Who else enjoys the opposition making an ass of themselves?

[Rockie]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

[Guido]

Too bad, so sad.. The "will of the people" elected something like 164 members not of Harper's faith. Gee, if Harper can't maintain the confidence of at least 155 members of the House, then maybe these 164 can.

THAT is the "will of the people".

Hear hear!

This is what the average Canadian just doesn't understand about parliamentary government...

[2R]

Too bad, so sad.. The "will of the people" elected something like 164 members not of Harper's faith. Gee, if Harper can't maintain the confidence of at least 155 members of the House, then maybe these 164 can.

THAT is the "will of the people".

Hear hear!

This is what the average Canadian just doesn't understand about parliamentary government...

Your average Canadian could not find a polling station if they put one at the end of their driveway ,nevermind understand how to put an x on a piece of paper

[costermonger]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

It's interesting that you'll moan, stamp & whimper to no end about the 'undemocratic' actions of Dion & Layton, but suspending parliament to prevent a vote that would cost Harper his job - that's just fine. In fact, even though the government was about to get voted down on the floor of the House of Commons, that's Dion & Layton's fault too!

I just think it's strange that all the voices likening the coalition's proposal to a banana republic power grab have been either silent or supportive of the idea that it's OK for a PM to use his power with the explicit purpose of maintaining his power.

[Rockie]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

It's interesting that you'll moan, stamp & whimper to no end about the 'undemocratic' actions of Dion & Layton, but suspending parliament to prevent a vote that would cost Harper his job - that's just fine. In fact, even though the government was about to get voted down on the floor of the House of Commons, that's Dion & Layton's fault too!

I just think it's strange that all the voices likening the coalition's proposal to a banana republic power grab have been either silent or supportive of the idea that it's OK for a PM to use his power with the explicit purpose of maintaining his power.

You and Icebound are barking up the wrong tree because my first choice would have been another election. You are not the only people who understand what it means when a minority government loses the confidence of the house, which Harper clearly deserved to do and in fact did. What we differ on is how it is settled. You think it's OK to translate that loss of confidence into support for siezing power, even though you know full well that NO ONE outside Quebec would support the Bloc forming the deciding vote.

What Harper did was just as legal as what Layton/Dion/Duceppe wanted to do. Furthermore, it had the support of the Governor General who appears smarter and more concerned with the well being of the country than all the rest of them put together. If you are so outraged about democracy being circumvented, where is your outrage at Dion and Layton? Why don't you support another election which is the ultimate expression of democracy? Could it be because you know the coalition and its individual leaders would be destroyed?

In January Harper will bring in another budget, and the opposition will have yet another chance to express their non-confidence. Only next time it will likely result in an election which is a very good thing in my opinion. How do you feel about that?

[Dust Devil]

The only "will of the people" which counts in a democracy....

....is that of the secret vote at the ballot box, not public displays by vested interests.

Wow I'm surprised we agree on this. That is why I and many in this country have been saying that we need an election. The government should not be allowed to change without an election. I understand that in this country that the government can change without an election however 14 year olds can also legaly have sex with adults in this country (not sure if that is still the case. I think the Conservatives were trying to change that) It doesn't make it right.

[Dust Devil]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

It's interesting that you'll moan, stamp & whimper to no end about the 'undemocratic' actions of Dion & Layton, but suspending parliament to prevent a vote that would cost Harper his job - that's just fine. In fact, even though the government was about to get voted down on the floor of the House of Commons, that's Dion & Layton's fault too!

I just think it's strange that all the voices likening the coalition's proposal to a banana republic power grab have been either silent or supportive of the idea that it's OK for a PM to use his power with the explicit purpose of maintaining his power.

What power does the PM have with Parlaiment suspended? Everything is basically on hold. The govenrment is unable to spend any new money until a budget is drafted. Let everyone cool down.

[Dust Devil]

The only reason Harper prorogued parlaiment Icebound, is because the coalition was hell bent to bring the government down and sieze power for themselves. Not force an election which they were not interested in and knew the GG wouldn't go for. They were going to seize power without going to an election they knew they would get destroyed in. If an election were possible I'm sure Harper would have been all for it since he would probably have won a majority. If you want to rail against threats to democracy send Dion and Layton a letter. Your comparisons of Harper with certain despots around the world are absurd.

It's interesting that you'll moan, stamp & whimper to no end about the 'undemocratic' actions of Dion & Layton, but suspending parliament to prevent a vote that would cost Harper his job - that's just fine. In fact, even though the government was about to get voted down on the floor of the House of Commons, that's Dion & Layton's fault too!

I just think it's strange that all the voices likening the coalition's proposal to a banana republic power grab have been either silent or supportive of the idea that it's OK for a PM to use his power with the explicit purpose of maintaining his power.

You and Icebound are barking up the wrong tree because my first choice would have been another election. You are not the only people who understand what it means when a minority government loses the confidence of the house, which Harper clearly deserved to do and in fact did. What we differ on is how it is settled. You think it's OK to translate that loss of confidence into support for siezing power, even though you know full well that NO ONE outside Quebec would support the Bloc forming the deciding vote.

What Harper did was just as legal as what Layton/Dion/Duceppe wanted to do. Furthermore, it had the support of the Governor General who appears smarter and more concerned with the well being of the country than all the rest of them put together. If you are so outraged about democracy being circumvented, where is your outrage at Dion and Layton? Why don't you support another election which is the ultimate expression of democracy? Could it be because you know the coalition and its individual leaders would be destroyed?

In January Harper will bring in another budget, and the opposition will have yet another chance to express their non-confidence. Only next time it will likely result in an election which is a very good thing in my opinion. How do you feel about that?

I should have read your post before I posted but you pretty much sumed up what I was thinking

[Rockie]

There are two basic reasons why Canadians are so vehemently opposed to the coalition whether it is constitutionally legal or not. One is the sheer incompetence of Dion and Layton to run the country. Canadians know this, and showed it in the last election if anyone was paying attention.

The second of course is having the Bloc as the deciding vote in the coalition. Quebec has 75 seats in the House of Commons and they elected separatists to 65% of them. Imagine if the rest of Canada elected 65%, or 151 of their 233 MP's from a party that only exists for the same reason the PQ does...removing Quebec from Canada. How would Quebec react to that? Not very well je pense.

Quebecers would take it as the grave insult that it is and rightfully leave the country because they are not wanted, but the rest of Canada tolerates it from Quebec in the interest of national peace. However that doesn't extend to the Bloc forming their government and it never will.

[Four1oh]

Why is everyone so focused on the Bloc being the reason to be against the coalition? The NDP is a far better reason why we don't want the coalition. The Bloc wouldn't destroy canada with the Libs acting as lion tamer, but the NDP sure as hell would.

[Rockie]

I said there were two reasons with Layton and Dion being one of them. But you're right, they should each be counted separately so there are three reasons.

[Siddley Hawker]

I disagree with the coalition because I want to see what the Bloc's price of support is. Anybody who thinks the Bloc support of Dion and Layton came without strings is deluding themselves.

[costermonger]

You and Icebound are barking up the wrong tree because my first choice would have been another election. You are not the only people who understand what it means when a minority government loses the confidence of the house, which Harper clearly deserved to do and in fact did. What we differ on is how it is settled. You think it's OK to translate that loss of confidence into support for siezing power, even though you know full well that NO ONE outside Quebec would support the Bloc forming the deciding vote.

Don't look now, but the Bloc's deciding vote is what allowed Harper to force the election in which he became the Minister. Seeing as they have a significant portion of seats in the HoC, they're going to be the deciding vote once in a while. If Harper can come up with something to put in the budget to buy their support in January, you can damn well bet they'll be the deciding vote - but I'm sure it's okay, so long as it's in favour of the Conservatives, right?

What Harper did was just as legal as what Layton/Dion/Duceppe wanted to do. Furthermore, it had the support of the Governor General who appears smarter and more concerned with the well being of the country than all the rest of them put together. If you are so outraged about democracy being circumvented, where is your outrage at Dion and Layton? Why don't you support another election which is the ultimate expression of democracy? Could it be because you know the coalition and its individual leaders would be destroyed?

In January Harper will bring in another budget, and the opposition will have yet another chance to express their non-confidence. Only next time it will likely result in an election which is a very good thing in my opinion. How do you feel about that?

I think what Harper did was within his power as PM. Simple as that. Whether he should or shouldn't have the power to act as he did, well, that's another argument, and it wouldn't make sense to argue against Harper's actions as though it was his fault I don't find the power of prorogation agreeable.

I'm simply amused by the way you (and many others) will defend everything he does and attack everything the other guys do, when they're all guilty of manipulating the system to their advantage.

What power does the PM have with Parlaiment suspended? Everything is basically on hold. The govenrment is unable to spend any new money until a budget is drafted. Let everyone cool down.

My main issue with prorogation is that it can apparently last up to a full year. This two month break is, as you say, a cool down period and they were going to break for Christmas anyway - but I don't like the idea that it's even possible for any PM to ask for a year's reprive from a confidence motion.

Again, my problem is less with what Harper did, and more with the argument that Harper's clinging to power by preventing the vote is somehow more in the spirit of democracy than what the coalition planned to do. There are aspects of prorogation I don't like, but that's hardly Stephen Harper's fault.

[Rockie]

You haven't been reading my posts very carefully if you think I defend or support everything Harper does. And I'm OK with the Bloc combining with other opposition parties to defeat the government, I'm just very much not OK with them forming part of the government. BIG BIG difference.

And actually my fear right now is that Harper will roll over and put in anything Layton/Dion/Duceppe want in order to get the next budget passed. I would much rather have another election.

Try going back and actually reading my posts.

[Driving Rain]

costermonger

If Harper can come up with something to put in the budget to buy their support in January, you can damn well bet they'll be the deciding vote - but I'm sure it's okay, so long as it's in favour of the Conservatives, right?

Well yes and no. If I was a betting man I'd still bet they'd vote down the budget because their support for a coalition budget could yield them even greater favours.
Harper really blew it big time with all the stupid "Separatist" rhetoric.
Harper is a man who is as divisive as the Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe. He's not really someone who should lead this country.

[Dust Devil]

Canadians Call for New Election; Harper Would Win Big Majority, Sweep Seat-Rich Ontario and Overtake Liberals in Quebec
A Canadian Business/COMPAS Poll


Canadians Call for an Election

Below are highlights from a new Canada-wide, COMPAS Research poll on the recent turmoil in the House of Commons. Permission is granted to publish or broadcast results provided COMPAS Inc. is appropriately cited.

For comments or inquiries, please contact COMPAS President Conrad Winn at (416) 598-0310 or on his direct cell at (416) 460-5844 .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By a more than 2:1 margin, Canadians call for another election if the choice faced by the Governor-General were between inviting Stephane Dion to form a government and hold a fresh general election weeks after the most recent one. That is the key finding from a national representative poll completed December 4, 2008.
If an election were held today, Stephen Harper would win a large majority based on nation-wide support of 51% compared to 20% for the Liberals, 10% for the NDP, 6% for the Greens, and 8% for the Bloc. Harper would sweep seat-rich Ontario with 53% of the vote compared to 24% for the Liberals and 10% for the NDP in that province and would surpass Dion in Quebec with 32% of the vote compared to 19% for the Liberals and 35% for the Bloc.

Key factors in this lightening speed transformation of public opinion:

66% of Canadians oppose the Bloc Quebecois having a say in who forms the government;


48% have confidence in Stephen Harper as Prime Minister in the current economic climate compared to 14% for Michael Ignatieff in second place, 11% for NDP leader Jack Layton, 8% for Stephane Dion, 4% for Bob Rae, and 3% for Gilles Duceppe;


58% believe that the Coalition's real or main motivation was a power grab while 28% perceive the Opposition as honestly believing that Harper is a poor manager of the economy;


61% believe that the Liberals, following their drop in support in the October election, should not be trying to form a government.

[Rockie]

The Liberals continue to demonstrate their tenuous understanding of democracy. Liberal MP's want to install Michael Ignatieff as the permanent Leader without first going through that annoyingly inconvenient process of a membership wide election. MP Jim Karygiannis was just on Newsworld stating "Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures".

Indeed.

If the Liberals are so eager to suspend the democratic process just to install a new leader, imagine what they'll do to cling to power.

[niss]

...imagine what they'll do to cling to power.

Prorogue parliment?

[Rockie]

Good one Niss. None of them are shining examples are they?

[niss]

Like I said in my letter, I don't think anyone deserves to be where they are.

BTW I got a response to my email:

Please know that your e-mail message has been received in the Prime Minister's Office and that your comments have been noted. Our office always welcomes hearing from correspondents and being made aware of their views.

Thank you for writing.

Sachez que le Cabinet du Premier ministre a bien reçu votre courriel et que nous avons pris bonne note de vos commentaires. Nous aimons être bien informés de l'opinion des correspondants.

Je vous remercie d'avoir écrit au Premier ministre.

[costermonger]

And I'm OK with the Bloc combining with other opposition parties to defeat the government, I'm just very much not OK with them forming part of the government. BIG BIG difference.

They won't be forming a part of the government. They're not part of the coalition, they've just agreed not to vote against it on confidence matters for 18 months. Effectively, the Liberal-NDP coalition would be forming a minority government, where they'd to garner some support within the Bloc and/or Conservatives to accomplish much of anything.

I think, at the end of the day, the Bloc agreed to this whole thing because the coffers are empty - they just can't afford another election. So they'll hold their noses and vote through budgets, if it means they've got a year and a half to raise money. I'm not really worried about the 'price' of the Bloc agreeing to support the Libs & Dippers.

And actually my fear right now is that Harper will roll over and put in anything Layton/Dion/Duceppe want in order to get the next budget passed. I would much rather have another election.

It's going to depend on what the polls look like come January 27, but unless Harper can expect a majority then, he'd be an idiot not to try to force some sort of compromise with at least one of the other parties. I say this because even if the polls show he'd win an election, Harper stands to gain absolutely nothing unless he can pull off a majority. If the other parties still hold the balance of power, he's going to have to compromise or they will get their coalition government after all.

As the polls show, if it happened today, he'd get a majority. We'll see what it's like when the prorogue's over.

[Rockie]

Well now this is interesting.

They won't be forming a part of the government. They're not part of the coalition, they've just agreed not to vote against it on confidence matters for 18 months. Effectively, the Liberal-NDP coalition would be forming a minority government, where they'd to garner some support within the Bloc and/or Conservatives to accomplish much of anything.

Where then does their "we have the support of the people to form a coalition government" come from if the Bloc isn't going to be part of it. How is it that a coalition smaller than the sitting government has any right to replace it? Do you really think the Bloc is doing this out of the goodness of their heart and won't demand anything from the Liberals and NDP? You and others who think this is a good idea are using a lot of parallax error in justifying this whole scam.

Even if they had another election that returned the exact same result, it still shows that the Conservatives hold the single largest support of any other party and they form the government. Just like last time. Anybody who ignores that fact (like the coalition just did) will pay the price from the electorate. You have to win an election, not create a gang of losers to usurp the government.

If the opposition defeats the government after they table a good budget, it will be seen as the obvious power grab that it is and the good people of Canada will not be happy. Them taking over will not be tolerated, and another election will be tagged to them and they will pay the price. Unless Harper puts out a budget a unacceptable as the last one (which might just happen unless he wises up) then the opposition would be suicidal to defeat it.

[niss]

IIRC all budget votes are automatically confidence votes. By everyone voting against the budget it was allready a no confidence vote. This wasn't done after the fact. This could have happened with or without the 1.98/vote. If harper introduced something else completely unpopular it could have also ended this way automatically.

They are just taking advantage of a situation already there.

Harper needed to play his cards a little better. In what world did he think the opposition would accept a budget that would financially circumcise their parties?

[Dust Devil]

He should have made it an election issue.

[Icebound]

Well now this is interesting.

...

Where then does their "we have the support of the people to form a coalition government" come from if the Bloc isn't going to be part of it. How is it that a coalition smaller than the sitting government has any right to replace it? Do you really think the Bloc is doing this out of the goodness of their heart and won't demand anything from the Liberals and NDP?

.

You keep coming back to the same irrelevant themes.

"we have the support" means that "we can find a majority of the votes in the House of Commons". Harper, clearly, cannot.

"to govern", means to hold the ministerial positions, and carry out the executive duties. Clearly, the BQ was not asked to "govern", although the Liberals and the NDP (in coalition) were prepared to.

Harper, in his previous minority government, "governed", but he frequently required "support" (in the form of votes) in order to "gain the confidence of the majority of the house". Clearly, the Liberal-NDP coalition is a "minority" and will require "support" (votes) from somebody else in order to gain the same majority. They have an agreement that they will get that from the Bloc. If some of Harper's member were to support them, they wouldn't need the Bloc. Size of the coalition is irrelevant. Can it find the majority of the votes in the House is what DOES matter. And whether those votes come from the Bloc or from Conservatives does not matter.


Did the Bloc demand or get anything from Harper when they supported him? Absolutely. They got legislation that they could support. And when he produced something which they could NOT support, they turned on him.

Will the Bloc demand the same from the Liberal-NDP coalition? Of course they will. But if it did not destroy the country when they did it for Harper, why should it when they do it for anybody else????

If the Conservatives are so concerned that the Bloc's demands will destroy the country, they could support the Coalition themselves.... and then there would no need of the Bloc's votes.


.



...