fellowtraveller

definitely, and that is a phenomenon of the last 30 years or so. Every province or group of provinces is on their own, fighting with each other for money, with the feds pitted agaisnt them too.

Expain that circumstance. The long, long practiced law in Canada via the Rand formula is that you are not obligated to join any union, but you are obliged to pay full dues and your employer is further obliged to collect and submit them to the recognized collective bargaining agent, the union of the jobsite and you as an employee are bound by the provisions of the collectibve bargaining Agreement of a union to which you do not belong..

You need another example, that one doesn't wash. Starting with the first mega-plant at Syncrude, the oil sands operations have been dominated by non-union operations after construction is done(nearly all of it was built with union workers). But operations are done almost exclsuively by non union staff. Those staff are very well paid, with great beneift packages and have repeatedly rejected union overtures. Working, pay and saftey conditions today owe a lot to unions in the last century, but every province has plenty of safety, hours of work, pay and holiday statutes. Today the role of unions is to get the absolute maximum money and benefits for their members. They are no more a benefit to society that any corporation trying to gain profit for its shareholders. It is trendy and noble of them to pretend otherwise, but that is the reality. Personally, I am entirely capable of negotiating the price payable for renting my mind and money and have no need of representation. Unfortunately, the fascism of the Rand formula means many Candians do not ever have that choice.

There is absolutely no incentive for a public sector management negotiator to fall on his sword over a big raise for everybody. In the end, if the union wins- and they almost always do- the govt just raises taxes. No problem, no consequences, nobody loses their job or suffers in any way except of course taxpayers. Not so easy in the profit driven world of the private sector, in theory at least the price of labour rises and falls with supply/demand.

Yes, and the greatest coup of the dirty tricks boys at CPC HQ was to fabricate those photos of Dion, Laytong and Duceppe smiling and shaking hands.

delete

hahahaha, good one. Her removal as parliamentary critic immediately after the vote of conscience and loss of the NDP nomination after 9 years as MP- pure coincidence, nothing punitive or authoritarian there. Move along, nothing to see..

And it is undoubtedly the worst possible circumstance to getting anything done. A new majority govt would simply pound through essential reform without too much regard for their partners sensitivities, and with far less eye on what will happen at the next election. Isn't that why coalitions are promoted by some, they are renowned for compromise and cionsensus, little legislation and what is produced makes everybpody happy. None of that is reuired today. Never heard of him. I go to the UK twice per year on business and have close family there. IMO, the economic situation and prospects are dire, worse than reported in MSM. Act, that would be much better. No need to form that blue ribbon panel of learned persons and labpour union reps, that is sure to produce swift and effective results. I expect you have a civil service background with that approach. Wrong. The central govt in UK will not be able to pretend they are succeeding by dumping billions of p[ounds of 'savings' like Chretien did here in the 90s. No buffer. The political shitstorm will be immense, the papers there will be full of terrible stories about Aunt Tilly left to die in the gutter. Watch it happen. A coalition govt won't have the spine or political will to carry it through. Scotland will be an acid test for this coalition, with their huge number of people on direct and indirect life support from London.Does the coalition have the guts? I doubt it, it would be a first.

Well, except for all those whipped votes in the Commons.....and remember Bev Desjarlais or is she purged from The Big Book of NDP History already?

Yes, you must be right. Harper told her what to do in the first sixty seconds, then they talked hockey for the next four hours. And why would Harper even pay her a visit if a crisis of confidence was not imminent? Hmmmm? No, I do not know that is what took so long. If there had been a confidence vote, Harper would have been there to tender his resignation. In the abscence of an actual vote, he went there to ask for an immediate election, which was refused. His fallback(without which he;d have been unemployed immediately after) was to ask for the prorogation, which kept him alive and gave him some time. She was under no obligation to grant that either, but it was better than the alternative given the obvious attitude of the country towards the Coalition. And where do you get the utterly idiotic notion that the Bloc could not be a legal part of a coalition government? Not from me, you lying sack of shit. Of course the Bloc could be part of it, every one of their MPs is duly elected. But WITHOUT A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE THE NOTION WAS NEVER SUBJECT TO A DECISION BY MADAME JEAN. Dion never made the trip to Rideau Hall. If she had refused an election, which she did, and also refused prorogation, then she'd have accepted the proposal by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc to form a government. Of course.

They won't pull it off for a couple of reasons. The coalition will require internal consensus between partners, and jointly they have promised extensive consultation. Strikes one and two, because consensus and consultation is not required , action is required. That is a major political hurdle. Secondly, they cannot offload huge expendioture cuts for health care to provinces because the NHS is a national repsonsibility, unlike Canada where Ottawa collects the cash but the provinces provide all the services. Scotland was going to get pounded regardless, but not because of any supposed independence revolution. They will get pounded because they have been a Labour stronghold for years, the recipient of considerable patronage and largesse from London, and because Scotland has one of the highest ratios of public service jobs in the world. Some of that will change, if the govt has the spine. The coalition was proabaly the worst electoral result possible for the times. I wish them the best of luck.

Utterly false. Why would she take all morning to rubberstamp his orders to her, when the normal meeting is about ten minutes? I noticed you avoided the reality that it is only the custom and tradition that the GG follow the PMs advice, not any sort of requirement. And these were the very 'extraordinary circumstances' that would allow her to take her own course- which she clearly did by choosing prorogation over a new election- an election that Harper wanted badly at that point and did not get..

Do they even operate these lighthouses any more? Every boat larger than an inner tube has a far more accurate GPS long ago.

Wrong. The GG has NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER to take or act upon the advice of the Prime Minister. It is certainly the custom and tradition, but she has no requirement whatsover. Your "if' has no constituional relevance, the events did not occur and she had no decsion to make on what the Coalitioon might want or not want. But she coulod see wahy was on the immediate horizxon from both sides, and did not like any of it. Madam Jean had the three options, and Harper came a courting trying to sell the one he wanted most at that time- dissolve and run an election. He wanted that because the polls clearly showed the Coalition was massively rejected by the electorate, and he would gain a majority. She wasn't buyiong that, for two reasons - there was no non confidence vote(constituional basis) yet, and there had just been an election a few weeks prior, where Harper had won a mear majority. She of course could not simply award govt status to the Coalition in the abscence of a vote in the House, and despite the protestaions of the Coalition that the country was on the verge of economic collapse, a claim which was a transparent pretext and which has been proven to be false. I agree that IF Dion and Ducppe and Layton has presented themselves to her AFTER a vote, she would have likely been obliged to acknowledge them as such. But that never happened, because she took a third route- prorogation, buying time. That was certainly not Harpers first choice, but it was better than the alternative of a confidence vote he would lose. And I would bet money that many in the LIberal Party and especially Ignatieff recognized the massive political bullet he personally and the Liberals collectiveloy dodged. They be annihilated at the earliest opportunity. Note that Dion was gone with unseemly haste as leader immediately after the cnfidence vite died and prorogation ensued. That was no coincidence. But none of that happened. She did not like the postion of either side or the horrific acrimony.

Yet there has been plenty of discussion in the last couple of weeks about the CBC poll that asks that question about col;aitions, various combos and who would elad them? The top choice was Libs plus NDP led by Layton, with a high approval rating. You forgot to add the Bloc to the Lib/NDP colaition. I know that is a sore point with you, but you cannot make all those pictures of the three of them sdhaking hands and smiling go away.I agree though that constituionally, their actions were perfectly legal. So were the actions of Harper soon after.

Before the GG 'ruled', there would have to be a vote of non confidence. In 2008, there wasn't one so comparing the OP scenario in the aftermath of an election does not apply directly. I expect she would do the same as she did last time- be very reluctant to give any coalition power by fiat what they had just failed to achieve via the ballot. Her duty is to look after the best interests of canada, and in 2008 her choices were to let the coalition take over, let Harper call another election or to do what she did- prorogue and let it cool off a bit. I doubt hten or now the certainty of having a separatist party in the coalition would make any difference. If the colaiton wnats to take power, they need to do it ASAP, before any election. If they ran on the basis of forming a coalition after an election, they'd hand Harper an easy majority and likely kill the Liberal Party permanently. Ignatieff recognized this risk, which is why he fled screaming from the last one.

The performanc of the procedure by doctors is surely a footnote to the real issue: who controls a womans reproductive capacity?

Ahhhhh, the revisionism is entertaining...Harper turned a surplus into a huge deficit when confronted with Opposition demands to either spend spend spend or be dumped.... remember that?I do wish that Ignatieff grew a pair and did bring down the government, simply for the delicious irony of the host country of the G20, Canada, the country that has the most stable banking system in the world, the country that is emerging as likely the most economically healthy of that G20- getting dumped over a $2 million fish pond...... The Libs would get creamed again in an election.

Sexual relationships within the military have been banned long, long before the forces became co-ed...... Buggery was a hanging offence in the Royal Navy for hundreds of years.

It is no mystery at all, once you understand what really happened in the 90s.

that is $15B every year. Note that the one and only reason the Lberals undertook any sort of fiscal reform was the intense pressure from the upstart Reformers. Chretiens entire career was based on doing nothing, or at least nothing that might risk a vote or two. And nobody has mentioned the other great contributor to the slaying of the deficit in the 90s- sharply reduced interest rates on the bloated national debt. All gravy for Mr Martin.

In fact abortion in Canad is neither a moral or ethical issue.... In practice it is a medical issue, which is why women have choice.

We agree then that , in the absence of any meaningful information, our opinions are just that. We don't know how many 'late term' abortions occur, or why they occur. What a sound basis to create law! You are correct in that there is no law, one of the most thoroughly enlightened stances taken by successive Canadian governments. We both know that ProLifers are desperate to create abortion law, any law at all will do because then it can be judicially challeneged over and over and over in many courts in many places. Without any law their cause- I guess your cause too- is hopeless.

No, they are there for a purpose and that has not changed. The military doesn't work like the Bureau of Pencils in Ottawa. Personal relationships are OK, sexual relations between ranks or even within ranks is a recipe for disaster. The military has a chain of command that is proven effective, there is no way that boinking subordinates can be of benefit to their mission.

This is the point I tried to make earlier. There is no reason to assume that any or all of the 400 late term abortions were not medically necessary. I leave that determination to the evaluation of medical professionals, not hysterical polemicists.