Liberal Conservative Coalition ?

[ToadBrother]

Why not?

I'm deeply suspicious of the Constitutionality of such a move. There's no reason for the GG's removal, other than the current government hoping to get a better answer from the Sovereign. This removal would require, so far as I understand it, the approval of the Queen, so not only are you asking the Queen to remove the GG because you're in a position to be defeated in Parliament (by you, I mean the Tories, of course), and then have the Queen essentially take over Executive powers.

It's a crazy idea. I can't imagine the Queen doing that, not under these circumstances at least.

[blueblood]

He survives one vote. I still still think he will seek a mandate to get out from behind the possible threat. It is how he thinks. As he sees it, as long as he has a minority, he needs the election and someone to blame to be able to get the majority and resume destroying the Liberal party.

I'm quite confident we're going to an election. Harper has too many levers at his disposal. The question is does Ignatieff? On CTV last night, Fife said that Ignatieff wants to stay away from this coalition, apparently he did not take a cabinet post. Whether this election takes place before or after the Leadership conventinon, is I think up to Ignatieff. This would be a huge gamble for his leadership bid going against the coalition with his supporters. What would grass roots Liberals say? Ignatieff has a lot on his plate right now.

[ToadBrother]

You might not like the answer of the Queen. What after that? Fire her and call in th miliatry?

I doubt the Queen would get involved. You'd have to go to the Queen with some reason for dismissing the GG, and what reason is there? "She might ask someone else in Parliament to form a government." WTF kind of justification is that for going over the GG's head?

If there's one thing that Queen Elizabeth II has shown throughout her long reign is a proper understanding of her place within a constitutional monarchy, and in particular the proper use, or rather, non-use of Her executive powers. If there were some major crisis that involved the GG in such a way as to make the GG's position untenable, then yes, I can see the Queen potentially stepping in directly, but there's simply no way that you can frame the mere survival of a minority government against a hostile coalition of opposition parties a situation that satisfies that.

It's probably the single craziest notion that's come out of this so far.

[Argus]

Harper would then have his majority and he could place the same poison pills in the economic statement and tell the Opposition to lump it.

Oh leave off the paranoia. He's going to put poison pills in with a liberal-tory coallition/compromise? Because somehow that would destroy the Liberals? He'd look like a vindictive fool to the electorate and the media would crucify him and his party.

Or do you think he is going to make nice when he has never done so before?

And Layton has been so nice to the Liberals in the past. The cotempt he heaped upon Dion in the debates notwithstanding. Remember what Harper has said about Layton "You always know where you stand with Jack. You know he will always let you down."

Ignatieff might be done as leader if he is the one that undoes the deal. And the Liberals will face an election with Dion at the helm anyway. What's the upside of not voting for the motion? Nothing that I can think of.

And being leader of a twelve seat caucus is such a desirable job, right? If Ignatieff strikes a deal with Harper I believe Harper will stick to it. I have not seen him doing anything that smacks of betrayal of that sort.

[Argus]

He'll be done as leader most likely. It is why I find it hard to believe that he would stick it to the party on Monday. Harper would call the election that day if the Liberals backed away.

Maybe there are a lot of people in your party who realize what a dogs biscuit this coallition is going to be, and the dangers it represents to the LPC. You assume he's acting alone. What if senior leaders are working with him on this?

[ToadBrother]

I'm quite confident we're going to an election. Harper has too many levers at his disposal. The question is does Ignatieff? On CTV last night, Fife said that Ignatieff wants to stay away from this coalition, apparently he did not take a cabinet post. Whether this election takes place before or after the Leadership conventinon, is I think up to Ignatieff. This would be a huge gamble for his leadership bid going against the coalition with his supporters. What would grass roots Liberals say? Ignatieff has a lot on his plate right now.

The request to dissolve Parliament is just that, a request. Harper cannot demand an election, he can ask for one, and on that score, at least, the GG does have precedent. She does not have to grant that request, and seeing as the election was just seven weeks ago, I think it unlikely.

I think it's more likely that she will permit Parliament to be prorogued, and trust that perhaps a little egg-nog and Christmas pudding will calm everything down. But call an election? I think that's unlikely.

[johhny]

Oh leave off the paranoia. He's going to put poison pills in with a liberal-tory coallition/compromise? Because somehow that would destroy the Liberals? He'd look like a vindictive fool to the electorate and the media would crucify him and his party.

And Layton has been so nice to the Liberals in the past. The cotempt he heaped upon Dion in the debates notwithstanding. Remember what Harper has said about Layton "You always know where you stand with Jack. You know he will always let you down."

And being leader of a twelve seat caucus is such a desirable job, right? If Ignatieff strikes a deal with Harper I believe Harper will stick to it. I have not seen him doing anything that smacks of betrayal of that sort.

Harper has never been good for his word on anything

[Argus]

It might if Harper fired the Governor General like some Conservative commentators have suggested and went to the Queen directly.

Oh please, on what excuse?

[blueblood]

The request to dissolve Parliament is just that, a request. Harper cannot demand an election, he can ask for one, and on that score, at least, the GG does have precedent. She does not have to grant that request, and seeing as the election was just seven weeks ago, I think it unlikely.

I think it's more likely that she will permit Parliament to be prorogued, and trust that perhaps a little egg-nog and Christmas pudding will calm everything down. But call an election? I think that's unlikely.

She'll call one when Harper loses the throne speech/budget in January when parliament returns. If she doesn't she knows good and well Harper can call the queen. She was a controversial pick and there are seperatists at play here. She would have egg on her face if the queen had to be consulted in order to give democracy a chance.

[Argus]

I'm quite confident we're going to an election. Harper has too many levers at his disposal. The question is does Ignatieff? On CTV last night, Fife said that Ignatieff wants to stay away from this coalition, apparently he did not take a cabinet post. Whether this election takes place before or after the Leadership conventinon, is I think up to Ignatieff. This would be a huge gamble for his leadership bid going against the coalition with his supporters. What would grass roots Liberals say? Ignatieff has a lot on his plate right now.

The left wing might hate him, but they're not going to support him anyway. They'll support Rae.

[jdobbin]

Oh please, on what excuse?

I have no idea. I am just repeating what the Globe and Mail's Andrew Steele said the other day when he went over the options Tories told him that they had.

[jdobbin]

Oh leave off the paranoia. He's going to put poison pills in with a liberal-tory coallition/compromise? Because somehow that would destroy the Liberals? He'd look like a vindictive fool to the electorate and the media would crucify him and his party.

Gerry Nichols was saying yesterday that the goal is to destroy the Liberals party. It won't be enough if the coalition fails. The Liberals must be eliminated and he could go to the electorate and say he can't operate with instability.

I didn't say anything about a coalition. If he went that route, things might not fail but if it is just a few Liberals who defeat the coalition, he will go for the throat.

And Layton has been so nice to the Liberals in the past. The cotempt he heaped upon Dion in the debates notwithstanding. Remember what Harper has said about Layton "You always know where you stand with Jack. You know he will always let you down."

I don't see where Harper has left the Liberals a choice.

And being leader of a twelve seat caucus is such a desirable job, right? If Ignatieff strikes a deal with Harper I believe Harper will stick to it. I have not seen him doing anything that smacks of betrayal of that sort.

If he offers Ignatieff a position in government and split the Liberal party? Harper would go after what was left of the party and kill it.

[ToadBrother]

I have no idea. I am just repeating what the Globe and Mail's Andrew Steele said the other day when he went over the options Tories told him that they had.

I'd love to see the reasoning here. I've been reading a few things from constitutional experts, and this doesn't seem to be in their list of possibilities. Dismissal of a GG for purely political reasons seem to be the polar opposite of the duties and powers of that office.

As I said before, this was apparently one possibility that Gough Whitlam had considered in Australia, but it never happened, and that's a pity, because at least it would give us some sort of precedent to work with. So far as I know, the dismissal of a regal (or in this case vice-regal) has not been done since James II, and I doubt anyone seriously thinks that is some sort of legal precedent for dismissing a GG.

[jdobbin]

I'd love to see the reasoning here. I've been reading a few things from constitutional experts, and this doesn't seem to be in their list of possibilities. Dismissal of a GG for purely political reasons seem to be the polar opposite of the duties and powers of that office.

Here is the options that Steele listed.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...BStory/WBSteele

Mr. Harper could advise the Queen that Ms. Jean should be removed from office, perhaps noting her past dalliance with Quebec separatism as grounds. He would then be free to appoint someone who would agree to call an election or prorogue rather than call upon Mr. Dion to form a Ministry.

The difference is critical here. In Australia, the issue was the Senate refusing to pass supply. Prime Minister Whitlam had a majority in the lower house, which is normally supreme in matters of confidence. But PM Harper does not have a majority in the Commons, has not tested the will of Parliament and an alternative administration enjoys a majority of support.

To call this option risky is a grave understatement. Not only would it threaten the role of the monarchy in Canada, but parliamentary supremacy back to the Magna Carta would be called into question.

This might be called the Magna Harper route.

[jdobbin]

From what I understand he controls about half the party.

Even if he did what you're suggesting, it means the end of the Liberal party in all likelihood. It certainly would mean the end of Ignatieff as potential Liberal leader. And Harper wouldn't want him to cross the floor and join the Tories because he'd be a potential rival.

[Oleg Bach]

Here is the options that Steele listed.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...BStory/WBSteele

This might be called the Magna Harper route.

It's doubtful that the liberal faction alerted her Majesty about the GGs' personal political indiscreations. It is certain that the Queen is catching up on her reading and recieving calls from her Canadian advisors....but as we all know the Queen is but a figure head - and Harper is but a figurehead and Dion is but a dis-figured head...and poor Jack - he needs some head.

[jdobbin]

It's doubtful that the liberal faction alerted her Majesty about the GGs' personal political indiscreations. It is certain that the Queen is catching up on her reading and recieving calls from her Canadian advisors....but as we all know the Queen is but a figure head - and Harper is but a figurehead and Dion is but a dis-figured head...and poor Jack - he needs some head.

It will come to Bush, oh yeah. But first he has to talk to God or aliens. Or both. And they talk to a toaster.

[capricorn]

And Harper wouldn't want him to cross the floor and join the Tories because he'd be a potential rival.

Iggy's my favorite Liberal. He has shortcomings, but don't they all? I don't look for perfection in a leader. Good thing, 'cause I would have spent my adult life in constant disappointment.

[noahbody]

This might be called the Magna Harper route.

There is also the possibility that the GG will want to defer to the Queen. This could save her marriage.

[jdobbin]

Iggy's my favorite Liberal. He has shortcomings, but don't they all? I don't look for perfection in a leader. Good thing, 'cause I would have spent my adult life in constant disappointment.

I don't think he would cross the floor, sit as an independent or go against the party in public.

Ignatieff might suggest a different plan but he won't try to destroy the Liberal party for Harper to go ahead and repeat what he has done already.

[jdobbin]

There is also the possibility that the GG will want to defer to the Queen. This could save her marriage.

There's no deferral Only a resignation that would do. The Queen would throw it back in her face.

If she did resign and Harper appointed someone who would do Harper's bidding, it might end an election but I don't know how comfortable the electorate would be with someone in place who only took calls from Tory headquarters.

[Topaz]

Why would any Canadian want Iggy for leader of any Canadian party. He left Canada and went to the UK and then to the US to live and only came back here to run for leadership for the Libs when asked. He was for the Iraq war, so he and Harper do have some common ground,... they were both wrong on that score!

[Oleg Bach]

It will come to Bush, oh yeah. But first he has to talk to God or aliens. Or both. And they talk to a toaster.

Brilliant! Don't you just love it - you have more Americans who are sure of the existance of ghosts and alliens and other speculations - than God... that there is absolutely no proof of spectors other than a faint mist that is human imagination - Where as the natural world and the endless universe is real and there is absolute proof of a creation. - the other thing that most do not understand is that no one talks to God and God does not have a voice to answer back with - as if that thing needs a human voice - all those hearing that voice are wacko...all those that believe there are alliens are also nuts....we are alone..and all God is - is human goodness..that is all that needs to be believed in. The toaster - -----------------it does talk - much like the sounds that come from the tank of the toilet...it grumbles as if there are talking rats having a bubble bath...but we all know it's just an improperly installed crapper - the last thing we need is an improperly installed Prime Minister. The word speculation comes from the word ghost or spector.. Is the Canadian mind brave enough to see realty? We had an election..we have a Prime Minister....and all the speculations generated will not fool the Canadian people..because they are brave -and able to handle the truth.

[Argus]

Even if he did what you're suggesting, it means the end of the Liberal party in all likelihood. It certainly would mean the end of Ignatieff as potential Liberal leader. And Harper wouldn't want him to cross the floor and join the Tories because he'd be a potential rival.

I'm not talking about Ignatieff cutting a separate deal for himself and his supporters here. I was thinking more along the lines of him as a negotiator on behalf of the Liberal Party and with its consent.

[Argus]

Why would any Canadian want Iggy for leader of any Canadian party.

Well if the alternative is Dion...