Slim MacSquinty

As I've said many times before, it seems that the US is moving more toward Canadian values all the time. Look at many of Obama's promises and you can easily see a reflection of Canada in them. The thing that I find interesting about Obama is he is really the ultimate example of the American dream, the son of an immigrant and member of a racial minority rising to the very top, but he's not promising the equal opportunity which allowed him to excel, but an equality of outcomes which is more socialist utopion than normal american values. I understand why he got elected, America wants change, indeed America needs change, I would have thought that given what's happened in America over the past ten years they would be looking to clean up government, stop lobbying and end corporate influence peddling. Instead they are just turning to socialist dogma. Take from the rich and give to the poor. I always thought the greatest personal motivator and driver of innovation and genious in the states was the desire to get rich and succeed, which constitutes the american dream. What happens to that now?

Sorry, I can't help but giggle everytime someone accuses the media, which are overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations, of left wing bias. You're thinking of the US, Canadian media certainly cannot be painted with that broad brush. In the US Canadian broadcasters and much of the print media would be labelled pinkos.

There is a lot of bantering around here by a lot of constitutional experts about what is legal and what is not, in the long run it really doesn't matter, the court of public opinion has spoken and you can bet the coalition is over. The fact I think everyone is overlooking is what the public thought was fair, and whether or not they believed the premise offered them as to why the coalition wanted power. In the end probably everything that was done was democratic more or less and legal, however I think the coalition was viewed as too soon after the election to be legitimately seeking power and the premise offered dishonest as most everyone felt the financing issue is the real reason.

There are numerous scenarios that are possible, however some are much more probable. I think it'll be a coronation for Iggy now, he'll take the party sharply right, bringing back the old guard who have been sitting on their hands. That of course will offend an element of the party which has felt some influence lately and they may feel a little betrayed. So the Libs and Cons will have quite a bit of overlap in the center. However the disenfranchised left of the Libs could head toward the NDP who aren't as far to the left as they once were and may seem welcoming to some left Libs. That may not have a large effect on the next election but is one more scenario.

They admitted this was coming, so why didn't they tell the rest of the world and stop their spending? How was taking away rights to Fed. workers going to help the economy? They had 54 Billion in EI and put 2 Bil in a fund for the new EI and that amount is going to be gone because of the mass unemployment in the manufacturing sector. I heard all workers are going to pay more in premiums next year. What has Harper done for Canadians? Yeah he gave back some GST and an income tax rebate but now we are going into a deficit we couldnt afford the pay backs and we cant afford to be in a war either and under Harper we are going back to big debt even if he takes crown property and sells for nothing just to cover their a****! If Harper keeps doing what he is doing he will take over from Mulroney Canadas worse PM! Why is it so many people have such a poor understanding of economics? The federal government is not your rich uncle, its not their job to sit on savings, it is their job to keep as much money in the economy as is possible and keep the government as lean as possible. In fact to follow your own skeptic logic, you should be even more worried if the evil Tories accumulated money as think of all the bad they could do with it. There are many in the economic world who believe the Tory spending and tax cuts have been one of the things that have provided the insulation between our economy and that of the US. In fact several have noted that by lowering taxes (especially consumer taxes) and leaning out the government is actually a form of economic stimulus as it keeps money in the economy for consumers. So instead of having a big fat social welfare war chest they are trying to keep the economy working, that makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.

I would be very cautious to try and take advantage of this new waive of public support, it went up very fast and could well go down very fast as I suspect the electorate is restless and angry. It would be most wise to spend some time figuring out why the voters feel the way they do and conduct yourself in a manner that supports that thinking. That is the best way to ensure current support stays with you.

Either way, the conservatives will not be happy about this. I personally believe that a new Liberal leader will only strengthen the coalition's resolve. You're a funny one Thor, but for some reason I don't think you get your own jokes. The coalition is over, and I suspect so are Bob Rae's leadership hopes as he plans to flog that dead horse all over in the coming weeks. Iggy was the back room voice of reason and will likely be making another back room deal with Harper to orchastrate the passing of much legislation over the next couple of years, that will be the price the Liberals will pay for NOT having an election. Layton, after leading the NDP to within site of civiliztion will be leading them right back into the wilderness. Oh, funny thing on the CBC last night, Chantel Herbert says something to the effect, you know just like a cat who has nine lives it appears Dion is doomed to nine deaths.

This is not the time to appear to be overly political or self interested, the reason the coalition members have all lost in this fiasco is because they looked to be power hungry putting self interest above the interests of the country. Long term gains can be solidified by being a statesman above the frey looking out for you and me.

Out come the knives, I suspect there is a mile wide divide through the middle of the Liberal party right now with Bob Rae on one side and Iggy on the other.

I don't think our issues are geographic in the sense of east west or provincial. I think the divide in Canada is urban rural. Ontario is divided because Toronto thinks it is Ontario, and make a pretty big sucking sound in the rest of the province, if not the country.

Toad: By god man you're starting to make sense!

Harper will not win a vote of confidence in the house, and he's laughing. Only if some Liberals abstain, can the left fight another day. I'm quite sure there will be about 20 Liberals who don't make the vote on the budget, and they'll find plenty of ways of supporting the government without supporting the government to keep from having to either entertain this silly coalition thing or a federal election in the near future. All the more reason to use your inside voice and play nice. Harper must go back to being the sweatervest guy or risk loosing his lead in the polls.

The war's just begun. There are going to be attack ads upon attack ads in the next two months. Harper smells blood and has the polls and momentum to back it up. He can hammer the waves with attack ads and speeches. An election campaign would smash the opposition. The 2 opposition parties have said they oppose the government no matter what, plus a large amount of Liberals say the same thing. A majority is so close Harper can taste it. Sad thing is, when Harper gets it, the subsequent election, he is toast. Now that Harper has the momentum, the Liberals know two things for sure, they would lose an election right now and that they can't afford an election right now. Harper has to resist the temptation to deal the final death blow. His surge in the polls may well be because people now see him as more human since he's been knocked down a peg. He should take this momentum and prove himself the statesman and rise above it, show the olive branch and get on with government, he can keep the stick behind his back to make the others pay for their misadventures if he chooses to call an election at any time once all this has blown over and some time has passed.

I've often thought of the same "family' analogy in my view of Canada. Except that in my analogy most of the kids know how to get along, whereas two of them have serious developmental issues and need constant attention. If they ever see the other one (or anyone of the other kids for that matter) getting any attention from mom they throw temper-tantrums, stomp their feet, and bawl until mom finally gives in. I think mom really needs to practice some tough-love, give them a time out, and remind them that this is what being a part of a family is all about. The problem is when the family is so very dysfuntional even the sane appear suspect.

Watch the tory "air force" or for the left "luftwaffe" take to the airwaves and unleash an air war of epic proportions. Dobbin is right, Harper will get his election come hell or high water. The coalition was good as a threat, but Harper turned the tables again!!! Easy there big fella, thought the battle has been won the war continues. If Harper can't make it look like he's attempting to cooperate and pull this government back together the egg may very well be on his face.

Go back and read the threads from the last few days and I think you couldn't help but agree with my analogy. Reviewing the events of the last few months it seems more clear than ever to me that we are seeing the results of the clash of a couple of egos. I remember watching Trudeau humiliate Deifenbaker, and Clarke, both men (particularly Deif) were clearly angry, but knowing it was politics let things go. I don't think Dion can let it go, he has been humiliated and like a schoolboy whos been "pantsed" is furious and more than a little powerless to strike back. Enter Jack Layton who presents himself with all his buddies from the AV club who vow to hold Harper down so Dion poke him in the eye, a prospect he apparently cannot resist. So here we are. The problem is that it appears that Harper might have "pantsed" not only Dion and the AV club, but the Glee club, the yearbook club and all of the badminton team. So what do we do now, we got a six week reprieve from the sillyness. It appear the people of Canada are more than a little anoyed and apparently are mostly sympathetic to Harpers point of view, the coalition if not very careful could be made to pay at the polls. That however is no reason to go to an election, as the winds over this manure pile could well change direction. I should think all parties would be well served to tread carefully during these times. The trio of usurpers seem willing to give no quarter to Harper, voters may think differently of Harper and still seem willing to let him run the economy, looks like a conudrum, Dion (not the Liberal party), Layton and Duceppe may have nothing to lose and be willing to bring down the government. Harper will need every one of his tactical skills, which up until recently I thought werre considerable, to deliver a budget and a plan and at least appear to be consiliatory in an attempt to win back confidence. On the other hand he could hand it off to someone else, allow a blue ribbon panel to do the consultative process and see what happens, he could be Mr. Teflon when it all blows over.

Imagine you're six years old and your one of 12 siblings (your mother took fertility drugs and adopted a couple of her cousins kids), she is supposed to love you all the same. When she comes home from shopping she always has a bag of jelly beans and gives all the kids 10 beans. Most of the kids hold out their hands take the beans and put them in their pockets and eat them one at a time. A few of the kids count them to make sure they got their fair share, some kids only want red beans, some only green. One says he's a little small so he should get more so he can grow big. Other kids accuse their siblings of stealing their beans and before long everyone is crying and shouting and accusing your mother of playing favorites. Essentially, that is the Canadian system.

Its about stability, there were plenty of opinions around and probably plenty of them right, however the course of action is the most conservate since it allows cooler heads to prevail without denying to opportunity for the coalition to defeat the government if they can last that long.

Don't be so naive: He’d signed on, he said, because there were “very significant benefits” for Quebec. He’d only agreed to stick around for 18 months, during which he could continue to work solely on Quebec’s interests. The government, he said, would be trying to deal with the economic situation, “based on an agreement that meets the needs of Quebec.”

They have 49 seats, they get to vote, but do they form the policy and extort benefits?

They have an effective cabinet post as "the agreement" specifically refers to permanent Quebec consultations on all legislation. Which clearly can be intrepreted in many ways however it gives Quebec a higher status than other provinces and it in theory could give the BQ an effective veto. That's better than a cabinet post by any measure.

The Bloc is not - repeat not - part of the coalition. They have agreed only to support the Liberal/NDP coalition for a period of 18 months on Commons confidence votes. This ensures the new govts stability without allowing sovereignists into cabinet or decision making. That is pure semantics, as for the parliment to be in any way effective they have to pass bills, confidence and otherwise. How do you suppose the BQ signed on without conditions both for goodies for Quebec and significant impact on legislation? They are not a part of the coalition in name only, you can be assured and indeed have been based on Duceppe's own words that he got lots for Quebec.

What makes the Liberal-NDP-BQ Coalition so wrong on a fundamental level? As I'm not bias towards any party, and I understand a bit about how forming a coalition with a separatist party is a bad idea. But could you please ignore that fact for a moment and focus how it is fundamentally wrong to remove a governing party that has lost the confidence of the parliament and has decided to join together to form an alternative government. I don't understand why that is so bad or is it that I'm missing the point completely? I would say it depends on two things; the first is what are the rules and what are the precedents, our parlimentary system has basic rules but they are somewhat vague, therefore we often rely on precedent. In this regard it appear to be legal for the all the opposition parties to gang up and defeat the government, however precedent doesn't entirely support it as usually coalitions are formed by one much stronger party with one much less party in support, generally they then can follow one parties platform. So knowing that its legal but highly unusual. Also, never before has a separatist party been put in a position of government. Then on the political front it comes down to politics and what you believe. If you believe that we had an election where the public picked their government, then does the coalition have the moral authority to take over the government? Do you believe that the standing government made a mistake so big and so counter to what they were elected on that it warrants the fall of the government? Or do you believe this is simply a power play, by those who see an opportunity? The coalition is asking you to believe that the government did something very bad, counter to what the country wants and putting the country somehow in jeopardy, therefore they say they want the opportunity to take over the government, because they claim they have a better plan.

That rule immediately precedes the one outlawing any reference to Jim Flaherty as a political skank Funny thing about Flaherty, I've met him a few times and listened to him speak at a few luncheons, he is quite a speaker, I've seen him do over half hour detailed economic speech with no notes and no teleprompter. In person he seems like a pretty good guy, he listens to other people and had plenty of funny stories. On TV he looks like a pugnatous little leprechan.

In theory you vote for local reprentatives who in theory form a government, however in practical fact you vote for a party, to demonstrate this practical principle just go back to all the threads from just weeks ago wherein many of the same people who are advocating the theoretical government model were debating party platforms and potential PM's. Furthermore, there was much discussion during the campaign about coalitions and vote splitting/ sharing to prevent a Tory government by the left in addition there was much discussion about the benefits of majority vs minority tory governments. Many people expressed a desire to have a minority government to keep the Tories in check. I do not recall anyone imaging that a Lib/NDP coalition would stoop to joining with the BQ to play government. I submit that no one who voted for Jack Layton realistically expected that he would in any way form a government. So the concept of the theoretical parlimentary democracy is not the way it actually works. What only a few weeks ago was unimaginable is now being presented by many as a practical government model. Talk about liquid principles.