Coalition Government

[madmax]

To those Harper haters so eager to see a coalition, think about this:

What is the platform you voted for? Is it going to be reflected in this coalition?

What is the platform of this coalition? Apart from "we hate Harper" there isn't one.

If you wish to take them at their word (which I do not) then they say there is no stimulus package therefore they have no confidence in the government. Does this coalition have a stimulus package that is specific enough to target any economic problem that you can name? Can you or the coalition name a specific sector of the economy, or a specific region of the country, tell me what specifically is wrong and how your specific amount of government money will target and resolve that problem.

I suspect a symphony of NO's for answers. I have only heard unspecific, non-costed and unverified sound bites, that does not a plan make, sorry.

The separatist are laughing, they already have special status, as the agreement refers to Canadians and Quebecers, not Ontarioans, BC'ers, Albertans etc. Much of the Country will be unrepresented in this coalition. Although technically legal this is unprecedented and here is why, typcially coalitions (even provincial ones) have either formed before the election, or if after the election they were very much dominated by one party, like in Ontario under the Peterson/ Rae deal it was a Liberal government using a small amount of support from the NDP, therefore in general the electorate knew what they had voted for and with a few exceptions knew what they were in for. This is not the case this coalition is "an on the fly anti-government rag tag bunch of losers.

If any of them actual cared about the country and the voters, they would acknowledge that Harper backed down, they got what they wanted and stand down. They have proved their point and in the interest of stability they would allow the Tories to rule for perhaps a year.

Interestingly enough if Dion cared about the Liberal party he would not do this, he is most certainly alienating the old guard right wing of the party (I would say a large number), undermining the opportuntiy to have a leadership race, blowing the chance to re-organize and strengthen their finances. This is a serious blow to the Liberals.

So I guess Harper blew it......

[stevoh]

If any of them actual cared about the country and the voters, they would acknowledge that Harper backed down, they got what they wanted and stand down. They have proved their point and in the interest of stability they would allow the Tories to rule for perhaps a year.

The only thing they cared about was that Harper was trying to weaken already weak parties by removing some of their financing. It doesn't matter now that he backed out of that, Harper wasn't satisfied with having a minority and presiding from that position, he wanted to weaken his opposition even further.

But the worm turned and bit back. And now that Harpers intentions are revealed, not what is necessarily best for Canadians, but certainly what is best for the conservative party at the expense of all others, there is no going back.

Somewhere along the way, Harper forgot he was ruling from a minority.

[Slim MacSquinty]

I see it this way, the Tories were elected and the ecomomy changed, the stock market fell apart and they needed to change their approach, this they did. They also took the opportuntiy to kick the Liberals and the BQ, probably a tactical error. However, they were just elected by the people with a strengthened mandate, in fact a near majority, the opposition historically weak would have seemed unlikely to pull this stunt, in fact I imagine that Harper never dreamed an alliance between the Liberals and BQ could be achieved, there is personal bad blood between Dion and Duceppe.

I have said all along that if they wished to remove the federal political subsidy they should have phased it in over several elections as this would have seemed fair while achieving a good goal of taking the trough from the party noses. I suspect the opposition would have complained but backed down knowing they could re-instate it if elected in the next two elections.

Although I do not agree with the Torie approach neither can I lay all the blame at their feet, cooperation works both ways and from the very outset neither the NDP or the Liberals have offered an olive branch. In fact the Liberals especially Dion didn't really acknowledge that the Tories won a mandate, Dion instead never accepted defeat, he accepted that he failed to get his message across to Canadians because of the Tory attack ads and in so doing implied that Canadians made a mistake. Perhaps this explains this very arrrogant, self serving play for power.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Slim MacSquinty

[Sir Bandelot]

What is the platform you voted for? Is it going to be reflected in this coalition?

All this sits well with me, because for one thing I did not vote for any of them.

But the question is, would I have voted for a coalition? Or really, why shouldn't Canadians have the final say, in a referendum such as "Should the coalition be allowed to govern?"

[Argus]

I guess that is an argument you can make just as I can make the argument that Harper was going to call a quick election.

The difference is your belief has nothing behind it but a pathological fear and hatred of Harper.

Mine is based on the positions and certain motivation of the parties involved.

You know, a lot of these childish idiots here seem to believe the Tories are the enemy. They're not, really. For a Liberal, the real threat has always been the BQ and the NDP. Most of the people who vote Liberal would be extremely unlikely to ever switch to the Tories. But the NDP and BQ are another story. You are empowering both of them, and both will take gleeful advantage of that. Why on earth would they not?! For the BQ, the Tories aren't the real enemy; you are. Now they have a chance to show Quebecers that they, and only they, are the party to vote for to get Quebec the most goodies. Thanks to you. Duceppe's popularity is going to go up as if he had a rocket strapped to his ass. You could lose damned near every seat you hold in Quebec. The Tories too, of course, but they don't need Quebec like you do.

For the NDP, you've been standing in their way to national acceptance for decades. No one could really see them as the federal government. Now there are going to be NDP cabinet ministers at the federal level to help people get used to the idea. You think Layton isn't aware of that? You think Layton doesn't know all about the rise of Labour and the fall of the Liberal Party in the UK? Layton? A political science professor and socialist?

Both of them are going to take massive numbers of votes from you in the next election now, thanks to this boneheaded move on your part. The west will hate your guts, and if Duceppe gets his way and gets too many goodies from a weak Liberal party and leader, Atlantic Canada and Ontario are going to get more resentful by the month - and since they can't take that resentment out on Duceppe they'll do it on you. You are risking a perfect storm like that which destroyed the Progressive Conservative Party.

And for what? Because you don't like Harper? Because you feared there would be an election anyway in six month? Better to lose an election in six months, Jdobbin, than to never win another election. Ever. It only took a few elections for Labour to replace the Liberals in the UK. What makes you think it would take longer here?

[Slim MacSquinty]

It is about confidence. Harper can't help himself from acting against the Opposition first and foremost over his attacks on the those oppose him.

Personal animosity is hardly a reason to throw the country into turmoil unless you're a self center sore loser I suppose.

I think the word confidence is is being misused, confidence of the house of commons is not like having confidence your adult diaper will not leak while your having a dinner party, its about the ability to use good judgement to run the country, thus far, given the fact that only a six weeks ago the election gave them a mandate to do just that, the coalition has done a pretty poor job of proving they have anything to offer better than the Tories.

[jdobbin]

The difference is your belief has nothing behind it but a pathological fear and hatred of Harper.

Mine is based on the positions and certain motivation of the parties involved.

Mine too. I have outlined in detail why it makes sense for Harper to call an election before the Liberals have a leader in place and I keep hearing that it would be impossible. That was the same argument made about breaking the term limit that I heard all the way back in 2006.

You know, a lot of these childish idiots here seem to believe the Tories are the enemy. They're not, really. For a Liberal, the real threat has always been the BQ and the NDP. Most of the people who vote Liberal would be extremely unlikely to ever switch to the Tories. But the NDP and BQ are another story. You are empowering both of them, and both will take gleeful advantage of that. Why on earth would they not?!

If Harper only thought the same. His goal of obliterating the Liberals as outlined every few months by trusted advsider Tom Flanagan shows that is where his focus is.

For the BQ, the Tories aren't the real enemy; you are. Now they have a chance to show Quebecers that they, and only they, are the party to vote for to get Quebec the most goodies. Thanks to you. Duceppe's popularity is going to go up as if he had a rocket strapped to his ass. You could lose damned near every seat you hold in Quebec. The Tories too, of course, but they don't need Quebec like you do.

You see, you are making predictions yourself that cannot possibly be forecast.

There is great danger for the Liberals in this and it will be strongly dependent on how they govern.

I just don't see that there was a choice because even if the Liberals backed down now, I don't believe that Harper has learned to act differently. Do you? Do you think that he is not going to try the confidence game over and over and act hyperpartisan and try to not merely defeat the Liberals but destroy them? Can you?

Given all you have seen from Harper, don't you think that is one of his top priorities. And while you hate the Liberals with everything fibre of your being, do you want the party gone completely with the NDP being the alternative?

For the NDP, you've been standing in their way to national acceptance for decades. No one could really see them as the federal government. Now there are going to be NDP cabinet ministers at the federal level to help people get used to the idea. You think Layton isn't aware of that? You think Layton doesn't know all about the rise of Labour and the fall of the Liberal Party in the UK? Layton? A political science professor and socialist?

Harper would have gotten this goal anyway. His objective on destroying the Liberals so that the only choice was the NDP is what he dreams of.

The only way to give the Liberals time before Harper going to an election before May or facing not just humiliating legislation but politically and organizationally devastating legislation was to say no now.

The Liberals need time to completely makeover their policies, financing, organization and leadership. The Harper Tories won't allow that time to take place. Their goal: utter destruction.

If Harper had indeed made the economy the number 1 priority, the Liberals would never had done what they had done.

Both of them are going to take massive numbers of votes from you in the next election now, thanks to this boneheaded move on your part. The west will hate your guts, and if Duceppe gets his way and gets too many goodies from a weak Liberal party and leader, Atlantic Canada and Ontario are going to get more resentful by the month - and since they can't take that resentment out on Duceppe they'll do it on you. You are risking a perfect storm like that which destroyed the Progressive Conservative Party.

The Liberals were going to be destroyed as a party anyways.

And for what? Because you don't like Harper? Because you feared there would be an election anyway in six month? Better to lose an election in six months, Jdobbin, than to never win another election. Ever. It only took a few elections for Labour to replace the Liberals in the UK. What makes you think it would take longer here?

Didn't fear one. Knew one was coming and knew that Harper wanted the Liberals completely and utterly destroyed. Flanagan has outlined how the Tories wanted to do it and they went ahead and did it.

This is a gambit brought on by survival. It didn't have to happen. Harper could have stuck to his knitting on the econmy but it is hardwired in his DNA to destroy.

My opinion is that if he is removed that the Liberals might have some leeway because I think Harper may face problems himself in continuing. Or do you think he will be regarded a hero by his caucus?

[jdobbin]

Personal animosity is hardly a reason to throw the country into turmoil unless you're a self center sore loser I suppose.

When Harper's intent is the destruction of the Opposition, it is hard to keep confidence, don't you think?

Or do you think that Harper's belligerence was brilliant?

I think the word confidence is is being misused, confidence of the house of commons is not like having confidence your adult diaper will not leak while your having a dinner party, its about the ability to use good judgement to run the country, thus far, given the fact that only a six weeks ago the election gave them a mandate to do just that, the coalition has done a pretty poor job of proving they have anything to offer better than the Tories.

It appears you don't know that a minority requires confidence to continue operating. Harper's personal animosity overrode ahy sense he had.

[Argus]

Mine too. I have outlined in detail why it makes sense for Harper to call an election before the Liberals have a leader in place and I keep hearing that it would be impossible

If we hadn't just gotten back from one it would be a good tactic. It's one Chretien used, remember, on the Tories. So how is it suddenly an evil thing for Harper to be doing to you? But as I said, we just HAD an election, one in which a lot of people were already grumbling about the waste. I just do not see any way he could have had another one six months later and justified it unless you guys were being completely and totally intransigent.

His goal of obliterating the Liberals as outlined every few months by trusted advsider Tom Flanagan

I don't know if that's his goal or not, but so what? He wasn't in a position to do it. And you don't put a gun to your own head and shoot yourself for fear someone else might do it one day.

You see, you are making predictions yourself that cannot possibly be forecast.

Come on. It's a pretty damned safe prediction. Quebecois respond very well to federal largess - and to pride, and to a French Quebec leader. With what Duceppe is going to accomplish for them combined with the Anglo Ontario leader your party is almost certain to bring in four months from now you cannot possibly believe you aren't going to take a huge hit. In the interum, BQ MPs will be going around everywhere in Quebec boasting about what power they have gotten for Quebec. They will be telling them that they have total approval on every single item which comes out of the federal government now, and that they should vote BQ to ensure it continues. You think they're NOT going to be saying that??

There is great danger for the Liberals in this and it will be strongly dependent on how they govern.

Doesn't really matter how you govern. The more succesful it is the more the BQ are going to look like they're sitting in there as THE Quebec party, representing Quebec's interest, and able to FORCE, not ask, but FORCE the federal government to do things Quebec's way.

I just don't see that there was a choice because even if the Liberals backed down now, I don't believe that Harper has learned to act differently. Do you?

You already asked that and yes I do. I can't see how he can possibly not be chastened now and be far more wary of pushing the Liberals around in the near term. Now given a year down the road, or when he does not fear a coallition, he might well decide to provoke again. But hey, the Tories lived with the crude political swagger and bullying of Jean Chretien and it didn't destroy them. Why can't you survive Stephen Harper?

.And while you hate the Liberals with everything fibre of your being, do you want the party gone completely with the NDP being the alternative?

First of all, I do not hate the Liberals in the way you believe. What I really dislike about the Liberals is their dishonesty and self serving nature, combined with an intensely irritating self-righteousness. There just frankly isn't much to recommend your party and hasn't been in my lifetime. But leaders have so much power now, that the right leader getting in could really turn things around. I doubt you have one handy. Ignatieff isn't above lying whenever it suits him, I notice. Not that Harper is Mr. Honesty all the time either, of course. But hey, it could happen. But my disdain for the Liberals is not hatred. And no, I don't want to see them go the way of the UK Liberals. I would far rather a centre-left and centre-right party take turns being in power than turn the reigns over to a socialist party. I don't know if you've noticed but the UK is on the verge of bankruptcy, with bigger and bigger deficits every year even BEFORE this world economic crisis hit.

The only way to give the Liberals time before Harper going to an election before May or facing not just humiliating legislation but politically and organizationally devastating legislation was to say no now.

You did say no now, and very effectively. By all accounts it is a much chastened Stephen Harper who sits in 24 Sussex right now. See how quickly he backed off? The problem was you guys should have settled for winning. Instead you're threatening to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Liberals need time to completely makeover their policies, financing, organization and leadership. The Harper Tories won't allow that time to take place. Their goal: utter destruction.

Oh please. When I think of the attitude the Liberals under Chetien had for the Reformers; the complete contempt they showed, their clear and obvious desires to destroy the party and smear everyone associated with it, and their actions taken towards the Alliance after them - and yet they survived everything Chretien could do to them. Your problem is you have no real policies and no money and no leadership. Get the right leader in and throw some attractive polices in - which actually mean something, I mean well and truly fleshed out so people actually believe you have a plan and are not just making mouth noises again - and the finances will get back into order in no time.

The Liberals were going to be destroyed as a party anyways.

It's ironic you wrote Liberals instead of Tories. Because I don't see how doing it to yourselves is better.

This is a gambit brought on by survival. It didn't have to happen. Harper could have stuck to his knitting on the econmy but it is hardwired in his DNA to destroy.

Well I won't argue one way or another except to say that the future of the Liberals is in their own hands. If you were destroyed it wouldn't be by Harper, but your own inability to come up with the kinds of attractive and realistic policies Canadians wanted to see and vote for. In which case you would have deserved whatever happened to you anyway.

But now you've well and truly empowered the two parties which really can destroy you - and for whom it is well and truly in the best interests of TO destroy you. They will both be unquestionably better off with no Liberals around. And they're your partners in this coallition.

My opinion is that if he is removed that the Liberals might have some leeway because I think Harper may face problems himself in continuing. Or do you think he will be regarded a hero by his caucus?

I think his caucus will be furious at him. But the Tories will easily survive, with or without Stephen Harper. I'm not at all sure your party will long survive this coallition. I'm betting both BQ and NDP make record gains next time around because of it.

[johhny]

I would never support another Tory for sheer reason I am union! Never will I suport a SCAB ever.

[g_bambino]

I am union!

Wow... my opinion of unions just went down even further.

[Slim MacSquinty]

They didn't advocate replacing unionized workers, they said they would prevent them from striking during bad economic times, incidently the public sector unions have contract through to near the end of the term that they proposed.

It appears you've got your rhetoric wrong.

[Smallc]

incidentally the public sector unions have contract through to near the end of the term that they proposed.

From what I have seen, that was only the primary public sector union. There are others whose contracts are coming up.

[Slim MacSquinty]

There are others whose contracts are coming up.

That may be true, though I expect we'll all have to pay some kind of price, I know at work today we got the belt tightening lecture from the heavy hitters, and I work in an industry that is relatively stable even during bad times.

We're in negotiations and even our union is not talking too tough.

[jdobbin]

If we hadn't just gotten back from one it would be a good tactic. It's one Chretien used, remember, on the Tories. So how is it suddenly an evil thing for Harper to be doing to you? But as I said, we just HAD an election, one in which a lot of people were already grumbling about the waste. I just do not see any way he could have had another one six months later and justified it unless you guys were being completely and totally intransigent.

Chretien did use it. It is why I see Harper using it. I think he planned to blame the Liberals all along even if they capitulated on every bill. People didn't get upset when Harper didn't stick to term limits. Angry people often don't vote. Harper is counting on the remaining people to out him in power. That is why I keep saying six months was his timetable. There was always going to be an excuse to go and revolved around blame even if it was flimsy.

I don't know if that's his goal or not, but so what? He wasn't in a position to do it. And you don't put a gun to your own head and shoot yourself for fear someone else might do it one day.

I don't know that that kicking the government out is as suicidal as that. There is still 60% of the public who didn't vote for the Tories.

Come on. It's a pretty damned safe prediction. Quebecois respond very well to federal largess - and to pride, and to a French Quebec leader. With what Duceppe is going to accomplish for them combined with the Anglo Ontario leader your party is almost certain to bring in four months from now you cannot possibly believe you aren't going to take a huge hit. In the interum, BQ MPs will be going around everywhere in Quebec boasting about what power they have gotten for Quebec. They will be telling them that they have total approval on every single item which comes out of the federal government now, and that they should vote BQ to ensure it continues. You think they're NOT going to be saying that??

They don't have total approval on all bills. They only are to be consulted on money bills.

I don't like it much but I have seen hysteria before on Sunday shopping, Medicare and auto insurance to know that it will pass.

Doesn't really matter how you govern. The more succesful it is the more the BQ are going to look like they're sitting in there as THE Quebec party, representing Quebec's interest, and able to FORCE, not ask, but FORCE the federal government to do things Quebec's way.

I don't know that Duceppe wants to go to an election right away himself if it results in a Tory majority. They have more to lose than anyone with Tory policies aimed at them.

If the Liberals find the terms unfavuorable, you believe they will accept it. That is the same mistake that was made in thinking the Liberals would do whatever the Tories told them.

You already asked that and yes I do. I can't see how he can possibly not be chastened now and be far more wary of pushing the Liberals around in the near term. Now given a year down the road, or when he does not fear a coallition, he might well decide to provoke again. But hey, the Tories lived with the crude political swagger and bullying of Jean Chretien and it didn't destroy them. Why can't you survive Stephen Harper?

I guess that is where we are different. I don't see Harper learning anything. He will be back at it in weeks.

First of all, I do not hate the Liberals in the way you believe. What I really dislike about the Liberals is their dishonesty and self serving nature, combined with an intensely irritating self-righteousness. Instead you're threatening to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I don't know where you see victory coming from when the intent of the Tories was to destroy the Liberals before they ever had a chance to fix the problems they have.

Oh please. When I think of the attitude the Liberals under Chetien had for the Reformers; the complete contempt they showed, their clear and obvious desires to destroy the party and smear everyone associated with it, and their actions taken towards the Alliance after them - and yet they survived everything Chretien could do to them. Your problem is you have no real policies and no money and no leadership. Get the right leader in and throw some attractive polices in - which actually mean something, I mean well and truly fleshed out so people actually believe you have a plan and are not just making mouth noises again - and the finances will get back into order in no time.

As I said, I don't think Harper was about to let that happen.

The Liberals will have a new leader and I do think they will have a better policy book but I don't think it was going to arrive in time to prevent the Tories from going to an election early to eradicate the party.

Well I won't argue one way or another except to say that the future of the Liberals is in their own hands. If you were destroyed it wouldn't be by Harper, but your own inability to come up with the kinds of attractive and realistic policies Canadians wanted to see and vote for. In which case you would have deserved whatever happened to you anyway.

Perhaps. But just the same until Harper is out of office, the room and time to fix Liberal problems just wasn't coming.

But now you've well and truly empowered the two parties which really can destroy you - and for whom it is well and truly in the best interests of TO destroy you. They will both be unquestionably better off with no Liberals around. And they're your partners in this coallition.

Both of whose won survival was being affected by the Tories. Helps focus the mind.

I think his caucus will be furious at him. But the Tories will easily survive, with or without Stephen Harper. I'm not at all sure your party will long survive this coallition. I'm betting both BQ and NDP make record gains next time around because of it.

I think if Harper is ousted, it will give the Liberals the time to rebuild. It is critical for them to get their new leader in place.

I do think Harper is in trouble if the Tories lose. The Tories will survive just fine but it will take time to get a new leader of they have him resign. If he is able to stare down his Tory opposition, he won't be able to defeat the government right away. The timetable will rest with the coalition.

[cybercoma]

I would never support another Tory for sheer reason I am union! Never will I suport a SCAB ever.

Interesting you should say that because it is a well known fact that the tories get as much support from union members as they do the regular public. It's a common misconception that union members vote NDP exclusively.

[DrGreenthumb]

This is so great, I am soooo glad the steven Harper's days as prime minister are numbered. He has lost the confidence of the House, and its time for him to go to the opposition bench. I am going to a party on Thursday, kind of an early celebration of the new coalition government taking over from Harper. Its going to be soo much fun, celebrating the end of the Harperites.

[johhny]

Interesting you should say that because it is a well known fact that the tories get as much support from union members as they do the regular public. It's a common misconception that union members vote NDP exclusively.

I will speak for my job at Shell we got 3000 very angry brothers who are even working (40,000 of us) to shut down the oilsands should Harper prorogue. We demand he does his job we are not paying him t0 take a holiday or take away our constitutional rights. I advise all unions to shut down nation wide

we did it last summer and we will do it again but till the new year this time.

Edited December 3, 2008 by johhny

[blueblood]

I will speak for my job at Shell we got 3000 very angry brothers who are even working (40,000 of us) to shut down the oilsands should Harper prorogue. We demand he does his job we are not paying him t0 take a holiday or take away our constitutional rights. I advise all unions to shut down nation wide

we did it last summer and we will do it again but till the new year this time.

Keep gouging those oil companies, there will be less and less projects, and more and more foreign labour brought in. You guys keep it up, you'll screw yourselves out of oil jobs just like the auto sector.

[blueblood]

This is so great, I am soooo glad the steven Harper's days as prime minister are numbered. He has lost the confidence of the House, and its time for him to go to the opposition bench. I am going to a party on Thursday, kind of an early celebration of the new coalition government taking over from Harper. Its going to be soo much fun, celebrating the end of the Harperites.

And I look forward to the next election. And they say the tories had a hidden agenda... Those new attack ads are pretty slick if you ask me!

[jdobbin]

And I look forward to the next election.

And if the election affirms a minority, would you become a separatist (if you are not one already)?

[johhny]

Keep gouging those oil companies, there will be less and less projects, and more and more foreign labour brought in. You guys keep it up, you'll screw yourselves out of oil jobs just like the auto sector.

Hahahha! that's what they said last time don't you think if that was a reality they would have done it already?

[blueblood]

Hahahha! that's what they said last time don't you think if that was a reality they would have done it already?

according to my sources in the patch, oil company brass was not impressed with being gouged by unions and service companies and has authorized less projects to take place. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[blueblood]

And if the election affirms a minority, would you become a separatist (if you are not one already)?

I am highly opinionated, but I am no seperatist. So the answer is no.

[Wilber]

Hahahha! that's what they said last time don't you think if that was a reality they would have done it already?

They did it during the NEP, that is why the Liberals haven't had a seat in Alberta since.