Harper's New Budget - Is it the Coalition Killer?!

[tamtam10]

The upcoming budget will either make or break the conservative party. If the budget is successful, they will likely remain in power. If it is not, an election is very likely to be the result given Ignatieff's comments about the coalition.

But you never know, if the budget fails, Ignatieff could possibly ask our governor general to hand him the government. The coalition still lives on, whether we like it or not.

[Progressive Tory]

The upcoming budget will either make or break the conservative party. If the budget is successful, they will likely remain in power. If it is not, an election is very likely to be the result given Ignatieff's comments about the coalition.

But you never know, if the budget fails, Ignatieff could possibly ask our governor general to hand him the government. The coalition still lives on, whether we like it or not.

The Coalition will live on for the duration of Stephen Harper's term, regardless of it's duration. After personal assaults, Harper has already lost confidence in the house, with or without a non-confidence vote; and is on thin ice, even with his own Party.

Some may prefer an election but considering the state of the economy and the fact that Parliament has already been sitting out without action, I don't think the Governor General will allow an election to be called right now. So if Harper fails, the Coalition will probably be asked to form a government, whether Ignatieff likes the idea or not.

Fortunately, he is prepared though. With the help of a lot of the country's top economists, they have a budget drafted and have already chosen a trimmed down 25 member cabinet. Specualtion is that if this happens, Harper will not only be forced to resign as Prime Minister but will probably also resign as leader of the Conservative party.

[Barts]

The upcoming budget will either make or break the conservative party. If the budget is successful, they will likely remain in power. If it is not, an election is very likely to be the result given Ignatieff's comments about the coalition.

But you never know, if the budget fails, Ignatieff could possibly ask our governor general to hand him the government. The coalition still lives on, whether we like it or not.

In my view, the issue of confidence is not the budget, regardless of its measures, but Stephen Harper himself. Can the Opposition MPs, in good conscience, permit Harper to remain in government given his failures, duplicity, and demonstrated obsession with destroying his political opponents regardless of the cost to the country?

If Harper is defeated, the coalition will govern for, at least, 2 1/2 years and likely three. The Bloc will not make common cause with the Conservatives to defeat the Liberal/NDP coalition after the 18 months of supporting confidence votes they've promised unless the coalition is doing something grossly antithetical to Quebec's interests, which it won't.

The Coalition can adopt whatever measures might be in the budget that it agrees with, and it would insure a period of stability-at least 2 1/2 years, likely 3--which the country sorely needs.

With Harper as Prime Minister, the country is in for a period of instability, further parliamentary dysfunction, and regional divisiveness.

Moreover, by leaving Harper in power, the Opposition parties--particularly the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff--are putting their political and electoral fates in the hands of man who not only hates them, but wants to annihilate them.

Do you not agree that if Harper is left in power, when he does go for an election his manifesto will contain naive populist measures that, if passed should he win the election, would be used to destroy the other parties' capacity to raise political donations and fund their activities?

Because of his obsessive self-serving hatreds, blind ambition, lack of judgment, disinterest in the needs and interests of Canadians, and character flaws, Stephen Harper has given the Opposition parties--particularly the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff--the political weapons necessary to end his political life and cripple the Conservative Party, likely keeping it out of government for the next 11 to 12 years.

But, who knows if the Michael Ignatieff is smart and courageous enough to seize the last opportunity he will have to be Prime Minister.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Recessions are bad news for governments, the public believes them to be responsible for fixing the problems of the nation, and in the case of economics nothing happens fast enough to please the public. So the government gets to look bad during hard times. This is one of those times, and the only thing that will kill the coalition is an end to the recession. Things are going to go downhill from here, the bottom has not yet been found so the slide will continue. The most optimistic of economists predicts the bottom being found as soon as summer, the most pessimistic says that won't happen until sometime next year.

My bet is that the coalition has pkans to take them to the bottom of the curve, so they can campaign based on an improving economy and take credit for it. The timing is the thing.

[Mr.Canada]

The upcoming budget will either make or break the conservative party. If the budget is successful, they will likely remain in power. If it is not, an election is very likely to be the result given Ignatieff's comments about the coalition.

But you never know, if the budget fails, Ignatieff could possibly ask our governor general to hand him the government. The coalition still lives on, whether we like it or not.

The GG listens to the sitting PM not the Leader of the Opp. If Harper asks for an election in Jan, he'll get it. Ignatieff cannot ask the GG for anything. The GG has to come to him, the GG is an extension of the PMO.

[Jean_Poutine]

In my view, the issue of confidence is not the budget, regardless of its measures, but Stephen Harper himself. Can the Opposition MPs, in good conscience, permit Harper to remain in government given his failures, duplicity, and demonstrated obsession with destroying his political opponents regardless of the cost to the country?

Can the GG in good conscience allow parties that neither raise their own money effectively (one being a separatist party) nor win an election take power from one that does? How exactly would that build confidence?

If Harper is defeated, the coalition will govern for, at least, 2 1/2 years and likely three. The Bloc will not make common cause with the Conservatives to defeat the Liberal/NDP coalition after the 18 months of supporting confidence votes they've promised unless the coalition is doing something grossly antithetical to Quebec's interests, which it won't.

It's not a Liberal/NDP coalition. The Liberals and NDP combined have less seats than the Conservatives. Therefore, let's call it what it IS shall we? It's a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition. Of course, the Bloc will be bought off with tax money from people that don't support the coalition. Always find a way to make someone else pay for the agenda eh?

The Coalition can adopt whatever measures might be in the budget that it agrees with, and it would insure a period of stability-at least 2 1/2 years, likely 3--which the country sorely needs.

If they agree with it, there's no reason to vote against it.

The words coalition and stability don't belong in the same sentence. Stop regurgitating what Stephen Dion said and think for yourself.

With Harper as Prime Minister, the country is in for a period of instability, further parliamentary dysfunction, and regional divisiveness.

Always trying to pin everything on Harper. Minority governments can be unstable by nature, and Harper's minority government has been one of the longest in history. It is the fact that we have four parties that makes it difficult to get a majority. Although, despite that, the Conservatives aren't that far off from a majority.

Sure, a coalition may make up a majority of seats, but that doesn't mean they're on the same page -- unless you think the Liberals and the Bloc hold the same values.

As for regional divisiveness, I would argue that it's the Liberals belief in centralized government that caused it more than anything. It was around long before Harper took office. It was when Jean Chretien was Prime Minister that Quebec almost separated, and just ask Albertans what they think of Trudeau.

Moreover, by leaving Harper in power, the Opposition parties--particularly the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff--are putting their political and electoral fates in the hands of man who not only hates them, but wants to annihilate them.

Do you not agree that if Harper is left in power, when he does go for an election his manifesto will contain naive populist measures that, if passed should he win the election, would be used to destroy the other parties' capacity to raise political donations and fund their activities?

No, I do not agree. Using tax dollars to subsidize political parties is not the same thing as raising money. If they were more effective in raising money, they'd be less dependent on subsidies and thus less vulnerable. I ask you, why is it that they have such a hard time raising money for their cause if it's so popular?

Because of his obsessive self-serving hatreds, blind ambition, lack of judgment, disinterest in the needs and interests of Canadians, and character flaws, Stephen Harper has given the Opposition parties--particularly the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff--the political weapons necessary to end his political life and cripple the Conservative Party, likely keeping it out of government for the next 11 to 12 years.

But, who knows if the Michael Ignatieff is smart and courageous enough to seize the last opportunity he will have to be Prime Minister.

I get it, you don't support the guy in office, and that's fine. I lived through three Chretien majority governments, and thus I'm sure you can survive Harper minority governments.

It's a mistake to count Harper out. I remind you that people didn't think he was electable before he won the first time, and now he's won twice and gained seats.

Maybe if Ignatieff spent more time in Canada practicing what he's been preaching in other countries rather than jumping in at the last minute and thinking he can just jump into the roll, he'd have more opportunities. I don't dislike the guy, but I do think he comes across as a bit arrogant at times.

[jdobbin]

The GG listens to the sitting PM not the Leader of the Opp. If Harper asks for an election in Jan, he'll get it. Ignatieff cannot ask the GG for anything. The GG has to come to him, the GG is an extension of the PMO.

This is quite funny.

[Mr.Canada]

This is quite funny.

Disprove it.

[Smallc]

Disprove it.

1926 in Canada and 1975 in Australia. There are other examples also.

[Mr.Canada]

1926 in Canada and 1975 in Australia. There are other examples also.

That's right, only ONCE in Canada's history has the GG not listened to the PM. I doubt the GG would go against Harper, no chance. It would make her look biased and that she doesn't want, she has enough problems with her spending sprees.

One time in the entire history of our country is hardly definitive, it hasn't happened in over 80 years yet you think our current GG will go against the PM? Keep dreaming.

[Smallc]

That's right, only ONCE in Canada's history has the GG not listened to the PM.

And so, it proves that you are wrong.

[Jean_Poutine]

1926 in Canada and 1975 in Australia. There are other examples also.

You ought to do your homework first.

Sure, Meighen took power from King's minority government, but Meighen's government fell soon after, and in the following election, King won a majority. I'm not sure that's the kind of example the Liberals want to follow, but hey, if they want to give Harper a majority, I'm cool with it.

Australia isn't relevant to Canadian politics, nor are other countries. This is Canada not another country.

[Mr.Canada]

And so, it proves that you are wrong.

I never stated it never happened. I knew it had and was waiting for some schmaltzy poster to post on it, thanks. I stated it wouldn't happen, ever by this current GG and it won't.

[jdobbin]

And so, it proves that you are wrong.

The funny thing was to say that the Governor General is an extension of the PMO.

[Smallc]

I stated it wouldn't happen, ever by this current GG and it won't.

I don't know that, you don't know that, Mr. Harper doesn't know that, and I'm not sure if even the Governor General knows that. This is a very unique situation and no one really knows what will happen.

[jdobbin]

I don't know that, you don't know that, Mr. Harper doesn't know that, and I'm not sure if even the Governor General knows that. This is a very unique situation and no one really knows what will happen.

Certainly Harper had no problem thinking about coalition when he was thinking of taking down Martin.

In any event, the Governor General does not have to call an election if she feels it is not right for the country. She can tell Harper to go back to the drawing board and see if he can stop acting like a horse's ass.

[CANADIEN]

The GG listens to the sitting PM not the Leader of the Opp. If Harper asks for an election in Jan, he'll get it. Ignatieff cannot ask the GG for anything. The GG has to come to him, the GG is an extension of the PMO.

Read the Constitution lately? Although the Queen will follow the recommendation of the PM regarding HER choice of a Governor General, she appoints him/her. And, at least in theory, the Governor General appoints the Ministers, including the PM, she calls and abrogates the House, she issues election writs, the signs the law. The Governor Genral is no more an extension of the PM's office than the Crown is an extension of the office of the British PM.

Whether the GG would go against the PM's advice is debatable, and it is indeed unlikely. But she has that power, and there is nothing he could do against it apart from seizing power illegally.

Edited January 11, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Progressive Tory]

There's a rather interesting article in the Canadian Press, further to recent discussions about polls and what we can expect next.

No longer combative, Harper calls for co-operation in drafting federal budget.... "The friendly, co-operative tone came as a new poll suggested a resurgent Liberal party under new leader Michael Ignatieff, who was himself pledging to hold the governing Conservatives to account with a pre-budget wish list of his own."

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/090109/n0109107A.html

In a previous thread concerning the recent poll Ignatieff vaults Liberals into tie with Tories...

"The Liberals have moved into a statistical tie with the governing Tories, according to the Nanos Research survey... Liberal support stood at 34 per cent, the poll suggests, one point ahead of the Conservatives."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...JQi36UAZwZ1gQDw

Harper's only option with the GG is having her dissolve parliament and call another election. He can't delay Parliament again. However, do you think he would risk that now, considering the ground the Liberals have gained? Now that his own letter of a proposed 'coup' has surfaced and a videotaped message stating that the Prime Minister can't expect to have an election everytime he fails; his ONLY OPTION IS TO PLAY NICE.

Mr. Ignatieff may not necessarily want the Coalition to take over, preferring an election that could very well give HIM a majority; but as Stephen Harper rightfully says: "That's not how our Constitution works." Iggy will be the Prime Minister of a Coalition Government. The only one who can keep Harper in power is Harper. He has to do his job because he's run out of options.

[ToadBrother]

Read the Constitution lately? Although the Queen will follow the recommendation of the PM regarding HER choice of a Governor General, she appoints him/her. And, at least in theory, the Governor General appoints the Ministers, including the PM, she calls and abrogates the House, she issues election writs, the signs the law. The Governor Genral is no more an extension of the PM's office than the Crown is an extension of the office of the British PM.

Whether the GG would go against the PM's advice is debatable, and it is indeed unlikely. But she has that power, and there is nothing he could do against it apart from seizing power illegally.

I simply don't know where all of this comes from. Yes the Queen and her various Vice-regal representatives in the Commonwealth hold some pretty broad reserve powers, but a quick review of Parliamentary history both in the UK and in the other Commonwealth countries where the Queen reigns demonstrates that, apart from a few extremely odd circumstances, the Monarch and the Vice-regals do precisely what the Prime Minister asks.

[Topaz]

I agree with most of the media no election at least until the fall. One very important item Harper has to change and it will be an uphill battle for him is the public opinion of him, specifically changing the minds of non supporters. He has damage himself so much with flip-flopping or lies that how can you trust what he says. I'm sure we won't see Harper sitting in the Commons once he leaves office , so who going to take over for him? McKay probably thinks he should get it and I'm sure someone from the west thinks it should be Prentice or some other western.

[Progressive Tory]

I simply don't know where all of this comes from. Yes the Queen and her various Vice-regal representatives in the Commonwealth hold some pretty broad reserve powers, but a quick review of Parliamentary history both in the UK and in the other Commonwealth countries where the Queen reigns demonstrates that, apart from a few extremely odd circumstances, the Monarch and the Vice-regals do precisely what the Prime Minister asks.

Then you're proving my point as well. It would be political suicide for Harper to ask for another 'time-out', given the state of the economy and the recent reports showing further unemployment. However, it could also be poltical suicide for him to have an election right now when he's not only slipping in the polls, but his past is coming back to haunt him. So what can he ask the GG to do? Beat up the guys who are 'picking on him.'

He knows it, I know it and most Canadians know it. He's run out of options and has to play nice, because the people sitting on the other side of the room represent the 62% of Canadians who did not vote for him.

[Jean_Poutine]

He's run out of options and has to play nice, because the people sitting on the other side of the room represent the 62% of Canadians who did not vote for him.

According to CBC election results, if you add up the percentage of the vote for all opposition parties, including independents, they have 55.06%. So first of all, your math is off.

Second, in 1997, Chretien got a majority with 38.5% of the vote -- just 0.9% more than what Harper got in the last election -- even though the opposition had 59.9% of the vote.

Put the Liberals and NDP together and you get a combined total of 114 seats vs. 143 Conservative seats. The two parties together are short 29 seats to match what one party has.

I can play games with numbers too.

I don't know about you, but I really don't care about the Bloc. Their supporters care more about their province than the country as a whole. They represent a region not a country. However, if you insist on using the Bloc to inflate your numbers, at least be honest about it and call your coalition what it IS: a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition. You can't have it both ways by including the Bloc when it's convenient for you and leaving them out when it's not.

[Mr.Canada]

If the Coalition votes down Harper's very reasonable budget in JAnuary, Harper will ask for an election and he'll get it. Then the voters will punish the Liberals and NDP for being so partisan. Harper will have his majority as the public doesn't trust the Liberals and NDP to not form a Coalition with the Bloc. Ignatieff knows this and they'll support Harper's budget.

[ToadBrother]

If the Coalition votes down Harper's very reasonable budget in JAnuary, Harper will ask for an election and he'll get it. Then the voters will punish the Liberals and NDP for being so partisan. Harper will have his majority as the public doesn't trust the Liberals and NDP to not form a Coalition with the Bloc. Ignatieff knows this and they'll support Harper's budget.

The only reason there is going to be a reasonable budget is because Harper has been put back in place.

[Progressive Tory]

According to CBC election results, if you add up the percentage of the vote for all opposition parties, including independents, they have 55.06%. So first of all, your math is off.

Second, in 1997, Chretien got a majority with 38.5% of the vote -- just 0.9% more than what Harper got in the last election -- even though the opposition had 59.9% of the vote.

Put the Liberals and NDP together and you get a combined total of 114 seats vs. 143 Conservative seats. The two parties together are short 29 seats to match what one party has.

I can play games with numbers too.

I don't know about you, but I really don't care about the Bloc. Their supporters care more about their province than the country as a whole. They represent a region not a country. However, if you insist on using the Bloc to inflate your numbers, at least be honest about it and call your coalition what it IS: a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition. You can't have it both ways by including the Bloc when it's convenient for you and leaving them out when it's not.

I include the Bloc because Harper included them when he formed his Coalition in 2004. Combined with only the NDP he had just 118 seats to the Liberal's 135.

Even at 55% the Coalition is ahead of the Con's 37%. Also, the Green party has agreed to support the Coalition and are actively campaigning on their behalf; which is also crucial if an election is called. The Coalition have agreed to stay united, probably only fielding candidates with the best shot at beating the Conservatives, to avoid vote-splitting.

But in crunching numbers when we combine actual votes, the NDP and Liberals total 6,046,382 to the Conservatives; 5,204,468. Still ahead and without the Bloc. Harper avoided vote-splitting by uniting the Right. Now he's also united the left.

Many of those new Conservative MPs won by a very small margin. Gail Shea just 76 votes and reading the local paper in her area, people are already upset because apparently she's been flying friends to Ottawa at taxpayer's expense, to conduct business that should be conducted when she's in her riding. Dion factor gone, Carbon tax gone, and if the Left do unite, even informally; vote-splitting gone. Not much left.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Progressive Tory