Coalition Government

[Alta4ever]

The masses don't get to decide. Its up to the GG.

In a democracy its the people who decide the government, not the GG.

[SSD]

For those of you that think that having the Bloc support you is not the correct move are wrong. The Conservatives were supported by the Bloc for the first year and a half of their first term. With Dion in the picture, you can trust that Bloc wishes on Quebec's position in Canada won't be granted. This is meerly a deal made for the economy, which right now don't look like to be doing much, especially in Ontario which has factories shutting down every day. I can't believe Ontario was painted blue the last time and now I hope they have learned their lessons. Oh yeah, The Bloc has become more moderate in recent times. They stress Quebec separatism less and less now and now are just a Quebec-interest group and thats it.

[Alta4ever]

The other day on CTV news, they said there is a $51B in the EI account.

i forgot a set of zeros 500 billion is a big number.

[Smallc]

I rather see themoney spent on running the country rather then wasted on political parties.

Ummmm, political parties do run the country. They're an integral element of our system. If they wanted to eliminate the subsidies, they should have rolled back everything that came with them. And again, I point out that every other industrialized country but 1 uses the same public financing.

[Smallc]

i forgot a set of zeros 500 billion is a big number.

That's fine, but the account still has a very dig surplus.

[jdobbin]

I rather see themoney spent on running the country rather then wasted on political parties.

Certainly I expect a Tory to have a different view if it was the Liberals with a bloated cabinet.

[Alta4ever]

Certainly I expect a Tory to have a different view if it was the Liberals with a bloated cabinet.

If the liberals were getting rid of the political party welfare I would be all for it.

nice dodge though which is more important running the country or running TV ads?

[johhny]

If the liberals were getting rid of the political party welfare I would be all for it.

nice dodge though which is more important running the country or running TV ads?

It would be rather *funny* if another $300 million election was required after the government was toppled over nothing more than a $30 million dollar power play

Perhaps you’d accept the concept of coalition government if Harper had pursued it when the majority of the electorate refused him and his Conservative party… Harper could have his governing majority today – under a coalition banner. He chose not to explore this cooperative, for the good of the people/country, alternative… rather, Harper is so bent on realizing that selective majority position, he is willing to forego any attempt at cooperative government… it’s why we had the recent trumped up election – it’s why the Throne Speech was so blatantly lacking, and it’s why we’re bordering on the next immediate election path.

should a coalition come forward… it will be one forged around the economy… you know – the economy, the thing the Harper Conservatives should be concentrating on instead of their callous self-serving positions.

[August1991]

I go to NYC for a day on business and come back to find alot of Canadian political junkee chickens running around without heads. Has the sky fallen?

I know you don't like were this has come but Harper knew from the start that his government would only survive on confidence. I don't him backing down from acting like a horse's hind end.

Yes, Harper's government will survive on confidence. Indeed, all Harper needs is the support of one of three opposition parties.

Dobbin, you are wrong to believe that Harper is as stubborn as a horse's ass. (Is that your metaphor?)

----

The Conservative government is not going to fall and there will be no coalition government.

Harper has simply put the popcorn among the monkeys (to use an expression that I learned from a poster here, TheloniousMonk.) IOW, Harper has made the Liberal Party look like the power-hungry maniacs that they are.

----

(Edited to add.) Let me be more plain. Unlike Joe Clark, Stephen Harper can count. If I were looking for a likely candidate (of three potential candidates) to support the government now, I'd look to Duceppe and the Bloc. Stephen Harper has been playing this game for about three years. He knows it backwards and forwards. Harper knows precisely how to get support from Duceppe, the NDP and the Liberals.

OTOH, it is pathetic to watch Dion, the Liberals, journalists, anti-Harper posters bite at the bait. I once believed that Dion was a smarter man. Well, it seems that I was wrong.

Edited November 29, 2008 by August1991

[myata]

What a pathetic load of bull from Harper's hasty media appearance yesterday:

"While we were busy... the opposition came behind our backs.."

Busy with what, exactly?? Designing little nasty pinches? Forgetting to come up with an integrated non-partisan strategy to deal with the crisis?

"HE (they) made me do it, daddy! Wooooo"

Oh cr... The folks simply aren't interested in governing the country for its best interest. Their game is the power and that's all they care for. The strategy was intended to kick the opposition and maybe score a few points for the prospective... yes, majority election. They already shown that they'll call one with no hesiation, crisis, law or whatever. It's just the nature of things.

But it looks like little trick backfired. I hope the opposition will have the nerve to kick the playful bunch out, and get down to business addressing real problems. We have 7 days to see.

Edited November 29, 2008 by myata

[Trax]

What a pathetic load of bull from Harper's hasty media appearance yesterday:

"While we were busy... the opposition came behind our backs.."

Busy with what, exactly?? Designing little nasty pinches? Forgetting to come up with an integrated non-partisan strategy to deal with the crisis?

"HE (they) made me do it, daddy! Wooooo"

Oh cr... The folks simply aren't interested in governing the country for its best interest. Their game is the power and that's all they care for. The strategy was intended to kick the opposition and maybe score a few points for the prospective... yes, majority election. They already shown that they'll call one with no hesiation, crisis, law or whatever. It's just the nature of things.

But it looks like little trick backfired. I hope the opposition will have the nerve to kick the playful bunch out, and get down to business addressing real problems. We have 7 days to see.

Do you really believe that Harper wants to goof off and play games? Do you really think that the Lib's & NDP's just want to work on behalf of Canadians right now? What is wrong with the idea to lead by example and cut unnecessary spending & gov't subsidy to political parties?

Now we have Chrétien & Broadbent pulling the strings behind the scenes. I don't remember seeing their names on the last ballot. What a bunch of selfish pricks. They are doing this because they can, not because they should!

[charter.rights]

Do you really believe that Harper wants to goof off and play games? Do you really think that the Lib's & NDP's just want to work on behalf of Canadians right now? What is wrong with the idea to lead by example and cut unnecessary spending & gov't subsidy to political parties?

Now we have Chrétien & Broadbent pulling the strings behind the scenes. I don't remember seeing their names on the last ballot. What a bunch of selfish pricks. They are doing this because they can, not because they should!

As I think about Chretien and Broadbent see a way to get Harper to tow the line of a minority government set-up. Last term Harper ruled like he had a majority and bullied his way through parliament because the Lilberals were too fragile to pull the plug on him. Harper started off this session with the same big mouth and brutish statements as he did last term.

This strategy guarantees that Harper will not try to force through his agenda and then threaten to make every vote a confidence vote. If he does and the vote is becomes non-confidence the coalition have warned him they will just step in and take over - no new election where Harper can go crying to the public. And you can bet that if a coalition does come to power, it will be run like no other government, as a model of efficiency and democracy. The only way they could avoid public outrage at the maneuver is if people like what they see at the end of the next 5 year term. As we all know voters have short memories.

[Donaill]

The Tories aren't innocent by any imaginations of the word. According to one of the people that helped write the economic study that he had asked for, Canada is in worse shape than the Prime Minister is admiting. Tne PM was told, in the report, that we would be running a deficit for the next few years. However the PM has told us otherwise. The PM is also against any sort of economic stimulous. Now I can see his point on this. However the economic historians have repeatedly said that not spending money during a downturn such as ours is indeed the wrong thing to do. This is the worst economic downturn since 1929, ask the PM.

Now I could care less who is running the country, as long as they aren't facist. As I see it, Canada is becoming a divided nation. I don't think that we have been this divided since the days of confederation. Though we all have shared cultures, our regions have shaped us. The East is more liberal than the Prairies, and hovers between old style PC and Liberal ideals. Ontario, more often than not, has voted a different federal party in than they have as a provincial. Quebec has their game. The Prairies have become increasingly more influenced by US style concervatism. BC, I have a feeling that they are just waiting for another socialist type of leader.

At this time we need a coalition goverment, not of three parties but of all four parties.

It works well for Switzeralnd.

This is not a time for ANY of the parties to be playing games, telling half truths, being arses, or stupid Sasanachs. Get on with the rest of the world. This is not the first time we have been in a situation like this. It is an opportunity to look at the 1930s and ask what we did wrong than and NOT repeat those errors. At best economics is a poor excuse for a science. Repeatedly, we have seen that banks, goverments and economists are not always right. However we can all see what is going on around us.

Lets just get on with this show, get us back to where we should be. Enough of this he said, she said crap. Enough of this WEll Joe Clarke said but Trudeau did this. Blah blah blah. That does not get us anywhere. Intelligent mids, sitting down and having intelligent conversations is what works.

[jdobbin]

Yes, Harper's government will survive on confidence. Indeed, all Harper needs is the support of one of three opposition parties.

Dobbin, you are wrong to believe that Harper is as stubborn as a horse's ass. (Is that your metaphor?)

----

The Conservative government is not going to fall and there will be no coalition government.

Harper said he was going to take a more conciliatory tone. Instead, he has shown himself to be the bully and played the brinkmanship card again. He was intending on calling an election in the next months anyway so the Opposition decided to say no right here and now.

Now, he has backed down on the election funding and has promised not to call an election until two years has passed. It is not believable and it still doesn't address the economic package which they have decided to delay until three or four or more months have passed.

You think this was part of Harper's grand strategy to have to scramble to save their political skin?

[jdobbin]

If the liberals were getting rid of the political party welfare I would be all for it.

If the Tories were raising the donation limit to pre-2006 rates, this would not be so cynical. Harper was going to call an election in the next months under the new rules because he wanted to eviscerate the other parties quickly. Not exactly a way to show a conciliatory tone.

nice dodge though which is more important running the country or running TV ads?

I don't subscribe to either of your views. First, what TV ads? The money is for party operations. Next, the country can be operated with fewer ministers. Some have only the thinnest on jobs in the cabinet.

In any event, Harper has lost confidence. His tin ear on a smoothly running Parliament that addresses the economy as a priority is obvious. The major cuts he wants are the one that benefit him the most. And when all is told, he has no major stimulus package in place.

It is enough to say no to in a vote.

It is up to the Governor General to decide what to do. The Liberals are preparing for that event. Unlike the Tories under Harper, the Liberals don't appear to have written Jean to ask for a handover.

[Topaz]

I think the reason Harper is postponing the vote is the province of Ontario and the Feds, are giving the Big 3 to Dec. 5th to show them their financial statements and this will give them a better idea if they give any help and how much to the auto sector.

[capricorn]

Where did I say that they didn't have a plan? They haven't released it, and they don't have to. They said that they plan to, and soon. Besides, the Conservatives would probably steal it again if they showed it too soon.

Much has been said about a minority government having to work together and to cooperate. If the Liberals have a plan and think their ideas on the economy are so great, why keep them secret from the Conservatives?

I think there are other public service unions that this would effect. Besides, its the principle of the matter. Its an infringement of rights.

Principle or not, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to strike is not guaranteed by the Charter or the Bill of Rights. The 1987 decision resulted from a PSAC federal court action against the government's Public Sector Compensation Restraint legislation.

Appellant represents employees of the federal government and its agencies. It brought an action in the Federal Court, Trial Division seeking a declaration that the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

----

Per Beetz, Le Dain and La Forest JJ.:For the reasons expressed by Le Dain J. in the Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, the guarantee of freedom of association in s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not include a guarantee of the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike. Accordingly, the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act did not violate s. 2(d) of the Charter.

Per McIntyre J.: For the reasons I expressed in the Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act did not interfere with collective bargaining so as to infringe the Charter guarantee of freedom of association. The Act did not restrict the role of the trade union as the exclusive agent of the employees. It required the employer to continue to bargain and deal with the unionized employees through the Union. It also permitted continued negotiations between the parties with respect to changes in the terms and conditions of employment which did not involve compensation. The effect of the Act was simply to deny the use of the economic weapons of strikes and lockouts for a two‑year period. This may limit the bargaining power of trade union but it did not violate s. 2(d) of the Charter which does not include a constitutional guarantee of a right to strike.

----

Per Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Le Dain and La Forest JJ.: The Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act did not violate s. 1.b. of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Act was enacted with a view to dampening inflationary expectations. This was a legislative objective which qualified as a "valid federal objective" pursuant to the jurisprudence interpreting s. 1.b. of the Canadian Bill of Rights, at least in the context of legislation directed at a labour market within undisputed federal regulatory competence. Further, in view of the important leadership role of the government in economic matters, the legislative focus on the public sector was not arbitrary. No opinion is expressed on s. 3(4) of the Act.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1987/1987...87rcs1-424.html

The PSAC leadership can squawk all it wants about the government's plan for its members. At least they had the foresight to endorse a four year contract with a 6.8% increase. The agreement also includes a $4,000.00 lump sum signing bonus to be paid to all workers covered by the agreement. That's a very good agreement which makes private sector workers envious.

[Wilber]

I know you don't like were this has come but Harper knew from the start that his government would only survive on confidence. I don't him backing down from acting like a horse's hind end.

You're right, I don't like it because it will have serious repercussions for the country and they won't be good. Too bad you can't put Harper and the interests of the other 307 horses hind ends aside and consider that. But seriously, if you are so in love with coalitions, why not go to some form of PR? If our future is to be a succession of minorities, it would be a good way to go.

[fellowtraveller]

Actually, you are incorrect. In a minority government, the Governor General just has to see that the Opposition demonstrates readiness to govern in the place of the government. Having two parties as a coalition government is more than enough.

It is up to Duceppe to show confidence in the next government or not.

Actually, you are incorrect.

It is within the GGs discretion to accept a coalition or not.

She would not accept any arrangement that adds up to a minority, such as NDP + Liberal, for the obvious reasons that a) it would be more fragile than the existing govt and b.) the balance of power would be held by separatists.

The two options remaining are a coalition formally involving the Bloc, which woyuld be wonderful news for the Tories, or an election. It is hard to imagine Layton not recognizing the complete peril of those optics. It is easy to imahgine the Liberals doing it.

We'll be voting soon.

I wonder how the Liberals will explain triggering a $300 million election in the middle of an economic crisis, to save their $7 million in fundiung? Maybe they could get one of those friendly Montreal ad agencies to help them with that explanation.

Edited November 29, 2008 by fellowtraveller

[Argus]

It would work the same as any minority government would work. It depends on confidence. If the new government can show that it has enough confidence to run, it can be allowed a chance to form a government.

How does it show that? I really don't know the intricate rules here. It seems to me, though, that the GG allows the largest party to attempt to form the government, even if there is no majority. In this case, though, the NDP and Liberals, even together, are not the largest party. I don't think she's obliged to grant them their attempt at a coallition even if the BQ are a formal part of it. Without the BQ as a formal part I have a little trouble figuring out just how they're going to suggest to her that they can be the next government. I think it will need some sort of formal statement from the BQ to support them. Else why even bother going through the enormous upheaval of swearing in a new government which could fall on its first vote? I suspect she would simply say "no", unless they can provide a formal agreement with the BQ included.

[Argus]

Certainly I expect a Tory to have a different view if it was the Liberals with a bloated cabinet.

I was one of the first here, if not THE first, to complain about the cabinet being enlarged. I've also expressed serious disapproval over the Tories' increased spending to the point of suggesting they've lost my vote. I also think this was a stupid time to try this election funding brinkmanship.

Still and all, the Liberals look pathetic, dishonest, hypocritical and self-serving. Their weasel-words in continually denying this has anything to do with election funding is patently dishonest, and the fact they're willing to unseat the government now even after that has been effectively withdrawn - even though that will unquestionably cause chaos and disrupt economic stimulus plans just shows yet again, that Liberals put the importance of Canada about forty notches down the ladder of importance from their rabid desire for power.

[voteforsteve]

Harper took a swing and missed the ball. Harper only thinks what's best for him and his party and not for the rest of Canada. In a time of financial hardship he still has no plan. Had Harper and his sidekick Jim "5.6 billion hidden deficit in Ontario" Flaherty had said that they would get rid of the 10 additional cabinet members they brought on board since 2006 then turned around and said that the government won't finance political parties, but we would allow donations again from corporations and unions, then I'm sure this would not be an issue.

If the coalition government comes together, Dion can't be the leader as the coalition will fail within 2 months. Hell, this guys has already stepped down as leader of the Liberals, and needs to go now. The Liberals should call an emergency meeting and remove him and replace him with either Rae or "Iggy" until the leadership convention in the spring.

[windyman]

The first thing I want this coalition to do is to ship HARPER to the Hague to be tried for war crime along with Bush, Howard, and Blair.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So the opposition parties grew a pair!

Yet I don't think they will have the spine to do what is right. What is right is dealing with the auto companies, and quickly at that. They are ripe for the pickings and if the Canadian government does not act, than America will arrange to have tens of thousands of Canadians laid off to save their companies. Watch Obama fund a bailout if they save American jobs. Our government needs to act fast and head this off at the past.

If Canada lets this slide Ontario will go under. Its just that important to citizens there. Our industrial heartland is in fact based on the auto industry, lets not kid ourselves. This may be the one chance we have to act in favour of Canadians and do something right for a change.

[capricorn]

It is within the GGs discretion to accept a coalition or not.

She would not accept any arrangement that adds up to a minority, such as NDP + Liberal, for the obvious reasons that a) it would be more fragile than the existing govt and b.) the balance of power would be held by separatists.

There can be no coalition without factoring in the Bloc. The Liberals and the NDP don't have the numbers to make this possible. The mere fact that a coalition would involve the Bloc should be reason enough for the GG to reject the proposition. Surely such an issue should weigh in her decision to do what's best for the country, not just what's best for the politicians. If Jean should approve a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition, for sure her husband's past association with know separatists would be raised and become an issue. Madame Jean must be dreading returning from her European tour.