Now is the time for action – call his office.
Contact the Party.
Reach out to his supporters, let us lend our voices and our courage!
Stay Stephane Stay!
But, whatever the fate of the man who’s come to be known as the best Liberal Party leader in the history of Canadian conservativism, let us be grateful in the knowledge that Stephane has left us with a gift even greater than himself…
So now is the moment for action – call your Liberal and NDP MP’s!
Tell them they must not waver.. they must not give in to doubt and partisan accusation – that they must fight, fight, fight the forces that would tear their Coalition apart!
Tell them their parties deserve no less!
The longer I watch this charade go on, the more I believe intelligent people believe in AGW. PMSH is not a “roll the dice” Mulroney. PMSH is not a “lose his mittens” Joe Clark. I am more than certain that PMSH did some thorough research regarding all the eventualities of his provoking the coalition of the stupid. One of the most important things he would have looked at was the chance of his losing power. Yes flying the GG home from overseas to referee the palace revolt has high dramatic effect the fact remains that only the conspirators in the coalition think they could actually take power away from Harper. Were it possible for buffoons like Layton, Dion and to a lesser extent Duceppe to seize power in such a fashion it would have been done many times in the past by far more gifted politicians than these three. Canada’s history, if indeed there ever would have been one, would be strewn with the carcasses of dead minority governments brought down by scheming, screaming opposition coalitions who in turn would have suffered similarly. The very fact that Canada has lasted as long and been as stable for as long as it has existed tells me that the Jack and Gilles coalition was doomed before they ever set ink to paper. (I would have added Stephies’ name to the list of conspirators but he is just the monkey not the organ grinder.)
So, Giggles said Mr Harper divided the Liberals? Good one that, had to be pretty easy since they already had a head start. They did it to themselves over a period of ten years and it’s just reached a point of no return until some common sense individual gets their mind off power and onto rebuilding the outfit from the bottom.
How does the saying go, divide and conquer?
Bartinsky,
You raised an excellent issue; the MSM has been abusing Canadians for many years. I started a Blog dedicated to exposing people like (Oliver, Robertson, Mansbridge, Fife, Boag, Mcdonald, LaPhelmn, Wente, Martin, Weston, Travers, Ivison, Newman , Neuman) for what they are. If you have links of them on video or audio lying, I would greatly appreciate it if you forward them and I will post. I already have a few but I need more. I will be presenting this to all talk radio stations in Canada, as they are the ones that appear to know what is going on.
You can email me or visit the blog
unfair.liberal.media@gmail.com
Thanks
cal2 at December 7, 2008 2:26 PM
wasnt it Bob Rae that said. tax cuts will not put money in Canadians pockets?
No, I think it was Craig Oliver or some other nitwit “newsman” interviewing Flaherty last Sunday.
CTV is reporting that Dominic LeBlanc has already dropped out. No surprise; I think he was merely hoping for a Dion repeat.
It’s down to the Duelling Duo: B-Ray and Iggy The Silent.
Pow! Lie! Whack! Biff! Spend!
It was Craig Oliver that uttered that. I nearly fell out of my chair. Flaherty just carried on, although he should have called Craiggy on it, asking for his economic credentials, or called him a Liberal party member.
It was a disgusting partisan display. It wasn’t even put as a question, which one would expect of the press, no natter how jaded.
Oliver is a disgusting, old school bought and paid for Liberal hack, disguised as a ‘TV personality’
I’m not sure that Harper exactly predicted the outcome of this situation. For one thing, being an essentially decent man (as decent as one can be and survive in the cesspool of politics) I think he actually underestimated the cupidity of the Liberals and NDP. Fighting with lefties is akin to arguing with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you on experience.
DanBC at December 7, 2008 7:08 PM
…and I emphasize OLD
Astard,
How “liberal” of you to lecture us all on how “moral” the Coalition is. I fully agree that they have 100% Constitutional Legitimacy. But a vast majority of Canadians believe that they have 0% Democratic Legitimacy.
For you and for others, I will once again provide this link: http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2008/12/constitutional-legitimacy-vs-democratic.html
The Separatist Coalition’s propaganda organ, CanPress, says there are only two (2) options for the Liberal faction to decide when a budget vote is called in the House, to wit:
“The Liberals will then have to decide whether to vote against it, a move that would precipitate either another election or a renewed call for Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to let the Liberals form a coalition cabinet with the NDP and govern with the tacit support of the Bloc Quebecois as the silent partner in a three-way deal.”
There is a third option for the Liberal faction. MSM fails to mention this:
Cut’n’Run; surrender; cower behind the curtains and sent out only a token number of their MPs so that the budget vote passes the House.
That would make 43 consecutive Cut’n’Runs; a record for the history books.
“Ignatieff, Rae want early Dion exit”
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/549889
Hey Dan, are you listening to Sean Leslie on CKNW this afternoon?
It’s AMAZING how many people call up, identify themselves as Conservatives, and then go on a rant solely criticizing Stephen Harper.
What duplicitous dopes these Radical Leftist pretenders are!!!
Funny how Layton only talks about ethics and morals when it suits him. Now that he has a (slim) chance to slither into the halls of power, the last thing he wants to do is the ethical, democratic thing:
Have an election.
That dangerous miscreant is just another typical opportunist.
You can bet that in a different situation, he would be screaming for an election, and of course, his braindead unionized minions would be marching in goosestep with him.
The left is so predictable. Helps for me, as, at one time I voted that way, but that was a long time ago. Now, I still have to face it 5 days a week, but I don’t have to pay attention much to it. Just steer clear of the muck
“How “liberal” of you to lecture us all on how “moral” the Coalition is.”
I was merely trying to point out the difference between the philosophical illegitimacy of this coalation versus its technical (read constitutional) illegitimacy.
You can philosophically debate the point to death if you wish but, legally, there is nothing you can do against it.
Harper has played his cards all wrong. He is the most likely victim in the short term – his calculations and judgement were ridiculously bad. In the long term, I don’t think the Liberals will ever recover from this power grab. Whither the Liberal brand.
astard at December 7, 2008 6:07 PM
To give everyone an idea here how this has really caught the attention of the populace, I had a discussion today concerning the Grand Collusion with someone in my local pub who would be one of the last I would expect to be interested in politics.
I, of course, follow a policy of no politics in my local pub. I go there to relax and shoot the breeze and not be concerned about the great questions of life. (such as “What of Canada?”)
This man thought it that it was wrong the Coalition could form a government as they didn’t run as a Coalition; he didn’t vote for the separatists. I explained to him that, legally, they could; but that, also, he was right, it would be morally wrong for them to do so.
If you need anecdotal evidence of an upcoming election result, there it is.
Look at the Chart ET referred to and Kate referenced at 4pm. Take a look at who’s name pops up on the left side of chart… Nadhmi Auchi.
To learn more, just google “Nadhmi Auchi Obama”.
Also, take a look at Rezko, Auchi, Obama
Now, I can’t be bothered with NW much anymore. Besides, I really don’t think they get that many listeners, especially on weekends.
Between Good, Clark, and the late afternoon shrill shill, the staion has lost its once noble status. Now its just another static AM talky station with lots of noise, not much smarts.
But I hear what you are saying. I’m sure this is a strategy within the BlackOps divisions of the NDP/Libs. We see it in the MSM as well. And I’m sure this misdirection has been going on for years.
The counter to this? The polls released at the end of the week, which uniformly destroy the notion. The left really is getting desperate, when they resort to these tactics. We should thank Wacko Jacko for galvanizing the right. it hasn’t done much for the left, other than shaking out those that still have a little common sense. the rest are the diehard unionists and hardcore socialists, that will vote for the Julian Wests of the world.
In these days of knowledge and news, the radio stations should really be doing reverse lookups of the numbers calling them. Then they could see what is really a true caller, vs a plant. Callers wait on hold for long periods so there’s lots of time to check it out, to see if they’re calling from Liberal/NDP associations, no doubt they are.
Robert W.,
I wouldn’t mind going off on a rant about the manner in which Harper has enacted this particular brainchild. What he was trying to do was right. How he did it deserves a rant.
Some of us who actually went out there and voted Conservative can’t for the life of us understand what Harper was thinking – he handed Dion the initiative and Dion took it.
In the long term, it will ruin the Liberal party, but I don’t think Harper was trying to be an altruistic martyr with his eye on the long term. He just went and made the monumentally stupid mistake of assuming that political parties would roll over when their most crucial lifeline is about to be cut.
Does Harper deserve a rant? Hell yes. What the hell was he thinking? He’s hardly come out looking like a paragon of virtue. A phased approach could have saved all of us this nightmare.
You know, I look at the poll numbers that have come out over the past two days and I see two things:
– I have renewed respect for Canadians. They show that they think for themselves:
– the media but for a few exceptions, have called this all wrong. They do not have a handle on what us Joe Four Packs are thinking (that’s 4 AK lagers) and are starting to embarrass themselves
OK- one more- is it just me- or is Bob Rae’s continual, nauseating and mendacious quest for power becoming a bit of a bore? And more so, isn’t it time someone called him to account?
Rae Daze…please make it stop…
It’s illogical to say that by voting for, let’s say, the NDP, that this act is also a vote against the CPC.
As so many have pointed out, this illogical musing means that 75% voted against Dion and 82% against Layton and 90% against Duceppe.
I don’t think that you can merge these two actions into one; ie, if you vote for the NDP does not also mean that you voted against the CPC. Or the Liberals.
All your vote means is that you voted for the NDP, and not for the Liberals or the CPC or the Bloc or the Marxist-Leninist or the Communist or the Greens or the Libertarian or…on and on.
Joe – exactly right. Harper doesn’t play dice with the government. Furthermore, if Opposition coalitions were deemed by convention and normative law, to have the right to legitimately take over the governance of a nation, without an election – just by voting against a confidence Motion – then, we’d have seen this practice before. At every budget.
Imagine – every year when a govt proposed its annual budget, the opposition parties would all gang up, defeat it, and insert themselves in as the government. Without an election. How’s that for annual refreshment and stability?
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the coalition is a legal option. It is neither legal nor illegal. Because coalitions are not mentioned in the constitution does not mean that they are legal. The question has to be – is an unelected government a legal government?
Harper has not united the left; they are not united, though they are trying to swallow each other. When a fox tries to eat a chicken, I don’t think that you can call such an act – ‘uniting’.
No, astard, your outline of ‘what is a government’ is the Will to Power type that I outlined above, a mode that rejects a ‘transcendence of democratic principles’ over individual will. This transcendence is based on Reason, the basis for rules grounded in responsibility, respect for the public good, a limited authority of action (please note that) – an authority bound by law and accountability.
The coalition fails to honour these principles and instead, moves into a governance on Will, rejecting any restraints such as an election and accountability to the people.
We, the people, did not elect a coalition. We elected one party. Period. In our system, if a govt falls on confidence, we, the people, must be consulted before another govt ‘rules’ over us. Otherwise, they fail in their responsibility to us.
By the way, you contradict yourself; you first say that we did not elect a government but a parliament and then, you say that we elected a minority government.
We elect a government by voting for one party over other parties; this party gets the right to form the government. OK?
As for Harper and the cutting of the subsidies, my own feeling was that he did it to smoke the coalition out in the open. He knew about their Hidden Agenda – which they planned to carry out on budget day, and, overnight, install themselves as the govt without an election. He forestalled this deep attack on our democracy by his motion, which he knew they had to reject..and would come out in the open..so that we citizens would know about their agenda.
As for Power Corp funding Rae, the same restrictions on funding apply to MPs as well as parties, but, I’d bet that they’ve set up bank accounts called ‘Coalition’ (not Rae)and PowerCorp is filling those accounts.
My message to Dion……DON’T let the door hit ya on the arse on the way out.
Astard: **You can philosophically debate the point to death if you wish but, legally, there is nothing you can do against it.**
So that’s it then. The law is the law. And in the case of Canada’s constitution as it applies to the “coalition”, the law has been settled. End of story.
You dipshit.
Should he stay or should he go?
CTV.ca wants to know!!
go vote
“Should he stay or should he go?”
A better question would be, “should there be a coalition?”
But CTV will never do that.
Some of the trolls here and some of you others should go back and read some history before you swallow the bile and bilge that the Liberals, NDP and the MSM are throwing at you. The coalition is only legal after the Crown grants permission for the opposition to unite and form an alternate government AFTER the sitting government has lost power. The Crown has to request if the opposition can agree on governing, the Opposition cannot tell the Crown they can govern before that request is made. FULL STOP. Go and read some history people, the English Civil War was as much of a defining moment in our democratic process as the signing of the Magna Carta. Oliver Cromwell, love him or hate him, played a great part in solving this constitutional mess that the LIBS/DIPS have brought into their own house, and he did it almost 400 years ago. Anybody with a smattering of intelligence can see the reasoning behind the Crown’s consent in issues like this. Read and understand. The MSM, Toronto Star and the CBC both have an interest in keeping you as the great unwashed they’ve been feeding you nothing but bullcrap for years. Use your head for more than a toque (tuque for you seperatists, for you Anglo’s its touque) holder.
Antenor: I thought toque was what hippies did. 😉
Astard – The constitution says nothing about coalitions. I’ve read it – nothing.
I’ve asked people who refer to the coalition as ‘constitutionally legal’ to provide me with the section in the constitution that says just that. No reply.
Again, nothing in the constitution says anything about coalitions. Because nothing is said does not make a coalition ‘legal’. Or illegal. It means that our decision about the viability of a coalition must move to another reference area that we can use to make our judgments.
And this reference area includes not only convention, tradition, our history, but also morality. We must ask – are we a democracy or an oligarchy? Are we a free people or not?
I repeat my outline of a democracy as one that is based on transcendent principles of reason, principles of responsibility, respect for the public good, a political system operating within a limited authority, bound by law and accountability – and answerable, always, to the people.
Versus one based on the Will to power, which is based only on individual agendas grounded in power, self-definitions of authority, rejecting restraints to power, rejecting that accountability to the people.
Indeed, a political system MUST be based on such ‘philosophical analysis’, it MUST be based on principles of morality, on ethics, on reason and justice. Without such constraints, we are setting up a governance based only on greed, on emotions, on personal agendas.
And that is the nature of an oligarchy, a governance of the few over the many – and a governance based on Will, rather than Reason, rather than law, rather than accountability.
The coalition,if you reference it to these principles of Reason which ground our democratic accountability, and which have been both our inheritance and our development – is therefore politically illegal. It is unjust. It is undemocratic. It is amoral. It violates the most basic principles of our governance in Canada.
What more need be said?
Antenor:**Some of the trolls here and some of you others should go back and read some history …Use your head for more than a toque**
That certainly makes me want to pay attention to you Antenor.
http://www.praxicus.com/english/news.html
From Bourque: another poll, this one from Praxicus.
The news continues to be dreadful for the Dark Forces of the Coupalition.
It just backs up what we all know. This proposal is obscene to Canadians sense of fairplay and common sense, to topics oblivious to Comrades Jack and Gilles, and
Use your head for more than a toque (tuque for you seperatists, for you Anglo’s its touque) holder.
Posted by: Antenor at December 7, 2008 8:08 PM
====================================
I use mine for an ear separator:-)))))
ET,
Wierd spin there. I am fairly certain that ‘Coalitions’ do not feature in any parliamentary democracy’s constitution, and if they do, the term has rarely preceded the formation of a coalition. One would assume that there is no need for a coalition since parties that think alike would merge. In this case they have merged out of fear. Of annihilation, no less. A great soundbite, but a meaningless one all the same.
“Again, nothing in the constitution says anything about coalitions.”
Find me references to coalitions in the Israeli, Indian, or Italian constitutions. That meaningless, and futile, exercise aside, the constitution allows for a parliament to be voted in by the electorate. The parties within the Parliament are allowed to organize as they wish. In this case, three parties have banded together as one to oppose the ruling party, which does not have a majority. This renders the parliament ineffective. The ruling party at this point can ask the GG to allow another round of elections to settle this stalemate. The GG famously has the power, and has set the precedent, to call on the leader of the opposition to form a government in this case (King-Byng). If Dion can show he can muster the support of these two parties, and make Parliament effective, he is not acting unlawfully. Again, the electorate votes in a parliament, not a party. If the party that has formed the government does not have the confidence of the house, then the party that can prove it has the confidence of the house can form a government. That is, to put it mildly, the way the constitution has been set. King made a number of objections that no doubt have surfaced here.
“And this reference area includes not only convention, tradition, our history, but also morality. We must ask – are we a democracy or an oligarchy? Are we a free people or not?”
Agreed. Dion should not be PM. That said, the constitution allows the GG to ask Dion to form a government if he can prove to her that he has the loyalty of a simple majority of the house. This coalition provides that to him.
Morally, what he is doing is absurd. That said, coalitions are a reality in parliamentary democracies the world over, and Harper goaded the opposition into creating one by threatening their very existence.
“answerable, always, to the people.”
Our Head of State happens to be a European vestige that has never been answerable to the people. The GG was not elected but she has some pretty solid power here.
I am not slamming the philosophical aspect, nor, indeed, am I against it. That said, right here, right now, none of this philosophical discourse is going to have any impact on the happenings in Canada. It will in the future, when whoever wins this muckfest decides to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
There is nothing illegal about it. It is philosophically wrong – completely. But not illegal. It is a cynical usage of the system, but then it would be foolish not to see it as a reaction to an equally cynical powerplay by Harper.
Antenor,
The coalition intended to defeat the current government through a vote of confidence. The coalition was aimed at ensuring that that the current government would lose it. The coalition also allows Dion to claim that he has the confidence of the majority of the house, albeit AFTER Harper loses a vote of confidence and seeks the dissolution.
The Supine Dion is done and gone.
The first casualty of the Coalition is not PMSH, it’s the Supine Dion. HOO-YEAH!
Also I want to thank all the people here at SDA who helped Quebec’s #1 Federalist get over 1,000 views on her address during the crisis on CTV to help Canadians Rally for Canada :-). I’m sure Tasha Kheiriddin is snapping her fingers and dancing a jig in her Quebec command center.
Oh, ET
The word parsing and gymnastics you engage in are truly a sight to behold- even for you.
“The coalition…is politically illegal. It is unjust. It is undemocratic…”
It is nothing of the kind.
It is a response to a Prime Minister who unfathomably decided to engage in petty partisan sideswipes at a time of acute economic crisis.
It is a response to a move of such spectacular political boneheadedness – and potentially treasonous intent on the part of the PM – that it casts considerable doubt on that PM’s fitness to hold office.
Oh, you can consider the coalition “politically illegal” (and what in blazes does that really mean?) and “amoral” all you want.
The fact is, it’s completely legal and constitutional. It’s a perfectly appropriate response to a PM who decides to engage in partisan sideswipes and bullying rather than, you know, governing…
As one insider noted of Harper: “He just can’t help himself”
So spare us the garment-rending and breast-beating, ET. Fact is, your leader has revealed himself as a ham-fisted, reckless, ill-considered, politically inept buffoon.
That’s where all your troubles stem from.
As DanBC pointed out, this Praxicus poll is pretty amusing reading:
http://www.praxicus.com/english/news.html
This stuff is side-splittingly funny.
Here are some choice quotes:
“According to the survey, the Conservatives currently enjoy the support of 47% of decided voters, the Liberals 24%, Bloc 14% and the NDP at 8%.”
“In the Liberal stronghold of Toronto (416), the Conservatives are neck-in-neck with the Liberals at 36% compared to 35% for the Conservatives.”
“Despite some speculation that the Conservatives were hurt in Quebec as a result of the acrimonious debate over the role of the BQ in the coalition, the Conservatives continue to enjoy the support of 22% of voters in that province – identical to the share of the vote they received weeks ago.”
“67% disagree that the Conservatives should be replaced by the Liberal-led coalition.”
“Canadians seem most concerned about the negative consequences of a $30 billion deficit (69% believe it would be negative for the country)”
“63% believe that “Prime Minister Stephane Dion” would be negative for the country.”
A caller to the Roy Green show made an interesting comment. The Bloc agreed not to vote against the coalition. What is to prevent the Bloc from walking out on a vote or abstaining? They have fulfilled their agreement.
If Rae wins the leadership can they run as NDP and NDP Lite so they can count two votes for the NDP?
Astard – why should I find you references in their constitution to coalitions in those nations which use them – such as Italy, Israel? That is irrelevant.
Furthermore, those nations use a different electoral system, namely proportional representation, and the normative process is that the party with the most votes gets to form the coalition. Such an arrangment is not found in Canada, either in our history or in our conventions.
Kindly remember that it was you who brought up the relation of coalitions to constitutions in your posts.
I disagree; the opposition parties did not merge out of fear – of annihilation. They merged out of greed. Layton planned this coalition months ago; the agenda was to take over as government without an election. That’s not an act of fear; it’s an act of a Will to Power.
No, the banding together of opposition parties does not render the ruling party ineffective. It renders the opposition ineffective. After all, our system sets up one party as the Loyal Opposition. If this Loyal Opposition, after the fact, decides to merge with other parties, then its supporters must question its viability and its integrity.
The reason for this is because coalitions, whether ruling or oppositional, are not part of our parliamentary history or normative procedures. Furthermore, such a coalition has not been approved by the people who did not vote for NDP AND Liberal AND BLoc, but for only ONE party.
No, our normative standards of government organization does not allow the parties to organize as they wish. You are setting up a Will to Power mode- where MPs can, once elected, do whatever they want. They can’t; they are bound to the rules of responsibility to their electorate, to the normative procedures of parliament developed within our history..etc. Therefore, when the electorate votes ONE party in over the others, that party gets to be the government.
The electorate does not vote MPs in to do ‘as they wish’.
Your example of King-Byng is invalid. King was PM; the called an election; he lost it, with the Conservatives getting, if I recall, 116 seats; King had only 99 and the Progressives had 24. Now..what happened, is that the ‘normative rules’ mean that the Conservatives ought to have taken power. BUT, this only happens IF, IF King, who WAS in power, had resigned (you resign on losing the election). However, King refused to resign, said he’d govern with the Progressives.
He did so only for a few months, then, lost confidence (?)..or..wanted an election. Byng refused, and said that the party which had won the most seats in the election, the Conservatives, should become the govt.
That is …what should have happened..but King, a Liberal, refused to resign.
This is COMPLETELY different to what is happening now.
Therefore, the opposition’s attempt to set up a coalition AFTER THE ELECTION, and when Dion wasn’t PM even before the election, is a violation of our democratic principles. It is democratically unlawful.
We operate within principles of Reason, which means, the acknowledgment of rules of law, restraints on governance, accountability to the people. The coalition’s act violated all of these and operated only by the Power of Will.
No, the electorate votes in a party, not a parliament. The term ‘parliament’ is general; it carries no indication of the nature of a government or an opposition, both of which are required in that ‘parliament’. The people vote in both sectors of this parliament, by virtue of a the party which receives the most and the second most votes. You cannot ignore the weight of history, tradition and convention within the operation of our governance.
The constitution says nothing about ‘confidence of the house’. The constitution says nothing about the GG asking the Opposition to form a govt. If I’m wrong, then please provide me with the sections where it argues these points. I can’t find them.
Furthermore, my point is that a set of MPs has no right to, on their own, decide which party is in governmental power. That right belongs to the people, not to the “King’. Magna Carta decided that for us. Authority does not rest with ‘kings’ or MPs within their own Will.
Coalitions are a reality in states that use proportional representation and, moreover, they are a reality only when the electorate knows that such is the normative procedure to form a government. The standard is that the party with the most seats gets the right to form the coalition. Neither attribute is operational here in Canada, therefore, your ‘dicto simpliciter’ or generalization simply does not apply here.
No, it is not enough that Dion or whomever shows that he has a ‘majority’ in the House; he has to show that this is approved by the people. Their agenda was to withhold this action of going to the people for almost two years – a violation of our democratic rights.
No, Harper did not goad the opposition into a coalition. They had planned this coalition months before he announced his fiscal update. As Layton said – it was months in the planning; it wasn’t something done in one day as an ad hoc reaction to Harper’s fiscal update. Their agenda was to set up the coalition and spring it on parliament on budget day. Harper smoked them out and made them announce it..so that we, the people, could judge their agenda.
Our government must be answerable to the people. That is why we have elections. As for the GG, he or she is obliged to follow the advice of the PM; anything else would be a violation of the Magna Carta – and an act of an Individual Will to Power.
The fact that it is legal or illegal in terms of the law is totally irrelevant, for our parliamentary system does not operate by a set of written legal statutes but by a long developed set of historical norms, standards and conventions. The coalition violates these – and it is therefore, undemocratic. It is democratically illegal – not illegal according to a civic or criminal code – but illegal according to democratic rules and regulations.
It violates the principle of trust we place in our elected representatives. If we, the people, vote – then that vote has to be respected. Our vote set up one party as the government and another party, the second-in-votes, as the Loyal Opposition. That’s it. Nothing further can be done without another election.
No, it was not a cyncical powerplay by Harper. It was a powerplay by Layton, Dion and Duceppe. Harper found out – and smoked them out, and quite frankly, saved our democratic nature from their agenda of ignoring and destroying it.
ET:
One more reason to fight proportional representation.
“But Mr. Harper has to understand here that if he fails to produce a budget in the national interest of Canada, he will go down,” Ignatieff said.
…otherwise…???? we will install the Grand Collusion. But, Iggy The Silent, you do not talk of that. Then, I assume, you will go to the electorate. I am in agreement withg you there sir! As are the great majority of the Canadian People
Too late.
He’s part of Iggy’s Sunday Dinner. Oh well, Iggy’s next. They’re desperately eating their own. I love it!
“I believe Bob was an operative for the NDP in hijacking the Liberal Party.”
-We must wonder if the NDP really has been trying to destroy the Liberals. Picking Bob Rae would almost certainly deliver the Tories 90 seats in Ontario. Add that to their take in the west, they do not need any seats in Quebec or Atlantic Canada for a majority government.
This certainly would destroy the Liberals too as those with sense would be driven to the Tories and the loonies would be left for the NDP.
real lost his arab wannabe accent .
whats up real?
ET,
Thank you for your continued, passionate logic fighting back those who spin webs of you-know-what that the Coalition should be governing us by now.
You should be compiling what you’ve written into succinct editorials. If you don’t have a blog of your own, feel free to contact me via mine and I will gladly post them for you under whatever name or pseudonym you wish.
Great, great stuff!
Robert
My God, real learned to speak English overnight.
Congrats, real. That must have been some crash course.
To revert to your faux Arab speak, you’ll have to get yourself a new name. Try ‘fake’ and keep it simple.
RW @ 7:35 P.M.: “If you need anecdotal evidence of an upcoming election result, there it is.”
I couldn’t agree more. I just came from spending a few hours with neighbours, who had another couple visiting. None of them partisan Conservatives, as far as I know. All of them are flat-out angry at this criminal coalition. And I didn’t bring the topic up, either.
And this isn’t the first such instance I’ve experienced. This affair has enraged a large number of normally non-political Canadians, and not to the benefit of the LibDPbloc-heads, you can be sure.
What I haven’t heard, is any real person defending this coalition. If they are out there, they are keeping mum.
cal2:
Seems real can’t tell the difference between bait and the fish.
All he has to do is look at who’s squirming now, trying to get the hook out of their mouths.
Astard, you’re new here so you
really don’t want to comment at this level of discussion. To put it to you bluntly until the GG asks the Leader of the opposition if he can return to the House and discuss the possibility of forming an alternate government with the members of the opposition he is checked if he does discuss said possibility without Royal consent he is check-mated since to discuss overthrowing a sitting government without consent is an act of rebellion against the Crown and the people whom the Crown also represents. Can’t make it any clearer that that. A coalition is only legal if it obtains Royal consent before formation. In the annals of parliamentary democracy the miscue of Dion, Layton and Duceppe has cost many a head not least among them was a King.
Look guys, I’m trying to plan my yearly week vacation; can’t we just have some certainty here?
To the point: When will a vote on the budget happen. Is this the time line:
Return January 26th Speech from the throne.
January 27th Budget speech
January 28th Vote on the budget ???
January 29th Thursday trip to the GG
Thursday evening, I’m needed to do Arterial signs.
Is this the way it will go? Seriosuly.
That would mean I will have to bring my vacation forward to Jan 16 – 25; normally a little early for me.
~ RW
So you aren’t interested in a RallyForCanada on the 24th of January?
I SURE AM.
Maybe we can help the GG and the unmotivated people will see that we need an election.
Posted by: real at December 7, 2008 10:04 PM
“It’s a perfectly appropriate response to a PM who decides to engage in partisan sideswipes and bullying rather than, you know, governing…”
This can be said for every LIBERAL PM we have ever had. What makes you so hard on Harper this time around? Does it bother you that there are folks that are smart enough to beat the LIEberals at their own game?
———-
“your leader has revealed himself as a ham-fisted, reckless, ill-considered, politically inept buffoon.
That’s where all your troubles stem from.”
Ahhh…I am thinking your talking to the wrong folks about the wrong party here real.
You might be better off posting this on Babble with regards to the bumbling idiocy of the three amigos…I believe it is THEY who are in serious trouble.
We shall see how this turns out but methinks your contentions are mere “whistling past the graveyard”…
The British parliamentary system is clearly not working for Canadians any more, perhaps it is time to start planning a better Republic. What would be the perfect political system for these wonderful people who just can’t seem to get along in this vast sprall of space, with all their regional differences? Should we just tear the map in half, each go our separate ways and just be friends, because the romance is definately over, it’s time for a divorce.
The British Parliamentary system is working just fine.
After the election and before Parliament opens, the Crown invites the leader of the party which receives the largest number of votes from the Commons to confirm whether or not he can form a government.
If the leader of the party which received the largest number of votes tells the Crown he is uncomfortable with forming a government, then the Crown asks the party receiving the second-largest number of votes whether he can form a government.
Once a leader accepts, he is appointed Prime Minister and is bestowed the confidence of the Crown to carry out the duties the voters duly elected him to do.
The Prime Minister carries out his duties as long as the House of Commons has confidence in the PM.
When the PM loses confidence of the House, then another election must be called.
To do otherwise, once a Prime Minister has been named, is considered disrespectful of the Crown. In the past, any usurpers of power against the wishes of the Crown may have been beheaded.
Today, the pretenders to the Crown’s favour are doing that all by themselves.
The system has worked and there can be only one Prime Minister per legislative session, which was determined by the Crown before the House was called to sit.
The only other option for those who were not in the party of the Prime Minister would be to appeal to the electors, since the Crown cannot change its mind once the Prime Minister has been named.
This is the British Parliamentary system, not Italy’s.
Capice?