A pretext of this coup was that the country was

fellowtraveller · December 2, 2008

heading to rack and ruin under vague economic leadership, there was an instant and immediate threat to our country from the economic forces of evil.

I'm wondering how Rae and Ignatieff propose to simultaneously campaign for the Liberal Party leadership and work 18 hour days to save our economy?

mjp · December 2, 2008

its not a coup.

READ LEARN AND UNDERSTAND OUR CONSTITUTION DAMN IT!

Moonbox · December 2, 2008

There's little to nothing that's going to 'save' our economy right now. We're in for a crap storm and throwing money into the economy isn't going to fix that.

The auto sector has been over capacity for like 15 years now. The jobs being lost there are NOT coming back. Throwing money at them is NOT going to prevent this because you'd just be giving the Big Three more money to lose.

I'm really not certain here what people are expecting the government to do. It's sort of a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' sort of situation.

What is a bailout going to do??? It hasn't worked ANYWHERE else.

Sir Bandelot · December 2, 2008

Harper thought he was the government but then he found out the Banks was the government.

kimmy · December 2, 2008

There's little to nothing that's going to 'save' our economy right now. We're in for a crap storm and throwing money into the economy isn't going to fix that.
The auto sector has been over capacity for like 15 years now. The jobs being lost there are NOT coming back. Throwing money at them is NOT going to prevent this because you'd just be giving the Big Three more money to lose.

I'm really not certain here what people are expecting the government to do. It's sort of a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' sort of situation.

This sums up my feelings about the "we're saving the economy" talk.

This action will not do anything to save the economy, but it will have devastating long-term effect on national unity.

-k

Michael Hardner · December 2, 2008

My feeling, and that of several centre-left people I know is that this is a disunifying tactic and will do more harm than good.

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

This action will not do anything to save the economy, but it will have devastating long-term effect on national unity.

What choices do you think are left?

Harper seems determined to act as he always has. He could have made this government work but many don't trust him anymore. His determination to get a majority seems to trump the economy.

kimmy · December 2, 2008

What choices do you think are left?
Harper seems determined to act as he always has. He could have made this government work but many don't trust him anymore. His determination to get a majority seems to trump the economy.

He backed off on every item the opposition parties found contentious, didn't he?

Isn't that how a minority parliament is supposed to work?

Two questions for you, Dobbins:

Do you agree that this coalition will have extremely negative implications for national unity?

And, if so, do you preventing Harper from winning the next election is worth that price?

-k

Edited December 2, 2008 by kimmy

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

He backed off on every item the opposition parties found contentious, didn't he?

On policy but not on the issue of confidence. Do you believe that Harper is truly not going to act like he has before? He seems set and determined to bully again.

Isn't that how a minority parliament is supposed to work?

Parliament works on confidence. And Harper appears set and determined to continue politics as war even with a downturn in the economy. It is zero sum politics where he is not happy unless his plan to destroy all opposition is met.

Two questions for you, Dobbins:
Do you agree that this coalition will have extremely negative implications for national unity?

Do I think that Alberta will separate if this goes through? No.

It certainly didn't seem to be an issue when Harper had negotiations with the Bloc in 2004.

And, if so, do you preventing Harper from winning the next election is worth that price?

Harper was going to call an election in the next six months anyway as far as I'm concerned.

I see Harper's self serving ways to the major issue. Can't the Tories ask him to step down and put up someone like Prentice who might manage this better?

kimmy · December 2, 2008

On policy but not on the issue of confidence. Do you believe that Harper is truly not going to act like he has before? He seems set and determined to bully again.
Parliament works on confidence. And Harper appears set and determined to continue politics as war even with a downturn in the economy. It is zero sum politics where he is not happy unless his plan to destroy all opposition is met.

So... even though the opposition has shown that they can force the government to compromise as a minority government ought to, it's still not going to work, because Stephen Harper is not a nice guy?

Do I think that Alberta will separate if this goes through? No.
It certainly didn't seem to be an issue when Harper had negotiations with the Bloc in 2004.

Aside from instantaneously putting western alienation back on the front burner, this action also makes the BQ a permanent feature of Canadian politics. This will be the most regionally divided government in Canadian history, and after the Chretien years that's saying a lot.

Of course, regional division worked out extremely well for the Liberals when they had the largest region in their pocket; that was the Chretien blueprint. But that's not a luxury the Liberals have anymore, and I can't think that returning to that model will work out as well for future Liberal leaders as it did for Da Little Guy.

Harper was going to call an election in the next six months anyway as far as I'm concerned.

For the same reason that Jean Chretien called the 2000 election?

I see Harper's self serving ways to the major issue. Can't the Tories ask him to step down and put up someone like Prentice who might manage this better?

Interesting thought.

Hypothetically, do you think that if this were done, the coalition would agree to back down?

Personally, I doubt it. Perhaps Harper pushed them to it, but I don't think it's actually about Harper.

-k

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

So... even though the opposition has shown that they can force the government to compromise as a minority government ought to, it's still not going to work, because Stephen Harper is not a nice guy?

Not to be trusted is the correct word. Confidence in a minority government is what is needed to function. I don't think his climb down from his position changes the fact that he is squandered trust.

Aside from instantaneously putting western alienation back on the front burner, this action also makes the BQ a permanent feature of Canadian politics. This will be the most regionally divided government in Canadian history, and after the Chretien years that's saying a lot.

Thank Harper for breathing new life into the BQ in the election.

And the fact that he was negotiating with them in 2004 to do the same thing strikes me as hypocritical.

Of course, regional division worked out extremely well for the Liberals when they had the largest region in their pocket; that was the Chretien blueprint. But that's not a luxury the Liberals have anymore, and I can't think that returning to that model will work out as well for future Liberal leaders as it did for Da Little Guy.

I think that the Liberals had to take a stand now or there would be very little party left in six months when Harper called an election again.

My personal preference would have been for the Liberals to say no to the economic statement and then list their amendments but I think Harper would have liked that and with no coalition in the works, the Governor General would have called an election.

Harper's goal of killing the Liberals before showing his hand on the economy is what guided his belligerence

For the same reason that Jean Chretien called the 2000 election?

Exactly. Chretien is an example of ruthless behaviour but he would never have been in that position of strength if men like Harper had not been so selfish and destructive of the conservative parties. That pattern of destructiveness is what seems to guide him.

His destructiveness is now directed at the Opposition. The problem for him is that he is in a minority and he needs confidence to run the country.

Interesting thought.
Hypothetically, do you think that if this were done, the coalition would agree to back down?

Personally, I doubt it. Perhaps Harper pushed them to it, but I don't think it's actually about Harper.

Oh, it's about Harper alright. I think the Liberals were content to muddle through the next six to twelve months but Harper was not going to give them that timetable. Any belief that the economy was going to be the priority rather than partisan attacks evaporated with that economic statement.

I don't know that Prentice would have done it that way. From what I know of him, he is a stick to your knitting person.

kimmy · December 2, 2008

And the fact that he was negotiating with them in 2004 to do the same thing strikes me as hypocritical.

Harper negotiated with the BQ in 2004 to try to force an election when the government of the day had clearly lost the trust and respect of most Canadians.

He never negotiated with the BQ to form a government.

Of all the arguments being put forth by the coalition boosters, this is the one that's most nonsensical. Trying to equate Harper's negotiations with the BQ in 2004 to the agreement Dion and Layton have reached with the BQ this week is simply ridiculous.

-k

Fortunata · December 2, 2008

kimmy, the Bloc is not going to be part of this government either. You are misrepresenting.

In 2004 Harper signed a document along with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. What's different?

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

Harper negotiated with the BQ in 2004 to try to force an election when the government of the day had clearly lost the trust and respect of most Canadians.
He never negotiated with the BQ to form a government.

Where did you read that?

All the reports I have seen said that Harper wrote the Governor General not to call an election but to turn power over to him if he won a non-confidence vote.

Of all the arguments being put forth by the coalition boosters, this is the one that's most nonsensical. Trying to equate Harper's negotiations with the BQ in 2004 to the agreement Dion and Layton have reached with the BQ this week is simply ridiculous.

I think you might have it wrong. It wasn't for an election but to oust the Liberals without one.

Hydraboss · December 2, 2008

His destructiveness is now directed at the Opposition. The problem for him is that he is in a minority and he needs confidence to run the country.
Oh, it's about Harper alright. I think the Liberals were content to muddle through the next six to twelve months but Harper was not going to give them that timetable. Any belief that the economy was going to be the priority rather than partisan attacks evaporated with that economic statement.

But I thought the Liberals, NDP, Greens and BQ were screaming that "the environment" was the end all-be all of the last election????? When did the economy trump the Dion environmental policy?

Sit, Kyoto. Good dog.

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

When did the economy trump the Dion environmental policy?

When the Liberals supported the Throne Speech only to find that Harper wasn't making the economy a priority but his own self serving needs.

myata · December 2, 2008

All the reports I have seen said that Harper wrote the Governor General not to call an election but to turn power over to him if he won a non-confidence vote.
I think you might have it wrong. It wasn't for an election but to oust the Liberals without one.

Yes and I heard it too, from Keith Boag on CBC TV. Shouldn't be too hard to unearth the exact quote. Wonder if they were using the same terminology back then ("coup")?? Or came up with something more pleasant to the ear?

Oleg Bach · December 2, 2008

The CBC sweet socialism will come up with something better and more pleasant than "coup" ---- How about the Obama phrase "change" ----as delluded liberals will say "I did not kill the man - I simply changed him" :blink:

kimmy · December 2, 2008

You guys will have to document that for me, then.

My recollection is that the Conservatives could hardly wait to get to the polls, being of the belief that fury over Adscam would lead to defeat for the Liberals.

-k

mjp · December 2, 2008

You guys will have to document that for me, then.
My recollection is that the Conservatives could hardly wait to get to the polls, being of the belief that fury over Adscam would lead to defeat for the Liberals.

-k

I think this egg on harper's face is going to be hard to scrape off....

Argus · December 2, 2008

What choices do you think are left?
Harper seems determined to act as he always has. He could have made this government work but many don't trust him anymore. His determination to get a majority seems to trump the economy.

And your paranoia trumps not only the economy but the future of your own party.

Argus · December 2, 2008

kimmy, the Bloc is not going to be part of this government either. You are misrepresenting.

Not one piece of legislation will pass the house without Gilles Duceppe's approval. His partners will have to consult with him on anything they do, and if he insists on something, the Liberals will have to cave. They'll be too weak not to.

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

And your paranoia trumps not only the economy but the future of your own party.

Harper's obsession is what the trumps the economy and his party. His single bloodymindedness on going to an election and getting a majority cannot be underestimated.

Of all the people last two years who swore up and down that Harper would not call an election himself had actually voted against the man like they said they would, I would not be insisting it was his strategy again this time.

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

You guys will have to document that for me, then.
My recollection is that the Conservatives could hardly wait to get to the polls, being of the belief that fury over Adscam would lead to defeat for the Liberals.

Is this shed some light on things?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...zi0bVvj3XuJ5wlw

It was a very different Harper in 2004 who advised the Governor General to consider letting him govern - supported by the Bloc - should the Liberal government of Paul Martin fall.

It was not an election he wanted but government turned over.

How would you have reacted then? The only reason it didn't is because Harper's popularity was in the dumps and Martin was managing fairly well at that point.