Will the Harper Government Survive This Week?

[Jack Weber]

Whatever, Jack. I'm pretty sure I've made myself clear in my public posts that I will report infractions of the rules.

If you fell you need to be the shop cop...Go right ahead...

If you're easily offended and want to hide behind rules and regulations...Get the report finger ready!!

Or...Put me on ignore...

[Scotty]

It called political survival...

If he stuck to being a hardcore NCC Reformist,they'd still be in opposition...And Harper would be back at the NCC blathering about "firewalls"...

Scotty...An honest question...

You seem to line up on the side of organized labour...How do you reconcile the fact that if the NCC types in the Con(servative) party got thier way,labour wise,we would see RTW legislation in this country just like the hardcore Republican states in the US???

The WRAP party has RTW in their platform...That is basically a provincial Reformesque type of party...

There is no party in Canada which has a platform which I can fully support In fact, I doubt I like even half of anyone's platform. I'm leery of a Conservative majority, yes. I don't think I would like some of the things they'd do. On the other hand, they seem to provide reasonably adequate government as a minority. And I deeply dislike the present senior caucus of the Liberal Party.

As to labour, the right to unions is enshrined in the constitution, so even if the Tories did want to reign in unions, there's no way they could go the route of the US RTW states. And frankly, I doubt there's much enthusiasm for that anyway. There might be some 'NCC' types in the party, as you say, but there's also an awful lot of more centrist people with little enthusiasm for that sort of thing.

[Scotty]

If you fell you need to be the shop cop...Go right ahead...

If you're easily offended and want to hide behind rules and regulations...Get the report finger ready!!

Or...Put me on ignore...

It's actually the opposite, if you want the truth. I am far too tempted to respond with snotty, insulting retorts of my own. But I know two things. One, I'd likely get a vacation similar to the one you just returned from. Two, if everyone did that the place would descend into the blithering idiocy of the old usenet newsgroups where I used to argue politics, like can.politics.

[ToadBrother]

Good point about Iggy...

I never thought of it that way because he seemed so anti-coalition after he was "coronated"...

I think there were two reasons for that. First of all, a lot of Liberals, particularly in caucus, were seeing red over what they saw as an agreement with the Bloc and NDP imposed on them without their consent. As we saw from the coalition talks in the UK, your caucus has to be in on the loop, and has to be at least willing to accept the necessity, even if they're not in love with idea (and few Tories were all that happy, but understood that the alternative was some bizarre multiparty coalition under Labour). Suddenly announcing after closed door negotiations that you are now about to be part of a coalition with with separatists and the NDP (which the Liberals have long had an enmity for) is not exactly a recipe for love and cuddles. Second of all, I think Iggy thought he had a decent chance at becoming PM in his own right and without having to rely on the other opposition parties to get him there. Maybe he still believes that, though I suspect he might be warmer to the idea of a coalition now than he was a couple of years ago.

Edited March 24, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Molly]

I have to admit that Harper has become a lot more of a pragmatist than I'm comfortable with. I am not, in case you're wondering, comfortable with a Conservative-BQ coalition either. But I still think Harper would fare better than Dion. Harper is more of a brinksman, and his rank and file are fare less forgiving of special accommodations for Quebec.

Do folks remember Dion's strength? The thing that gained him as much regard as he exercized?

He was a gentle man and a sweaty-palmed sort of politician, but giving in to 'the separatists' is not his game.

[Jack Weber]

There is no party in Canada which has a platform which I can fully support In fact, I doubt I like even half of anyone's platform. I'm leery of a Conservative majority, yes. I don't think I would like some of the things they'd do. On the other hand, they seem to provide reasonably adequate government as a minority. And I deeply dislike the present senior caucus of the Liberal Party.

As to labour, the right to unions is enshrined in the constitution, so even if the Tories did want to reign in unions, there's no way they could go the route of the US RTW states. And frankly, I doubt there's much enthusiasm for that anyway. There might be some 'NCC' types in the party, as you say, but there's also an awful lot of more centrist people with little enthusiasm for that sort of thing.

The you're alot like me because none of the Big Three represent my views entirely...

The Labour issue is more of a provincial matter.That's where the Rand Formula and the Check Off process take place in legislation...

This is why the WRAPpers want to go for it in Alberta...Because Big Oil and Gas require "labour freedom"...

[Scotty]

Quite frankly, judging by past behavior, I think Iggy is in fact much better suited to the very difficult role of Prime Minister in a formal coalition. He's not as aggressive as Harper (which is a bad thing in many ways, but very key if one contemplates having to unite multiple parties of very different temperaments and ideologies), and tends in general to be more moderate.

Mediator? I don't think he'd need to mediate much between Layton and Duceppe. Those two are pretty much on the same page. It would be, on most issues, a weak, conciliatory Ignatieff against two ideologues determined to get their way. And I don't see that ending well for the taxpayers.

[ToadBrother]

Mediator? I don't think he'd need to mediate much between Layton and Duceppe. Those two are pretty much on the same page. It would be, on most issues, a weak, conciliatory Ignatieff against two ideologues determined to get their way. And I don't see that ending well for the taxpayers.

Those two are socialists, but there are going to be NDP members who find working with separatists a bitter pill, and by the same token, some separatists who will find any kind of formalized agreements with the hated Liberals (who are to be hated for being Federalists and Liberals) hard to deal with. What's more, he'll have to be able to keep his own party in line, and the Liberal caucus has no lack of members who will find doing business with either the NDP or the Bloc very very hard to deal with.

People were making the same claims about the Conservative-LibDem coalition in the UK last year, and now the Chancellor, George Osborne is about to deliver the most austere budget Great Britain has had since the Second World War.

There's this old saying about only Nixon being able to go to China...

[Scotty]

The you're alot like me because none of the Big Three represent my views entirely...

The Labour issue is more of a provincial matter.That's where the Rand Formula and the Check Off process take place in legislation...

This is why the WRAPpers want to go for it in Alberta...Because Big Oil and Gas require "labour freedom"...

Big oil and gas are not the most irresponsible industries in the world.... probably. They'll do for a start, though. I trust neither. I haven't followed Alberta provincial politics much, but it strikes me the new Wildrose bunch are more populist oriented, and there seems to be a lot of rural types in Alberta who despise the notion of unions, especially government unions. Doesn't really matter, though, since the SC will strike down anti union type laws.

[Jack Weber]

Big oil and gas are not the most irresponsible industries in the world.... probably. They'll do for a start, though. I trust neither. I haven't followed Alberta provincial politics much, but it strikes me the new Wildrose bunch are more populist oriented, and there seems to be a lot of rural types in Alberta who despise the notion of unions, especially government unions. Doesn't really matter, though, since the SC will strike down anti union type laws.

I suspect you're right..More economic libertarian than anything...

If the Supreme Court did strike down a provincial initiative like this one,we will begin to hear about "activist judges" from the usual sources...

[August1991]

I dunno, though, do you think Liberal voters would prefer a Conservative government to a Liberal-NDP coalition? Maybe some...

That's exactly what I mean, ES.

If one voter in 20 switches from the Liberals to the Conservatives, you will see the Tories well above 40%. And mark words, this will happen if there is talk of a Liberal/NDP/Bloc "coalition". We have some evidence to support my viewpoint. Remember polls in December 2008?

Canadian Prime Minister Harper has mounted a crushing polling lead as the result of a political crisis in which an opposition coalition sought to take power, three polls released over the past two days showed.

The surveys showed Harper's Conservatives would take well over the 40 percent needed to convert his minority in Parliament into a majority, and a lead of 20 percentage points over the main opposition Liberal Party.

The main opposition Liberals, the leftist New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois, which wants to take Quebec out of Canada, signed a deal on Monday to try to replace Harper with a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc.

Reuters

It is amusing to me that people who ostensibly want to defeat Harper would engage in a hypothetical, constitutional conversation about coalitions that will accomplish the exact opposite.

It is one thing to talk about a coalition after the election. It is quite another to talk about one before the election. This talk of coalition now, however interesting for its intricacies, is playing right into Harper's hands.

Edited March 24, 2011 by August1991

[Scotty]

I suspect you're right..More economic libertarian than anything...

If the Supreme Court did strike down a provincial initiative like this one,we will begin to hear about "activist judges" from the usual sources...

I don't like activist judges myself. But there is a difference between a judge very clearly enunciating a specifically stated Charter right, and a judge inferring and then writing in that right.

[Hydraboss]

Well said...

And this is from an admitted traitor!!!

Note the "Albertan Seperatist" thing...

Uhm, you mean "traitor in waiting" (kind of like our senators).

Nice to know I'm "of note" to you Jack.

[Hydraboss]

Different posters evidently have different desires of how this site will function. That's perfectly normal, of course. My own desire is for discussion on a somewhat adult basis without snide, petty, stupid, childish insults thrown back and forth. To that end, I do report violations of the site rules. And will continue to do so.

"Adult" to me doesn't involve calling people names.

To continue this partial thread drift...

I agree that some of the name calling gets to the level of grade 5 students from time to time, but I don't want to see MLW reduced to some university-politically-correct-debate club. I prefer to use the forum as I would if I were sitting at a lounge having a beer and discussing politics (memories of college). Every once in a while things get heated and words are said that "offend" someone else. Boo hoo. It's called discourse. It's the intensity of some of the arguments (not JUST discussions) that keep a lot of us coming back for more. If I wanted politically correct conversation, I'd join a mensa board.

For instance: I can easily call Jack a complete friggin idiot that couldn't find his eastern ass with both hands.

He wouldn't report me, but chances are he'd respond with something in the strain of "whatever, you traitorous Alberta inbred neo-con. You and your ilk should be found swinging from a rope from the tree in the center of that dirt path you call main street in the cultural desert you call Alberta. Now go earn me some more equalization money, you knave!"

or something like that.

I would say to you, lighten up and forget all but the most grievous of insults. This too shall pass.

[Harry]

That's exactly what I mean, ES.

If one voter in 20 switches from the Liberals to the Conservatives, you will see the Tories well above 40%. And mark words, this will happen if there is talk of a Liberal/NDP/Bloc "coalition". We have some evidence to support my viewpoint. Remember polls in December 2008?

Reuters

It is amusing to me that people who ostensibly want to defeat Harper would engage in a hypothetical, constitutional conversation about coalitions that will accomplish the exact opposite.

It is one thing to talk about a coalition after the election. It is quite another to talk about one before the election. This talk of coalition now, however interesting for its intricacies, is playing right into Harper's hands.

Actually you are quite wrong on that just like you were wrong about your comments stating that based on a reliable source the NDP would cave on the budget which you edited out later on.

During the campaign the letter will be released showing Harper's signature cutting a deal with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004, which is basically what will happen right after this election. The only thing that will result in discussing this issue is Harper's ethical reputation will be further eroded as his hypocrisy will be exposed quite clearly for all Canadians to see. What is that expression: "You can fool some of the people some of the time.....etc.".

Unfortunatley for Harper he misjudged Layton and now he is facing an election not of his choosing. Bring it on.

[August1991]

During the campaign the letter will be released showing Harper's signature cutting a deal with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004...

Someone posted the text of the letter above in this thread so it has already been "released". It merely states that Harper/Layton/Duceppe wanted to ensure that the GG consulted with opposition leaders in the event PM Martin asked for a premature dissolution. There was no talk of a coalition.

But look Harry, have it your way. The Liberals and NDP can lecture Canadians during the campaign on how parliamentary procedures explicitly make coalition government feasible and even democratic. Ignatieff can remind everyone that Duceppe has said that the Bloc will support a Liberal/NDP coalition.

You can get back to me on 3 May to explain how that strategy was a vote-getter for the anti-Harper forces.

[Evening Star]

Ha, from a strategic POV, I see what you're saying, August.

[capricorn]

Unfortunatley for Harper he misjudged Layton and now he is facing an election not of his choosing.

I'm not so sure Harry. I tend to agree with some commentators that the budget was crafted to be an election budget, with inexpensive baubles intended to appeal to a broad spectrum of the population. Did the Conservatives ever intend to entertain amendments to the budget put forth by the opposition? No. Did the opposition entertain putting forth amendments to make the budget more palatable to them? I think not. By all accounts, they refuted the budget before even reading it.

Bottom line, the opposition was hell bent on turfing the government and the government knew it. All this maneuvering by all four parties toward an election was spurred on by the Speaker's two rulings of a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament. Going into the budget Harper had decided to rebuff amendments because he knew the government wouldn't fall on the budget; it would fall on a motion of contempt of Parliament. So the budget provisions and Harper's initial blueprint of 2006 will underpin his election message.

[nicky10013]

Someone posted the text of the letter above in this thread so it has already been "released". It merely states that Harper/Layton/Duceppe wanted to ensure that the GG consulted with opposition leaders in the event PM Martin asked for a premature dissolution. There was no talk of a coalition.

But look Harry, have it your way. The Liberals and NDP can lecture Canadians during the campaign on how parliamentary procedures explicitly make coalition government feasible and even democratic. Ignatieff can remind everyone that Duceppe has said that the Bloc will support a Liberal/NDP coalition.

You can get back to me on 3 May to explain how that strategy was a vote-getter for the anti-Harper forces.

Except that Ignatieff wants nothing to do with it and only did so, like a good soldier, when the party pursued it under Dion 2 years ago. The only people who said they were open to it are Layton and Duceppe. So, if mentioning the coalition by the opposition is such a strategic blunder (which it isn't), isn't that then good for the Liberals? Bloc votes and NDP votes don't split CPC.

[Harry]

Someone posted the text of the letter above in this thread so it has already been "released". It merely states that Harper/Layton/Duceppe wanted to ensure that the GG consulted with opposition leaders in the event PM Martin asked for a premature dissolution. There was no talk of a coalition.

But look Harry, have it your way. The Liberals and NDP can lecture Canadians during the campaign on how parliamentary procedures explicitly make coalition government feasible and even democratic. Ignatieff can remind everyone that Duceppe has said that the Bloc will support a Liberal/NDP coalition.

You can get back to me on 3 May to explain how that strategy was a vote-getter for the anti-Harper forces.

Coalition, agreement whatever. Harper in opposition was ready to get into bed with the terrible social democrats, the NDP, and the independentistes, the Bloc, and now Harper is going to complain about the current opposition doing what he was doing himself. Give us a break. Harper's already beginning to look like he is on shaky ground with the growing number of scandals such as the Bruce Carson issue, another one appears to breaking tonite, and for him to go on about how terrible a coalition is, will return to bite him in the ass.

[nicky10013]

Coalition, agreement whatever. Harper in opposition was ready to get into bed with the terrible social democrats, the NDP, and the independentistes, the Bloc, and now Harper is going to complain about the current opposition doing what he was doing himself. Give us a break. Harper's already beginning to look like he is on shaky ground with the growing number of scandals such as the Bruce Carson issue, another one appears to breaking tonite, and for him to go on about how terrible a coalition is, will return to bite him in the ass.

I don't think coalition pandering will bite him in the ass, but I do think people are tired of the rhetoric. Any people who vote CPC because of the coalition were never going to vote for any opposition party anyhow.

[capricorn]

Harper's already beginning to look like he is on shaky ground with the growing number of scandals such as the Bruce Carson issue, another one appears to breaking tonite, and for him to go on about how terrible a coalition is, will return to bite him in the ass.

Another one appears to be breaking tonite (sic)??? <slurp> Come on <slurp> spill it...

[ToadBrother]

Someone posted the text of the letter above in this thread so it has already been "released". It merely states that Harper/Layton/Duceppe wanted to ensure that the GG consulted with opposition leaders in the event PM Martin asked for a premature dissolution. There was no talk of a coalition.

Oh give me a break. I mean, what do you take us all for, idiots? The whole point of the letter was to tell the GG that the Opposition were ready and willing to take on the responsibility of government. We can debate what exactly the three leaders might have had in mind, but the fact that all three of their names was on it tells the entire story.

I don't know why the Tory supporters continue in this ludicrous kind of hair splitting argument. It insults everyone's intelligence.

[TimG]

I don't know why the Tory supporters continue in this ludicrous kind of hair splitting argument. It insults everyone's intelligence.

And what was the Liberal reaction to this deal? Hypocracy cuts boths ways.

[ToadBrother]

And what was the Liberal reaction to this deal? Hypocracy cuts boths ways.

The Liberal reaction was to try to reproduce it in 2008. You'll carefully note if you go through all my postings on Canadian politics that I don't hold either side as better than the other. But it strikes as a stronger form of hypocrisy to declare the evils of coalitions with separatists when one was doing a helluva lot of nudge-nudge-wink-wink with the GG four years before along those same precise lines.

I mean, are you going to try to argue that Harper, Layton and Duceppe were just being friendly citizens in telling a woman who is advised by a team of constitutional experts that she could, if she was, y'know, thinking about alternatives to an election, kinda sorta look at the options; undersigned by three of the options?

Jeez.... Is this the kind of election this is going to be?

Edited March 24, 2011 by ToadBrother