needs to be less focus on the "undemocratic" B.S. being spun by the adolescents in the CPC war room and more focus on the real arguments.

You tink hit izzy hobbyratings wid no taxis?

Exactly right, Kate.

CPC rule changes have meant that corps can no longer buy elections and now the siphon in the public trough is going to be snipped. We see the Liberals have very little in terms of grassroots financial support.

They still do not seem to understand that they need to REBUILD.

I'm waiting to hear the Conservative Party announce that they're REFUNDING the per vote tax dollars they are receiving. After all, it's a matter of principle, isn't it?

Well, Mr. Harper?

richard evans, perhaps I misunderstand you. What are you talking about, when you say that'our own team used the exact same tactics not so long ago'.

Did the Conservative Party ever suggest, if a financial Liberal bill was defeated, that instead of an election, they'd insist on setting up a coalition govt with the NDP and the Bloc? I missed that event in our history.

That letter of Sept 9/04 certainly never suggests it. It doesn't discuss a falling of the Liberal govt because of a financial bill. It instead points out that the Liberal govt has an agenda of insisting that its bills be passed or it will call a general election.

That letter instead suggests that instead of constantly 'going to an election' as Chretien did, for strategic reasons, that all parties ought to be consulted about the situation. There is no suggestion in that letter, of a coalition between the CPC, the NDP and the Bloc. Can you imagine such a coalition?

ET; After a non-confidence vote, a coalition is the first option that the GG has to consider. If that's not doable, then the writ gets dropped as it did 2 elections ago. This time it looks as though a coalition may be doable and the GG will have to go with it unless she, for some reason, doesn't see it as a viable option.

There's an order of operations, as outlined in the constitution, that needs to be followed.

thewestwantsout.com

May be activated a little sooner than I thought.

...further...

What kind of "options" do you folks think Harper was referring to in his letter? That the GG consider eating strawberry shortcake while standing on her head?

djb:

In a democracy, all rules and laws apply equally to all parties.

Until the rules are changed, there is no stupulation to refund funds already received retroactively.

Under the new proposal, which would apply to all parties equally, the Conservative Party is, in fact would give up the highest proportion of funding based on the last election results.

Would you be willing to support your party of choice with money from your own pocket?

How could anyone in their right mind ever consider the three ringed circus being proposed by the "three amigos" to be in any way shape or form anywhere near being a stable situation?

The opposition parties are angry that there was no "stimulus package" included in the financial statement that said political parties should lead by example and tighten their belts. The financial stimulation has already been delivered by buying 75 billion dollars of mortgages from the banks thus allieviating the credit crunch that was beginning to trouble the Canadian economy. The opposition parties, liebrals and dippers, are also wailing that excessive amounts of taxpayers money should be thrown at industies that are having a tough time in this ecomony, for a myriad of reasons. Mostly the reason is no customers. Auto makers are overstocked because the U.S. is definately having a financial meltdown and they themselves cannot keep their overpaid heavily unionized workers in the rust-belt producing product, instead using their non-unionized factories of the southern states producing. The forestry industry is in slowdown because the market (U.S.) has evaporated due to the real-estate meltdown. There is no place at this moment to sell the products this country produces in abundance save for food and energy. The president-elect of the U.S. has to come up with a plan to save their economy but cannot implement anything until after Jan. 20. So the only option left for a responsible government is to wait and see before committing more resources. The bloc is only interested in receiving more largess from the ROC no matter the persieved reason. Scant weeks ago during the election campaign the opposition parties were screaming for more "green" consciousness from the public, ie fewer cars, less co2, less forest being cut, they have gotten their wish and we the public have gotten a preview of life under the liberals/ndp/bloc (socialists) if they follow the global warming due to human activity farce.

"I see this thug Chretien is still getting honorary degrees from universities."

Paul Wells is also a big fan of the Shawinigan Strangler.

I'd rather spend $300 million for another election than give it to the CAW.
How's that for a stimulant package?

O Bananada!
Our homely and naive land!
True co-dependent love in all wry sons command.
With sinking hearts see tax rates rise,
The True North tax and flee!
From far and wide,
O Bananada, we stand on guard for RCMP
Blogs take our hand polygamous and free!
O Bananada, we stand on guard for RCMP.
O Bananada, we stand on guard for RCMP

Orville. just look at the faces of the so called pundits. These are the angriest self loathing twits on the planet. and their opinions are not worth the paper they post on. The real people are the ones to listen to not some loser like Don Martin or Jim "Che" Travers.

Hmm, let's shake this up a bit...

"bartinsky. just look at the writings of the so called bloggers. These are the angriest self loathing twits on the planet. and their opinions are not worth the bandwidth they post on. The real people are the ones to listen to not some loser like (conservative blogger) or (conservative blogger)."

Or is there something wrong with my logic here?

I am absolutely convinced that listening/watching/reading anything connected to the CBC directly leads to a massive decrease in IQ. Don't believe me? Then take a look at the many comments here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/29/coalition.html#socialcomments

Just imagine ... JUST IMAGINE if the Conservatives had pulled such a stunt as the Liberals are now contemplating. Do you think these same people would be saying the same things as they are now? Of course not! Absolutely and complete hypocrites!!!

richard evans - could you provide the constitutional rule that states that after a non-confidence vote, the GG HAS to consider a coalition?

After all, it's not in the constitution, as far as I know, that the loss of confidence leads to..anything. It's a tradition. We all know that Paul Martin's govt ignored several non-confidence votes.

Coalition? That would require the resignation of the current govt! But no federal govt in Canadian history has ever resigned due to a loss of confidence; it has instead, sought dissolution and a general election, and it remained in power until the results of that election. (No, the Liberal govt under Wm Lyon M-K resigned before the loss of confidence).

What we have here is a blatant undemocratic attempt by the Liberals-NDP to take power, to move themselves in as the Canadian government, without the due process of an election. That is outrageous. They are ignoring the right of the duly elected government to govern.

Nor is there anything in the constitution, as far as I can see, about the legality of a coalition government - an unelected one that has not been put forth to the people.

Remember, if the Liberals-NDP 'coalesce' their numbers will still fall short of the CPC numbers, and that means that they cannot govern without the Bloc, a separatiste party focused only on Quebec and hostile to Canada. Hmm.

If the lib's, ndp and bloc want a coalition and can work out a deal between themselves and approach "GG" with a working agenda after a vote of non confidence motion. They can obviously do this in parliamentary rules.

I think that instead of the West screaming of separation every Canadian that does not believe in this Parliament leadership should go on a general strike. This would be across Canada so fast and it would bring the politicians to their knees and maybe they start to listen. In fact it would bring the bureaucracy down.

Think about it, no businesses running, no wages payed, no taxes collected and that is just a few things the people of Canada could do.

Could somebody please check out Scott Reid's column in the Globe and tell me if it qualifies as hate speech? Thanks.

From Scott Reid's Globe article speaking of PM Harper;

"Their imperative could not be more clear: kill him. Kill him dead. Do not, whatever you do, provide him with"

That is clearly over the line Joanne.

Bruce, totally. I cannot imagine any media outlet allowing such a thing to be said about any opposition leader.

That Reid column cannot go unchallenged. That is beyond the pale but not surprising coming from that individual.

Scott Reid's opinion @ the G&M was clearly over the top and uncalled for. Again though politics as a bloodsport is OK as long as the LPC are doing it. Funny that eh?

Seriously though, if Harper doesn't have anything else going on over this I will be disappointed in the war room efforts as this will have proven to of been a complete waste of time.

Over at Stephen Taylor's the rumour now is that the Conservatives may prorogue parliament until they present the budget in six or seven weeks.

This is an excellent idea, it will give the government plenty of time to communicate their position.

Meanwhile, the Liberals and NDP will foaming at the mouth all through Christmas showing Canada once again how unfit they are to be the government.

Legally, the only person who can ask for the dissolution of parliament to the GG is the Prime Minister. The Opposition Parties have no such right.

Furthermore, the Opposition Parties cannot, on their own, legally and constitutionally, first move no-confidence and then, without an election, insist that they be installed as the 'legitimate' government. This can't be done.

Note that the legal govt, in this case, the CPC, would FIRST have to resign! The GG can't force the govt to resign, for that would go against the will of the electorate.
And, the Liberals-NDP can't declare themselves as the govt, for that too would go against the will of the electorate.

So - what's going on? We all know that the real reason for the Opposition (all 3 parties) apocalyptic hysteria is the threat of that loss of feeding at the taxpayer's trough. They aren't interested in Canada or the economy - and they have no plan.

Surely you can't consider flinging money at various insolvent industries a PLAN? That won't solve anything and will make the economy worse, by putting us into a deficit without dealing with the rotten infrastructure of these companies.

Again, I'm stunned that the Liberals-NDP would, instead of working with the govt, as they promised to do, instead reject such an action and instead, attempt to steal power away from the electorate.

In Canada! A group of politicians denying the will of the electorate and attempting to take over the duly-elected government. How? By relying on bribes. Isn't that the Liberal style? Isn't that how they have governed for years?

Bribes to the NDP, parceling out juicy cabinet positions to the NDP to make them Join The Coup! And what are they giving to the separatiste party, the Bloc - a party that rejects Canada and Canadians and whose only interest is in the Canadian taxpayer's contribution to their pensions and benefits. What are they giving to the Bloc? More bribes?

Outrageous abuse of the electorate and a denial of democracy. Write to your MP, write to the Corrupt MSM. Write and insist on democracy.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

(yes, I'm shouting)

From above:

Pardon me if I've got this wrong but this coalition of Libs and Dips that is being cobbled together by Chretien/Broadbent/Dion/Layton/Rae/Ignatief to assume power will have, according to the last election, a total of 114 seats in the HoC while the CPC will have 143 seats therefore the coalition will require 30 plus seats more to pass any legislation that they table. Even to the trolls here it must be fairly evident that those seats or votes can only come from the Bloc.

Why should we allow the Bloc to hold the balance of power when 75% of the country can neither vote FOR or AGAINST that party?

Somebody explain that to me.

By the way, to clear up further the confusion about King's 1925 'coalition', this is a completely different scenario from the one that the Liberals-NDP-Bloc are attempting.

And by the way, I note again that the Liberal mode of obtaining power, yet again, reeks of corruption. A few years ago, it was Adscam, where they used the taxpayers' millions to sneak money, via ad firms, to actually pay for their re-election campaigns in Quebec.
Now, the Liberals are yet again abusing the taxpayer. First, they are up in arms (and Scott Reid's urging people to Kill Harper is an example) about losing their taxpayer funding, but above all, they are ignoring the democratic process in their attempt to take power away from the legitimate government.

Back to King. He was already in power. Got that? His gov't was already duly elected and ratified by the GG. He then called an election. He lost to the Conservatives. The Conservatives got 116 seats. King's Liberals got only 99, and the Progressives got 24. But, instead of resigning after this election and handing power over to the majority, the Conservatives - King refused to resign. He said he'd govern with the 24 seats as a Coalition! And since he hadn't resigned, there was nothing to be done.

Then, he wanted yet another election. The GG refused (and the constitutionality of this refusal is debated)..and instead said that the Conservatives, who after all had legitimately won the election, should govern.

So, the King situation was completely different from the current one. Remember, he was legitimately in power when he called that election. Today, neither the Liberals nor the NDP nor the Bloc are in legitimate power. Only Harper's govt has been legitimized both by the electorate AND by its due acknowledgment by the GG. Once those actions are done - that 'presented to the GG' government - is legitimate. It can only stop existing when the PM resigns.

How dare the Liberals-NDP attempt to steal legitimate power away from the govt and the people? I am astonished at the arrogance, at the utter illegality of it.

There's a very good analysis of confidence and due process. I won't post the link because I'll be sent to the corner.
Google 'Donald Desserud'. The Confidence convention under the Canadian parliamentary system. It's worth the read for the historical, legal and political analysis - and it shows that the Liberals-NDP are clearly 'out to lunch'.

qwerty1: "I've come to the conclusion that the NDP missed the opportunity of a political lifetime for the short term chance of a few cabinet posts." I also think the NDP missed the boat on this one. Also, because Harper's move would have been a catalyst for lefties actually writing cheques to their respective parties. They probably would all have ended up better off than just the $1.95 subsidy. I think NDP are too accustomed to knee-jerk outrage to think strategically. They could have negotiated with Harper to support the update if he got rid of the union piece. Layton would have looked like a hero. I wonder if this might be why Harper included the union thing -- which seems not especially valuable at this point. If yes, then Harper erred in overestimating his opponents. Too bad.

A big part of the sickness in Canadian politics is the presence of the Bloc. Remove the seats held by the Bloc and the Conservatives have a solid majority. The Conservatives were close to having a majority when support slipped away in Quebec in favour of the Bloc. The game that Quebecers are playing is to support the Bloc as a "wedge" in Canadian politics. Doesn't matter that the Conservatives treated them very well in the previous government, their perception is that they can get all kinds of special favours by continuing to support the Blocm and they do not appreciate the potential consequences. In this case, what they have wrought is serious political instability, risking the fiscal well being of all of Canada. I think we have Bloc supporters to thank for the current crisis. If this situation is not resolved quickly and with minimal upheaval, their narrow self-interest will have a serious negative financial impact.

ET, it is you who is out to lunch. Again.
It is axiomatic to parliamentary government that the cabinet must enjoy the confidence of the majority of elected members of the legislature.....
An incumbent Prime Minister has the right to meet Parliament after a minority election, and the Governor General has the duty to appoint another if the incumbent resigns for whatever reason. However, it is the House of Commons that decides who may actually govern.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoParl/english/issue.htm?param=168&art=1143

And all this bleating about democracy and the electorate. The Libs and NDP garnered 44% of the popular vote in the last election the Cons only 38%. That the Cons got as many seats as they did is but a quirk of the crap shoot that is the first past the post. I don't hear you bellyaching for a system in which every vote counts. You want democracy, but not too much democracy, only the kind that favours your side, the kind where you don't have to fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, only enough people at the right time so as to win a plurality.

Harper's too cute ploy to cut public per vote funding betrays a mind so crass, so cynical, and so petty, that he is completely unqualified to govern this nation.

Having the usual for lunch manny?

foobert,
Just between you and I...The fact that there is a BQ is a travesty in itself.

Having the usual for lunch manny?

Yeah, a barley sandwich. How'd ya guess.

foobert,
Just between you and I...The fact that there is a BQ is a travesty in itself.

Even though they are duly elected Members of Parliament, voted in by citizens of Canada??

Yeah, a barley sandwich.

Farm grown barley?

Even though they are duly elected Members of Parliament, voted in by citizens of Canada??

Like foobert I was unable to vote for or against the BQ.

Farm grown barley?

I would assume so. What's your point?

Like foobert I was unable to vote for or against the BQ.

Again, your point is??

Subsidized barley?

"the Governor General has the duty to appoint another if the incumbent resigns"

The incumbent does have to resign first Manny, get that.

Besides you leftists seem to be blind to precedent set previously, so dream on.

Manny: "Harper's too cute ploy to cut public per vote funding betrays a mind so crass, so cynical, and so petty, that he is completely unqualified to govern this nation." Your conclusions are way over the top -- ridiculous actually. First off, there are very legitimate reasons for withdrawing taxpayer support for political parties. (I think good arguments on both sides). There is nothing cynical or petty about proposing this -- and "cynical and petty" could also be used to describe those who reject it. Having said that, Harper has (I believe) now withdrawn that part of the update. And, I'm sorry but 44% for "one or the other" does not equal 38% support. Those voting for the NDP intentionally did NOT support the Liberals, and vice-versa. It is ludicrous to interpret the percentage of votes received by these two parties as some sort of mandate. The BEST thing that can happen at this point is to defuse the situation. Harper has done that by withdrawing the party financial support aspect of this. I think the opposition could have gained -- a lot -- by going along (Harper would have been the one to look bad), but they did not and now they look like petty money-grubbers. -- And as for coalitions and getting rid of "first past the post" -- I think the voters of Ontario gave their opinion on that one.

Subsidized barley?

Of course.

A few thoughts on a potential coalition between the NDP & the Liberals.

I personally have no difficulty with a coalition of two parties. The Progressives saw the light years ago and joined the Conservatives becoming the Progressive Conservatives. They even held power on occasion and so if the Liberals and NDP want to form one party I would have no problem with that. Call it the New Liberal Democratic Party if you want .

I also have no difficulty if two parties want to form a coalition government when those two parties have no intention of becoming one party but do have the largest block of votes in a given parliament.

However for two parties to come together and form a smaller block of seats than a sitting government and expect to replace that sitting government by having a non confidence vote seems to my mind ludicrous.

As for the "moral" argument that the smaller block garnered more votes than the larger block I would say that that and $2.00 will buy you a cup of coffee at Timmies.

The fact is that the people did not vote based on a coalition. The Liberals have a base of voters many of which would vote Conservative before they would vote Socialist, and the New Democrats have a base many of which would vote Green before they would vote Liberal. In other words you can't do an addition of the votes to see which block has the most votes simply because such a block was not on the ballot. Witness the constant screeching from one wanna be politician about strategic voting and the result to see what potentially would happen if such a block were to have formed before the last election.

Thanks 'ET'. That was the way I it should be but was not sure.

ET;

Kings coalition was a different scenario, yes, but it set precedent for/confirmed the powers of the GG.

Read Harper's words again:

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. "

Do you think he had a couple of shots of whiskey and then pulled them out of his butt?

Don't forget to send an email to the Libs and NDP's letting them know how you feel.

I know they will be busy with the delete finger, but the more emails they get, the sooner they will get the picture.

93.22% did not vote for the Greens
90.02% did not vote for the Bloc
81.82% did not vote for the NDP
73.74% did not vote for the Liberals
62.35% did not vote for the Conservatives

Does that mean there is at minimum 74% who don't want a coalition of NDP and Liberals?

Perhaps PMSH's Real reason for putting the funding boots to the opposition partys was in fact, well thought out.
Lets all be forward thinking and admit that the idea of a left-leaning coalition by the three discount paties has in fact been tossed about for at least the last while and for fact even during the last election.That being said,I personally think that the three stooges have been salivating at the thought of defeating the CPC at the first opportunity possible.
Knowing that no matter which way his gov't went the opposition parties were going to criticize and vote down the elected gov't...thereby hoping to get their hands on the reins and hence the treasury( the LPC NEEDS access to that money for a multitude of reasons obvious to those who post here), they would also change the election financing rules to favour themseves and hence pad their flagging pockets.
This most probably now,cannot be accomplished without being glaringly obvious and garnering the wrath of the public.
The fact that Harper reduced the measure to a non confidence issue further shows that this was his desire all along.
PMSH knows that there is not much to be done (that already isn't in motion)on the economic front (read big three,etc) until the US Gov't change in mid January/09 .
The three jackals have taken the bait and in the ensuing constitutional uproar he can porogue Parliament to that later date when OB's crowd gets on deck....I don't think it could have flown any other way.
It is a BIT of a gamble on his part ...and sure to create dissenting opinion on all sides but what's a fellow to do when he's dealing with a pack of power-hungry ruthless jackals who have no real intention of working with this present gov't.

The UP side to this scenario is that PMSH has succeeded in unmasking and defining this crowd of wannabee's for what they really are...ruthless and ignoble... and in the process has gathered a sizable am't of unflattering election fodder.
One needs to keep in mind that IT AIN"T OVER YET!!

Perhaps PMSH's Real reason for putting the funding boots to the opposition partys was in fact, well thought out.
Lets all be forward thinking and admit that the idea of a left-leaning coalition by the three discount paties has in fact been tossed about for at least the last while and for fact even during the last election.That being said,I personally think that the three stooges have been salivating at the thought of defeating the CPC at the first opportunity possible.
Knowing that no matter which way his gov't went the opposition parties were going to criticize and vote down the elected gov't...thereby hoping to get their hands on the reins and hence the treasury( the LPC NEEDS access to that money for a multitude of reasons obvious to those who post here), they would also change the election financing rules to favour themseves and hence pad their flagging pockets.
This most probably now,cannot be accomplished without being glaringly obvious and garnering the wrath of the public.
The fact that Harper reduced the measure to a non confidence issue further shows that this was his desire all along.
PMSH knows that there is not much to be done (that already isn't in motion)on the economic front (read big three,etc) until the US Gov't change in mid January/09 .
The three jackals have taken the bait and in the ensuing constitutional uproar he can porogue Parliament to that later date when OB's crowd gets on deck....I don't think it could have flown any other way.
It is a BIT of a gamble on his part ...and sure to create dissenting opinion on all sides but what's a fellow to do when he's dealing with a pack of power-hungry ruthless jackals who have no real intention of working with this present gov't.

The UP side to this scenario is that PMSH has succeeded in unmasking and defining this crowd of wannabee's for what they really are...ruthless and ignoble... and in the process has gathered a sizable am't of unflattering election fodder.
One needs to keep in mind that IT AIN"T OVER YET!!

richard evans - you didn't answer my questions.

I asked you where, in the constitution, the GG has, as you asserted, two options, with the first being that after dissolution, the GG 'has' to consider a coalition. I can't find this in the constitution. I find this a remarkable suggestion, for it nullifies democracy, in that the GG, alone, has the authority to coalesce a govt, despite it not having been elected as such by the people. So, again, I ask you the grounds for your making such an assertion?

I can find, however, that it is only the PM who has the legal authority to dissolve parliament and ask for an election.

I'm sorry, but I don't see, in Harper's and the other parties letter, any suggestion that the GG suggest a coalition. Remember, the legal govt, i.e., the one that was sworn in before the GG, remains in power until they resign. After all, I cannot see that Harper was actually suggesting a coalition of the CPC, NDP and Bloc. That's like three arrows all pointing in opposite directions; you can't claim that they are aligned.

King's coalition, which could occur only because he hadn't resigned as the govt, set a precedent only for an in-power governance by coalition. It set no precedence for a legal opposition to form a government without the legal one resigning.

"I can find, however, that it is only the PM who has the legal authority to dissolve parliament and ask for an election."

Technically ET, you're incorrect. It is the Governor-General's power to dissolve Parliament, but that power is, by convention, only exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. However convention is not law; thus it is perfectly legal for a GG to refuse dissolution and to invite another person to become Prime Minister and form a government, if the GG believes that government will have the confidence of the House of Commons. If the incumbent PM refuses to resign after a request for dissolution is denied, the GG has it within her power to fire him (see Australia, 1975) and then appoint his successor as described.

Firing a sitting PM is an extraordinary step to take that could touch off who-knows-what political reaction; I trust this situation won't get that far.

What a farce.Reading through the comments here,99.999% of you have NO idea what is about to occur.The limp wristed PM we have has no balls,no guts,and I do hope that the coalition makes it.Then maybe,just maybe,real Canadians will stand up and fight for their country.Not much hope,though,for most Canucks are wussies.
You all just yap,yap,and don't do anything to change it.I went and had a nice chat with my MP,NDP teat sucker that she is.Told her in no uncertain terms,you f%$k up my country,you will be one of the first to suffer for it.Funny,she had no response.

"The Libs and NDP garnered 44% of the popular vote in the last election the Cons only 38%."

Yes, brain-dead twat, but not together as one party. You've never made friends with reason and logic have you?

"After all, Stephen Harper is the most dangerous animal lurking in the jungles of Parliament. He is a threat to the future viability of the Liberals. A blood simple opponent of the NDP and the only serious contemporary challenge to the Bloc Quebecois."

Well, there's Scott Reid's entire argument. It has nothing to do with what's best for Canada, or the economy.

Harper is "the most dangerous animal" because he can destroy the Liberals; is anathema to socialism; and is a "challenge" to traitors breaking up the country.

Furthermore, regardless of context, Scott Reid's call to "kill him. Kill him dead" should be considered hate speech under the criminal code. Both he and the Globe should be charged.

If he used those words against any other individual, he'd be incarcerated right now.

I'm sure if a commenter attempted to post such words on a G&M thread, the post would be rejected.

Right, Ian, It is the GG who acts on the advice of the PM. The GG does not act on their own without that advice for that would be to deny the right of the people.

And, as you say, convention is not law. It is convention, not law, that a govt goes to an election if a budget or financial vote fails.

Equally, it would be an extraordinary measure for a GG to fire a PM, and appoint a coalition government. It has never happened in the federal house. And, I think it would be unconstitutional as well as a denial of democracy.

Therefore, disregarding, if one can, Scott Reid's advocacy that Harper must be killed and put in his grave (Globe and Mail article yesterday), it seems to me that the Liberals-NDP-Bloc have no ground to stand on.

Just because the Liberal-NDP-Bloc do not like what the Conservatives are proposing, doesn't mean that they then have the right to insist that they form the govt. That would be a ridiculous state of affairs.

We all know that their real rage is that insistence on their entitlements, those subsidies to their political parties; they are covering this by pretending to focus on the economy, and, as Scott Reid is doing, exhorting the cabal to come up with a plan. Which shows, heh, that they didn't have one when they objected to Harper's economic plan. So, if they didn't have one, on what grounds were they objecting?
Oh- back to those political subsidies of their parties.

I frankly don't see how this could legally play out to move the Liberals-NDP into power. And, a power that rests on the lynch pin of the Bloc, a party whose only interest is in the money from the Canadian taxpayer.

"Firing a sitting PM is an extraordinary step to take that could touch off who-knows-what political reaction; I trust this situation won't get that far."

Before that could happen the PM would ask the Queen to terminate the GG, the reason being the GG would be seen to not be fit to represent the Monarch, Canada and the best interests of the people. Citing something that happened in another country is quite weak.

Those suffering from Leftist Mental Disorder are blind to precedent in this country, the NDP/Libs would only have 114 seats, not enough.

Posted by: shelly at November 30, 2008 2:50 AM

The UP side to this scenario is that PMSH has succeeded in unmasking and defining this crowd of wannabee's for what they really are...ruthless and ignoble... and in the process has gathered a sizable am't of unflattering election fodder.
One needs to keep in mind that IT AIN"T OVER YET!!"

Amen to that Shelly - well expressed!

"Before that could happen the PM would ask the Queen to terminate the GG, the reason being the GG would be seen to not be fit to represent the Monarch, Canada and the best interests of the people. Citing something that happened in another country is quite weak."

It's not weak; it's almost perfectly relevant. Australia has a Westminster Parliament just as we do; a Governor General just as we do; and that Governor General has wide reserve powers for dealing with a governmental/constitutional crisis, just as ours does.

The key difference is that it was the Senate who was stalling the government in that case, not the House (Australia elects their Senate), but the broad outline is similar: a Prime Minister who cannot get his agenda through Parliament due to a political impasse. The PM was refusing to dissolve Parliament and call elections, hence the impasse could have continued indefinitely. Therefore the GG finally took it on himself to fire the PM, install the opposition leader as caretaker PM, who then passed the stalled budget bills and requested a dissolution, which the GG then performed.

Note that you're correct in stating the PM could advise the Queen to withdraw the GG first; hence the Austrian GG didn't give any warning to the PM that he was contemplating firing him.

(On a tangent, this is the prime reason I'm leery of electing the Senate without first defining precisely what powers it is to have, lest we get ourselves into messes like this.)

Ian - such a scenario doesn't make any sense. You are setting up a scenario with quite an astonishing hypothesis.

IF the legal govt can't get its motions through parliament
THEN, the GG has the authority to fire the PM and install the Opposition.
Whew

That would mean that the Best Way for an Opposition to get into power, is not via the electorate, but via a cabal of stonewalling. Refusing to vote in favour of any motions. Then, when the legitimate govt refused to call an election, for this could readily lead to the same process of stonewalling, the result would be for the GG to put the Opposition in Power! Wow.
So much for democracy.

As for an elected Senate, I don't see that an elected Senate's refusal to pass House Motions is an different from a patronage appointed Senate's refusal to pass House Motions. In this case, similarly, you could get a situation where the Opposition would not have to go to the electorate to move itself into government! In Canada, our Liberal dominated patronage appointees regularly deny, change and stall House Motions.

My puzzlement is the fact that the Opposition Parties are insisting that because THEY have an 'economic package' (of course they don't) that THEY should form the govt. Incredible.

Think about it. Any time the Opposition parties want to form the govt, all they have to do is oppose the legitimate govt and insist that the GG appoint Them! heh. Quite the strategy.

Notice the current situation. The Liberals-NDP weren't elected to form the govt. Their coalition is one, not based on policy (they don't have an economic policy) but on greed. They are 'coalescing' by handing out bribes to each other.

OK - you'll be the PM; you'll be Finance; you'll be Foreign; You'll be..No! No! I want to be the Finance, No - I want to be..... A high school pretend parliament wouldn't do it any differently.

Then, since they don't have the numbers, they have to bribe the Bloc to side with them. Yet another backroom deal...also in the High School mode.
Look - if you side with us, we'll give you...
The Bloc, of course, is only interested in money from the Canadian taxpayer.

Upshot? If this ever came to pass - and it legally can't - this cabal, because it is a cabal based on backroom bribes and not one based on any interest in the Canadian economy - would, by virtue of those necessary bribes - push Canada into an enormous deficit and collapse our economy because..it ignored that economy.

I repeat; this cabal is ignoring the economy, which requires restructuring not propping up, and a restructuring that is closely networked to that of the US and the rest of the world.

I must ask, is there no integrity amongst any of these Liberals-NDP-Bloc? Is it only all about money and power? Doesn't even one individual have any integrity and care for Canada amongst them?

Harper suggested cuts. Cuts to civil service salaries, cuts to increases in wages to a level the same as that in the private sector (public service expects increases at least twice and more to that of the private sector). And cuts to the political parties feeding off the public trough. This was his first step in dealing with the economy. Remember, the infrastructural part can't be done alone because we are a global economy.

And what's the reaction to these cuts? The Liberals-NDP-Bloc want to take over the govt. To keep their pork barrel, to keep their civil service bloated wages. How do they want to do this? By backroom deals based on bribes. And they think this gives them the right to govern?

In 1975, the Australian situation resulted in an election in which the coalition was able to pull off a thirty seat swing to form government.

The coalition functioned as a caretaker government for only an extremely brief time before the election, unable to pass any legislation until after the election.

If the Lib/NDP with the support of the Bloq want to go to an election early in the new year they do so at their own peril.

I agree with Shelly. Harper is nothing if not methodical and well thought out. As for the G&M article by S Reid, i would just like to throw one of his quotes back at him. Reid you and your coallition "can blow me".

"Ian - such a scenario doesn't make any sense. You are setting up a scenario with quite an astonishing hypothesis."

???

ET, I didn't "set up" the scenario; it actually happened that way! I cite it as the prime example of the Governor General's reserve powers, which includes the power to fire the Prime Minister.

I don't believe we're near that stage yet, mind you.

From Silver/Powers

Tim Powers, today at 10:25 AM EST

“Michael Ignatieff just appeared on CBC News Sunday and offered an opinion which seems to be very different than Mr. Dion’s on the current state of government. I am going to compliment Ignatieff - a first - he was measured in his statements and calm. Something other Liberals have not been. He doesn’t seem to be enamored with the prospect of coalition. He seems to get Dion wants to be PM at any cost and that would not be good for Iggy.

Going to be an interesting day. Watch for more dialogue from the government today.”

What happens if Iggy gets his people to not support Dion?

With Chretien in the mix it seems that he wants the Power Corp Kid, Boob Rae, in power does it not?

This would not be in Iggy’s best interest, would it?

Contributions from individuals (first 3Q 2008)

CPC - 14,847,578
NDP - 3,721,089
LPC - 3,613,760
Green - 1,085,108
Bloc - 524,224

Trough Share (based on the last election)

CPC - 10,150,401
LPC - 7,078,480
NDP - 4,908,296
Bloc - 2,690,151
Green - 1,834,456

Trough Ratio (Trough/Total)

Bloc - 83.69%
LPC - 66.20%
Green - 62.83%
NDP - 56.88%
CPC - 40.60%

Ian and others - there may be a technical, legal or conventional argument that supports idea of minority coalition. The more reasonable question would be, would GG support this. She doesn't have to. In fact, Harper doesn't even have to approach her if he is defeated in confidence vote, such as the case when PM Martin refused.

Reality has to be considered here. First, the government has to be defeated. Second, PM must approach GG, ask for dissolution, and be refused. Third (likely after second), she must grant meeting with opposition who must convince her they have confidence of parliament ie-can pass legislation and not fall apart soon afterward.

Yes, the GG will consult historical precedent if that happens. She will know she is setting a precedent. WRT precedent, judges have, in many cases, had the authority to do something, but declined because of precedent, or the wish not to set it.

If the BQ is not at least signed on, with agreement for no elections within 2 years (like 1985 in Ont, the closest precedent so far), then she would be honour bound to consider the proposal. But, she would be under no obligation to accept this minority coalition. If OTOH, three party coalition, with duly signed agreements was presented to her, she may feel the need to grant the request. I say may, because, as stated before, the request (not the legalistic interpretation, but the reality and consequences thereof) is unprecedented, and she is in no way obligated to agree.

If the scenario plays out and it get as far as GG (doubtful, notwithstanding what beer and popcorn guy thinks), she would likely decline opposition request and tell them PM to go back to parliament and try to get agreement (assuming she doesn't grant dissolution request, which she likely would). Remember Mackenzie King asked for redo of election he just lost.

All the facts must be considered, not discrete convention this or history that. One of my poli sci profs called this a sin of omission, which he penalized far greater than sins of commission.

So, arguments about who has more popular vote are irrelevant. BTW, combined Lib/NDP seats are 37% of total, while CPC are 46%. Manny, you would fail in your argument with my prof, badly that is.

Anyway, GG would be asked to accept result in parliament that parties explicitly rejected during Oct campaign, and a parliament of coalition that was not campaigned on, and therefore not presented to voters.

So, we can hypothesize about this convention or that precedent all we want. At some point reality must be allowed to enter thinking. Picking off this or that fact does an injustice, and IMO is insulting to the intelligence and integrity of the voter.

I think Reid's article serves as evidence Libs are rethinking their position, especially in light of CPC decision to remove election reform law from their legislative agenda, and he is lobbying for them to go ahead.

In summary, this idea is dead; or, at least it had better be. The ramifications for this country, where GG decides to reverse results of election (whether or not she has "power" to do so), where a government is changed without the consent of the electorate under our system, will cause a political earthquake in this country. I find it hard to believe moderate western Liberal MPs such as Keith Martin will vote non-confidence if they know coalition attempt will be made.

If he and others did, when an election did happen, sooner rather than later, the voters would give CPC majority, given choice between that and "progressive" (eastern) coalition.

Sorry, I can't see GG going for this. I can't see Libs now trying. As for NDP, who knows. As for Bloc, well nobody knows what they want to do, another ommission. Isn't their decision on how to proceed the most important, given they would be second party in coalition?

If Libs and NDP go for it, the most likely possibility is an election, and they must know that now.

So, everybody can relax

The Bloc loses it's own base when it supports a federalist government, as it did prior to the last election. They only bounced back when they took a loudmouth stand against the Conservatives during the election.

Therefore, the Bloc's support of a coalition will only go so far.

Regardless of what happens, this will be the best political fodder for the next election imaginable. The Liberals thirst for power at any cost knows no bounds.

How will they ever make another credible claim as a federalist party?

How will they ever make another credible claim for the centre?

How will they ever win votes outside of Toronto?

Scott Reid is wrong. The Liberals themselves, not Harper, are "the viable threat to the future of the Liberals."

Manny, you would fail in your argument with my prof, badly that is.

I'm not sure what you assume my argument is.
My point is that all of ET's (and her ilk's) bleating and gnashing of teeth about democracy is, in typical right wingnut fashion, hypocritical in the extreme. If they were truly concerned about democracy, they would be troubled by a system that gives a party 46% of the seats with 37% of the popular vote. Or 100% of the power with 40% of the popular vote.
And for all of their concern for the taxpayer, why are they apoplectic about the $1.95 per vote funding, but unconcerned about the 75% tax rebate for political donations?
My argument is- scratch a Con, find a hypocrite. But that is so self-evident, your prof would probably find the topic not worthy of debate.

Dream on Manny. Keep on wallowing in your Leftist Mental Disorder.

"46% of the seats with 37% of the popular vote. Or 100% of the power with 40% of the popular vote."

They won, the other parties lost by a wide margin. And not as a coalition. Get it?

"why are they apoplectic about the $1.95 per vote funding, but unconcerned about the 75% tax rebate for political donations?"

Vote funding is undemocratic. Why should my taxes, without my agreement, fund a party that wants to destroy Canada?

On the other hand, if I decide to fund a party out of my own pocket, then why shouldn't I, or you, for that matter, not want or deserve a tax rebate?

Vote funding is undemocratic. A tax rebate is not. Get it?

You are too stupid for words.

Please stop commenting, you're dumbing down the entire thread.

"And for all of their concern for the taxpayer, why are they apoplectic about the $1.95 per vote funding, but unconcerned about the 75% tax rebate for political donations?"

Many are calling for scrapping both of those subsidies or do your blinders not let you see that?

There you have it. Scratch a daisy. I rest my case.

Just a hypothosis but suppose Iggy is the man of intellect that the Liberals have claimed in the past and he knows with Chretien now on the scene that Boob Rae will get the nod as the next Liberal leader courtesy of Power Corp and as a result will lead the Liberals through the next half decade or so, Iggy will then be too old to stage a comeback so he knows he has no chance of becoming Prime Minister. As a result he leads a revolt within the Liberal party and takes some "Blue" Liberals on a walk about and they end up crossing the floor ( Say an even dozen for arguments sake,). Seems to be enough egotists on the liberal side that this could be a possibility. As a conservative I'd sooner make an interm deal with a "Blue" Liberal for the next few years than to allow the Bloc to hobble and ransom the country by letting them make a deal with the Libs/Dips. Any comments!

An upside for Iggy in the above scenario would be that he would serve enough time in HoC to qualify for a pension. Whereas if an election is called in the next few years there may be a lot of the Liberals out on the street.

This just keeps getting better and better .Quick someone fetch a flag , Gilles Duceppe is being unveiled as Captain Canada .

irwin daisy - I don't think that the Bloc is viewed in Quebec as a separatist party; it's viewed as the local party that represents Quebec. Period. The other parties all represent Canada and Quebecers view 'Canada' as Other, as simply a bank. So, the Bloc's alignment with the Liberals and NDP, would be accepted, if by so doing, they got access to even more of the Canadian tax money.

Shamrock, nice argument. My view is that the proposal is profoundly undemocratic, and even, suspicious. After all, the Liberal agenda after the election was to Dump Dion. They achieved that with is May resignation and a leadership race. What many analysts are also telling them is that a new leader is not enough; the Liberals lack policies. That's because, during the Chretien era, policies were dropped overboard. Chretien's sole agenda, always, was power. He achieved that by massive taxation and equally massive bribes to voters, who were divided into identity groups - and both bribed for votes and fed misinformation. That was the Liberal Mode: briber and manipulation.

The NDP are very ambitious; their agenda has been to replace the Liberals as the Opposition. I think, more and more, that Layton is behind this whole agenda.

All three parties were apocalpytic about losing their place at the trough. They now won't admit it, but it's interesting that Harper has separated the two motions - the cuts and the trough. That means that when the trough comes up, it will be very obvious that the Liberals-NDP-Bloc insist on 'their entitlements'.

But I don't think that the Liberals are the key agents behind attempting to grab power by this coup; they know it is undemocratic; they know that they would be tarnished for years by such an action.

But think about it; Layton could move in, step by step to this 'coalition'. He would achieve the actual dissolution of the Liberal Party because it would be merged with the NDP. Dion as the leader of this coalition? Heh. I'd bet that Layton would move in.

The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that the real party-under-attack, is the Liberal Party.

As for the scenario of a coalition taking over - I don't see it happening. We are still, I presume, a democracy, and plots in backrooms aren't part of Canada.

Yes, ET, even if one argues Harper overreached with proposal to end subsidy, opposition parties erred badly by floating coalition idea, rather than vowing to defeat legislation.

Harper can now use this to pillory opposition parties, especially NDP and Libs in next election, which looks likely to happen in 2009.

NDP now looks very bad with their denial of negotiations with Bloc. I think CTV/Fife, by releasing this story, have sent signal that coalition idea is a bad one.

Harper can now argue that he has worked within constraints of minority government - he proposed idea, opposition was clear that would not support it, so he withdrew it rather than force another election so soon after last.

Harper's arguable miscalculation has led to the Liberals and NDP crippling their support, integrity and therefore chances in next election, whenever it happens.

There is no viable support for this coaliton idea anywhere, and GG has plenty of wiggle room to throw cold water on it. Harper, BTW, can always prorogue parliament until late Jan 09 when budget presented. Opposition can scream, but will be seen as hypocritical - if coalition is technically feasible, so is proroguing - both are within convention and rules, so therefore legal.

Who said Canadian politics was boring?

Manny:
"My argument is- scratch a Con, find a hypocrite."

Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites. -- Ann Coulter

I watched QP this afternoon and Scott Brison was on and he read Harper's letter (noted above) and asked (paraphrased): If they can do it, why can't we?

The CPC talking head on the panel didn't have a credible answer and looked like a weasel as a result.

Don't say y'all weren't warned...