What the Governor General Has to Do!

[LesterDC]

63% of the voters in the last election weren't voting for a mixed liberal/NDP cabinet, with backing from the bloc.

and I think the overwhelming number of people who withheld their votes weren't too excited about the prospect of any of them and would be even less thrilled of 3/4 of the parties running the country together. Cmon King. Seriously. I think you would have a really hard time getting 63% of THOSE voters to vote for this.

I'm so sick of this 63% argument. I am equally sick of the view that 30-somthing percent (CONS) is the majority of canadians

Yep. That is what the House was talking about earlier.. There was nothing in the platform that informed the voters that they would be forming a coalition.

[Alta4ever]

I'm from alberta Alta4 and there is no way this province is separating nor do I want to live in a Canada that doesn't have Alberta as part of it. That being said I scared sh*tless of this coalition backed by a french nationalist party. I also think that this coalition government is going to do waaaay more hurt to this country then help it. I felt the same way in '04 when Harps was making his threats.

Had I known in 04 I would have been to my right ot vote is the one that I hold most sacred. It is obvious we are the whipping boys for the east, just stay in line and toil in the patch to keep the dollars flowing to the east. I am so sick of this.

[Vancouver King]

63% of the voters in the last election weren't voting for a mixed liberal/NDP cabinet, with backing from the bloc.

and I think the overwhelming number of people who withheld their votes weren't too excited about the prospect of any of them and would be even less thrilled of 3/4 of the parties running the country together. Cmon King. Seriously. I think you would have a really hard time getting 63% of THOSE voters to vote for this.

I'm so sick of this 63% argument. I am equally sick of the view that 30-somthing percent (CONS) is the majority of canadians

If the duly elected represenatives of that 63% of voters can form a viable govt that has the confidence of the Commons, then it is legitimate and a preferable option to throwing the nation into another unwanted, expensive election.

[BC_chick]

Had I known in 04 I would have been to my right ot vote is the one that I hold most sacred. It is obvious we are the whipping boys for the east, just stay in line and toil in the patch to keep the dollars flowing to the east. I am so sick of this.

Don't kill the messenger here, but really Alta4ever, what has Harper done differently in regards to pandering to Quebec?

[Alta4ever]

If the duly elected represenatives of that 63% of voters can form a viable govt that has the confidence of the Commons, then it is legitimate and a preferable option to throwing the nation into another unwanted, expensive election.

Another election is only unwanted by you, ask many other Canadians if they want an election or a coalition and you will get election.

Start Poll for or against 57% against colaition. Western Standartd Poll 80% gainst the coalition. Ipsos Reid 6 out of 10 Canadians against this coalition. GLobal media 70% against the coalition. CBC 3 way vote for against and tird option over 60% against last I looked,. So do CANADIANS WANT THIS ACCORDING TO WHAT WE HAVE SEEN THE ANSWER IS NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Alta4ever]

Don't kill the messenger here, but really Alta4ever, what has Harper done differently in regards to pandering to Quebec?

Not a hell of a lot, and many of us were biting our tounges. For a breif period we actually had a government that at least listened to us.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Alta4ever

[noahbody]

lol. Alberta can go ahead and separate for all I care. I'll enjoy watching their misery when the beg and try to crawl back into the rest of Canada when the oil boom goes bust.

Since Quebec would be losing billions in equalization, it just might be them crawling.

Edited December 2, 2008 by noahbody

[BC_chick]

Not a hell of a lot, and many of us were biting our tounges. For a breif period we actually had a government that at least listened to us.

Good on you for admitting it, not many of you do.

In any case, I don't understand the 'whipping boy for back east' comment.... we're all whipping boys (and girls) for back east, it doesn't matter who's in charge. Why don't we stay focussed? If you think of this situation objectively, how would you feel if the LPC said that they are taking away funding from the opposition parties when they were in power?

Harper's to blame for this as much as anyone else. I totally understand you being mad, I would be too. But the opposition is just reacting to an unfair situation. I hope you guys would stand your ground too if someone ever tried this nonsense on you.

Edited December 2, 2008 by BC_chick

[Alta4ever]

Good on you for admitting it, not many of you do.

In any case, I don't understand the 'whipping boy for back east' comment.... we're all whipping boys (and girls) for back east, it doesn't matter who's in charge. Why don't we stay focussed? If you think of this situation objectively, how would you feel if the LPC said that they are taking away funding from the opposition parties when they were in power?

Harper's to blame for this as much as anyone else. I totally understand you being mad, I would be too. But they opposition is just reacting to an unfair situation. I hope you guys would stand your ground too if someone ever tried this nonsense on you.

I would have been happy as hell to get the poltical parties of the public dole. That is what is important not the party but the policy less government less government less government. I am a small c conservative.

[BC_chick]

I would have been happy as hell to get the poltical parties of the public dole. That is what is important not the party but the policy less government less government less government. I am a small c conservative.

Fair enough.

How about the timing of things then? If Harper cut funding as policy, it's one thing. It's another to go through surpluses and cut the GST, not listen to anyone about the dangers of doing both, and then say sorry, we're broke, guess where the money is going to come from. Would you still take that if Chretien had pulled something similar?

Edited December 2, 2008 by BC_chick

[IMASINNER]

If the duly elected represenatives of that 63% of voters can form a viable govt that has the confidence of the Commons, then it is legitimate and a preferable option to throwing the nation into another unwanted, expensive election.

First, you don't know that it would be an unwanted election. Or do you?

And viable only applies to the working of parliament. It might be viable in the fact that it can be business as usual, but that doesn't mean it's viable to the people, even the people who voted either LIB, NDP, or Bloc. I find it hard to believe that the Liberal supporters, or the majority of them anyway, have happy fuzzy feelings about their party having NDP's being allowed to have their interest tabled and weighed with their liberal party, and the Bloc pulling strings behind them. Most liberals don't even want the guy they have leading the coalition leading their party.

So to really know what the people want, have them vote for the coalition or not.

[Bryan]

If you think of this situation objectively, how would you feel if the LPC said that they are taking away funding from the opposition parties when they were in power?

Even back then, the CPC would be strongly in favor of it. Cutting govt funding of political parties is just the right thing to do.

[Alta4ever]

Fair enough.

How about the timing of things then? If Harper cut funding as policy, it's one thing. It's another to go through surpluses and cut the GST, not listen to anyone about the dangers of doing both, and then say sorry, we're broke, guess where the money is going to come from. Would you still take that if Chretien had pulled something similar?

We already have enough federal welfare in this country, we don't need more that fact that we had such large surpluses was because we were being over taxed. We have far to large a government infrastructure and programs that are sucking money and doing nothing it was time to cut these. To use an analogy trim the fat. With this one stimulus that that thye coalition wants to pass we erase have of the debt that was paid off we will be back where we were in the late 90's.

We had major cuts in our provincial spending to social programs to get the province out of debt. I like to see spending cut, I like to see taxes lowered. I like to see debt paid off.

Klien did exactly what you described and I loved it. Albertans loved it. why do you think he was the most successful politician Canada has ever seen?

[BC_chick]

Even back then, the CPC would be strongly in favor of it. Cutting govt funding of political parties is just the right thing to do.

and

We already have enough federal welfare in this country, we don't need more that fact that we had such large surpluses was because we were being over taxed. We have far to large a government infrastructure and programs that are sucking money and doing nothing it was time to cut these. To use an analogy trim the fat. With this one stimulus that that thye coalition wants to pass we erase have of the debt that was paid off we will be back where we were in the late 90's.

We had major cuts in our provincial spending to social programs to get the province out of debt. I like to see spending cut, I like to see taxes lowered. I like to see debt paid off.

Klien did exactly what you described and I loved it. Albertans loved it. why do you think he was the most successful politician Canada has ever seen?

Respectfully, I disagree.

However, before getting too off-topic about the benefits of government funding, I ask why Harper didn't put forth this idea as policy? Why now? Why instead of a stimulus package? Even the Chamber of Commerce backed a stimulus package and they are never in favour of government interference.

I believe that's the real issue here.... Harper took a politically-motivated issue that he knew would cripple the opposition and tried to pass it off as policy. It backfired.

Edited December 2, 2008 by BC_chick

[ToadBrother]

Klien did exactly what you described and I loved it. Albertans loved it. why do you think he was the most successful politician Canada has ever seen?

Because the price of oil was incredibly high during much of his reign. There's no where else in Canada that would have put up with him.

Albertans have to accept that the rest of the country doesn't tick quite the way they do.

[Argus]

Because the price of oil was incredibly high during much of his reign. There's no where else in Canada that would have put up with him.

How exactly is Newfoundland's Danny Williams any different from Klein? Except maybe in the drinking - and I'm not too sure about that. They're both big, bold, brash, loud, in your face blowhards.

[Alta4ever]

Because the price of oil was incredibly high during much of his reign. There's no where else in Canada that would have put up with him.

Albertans have to accept that the rest of the country doesn't tick quite the way they do.

It was not the orice of oil didn't start shooting up until 2003. We Balanced our budget and paid off our debt in the nineties BEFORE the boom.

No if you look at th electoral map, its Vancouver,, Montreal, and Toronto that don't think the way albertans do.

This country would be better off if you took a page out of our books.

[jdobbin]

This country would be better off if you took a page out of our books.

You mean the highest spending of all provinces according to the Taxpayer's Federation?

[Alta4ever]

You mean the highest spending of all provinces according to the Taxpayer's Federation?

Doesn't matter we pay for it without any transfer payments. Canada doesn't subsidzie us.

[Rue]

The fact is the Conservatives were close to forming a majority. The Liberals lost seats, the bloc held steady, and the NDP likely picked up some of those seats the Liberals lost. For a coalation to form and then go on a reckless spending spree which adds to the National Debt fak that. If they want to print money like the United States and send me and every other canadian that money in the mail. Please Do I would love to get a $600 rebate check like the Americans got. By the sounds of it a coalition government has a special interest spending package which is going to benefit a minority and for that reason they can all fak off.

If that is the coalitions plan, the parliament has to be dissolved and a new election held. If the conservatives again form a minority only then can a coalition be entertained. That hasn't happened another election has to held.

This is a matter of principle.

Sorry you are wrong. Parliament has been specifically designed to assure a ruling government in one of two ways; i-a party with a majority of seats; ii-a party with a minority of seats which requires they have support from members of other parties to pass a bill.

In regards to ii, the constitution and the law and the government system is clear. You do not automatically call an election simply because there is no majority government and you keep holding elections until a majority government is obtained. That is nonsense.

A minority government rules by obtaining cooperation of others from across the floor. If it can not then the other parties BEFORE there is an election have the legal right to form a coalition government or form an agreement as they have, to rule and guarantee sufficient votes to keep them going.

In fact it would be undemocratic to ignore the majority of the people voted into Parliament for the sake of one political party. Democracy is about parties cooperating and forming alliances, it is not just one party wins and rules all. It has never been about one party rule. That is why we have an opposition and that is why our system allows coalitions.

No the Governor General can not call an election simply because the Tories say so. She first according to the constitution and law (she is only a symbolic position, she has no discretion) has to allow the process to ascertain whether other parties can form a majority to rule. If they can, the GG does not and can not exercise any discretion. The GG has only two choices neither of which are her decision. Either she calls an election because all parties agree that there should be one, or she appoints a government based on the party or parties which indicate they have the confidence of the house to pass bills.

If and only if the Liberal-NDP coalition falls apart, the GG then by law and the constitution, would then call an election because then there would have been two failed governments. Until all possibilities to rule have failed, an election is not called. The GG is merely a symbolic position that carries out the wishes of the ruling government or where the ruling government is defeated any alternative coalition until that coalition is defeated.

Its actually no that complicated. We have a government that has 4 parties and none of them have a majority. So those that coalesce rule in such situations. That is the majority ruling.

You can bitch all you want about the Bloc Quebecois but they have not done anything illegal or immoral or hippocritical. You want to poibnt fingers point them at Harper and Layton and that nasty Jean Chretien who could not resist putting the screws to Harper. I doubt very much Ignatieff or Rae saw this coming. Its very Much a Chretien-Layton manouver, two obsessed ego maniacs responding to the ego maniac Harper.

Harper has no one but himself and that idiot Guy Guardino and the fool Flaherty to blame for this. If Guy Giardino and Flaherty think Canadians will blame unions, political parties other then the Tories and the unemployed for the current problems, they are mistaken.

Let them eat cake Flaherty says-and now the cake is thrown back in his face.

[jdobbin]

Doesn't matter we pay for it without any transfer payments. Canada doesn't subsidzie us.

Think the spending problem and the cavalier approach to it tells me that some conservatives are really not concervatives especially when they think it doesn't matter.

[Smallc]

Doesn't matter we pay for it without any transfer payments. Canada doesn't subsidzie us.

So Alberta doesn't get the Canada Social Transfer or Canada Health Transfer? The answer is yes, yes it does.

[IMASINNER]

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/...9760/story.html

Interesting. The GG can just say "no" and make the Cons go back to the drawing table on their economic package and re-present it. Hmmmmm

[capricorn]

I believe that's the real issue here.... Harper took a politically-motivated issue that he knew would cripple the opposition and tried to pass it off as policy.

The reaction of the opposition to losing the subsidy is no big surprise. Although I personally believe it should be axed, I think there were other ways to put this forward, i.e. phasing it out gradually, etc.

It backfired.

It backfired with the opposition. The electorate's reaction is a different issue altogether. The only conclusion I can come to is that Harper was intentionally playing to the electorate, not the opposition. Harper's argument of politicians leading by example strikes a positive chord with many voters. He took a monumental gamble and time will tell if it comes back to bite him in the ass or if the electorate will side with him.

[Smallc]

The reaction of the opposition to losing the subsidy is no big surprise. Although I personally believe it should be axed, I think there were other ways to put this forward, i.e. phasing it out gradually, etc.

Or, alternatively, rolling back most of the package that came with it....or at least raising donation limits back to $5000. Instead, the Prime Minister was more than happy to cripple the opposition.