bluegreen

I doubt Iggy wants a coalition. I don't think that polls make policy either. In this volatile envirnment, anybody would be nuts to stake everything on the poll of the day. Based upon Harpers behaviour, i think the GG told him she'll ask the Liberals to form a Gvt. if the house votes no-confidence. In that event, Iggy will 'shoulder the burden', and the public will swallow it. Remember, there doesn't even have to be a formal coalition. The Liberals could rule with NDP, CPC, and/or Bloc support on confidence motions. Wouldn't that be weird though? The public outcry against the coalition seemed to be opposition to Dion becoming PM after being soundly rejected at the polls. Now that it's Iggy, who has never been tested at the polls (as leader), at all, public sentiment is swinging towards a coalition! Politics is a funny old thing, isn't it?

Fair enough, but then the Afghan Army could not have been said to exist at any time since the Soviet puppet regime. I used the term loosely. The fact is, that he was fighting under the aegis of what had, until shortly before his capture been the duly recognized Afghan government, whether Al-Qaida, or Taliban. If you remember recent history, it was the interrelationship between the Taliban, and Al Qaida that brought about the destruction of the Taliban regime. Would you not say it is valid to state that he would have been acknowledged a soldier in the war then taking place? In my mind there exists a distinction between those fighting in open war, and those who kill innocents by stealth. Maybe Khadr would have been a terrorist, who are we to know? We have to judge him by what he did, not what his peers did elsewhere, or might have wished him to do. Irrespective of that, given his upbringing, and the circumstances into which he was thrust by his family, and his relative youth, he ought not to bear full adult responsibility for his actions. The precise events surrounding his capture make accusations of murder a little outlandish at best. Open battle was joined, between American forces in a foreign land, and the closest thing that foreign land had to armed forces. The weaker force was wiped out, with the exception of one child soldier. I am not thrilled by the roles of Al qaida, or the Taliban, but the legal fiction that was crafted by the Americans, and the subsequent 7 years in legal limbo was an outcome that I find extremely troubling. I'm sure that the Americans put some pretty bad people into Guantanamo, but reason revolts against what has been done in Khadr's case.

The allegation that Arar was seen in the Al Qaida Safe house has been pretty thoroughly exploded. I listened to Arar'a Lawyer on CBC radio an hour ago, and he pointed out that Stockwell Day had access to RCMP surveillance intelligence at the time that he was informed of this so called identification of Arar. Day was aware that Arar was under Surveillance in North America during the whole time that he was presumably mis-identified as being in the Middle East. That is why he dismissed it as not credible evidence, and concurred in Arar's innocence. This whole episode is a little freaky, because it illustrates so much that has drastically gone wrong: A) Extracted under dubious conditions. ( Just how reliable can evidence extracted from kids, in the 'dead of night' be?) Interpreted by inept analysts. (The 'fact' was demonstrably false) C) Presented as truth in a court of questionable validity. ( What honest court would ever admit evidence like this, given A, and B above?) D) This is all about a kid who was 15. Isn't that a child soldier under the law? And just lets forget about the fact that the US, and pretty much all the world recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan before the war started. The Taliban recruited a kid into their Army. Some special forces guys from the States showed up at their camp one night and started killing everybody who was in this kids unit. He was the last one standing, and may have actually thrown a grenade that killed one of the special forces unit. Call me a stupid terrorist sympathiser if you like, but doesn't this actually look like a pretty conventional battle? This has always bothered me that because he was on the other side, this turned this teenager into a terrorist. I thought terrorists snuck around in other peoples countries killing innocents?

To Add to Progressive Tory's response above, I'll say that Mr. Canada is reliving the past. Tut tut. You're worse than the lazier macro-economists who claim it happened before therefore it will happen again. What are the causal factors? Smear Campaigns are of limited use. They need working material, and the most effective smears will redound onto the Conservatives. The Liberals will have buckets and buckets of cash next time. Even if the election is in two months, the Liberals will raise a ton of cash for it. They have more membership, and a much much broader potential base than the CPC. All the tools are there, and they will use them. Also, Dion was inarticulate in English. If Ignatieff ridicules, then it will stick because he's very smart, and will be well supported by the likes of Kinsella. Dion had a poor team at best, and was consequently an easy mark. Lastly, who cares about Dion's leadership debt? What on earth does that have to do with Liberal Party fortunes moving forward? That is evidence only of Dion's personal infrastructure and support, not the Liberal Party's. I am a Green Party supporter, so it doesn't please me to say it, but the Liberals will skewer the ploitical centre under Ignatieff, while the CPC will be forced to retreat on their extremist base. Can you spell MARGINALIZED?

HaHaHaHaHa! I've known Ignatieff since he was gifted the nomination in Etobicoke Lakeshore by Jean Augustine. This was the remnants of the Chretian teams revenge on Paul Martin. The man who was so obviously his nemesis. Paul ended up being his own nemesis. But Ignatieff remains(Remember PM bounced Jean Augustine from Cabinet, merely because she was a Chretien ally) You know absolutely less than nothing about the man Mr. Canada. Ignatieff has been a lecturer for how many decades now? And you claim no public speaking experience? Fall like a stone! Tory War machine! HaHaHaHaHa!

On raising money: When the Liberals finally get past their reluctance to devlove organizing to the provincial oganizations, and centralize the fundraising function, the money will flow like a Niagara. That's an obvious lesson that every Party should have learned from the Conservatives. For the rest, I think we may be witnessing the emergence of another Liberal Macchiavelli comparable to Chretien. (That's a complement) Consider "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition" Ignatieff has positioned himself masterfully. A coalition just isn't wise for the Liberals, but it's a totally credible threat. He can sorrowfully take the big chair if needs be. In the meantime, he has acquired a veto over the governments legislative agenda. There will be a federal election when it suits Ignatieff. Harper will be the author of all that's bad, and Ignatieff will take the credit for everything good in the interim. It's game over folks. The wars over, except for the actual shooting bits.

Ignatieff has not missed a single turn of the card, let alone a trick yet. Amongst the electorate, any credit due to this defecit spending will accrue to Ignatieff because of his stern admonishing of Harper. Any disenchantment will accrue to the Conservatives, because they broke their oft repeated solemn election promises. Ignatieff holds the whip hand, while Harper will be the whipping boy for all Canada's economic woes. Ignatieff's team will will work hard over the coming few months, and i think they will take their chance and engineer an election later in the year, when they believe the pump primed for a very strong minority. They might prefer to wait until 2010 when people are good and sick of the recession, and try for a majority. It won't happen on the back of a single poll though. the electorate will be thoroughly prepared before the CPC are overthrown. Anybody want to take a bet that the NDP, and Bloc will be portrayed as the opportunists when the Liberals finally engineer the non-confidence vote? I doubt very much that Ignatieff will ever consent to actually govern in coalition. Why the hell should he, when the mere threat is such a major part of the calculus paving his way to power? This is merely the beginning of the end of another brief Conservative interlude in Canada's political history.

The implication of what you are saying is that Nunavut, with 29,000 people, and over 2,000,000 square kilometers should dominate our political landscape? I suppose you are right. It is very detrimental to Nunavut that they should not be able to exercise an effective veto over tens of millions of people. The viability of our constitutional model should be quite clear to anybody with a basic grasp of history. Can you possibly doubt that we are one of the richest, and happiest populations in the world? Has this position not been built over hundreds of years, the last 130 or so under this self same constitutional model? Just out of curiosity, how do you propose to force 18 million people to hand a veto over our shared affairs to 5 or 6 million at the periphery? Our constitution and traditions protect the other 'half' of the country from despicable behaviour. The other 'half' (actually third) controls it's own affairs, and shares the governance of our common affairs. By this argument, it's detrimental to me that I cannot have the contents of your' bank account. I want them! Now!

They are already equal, or superior jurisdictions in many local affairs. They have complete jurisdiction in many of the things that are most important to their citizens, like municipal governance, highways, etc. and the administration of Justice. They share jurisdiction with the federal gvt. in some other areas. If we weight the upper house by Provinces, then we are really distorting things away from a viable constitutional model. That is why a triple E senate is a non starter. It is very detrimental to the interests of about half the country, and is therefore not viable over the long term. There is no way to compel Ontario to accept this chalice under our constitution, so there's not much point bellyaching about it is there?

Even those small changes though are a courtesy allowed by the commons. (presumably because they work). I guess you are right though. Perhaps the senate should be stuffed with partisan lawyers then, who can presumably improve the wording? From all the pol's I know an almost unreal proportion are lawyers by training, so if you tallied up all the Senators, you'd probably find that most of the 'edits' are made by lawyer-Senators anyway.

That's about the most sensible thing I've read so far here. As far as changing New Foundlands representation, it would require a constitutional amendment, so it isn't in the cards. Can you imagine Danny Williams reaction LOL! It doesn't really matter much how Senators are selected, so long as they continue to hold no real power beyond delaying and frustrating knee jerk legislation. As it stands, it's a somewhat anachronistic way to reward Party loyalists. So our polity has a few warts? Such is the price of tradition, and a settled way of getting things done. Like the GG the senate only matters once in awhile, and even then it's power is severely curtailed, by tradition, and law. As Smallc said, what the hell, if it works....

In what respect should PEI have precisely the same weight as Ontario, or Alberta in the upper house? There is no reason that I can think of. Nationalism doesn't justify it, population doesn't justify it, the only justification is that a historical accident established PEI, and the other provinces as seperate colony's. In short, the only rationale for allowing all 10 provinces equal representation irrespective of merit is that it will give considerable unearned power to the periphery, at the expense of the vast majority of the population. And what the heck is the point of electing those 5 senators in this case? To make it more 'democratic? puhlease.. It's a pretty thin fig-leaf for a base power grab. Why not state honestly that you want the tail to wag the dog, and screw democratic principles that get in the way?

Nothing final yet, but based on the math apparently agreed to, Ontario gets an average Electoral District size of 105,000, like AB, and BC , reduced from 115,000 previously. By the math, Ontario gets 21 seats, BC 7, and AB 5. I saw in prior post somebody expected more seats for the 416, but given the fact that the population has only grown marginally in the 416 I would be surprised if there were more than 1 seat in Toronto. There is a strong argument for 0 Toronto seats. The 905 will see 5 or 6. The rest will probably go where they can (defensibly) give the CPC the best odds. Do not forget that there were a hell of a lot of close ridings in the 905, and if the Liberals pick up 3-4% in Ontario, as I expect they will, then I see a starting point of 12 extra Liberal seats in Ontario, 5 more CPC in Alberta, and an interesting scene in BC. Quebec will howl, but tough cookies. That's what you get for voting Bloc. There are a couple of real whoppers in Canada, Like Nunavut, with over 2,000,000 sq. kilometers, and 17,000 odd electors(Population 29,000). Labrador, and PEI are pretty lopsided too, but why quibble about it? They are anomolies, and I can live with a few warts around the edges. Does anybody know when the electoral boundary commission will be appointed, and do their thing? Remember it'll take awhile to adjudicate.

Like most 'normal' people, I was busy enjoying my family, and so didn't hear the whole speech. Based upon the CBC snippets, It looks like Harper's Christmas wish is that everybody will just forget 2008, and let him start afresh. I'm certain he would rather look forward than back anyway, but given the events of 2008, he doesn't have much to look forward to. 2008 was marked by a pretty understated pair of political financing scandals the the CPC managed to gloss over. The deficit slaying GST was rolled back another 1%, the consequences of which are really gonna bite the CPC's butt (and all of Canada's unfortunately) in 2010. An election touted by Harper as a 'solution' to outraged partisanship in the house. (Give me a majority so I can shut them up). Said election was a failure for Conservatives. Harpers greatest miscalculation ever, with his big flat slap in the face for everybody not a conservative. Lesson 1: How to mobilise the other guys supporters. The Liberal party's coagulating (I like that turn of phrase, no?) about a new leader, who just happens to be the PC's worst nightmare personified. A pretty damn serious economic downturn, for which the end ain't nowhere in sight. The trigger for the next election passing to the oppositions hands. All told, I am so very glad that Harper is so optimistic about 2009. It proves he is delusional, and so doubly doomed. BTW, Merry Christmas, and holiday greetings to all. Even Harper, he might actually mean well by Canada, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt, till the end of the holiday season?

Hmmm. I'm afraid that you're a little short on logical rigor. I'm afraid you will not be voting for anything whatsoever until the GG calls an election. Last I checked, you only get a vote after the writ is dropped. You just got to vote on the people who actually make the decisions about coalitions etc. We call them our representatives, and we send them off to Ottawa to make these grown up decisions for us. Unless that is, you are a member of Parliament. If that's the case, then you are of course completely entitled to 'keep voting Conservative'

Without wasting time discussing to what extent Asthma is misdiagnosed, I will respond that yes, my choice IS clear, and the Party which I support is substantially different from the others. My vote is a very clear statement, that is understood by all who observe, or record it's impact. The influence on policy makers across Party lines is significant and direct. My vote counts for something specific and meaningful, while the majority of votes are buried in a mountain of policy dross. I mean, really, wtf does 'strong leadership' mean? rubbish, that's what. Triple 'e' senates? Like magic, no constitutional reform required? 'Family values? What empty rhetoric. There is little to chose between all the bought and paid for Party's

I'd vote Green. The reasons are simple. 7 years ago I held my 6 week old baby daughter in my hands as she turned dark blue with an asthma attack. We live in Toronto, next to a major highway, and the smog had been very bad that summer. Our pediatrician told me that I should move my family out of the city, because there was nothing else to be done, and the hospital was already too full of asthma cases during the summer. 65,000 hospital admission every year. that's not emergency room visits, that's actual admissions. Everything else in politics is posturing as far as I am concerned. I threw my PC membership away, and looked for some way to really influence Ottawa. Every year, people die in the hundreds of thousands from pollution related causes in Canada, and all of a sudden I really did give a shit. Maybe you should all think about that a bit when you cast your ballot for a fractional difference in your marginal tax rate, or some 'lock up the criminals' rhetoric. The only purpose of Green Policy is to put viable solutions on the table, and exert pressure on the rest of them.

Simple response here. The Liberal Party is not monolithic. It is plastic, and can reposition itself to campaign anywhere from centre right, to pretty far left of centre. It will turn on a dime with the next leadership vote.

Jdobbin, I wouldn't go chasing too much support on the left. It's crowded, and turnouts are low. Much more profit in scooping the marginal CPC elector on the centre. I don't think Ignatieff is particularly right wing. He is pretty rigorous and solemn in discussion, which can be mistaken for right wing. He isn't lacking in humour, but it is of the wry kind. There is some kind of ineffable crustiness there. His wife is nice enough, and I've met some really stand up guys in his camp, both here in Etobicoke, and on the broader scene. Come to think of it, since he came to my part of town, he hasn't been associated with a single crappy or creepy deed. That takes some doing through two federal, one provincial, and one municipal election. The only thing that pissed me off was the suborning of a past Green Party Candidate during the recent election, but then that's the Green Party's fault for voting for a wanker for a candidate. His local campaign team was smart enough to effectively squeeze the GPC in 2006-7, and it went so well for them that they carried it a step further this time. I can absolutely assure you that the local Conservatives are really worried about this guy, because they all like and respect him. Bob Rae? Baggage galore. He impressed me greatly as a Liberal attack dog in the last election, but debating skills, and cutting wit aren't enough to do it. He would be little threat to the CPC moderate vote, because his record would be on display 24/7. He would still do way more good than Dion to the Liberal cause. Whoever wins, I think the country can expect a Liberal resurgence, in a big way. If the election is in the late summer, or fall then look for a strong Liberal minority under Iggy, or a weak one under Rae. Of course, if the writ is dropped before the leadership is settled, well, that would really suck.

Interesting (And obviously interested) post. I know quite a few PC organizers in Ontario, and most of them are pretty much sh*tting their pants over Iggy. I know many of his people as well, and they are the top drawer people who have sat out a couple of elections now. He will bring a LOT of money, skills, and a blue red tint to the Liberals that will carry the aura of majority government. He is also likely to win the liberal leadership by a landslide. Your point above about a grand coalition is a non-starter. The Greens are in fact an important part of the electoral arithmetic, but they will NEVER EVER EVER link up with the NDP. Way too much bad blood. In fact, the reason for the GPC's existence is that the NDP never did get it, and the majority of environmentalists who aren't socialists wanted a home that could promote good policy, without bloating the civil service. You might say that not being the NDP is the defining characteristic of the Green Party.

Good question, who said that our common interests had anything to do with a coalition government? Not me, you are misquoting me, and on what authority I might add. It shouldn't need repeating here the nature of Harper's great gaffe. It was both the contents, and the fact of the provocations that were intolerable. In this instance, the common interest I was referring to was the maintenance of stable governance, based upon the COMMON INTERESTS of all Canadians in these troubled times. Surely it cannot be beyond your comprehension that we share a common interest in stable government during an economic crisis? Are you truly so cynical that the public good doesn't exist for you? That's why we have government, and rules based society, because we recognize a common good in keeping the peace, civil society, collective security, etc. What's the point of posting here if I'm pursuing my own parochial interests? I can do that best by working hard and smart at earning a living. I come here because I am motivated by an interest in public affairs, and because I care about the country in which my children will grow up. What are you doing here? If not the same, then don't waste my time. If for similar reasons, then spare me the rhetoric.

Congratulations! The country is in big trouble, massively split, very concerned about a political crisis of the first magnitude, which happens to coincide with their retirement savings evaporating in front of their faces daily, and, as you said, the Canadian populace is in an uproar. If this is the result of deliberate tactics, then your' compatriots don't deserve high office. Oh sorry, you are jesting with me! How could I possibly have taken seriously your contention that wilfully throwing away the office of Prime Minister, in the faint hope of triggering an election next year against a freshly invigorated Liberal Party with a new leader, was all in fact a brilliantly convoluted macchiavellian tactic? I apologise for being a kiljoy, and agree with you that Harpers crisis management is a poor substitute for a consultative minority government with a viable future.

Hmm. You didn't credit Sean Connery for your sound bite, and you misquoted him. The actual quote is 'Typical Wop; bringing a knife to a gun fight' To your' point, I guess if you don't have any compelling ideas, then why not throw some BS and $$ into the mix? Your comment is also a perfect postscript to the CPC no-holds-barred attitude that started this whole friggin mess. Look how well it worked last Wednesday. If public service, and our common interests never influence your chosen party's actions, what is the point of being in politics? Is it strictly to serve your' parochial interests? Will you seize your' moment at the trough, by fair means or foul? By all means, bring a shotgun to a knife fight, but don't be surprised when it ultiumately leaves you screwed, as Harper is now learning.

Here's another one started a few days ago: http://www.defendourdemocracy.ca/

I remember Trudea asking for an election, and being turned told to go back to the house, and make it work. It raised some eyebrows, but was accepted by all. Harpers reactions will determine if it becomes a crisis at that juncture. Who cares why she was chosen? The question will be, 'has she discharged her duties with propriety?' I agree however that the political consequences render most of these hypothetical scenarios unlikely.