Will the Harper Government Survive This Week?

Harry · March 24, 2011

The Secessionist has a point...

This definitely was not a good day for Harper, and my feeling is they are going to get a lot worse - worth a read.

The Commons: Uncontrollable democracy

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/23/the-commons-uncontrollable-democracy/

Jack Weber · March 24, 2011

This definitely was not a good day for Harper, and my feeling is they are going to get a lot worse - worth a read.

The Commons: Uncontrollable democracy

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/23/the-commons-uncontrollable-democracy/

Interesting...

I watched the At Issue panel on the Ceeb last week,and Andrew Coyne (editor of Maclean's) said that things will be different for Harper this time because there is now a Conservative body of work over 5 tears he's going to have to defend.He can no longer say to the electorate that he's not like those guys over there (pointing at the Liberals),as it relates to questionable ethics,because he now seems to be knee deep in them.

Things could get a little testy for a control freak who finds things spinning out of control because of the actions of others....

ToadBrother · March 24, 2011

Jack, I have a rule of thumb: if a federal story/scandal doesn't attract the attention of both the English/French media, then it's not really a federal issue.

You're rule of thumb seems more to be "If it looks like a Tory scandal, I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and shout LA LA LA!"

Harry · March 24, 2011

The arrogance of the Cons is mind-blowing, and I don't think Flaherty is the sharpest tack on the block either. He is not in a majority government and with his attitude he isn't ever going to be in a federal one.

It's the economy AND democracy

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2011/03/its-the-economy-and-democracy.html

Jack Weber · March 24, 2011

The arrogance of the Cons is mind-blowing, and I don't think Flaherty is the sharpest tack on the block either. He is not in a majority government and with his attitude he isn't ever going to be in a federal one.

It's the economy AND democracy

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2011/03/its-the-economy-and-democracy.html

I remember when Flaherty ran for the PC leadership in Ontario halfway through the 2nd Harris mandate...

His claim to fame during that leadership convention was that he felt that the "state" should be able to jail the homeless on compassionate grounds...

This is all one should need to know about what a potential direction a Harper majority would go...

Harry · March 24, 2011

Treasury Board rules require a bidding process for contracts of $25,000 or more and a bunch of Flaherty's supporters receive payments for $24,877.50 each for doing things such as writing one speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Flaherty

And first time ever in the history of Canada that a government has been found in contempt of Parliament. This is definitely NOT a good way for Harper to be heading off into an election campaign.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Harry

Charles Anthony · March 24, 2011

Everybody,

Stop the personal attacks and just focus on discussing the topics. The civility of the discourse is slipping. One little insult provokes a second insult and things escalate. We do not need a degradation in the forum.

I do not have the patience to figure out who started what and who called who what first. If you choose to use personal attacks as your argument, do not be surprised if you are given a brief time out from the forums without warning.

Ch. A.

SF/PF · March 24, 2011

Being in Ontario, unless you were here you could not begin to fathom the anger and talk of separation.

Well, I was here and I can't begin to fathom the anger and talk of seperation. Any suggestion that talk of Alberta seperating existed outside a small fraction of talk-radio callers (a small fraction of a small fraction of Albertans) is pure hyperbole.

Keepitsimple · March 24, 2011

I remember when Flaherty ran for the PC leadership in Ontario halfway through the 2nd Harris mandate...

His claim to fame during that leadership convention was that he felt that the "state" should be able to jail the homeless on compassionate grounds...

This is all one should need to know about what a potential direction a Harper majority would go...

I remember his remarks - and the context of them. You'll remember that the Charter of Rights created a situation where Mental Institutions were practically emptied of patients because the Charter gave patients the right to deny treatment. Many ended up on the streets and many are out there today. It has been common practice that on a freezing winter day, the police would be on the lookout for homeless people who would be in danger of freezing to death and get them to shelter.....but they couldn't MAKE them go. There are probably other reasons why a compassionate person/policeman may want to protect a homeless person "from themself". Sometimes there might not easily be a bed available at a shelter... or at 2:00 in the morning it may not be practical... or the homeless person may be having a fit of violence - who knows what can happen to a person with mental problems. So the idea of being able to let them sleep in a jail cell, get three meals, and call in the social workers the next day - instead of killing themselves is indeed compassionate when looked at in that context. And if one thinks for a minute that police would be throwing homeless in jail willy nilly, think again. They don't want to have to babysit the homeless - many of who have less than perfect personal hygiene; many of whom have to be kept on suicide watch. But then again, that might contravene the Charter of Rights.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Keepitsimple

g_bambino · March 24, 2011

TB, there is a huge difference between the letter Harper signed and sent to the GG in 2005 and the press conference Dion/Layton/Duceppe held in 2008.

Could you be a little more specific about what this "huge difference" is?

Shakeyhands · March 24, 2011

No...But in a 30 second commercial or at an all candidates meeting or in a televised debate...It's hard to explain in a short time...

Thats the beauty of it, the "masses" don't need to understand it. It's more than enough to use illegal in a sentence and people understand the gravity of it.

SF/PF · March 24, 2011

Thats the beauty of it, the "masses" don't need to understand it. It's more than enough to use illegal in a sentence and people understand the gravity of it.

Alternatively, they could drop the "in-and-out scheme" language and go with "electoral fraud scheme."

August1991 · March 24, 2011

You're rule of thumb seems more to be "If it looks like a Tory scandal, I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and shout LA LA LA!"

I think the Liberals have badly handled these various minor scandals. The general perception is that the opposition is accusing the government of all sorts of transgressions but none have serious meat, and all are convoluted. There's no focus.

People dismiss the noise as a political fishing expedition. The Liberals are only getting traction among the small percentage of the population who follow politics closely (political junkies) and specifically among those who hate Harper.

I don't follow sports at all except if there is a major event (Olympics/Stanley Cup) and even then, I'm only aware of it because the event invades general news. I often compare my attitude to sports to most people's attitude to politics.

When the election campaign starts in earnest, I suspect that the Harper haters will ramp up the attacks but it won't have much effect. Conservatives have a solid 35% support and they have every reason to believe that they will get 40%.

ToadBrother · March 24, 2011

When the election campaign starts in earnest, I suspect that the Harper haters will ramp up the attacks but it won't have much effect. Conservatives have a solid 35% support and they have every reason to believe that they will get 40%.

From all the signals seen so far, you're completely out to lunch. The only people who seem less than thrilled about an election are the Tories. I have extreme doubts they'll come close to 40%. They'll retain the government, to be sure, but this idea that they'll get into majority territory or near it is pure fantasy.

Jack Weber · March 24, 2011

I remember his remarks - and the context of them. You'll remember that the Charter of Rights created a situation where Mental Institutions were practically emptied of patients because the Charter gave patients the right to deny treatment. Many ended up on the streets and many are out there today. It has been common practice that on a freezing winter day, the police would be on the lookout for homeless people who would be in danger of freezing to death and get them to shelter.....but they couldn't MAKE them go. There are probably other reasons why a compassionate person/policeman may want to protect a homeless person "from themself". Sometimes there might not easily be a bed available at a shelter... or at 2:00 in the morning it may not be practical... or the homeless person may be having a fit of violence - who knows what can happen to a person with mental problems. So the idea of being able to let them sleep in a jail cell, get three meals, and call in the social workers the next day - instead of killing themselves is indeed compassionate when looked at in that context. And if one thinks for a minute that police would be throwing homeless in jail willy nilly, think again. They don't want to have to babysit the homeless - many of who have less than perfect personal hygiene; many of whom have to be kept on suicide watch. But then again, that might contravene the Charter of Rights.

Erm..Yeah...

Well that was Mr.Flaherty's take,yours,and,Mr Hudak's (he backed ol' Jimmy in his failed leadership campaign)

The problem you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that it was the Harris government that made the cuts to health care in Ontario that forced psychiatric hospitals to basically send the borderline patients out into the streets...

Then Flaherty,who was Finance Minister during that 2nd mandate had the audacity to claim that jailing the homelss was being "compassionate"...

Priorities...

Tax cuts over funding health care...

Jack Weber · March 24, 2011

Thats the beauty of it, the "masses" don't need to understand it. It's more than enough to use illegal in a sentence and people understand the gravity of it.

I suppose..

If the Cons(ervatives..Some people get really upset with short terms so I'll clarify that It was'nt being used as a perjorative)...

Can blither blather the coaliton word until we are all blue in the face,then "illegal regime" should also be open for business!!!

Molly · March 24, 2011

Holy, holy, holy cow.

Just watched Peter MacKay answering questions about the Atlantic Opportunities appointmets during the Libya daily briefing...

I don't think I've ever seen a politician look sp completely 'get me outta here!' gutted as that. Not ever.

SF/PF · March 24, 2011

Holy, holy, holy cow.

Just watched Peter MacKay answering questions about the Atlantic Opportunities appointmets during the Libya daily briefing...

I don't think I've ever seen a politician look sp completely 'get me outta here!' gutted as that. Not ever.

Yeah that was bad. We'll see if the media calls him on, well, being called on his bullshit.

Harry · March 24, 2011

Mcleans have done a bit of research and are doing quite a number on Harper today. This is a bad beginning for the Conservative election campaign which is going to cost them. The last poll from Nanos Reasearch had Harper with 39% support. Let's see what the new polling shows.

What was Stephen Harper thinking in 1997?

"Well, it would really surprise me at the moment if the Liberals didnt get the most seats. I mean, judging from all the, not just the polling data, but the fact they have such a wide coalition. The way the Liberals, I think, are eventually going to lose office, whether its in this election or the next one, is theyre going to fail to win a majority. Theyve basically lost Quebec and without Quebec the Liberal party has never been a majority party in this country. And thats where I think youre going to face, someday, a minority parliament, with the Liberals maybe having the largest number of seats, and what will be the test is whether theres then any party in opposition thats able to form a coalition or working alliance with the others. And I think we have a political system thats going to continue to have three or four different parties, or five different parties, and so I think parties that want to form government are going to eventually have to learn to work together."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/24/what-was-stephen-harper-thinking-in-1997/

Edited March 25, 2011 by Harry

Keepitsimple · March 24, 2011

Erm..Yeah...

Well that was Mr.Flaherty's take,yours,and,Mr Hudak's (he backed ol' Jimmy in his failed leadership campaign)

The problem you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that it was the Harris government that made the cuts to health care in Ontario that forced psychiatric hospitals to basically send the borderline patients out into the streets...

Then Flaherty,who was Finance Minister during that 2nd mandate had the audacity to claim that jailing the homelss was being "compassionate"...

Priorities...

Tax cuts over funding health care...

Oh I think I see now....there were no homeless people before Mike Harris came along. And of course, Mr. McGuinty's been at the controls for 8 years and he's fixed things up, is that right? It doesn't really matter.....when a homeless person is freezing to death or are a danger to themselves, the last line of defence is often the police. If our politicians can't handle the problem, then a compassionate police person should be able to at least give a homeless person a bed and a meal until a social agency can help them out. That's all that Flaherty was trying to say.

August1991 · March 25, 2011

Could you be a little more specific about what this "huge difference" is?

Bambino, I don't know if this is the correct thread but I'll answer your query here.

This is the text of the September 2004 letter Harper/Layton/Duceppe sent to the GG (Clarkson): Link

Its key phrase: "We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

Now, here is the text of the agreement of Dion/Layton (including Duceppe) in December 2008: Link

It explicitly gave 1/4 of cabinet seats to the NDP and contained this sentence: "Furthermore, upon its formation, the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois."

IOW, I see a "huge difference" between the letter signed by Harper et al and the December 2008 coalition. One was a simple reminder to the GG of her constitutional duties and the other was a detailed blueprint for a coalition.

With this said, I think Dion's move was masterful but he lacked the balls to see it through. We had just gone through an election in October 2008 and Harper did not have the support of the house. Dion was perfectly correct to offer an alternative cabinet. Harper prorogued and then the Liberals got cold feet. If Dion had been a good leader, he would have held his caucus and the coalition together until Harper faced parliament. Given popular reaction to the coalition, Dion couldn't do that. He caved.

-----

This is now ancient history and so much water under the bridge. What matters now is that Canadian voters have the suspicion that the Liberals/NDP will pull the same stunt again with the support of the Bloc. In simple electoral terms, that suspicion is deathly to the Liberals.

ToadBrother · March 25, 2011

This is now ancient history and so much water under the bridge. What matters now is that Canadian voters have the suspicion that the Liberals/NDP will pull the same stunt again with the support of the Bloc. In simple electoral terms, that suspicion is deathly to the Liberals.

Or not. A lot of the anger at the coalition was in areas that wouldn't likely vote Liberal anyways. But, as I said, there are other distinct possibilities if Harper does not win a majority. In fact, I predict that if the Tories do not win a majority this time around, things will get really interesting very very quickly.

Edited March 25, 2011 by ToadBrother

August1991 · March 25, 2011

A lot of the anger at the coalition was in areas that wouldn't likely vote Liberal anyways.

The "anger" in December 2008 pushed Conservative polling numbers above 50%. If one in 20 voters switches from the Liberals to the Conservatives, the Tories will get above 40%.

But, as I said, there are other distinct possibilities if Harper does not win a majority. In fact, I predict that if the Tories do not win a majority this time around, things will get really interesting very very quickly.

And as I say, the mere idea of those "really interesting things" makes a Conservative majority a certainty.

----

TB, do you know anything about game theory? Here's an illustration.

When you arrive at the unexpectedly closed clothing store, it is one thing to say to your girlfriend: "Since the store is closed, let's go watch the baseball game." It's quite another to say before leaving home, "If the store is closed, let's go watch the baseball game."

Edited March 25, 2011 by August1991

g_bambino · March 25, 2011

IOW, I see a "huge difference" between the letter signed by Harper et al and the December 2008 coalition. One was a simple reminder to the GG of her constitutional duties and the other was a detailed blueprint for a coalition.

The key point to consider is that the letter sent in 2004 never needed to be sent; it's not at all common practice for the Loyal Opposition to send letters to the governor general before voting non-confidence in the sitting Cabinet; the governor general is always well aware of his or her constitutional duties.

No, Harper, Layton, and Duceppe sent that communiqué to Clarkson as a hint that she could consider them together forming a government rather than dropping the writs. The only difference between it and the letter sent to Jean in 2008 was how explicitly it presented the suggestion.

[sp]

Edited March 25, 2011 by g_bambino

August1991 · March 25, 2011

Thread drift ahead.

The key point to consider is that the letter sent in 2004 never needed to be sent; it's not at all common practice for the Loyal Opposition to send letters to the governor general before voting non-confidence in the sitting Cabinet; the governor general is always well aware of his or her constitutional duties.

Bambino, you believe in monarchs, and God-given power. I believe that Kings and Queens shit like the rest of us. They put on pants/trousers/thongs one leg at a time.

The "governor general is always well aware of his or her constitutional duties"? WTF? Not in my Canada. Bambino, do you believe that Tsar Nicholas I, for example, was "well aware of his constitutional duties"?

No, Harper, Layton, and Duceppe sent that communiqué to Clarkson as a hint that she could consider them together forming a government rather than dropping the writs. The only difference between it and the letter sent to Jean in 2008 was how explicitly it presented the suggestion.

I disagree. Harper/Layton/Duceppe sent the letter to Clarkson because they feared what Clarkson/Martin would do faced with a defeat in parliament. As it turned out, the letter was otiose.

----

Bambino, you fail to understand that Elizabeth, Charles, William and the others are simply ordinary people like the rest of us. They fart like we all do. They're human beings.

I appreciate Hollywood in several ways but I particularly like how Hollywood has made democratic "Royal Families". This British marriage of Kate/William will be a Hollywood affair. Thank God for America, and California.

Edited March 25, 2011 by August1991