Has the GG ruled out coalition government forever?
In many countrys coalitions are quite normal and they are an easy way of preventing the type of political stalemate we now have. I believe the GG decision holds the leaders of the 3 opposition partys in contempt.
It shouts LIARS to their ndp liberal coalition (supported by the bloq for a known time period).
Having seen how politics works in other countries I find her decision extraordinary.
It is all the more extraordinary because the coalition agreement was written down. Civilation really began when writing made words much stronger. Now we have the GG discounting a written agreement and staying with the tried and failed Harper one man government
So she chose against a coalition which gives stability for 18 months and for a government lead by the leader of the largest party.
In canada they have this strange thing that the first minister must be from the largest party. That is counter to coalition government and it makes no sense in a 3 or 4 party system. I do not know if this is tradition or an imperative? Probably not an imperative or the guys would not have talked about coalition.
Mostly reposted from another thread:
The question of polling accuracy is interesting. I was quite surprised to find that a majority supported the conservatives. I could only chalk it up to monumental ignorance on the part of the polled. It is distressing to still find "coup d'etat" comments a week into this; seems it's too valuable as a propaganda point to abandon.
As for the prorogue, while I think Jean would have been quite justified in refusing to grant it, her decision was probably a good one. The most important reason for this is because the coalition (grandiose letters not withstanding) has not demonstrated it is a stable one. If she had refused the PMs request and a Dion-led coalition taken power only to disintegrate a few weeks or months later, she would have been in a very difficult position. I think it is valid to see if the coalition can hold it together for six weeks. If not, why would they be able to function as a government?
Less importantly, it also provides some opportunity for the Canadian populace to be educated that there is nothing illegitimate about this. Granted, given my first paragraph, this is a tall order. But hope springs eternal I suppose.
Finally, there are unity concerns to think of here. The rhetoric-- both towards the Quebecois and towards "the West" (as if it were a monolithic block) has been appalling. It's unfortunate that after so long, we still haven't got this part of it figured out. It's one thing to read about attacks on Quebec from 90 years ago (i.e. Conscription, to pick one example), but to see a sitting PM indulge is something else again. One would hope the GG saw that a time out on all sides (especially given Conservative rhetoric) might cool tempers, and defuse the attacks by one part of the country on another.
Canada's "constitutional coup" and the Corporate Media
If not overturned by a movement from below, Canada's constitution, through the power of precedent, will have been rewritten and the powers of the executive, of both the sitting government and of the governor-general, to ignore parliament and rule by decree will have been significantly increased.
As for the question of "suspension," this is precisely how democratic rights are taken away. Governments moving in an authoritarian direction don't generally outright abolish democratic rights; they "suspend" them, claiming that they need to be temporarily withdrawn so as to confront a purported crisis or emergency.
I don't believe that she was giving an opinion on the coalition at all. What is was about, most probably, was simply procedure. Stephen Harper maintains his office and the powers that go with it until it's demonstrated through a vote in the House that he doesn't have its confidence. One of those powers is of prorogation. The House hasn't voted, so Harper can prorogue. It's possible that the GG might have done something different, especially if Harper had wanted an extended period without meeting the House, but on reflection it seems unlikely.
What does this mean for future coalitions? It certainly doesn't disallow them but it does give the Prime Minister in a minority government some time and negotiating room when faced with a united opposition. That's not so good now, but who knows if it won't save the bacon of a left-wing government in future? Stranger things have happened.
I don't believe that she was giving an opinion on the coalition at all.
While I would agree with this insofar as the politics of the coalition, as GG she has to be sure that whomever she asks to form a government can command the confidence of the House, hopefully for longer than ten minutes. I don't think she can determine that from a letter and a hastily cobbled together coalition. As many here have noted, the coalition is not sure who its leader will be, nor has it demonstrated it won't fracture the first moment there is any sort of disagreement. Then we'd be right back to Harper again, or an election, and a ton of public opprobrium that she should not have chosen as she did.
Granted, a certain amount of this is inevitable; she's going to get attacked no matter what. But I think she puts herself on much safer ground if she can say-- "I determined the coalition was stable, and I gave my PM every chance to work it out." Consider: if the coalition does disintegrate before January 26, than it will certainly seem as if she was prescient. If not, than she has demonstrated that it is a viable alternative to the Conservatives. Both outcomes uphold the responsibilities of her office. It's certainly fair to imagine that the Libs and NDP will not be able to hold it together; and this being the case, she has to be cautious.
One more note: while the criticisms of autocratic rule via "suspension of democracy" have some validity generally, I don't think they apply well to this context.
He got away with it through a technical loophole. (How's that for Conservative values?) Actually, he had already lost the confidence of parliament. I do not for a minute believe that the spirit of the law gave him any right to delay the vote of confidence, never mind prorogue.
In my opinion, the best way to close this loophole is for parliament to pass legislation that the only way that parliament can be prorogued is through a direct vote in the House of Commons.
In retrospect, I think the GG did the ethical thing by allowing the delay of the budget until January. First of all, it makes her look egaliatarian and fair, because after the budget, if the opposition votes for a non-confidence vote, then she can also look fair to them by giving the COALITION a constitutionally-legal chance.
I'm listening to national talk radio as I write this, and the fear and hysteria whipped up by the biased host is laughable, if it weren't so serious a matter. This coalition government is merely the MAJORITY of sensible Canadians banding together - and isn't that what REAL democracy is about?
During a weekend when more Canadians were killed in a US-led war for oil pipelines in Afghanistan, you'd think Canadians at home would ask themselves if the Conservatives in power to protect THEIR true interests, or someone else's.
The GG is not a judge and jury and she has no business deciding if a coalition will work or not. Leave that to the astrologers.
. She has to deal with facts. Fact 1 Harper would lose a vote of confidence on monday. Fact 2. A coalition is ready to take his place.
It is completely disrespectful to ignore the coalition agreement.
So now instead of the government (whichever one) concentrating on the economic affairs of Canada, Harper is (a la chevez) appealing to the population via advertizing, the media and opinion polls and ignoring parliament. Remember that the conservative standing ovations when he speaks are not unanomous. So there are a few conservatives who are willing to risk their careers by snubbing THE LEADER. We clearly live in dangerous times when leadership cults claim all but 4 or 5 of the conservative party and the bulk of the media of Canada spin it Harpers way for the most part.
Harper is also busy trying to find bribable Liberals to jump ship. And what happens at the end of january? If Harper finds some bribable men, there will be more brinkmanship so he can get his glorious majority. If not, the coalition will only then, 2 months later get to start work on the budget. It is a disaster. The gg is culpable but Harper must take most of the blame.
It's obvious alot of Canadians need to brush up on grade 9 history and learn what parliamentary democracy is all about.
Sure when one is about to cast his ballot, he can base his decision on any logic available: voting for the party; voting for the candidate; voting for the leader; don't like his moustache; I'm usually this party but I like that policy etc.
But in the end, the parliament elected by the people selects the government and the government-in-waiting. This government-in-waiting is ready to step in should the government not have the confidence of the house or otherwise could not fulfill its duties.
This is exactly what was happening until the GG let Harper break the laws of parliament once again.
I think the GG set a dangerous precident with her decision to prorogue but I am a lawyer by profession and I have learned that judges, particularly when faced with a difficult decision, tend to be very minimalist in what they are deciding on. The question was prorogue or not. Normally a standard request - the fact they spoke for 3hrs showed me that she did not treat it as standard.
While the dressing down Harper got - and make no mistake, that was what it was - still resulted in the prorogued Parliament I strongly suspect that this was exactly what the PM asked for. A time out.
Think about those words in the context they are typically used in - sports. The clock is NOT running here. On Jan 26th we are NOT 3 and 1/2 months from the last election - we are 17 days into a new Parliament.
Harper points to the confidence "vote" he won the week before as a general sign of confidence. He conceeds that, yes his Governement provoked the Opposition with the Economic Statement, but that with a chance for cooler heads to prevail that the Government will be able to resume its business.
I am increasingly convinced that if the coalition holds together until Jan 27th that we are still facing a distinct possibility that a non-confidence vote will result in the GG attempting to determine if someone else can hold the confidence of the House.
If I were a Tory, I might give some thought to how quickly their caucus can rally around Jim Prentice and drive him to Rideau Hall should there be a vote of non-confidence.
This is exactly what was happening until the GG let Harper break the laws of parliament once again.
The Cons put something on the table (sorry for my imprecise terminology) to be voted on. Then they delayed, and then they were granted a prorogation.
What are the rules allowing a bill to be taken off the table once it is put before parliament for a vote? Can a PM pull a bill off the table once he sees it's going to fail? It seems like whining to have a second chance to move your chess piece differently after you've already taken your finger off it, only to realize it's about to be taken.
I presume prorogation killed the bill. I think the GG was right to give Canada a little breather, and there are rational/legal/constitutional/political arguments in favor of this decision. Everyone needs to collect their wits again. While the coalition looks a lot better than the arrogant, bully, mean-spirited, out-of-touch, destructive, bad-for-Canada Con government that put forth the non-budget, one has to admit the coalition is inherently rife with rifts.
These circumstances are extraordinary, but I hope this doesn't set a precedent for abuse of prorogation.
To answer the thread's question, I think no, it's a huge stretch to say this decision has killed coalition government forever.
___________________________________________________________ http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.h...
Prorogation used to kill all bills. Now only gov't bills are killed, private members bills survive prorogation (a change brought about, I believe, by the first Martin minority).
I think the GG set a dangerous precident with her decision to prorogue but I am a lawyer by profession and I have learned that judges, particularly when faced with a difficult decision, tend to be very minimalist in what they are deciding on. The question was prorogue or not. Normally a standard request - the fact they spoke for 3hrs showed me that she did not treat it as standard.
While the dressing down Harper got - and make no mistake, that was what it was - still resulted in the prorogued Parliament I strongly suspect that this was exactly what the PM asked for. A time out.
What evidence is there that he got a "dressing down"? Beyond self-serving leaks to a G & M columnist. And I'm sure Harper took it to heart. He was "crying all the way to the bank," so to speak.
You're right about judges wanting to be minimalist. The problem is that judges tend to explain their decisions, either orally or in writing. That did not take place here. So we are left with a very elastic, and potentially dangerous, precedent.
Josh, I get your point. Don't miss mine. When we return on Jan 26th it's "game on" again. Harper has had his time-out, yes, but if cooler heads still feel that the Government can - and I believe should - fall. If there is still a Coalition there to turn to, and I think there still will be because Harper still thinks he can bully his way out of this, then the GG will be able to cite the King-Byng precident and give the Opposition a chance to make Parliament work.
This Parliament is only 17 days old (by its calender) and, come the end of January, only 3 and 1/2 months old from the last election. To prorogue Parliament in the face of non-confidence motion was unprecidented - to call a new election should it fall would be a true constitutional crisis.
King-Byng is seen as a mistake not because it gave Parliament a chance to keep working, but because the Opposition so clearly was unprepared to make hold the confidence of the House - had Meghan done so, even for a year (remember that that Parliament was only 6 months old), then I think the precident would be a warning to all future minority governments to "play nice" of the GG will take your toys away and give the other kids a try.
The interesting part comes when and if Harper requests a dissolution of Parliament ,meaning an election, and the Govenor Genral considers the Lascelles Pinciples, specificll whether another Prime Minsiter could govern for a reasonable length of time. with a working majority. If the coalition still holds than she should pick the alternative PM rather than grant an election.
-------------------------------------------------
Lascelles Principles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Lascelles Principles are a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom describing the circumstances under which a monarch may refuse a request from a Prime Minister for the dissolution of Parliament.
The Lascelles principles are that the monarch could refuse a
dissolution if "the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and
capable of doing its job" or if the monarch "could rely on finding
another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a
working majority in the House of Commons."
The Lascelles Principles are notable in that their formal statement
was not incorporated in any governmental document, but rather was in
the form of a letter to the editor of The Times by Sir Alan Lascelles, writing under the pseudonym "Senex", published on 2 May 1950:
To the Editor of The Times
Sir,—It is surely indisputable (and common sense) that a Prime
Minister may ask—not demand—that his Sovereign will grant him a
dissolution of Parliament; and that the Sovereign, if he so chooses,
may refuse to grant this request. The problem of such a choice is
entirely personal to the Sovereign, though he is, of course, free to
seek informal advice from anybody whom he thinks fit to consult.
In so far as this matter can be publicly discussed, it can be
properly assumed that no wise Sovereign—that is, one who has at heart
the true interest of the country, the constitution, and the
Monarchy—would deny a dissolution to his Prime Minister unless he were
satisfied that: (1) the existing Parliament was still vital, viable,
and capable of doing its job; (2) a General Election would be
detrimental to the national economy; (3) he could rely on finding
another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a
reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons.
When Sir Patrick Duncan refused a dissolution to his Prime Minister in
South Africa in 1939, all these conditions were satisfied: when Lord
Byng did the same in Canada in 1926, they appeared to be, but in the
event the third proved illusory.
I am, &c.,
SENEX.
April 29.
—"Dissolution of Parliament: Factors in Crown's Choice", The Times, 2 May 1950, page 5
These principles have never been applied in the United Kingdom, since no monarch has refused a dissolution since then.
Professor Peter Hennessy has stated that the second of the three conditions has since been "dropped from the canon", being no longer included in internal Cabinet Office guidance[1].
Peter, you have it absolutely correct.
If the Parliament is viable is the issue, not whether this PM is viable. Everyone is focused on the Liberal leadership question. Tories had best quickly turn their mind to whether they can find a friendlier face to lead their side of the House or they may find themselves on the other side of the House very soon.
Thanks Highlander, same to you. Do we also agree that the Liberal motion of non confidence, with its express statement of an alternative government in waiting, is briliant.
IF a motion of non confidence, ,with a statement of an alternative governen in waiitng,, after ample notice, is brought to the House of Commons and carries, the Govenor-General has little choice bout to look for a new PM who does have the confidence of the House? And that should be the definitive legal and democratic principle firmly fought for in the journals and law reviews high and low media?
GO, JACK, GO!!!
In many countrys coalitions are quite normal and they are an easy way of preventing the type of political stalemate we now have. I believe the GG decision holds the leaders of the 3 opposition partys in contempt.
It shouts LIARS to their ndp liberal coalition (supported by the bloq for a known time period).
Having seen how politics works in other countries I find her decision extraordinary.
It is all the more extraordinary because the coalition agreement was written down. Civilation really began when writing made words much stronger. Now we have the GG discounting a written agreement and staying with the tried and failed Harper one man government
So she chose against a coalition which gives stability for 18 months and for a government lead by the leader of the largest party.
In canada they have this strange thing that the first minister must be from the largest party. That is counter to coalition government and it makes no sense in a 3 or 4 party system. I do not know if this is tradition or an imperative? Probably not an imperative or the guys would not have talked about coalition.
It is neither a tradition, nor an imperative, as there are examples in Canadian history of both Prime Ministers and Premiers coming from a party with fewer seats (Mackenzie King, Peterson). What is tradition, and thus in the unwritten part of the constitution I believe, is that after an election, the current Prime Minister or Premier has the right to test the confidence of the House of Commons or provincial/territorial (Yukon) legislature or assembly. Usually if they don't have the most seats though, they resign and the party with the most seats forms a government.
BTW a coalition could still be formed by a sitting Prime Minister after an election if his party had fewer seats than the largest party in the House of Commons after the election.
. She has to deal with facts. Fact 1 Harper would lose a vote of confidence on monday. Fact 2. A coalition is ready to take his place.
It is completely disrespectful to ignore the coalition agreement.
Sorry but fact 2 is not the only option. if Harper had lost the confidence of the commons then the GG had 2 options both with equal weight an election or the coalition.
I am not convinced that the GG would have accepted the coalition.
The real issue is that Dion and Jack screwed up by when they announced. They gave Harper 1 week more to live
They should have announced the coalition yesterday 24 hours before the votes in the house.
I am really suprised to see so many people wanting the coalition and Dion as PM.
Joining the coalition was the worst thing that Jack has ever done. it has ruined my party for the next while.
I guess you only like the NDP as long as we are losers with no power whatsoever. God forbid that the NDP might actually be part of the government and have a chance to actually implement anything...is it so much better to always be on the outside looking in and being able to complain about everything and never have any actual responsibility???
I think not.
The subject line in this thread is absurd - the GG has not ruled one way or the other on coalition government. All she did was agree to prorogue - which most experts said she had no choice but to do. She is just as likely to invite the coalition to governon Jan. 27 and shewould have been on Dec. 8 - if it still exists.
No I have been an NDP member my whole life. Tell me this. How is propping up a party of liars who I do not trust. Who did so much harm to social programs and governed based on polling good for the NDP?
We have ideas, we have leadership and we have support. The liberals have no ideas, no support and no leaders.
Why did we join with them in a coalition again?
Because, Harper is a totally evil individual who must be cast aside. I really don't care if the Liberals have no ideas. That sure beats the Conservatives who have universally BAD ideas. the NDP can supply the ideas if the Liberals have none and on top of that our six cabinet ministers would have complete total control over all areas of policy in the departments they would represent. That sure beats more years of the harper absolute dictatorship.
Why did we join with them in a coalition again?
It's a gamble, I admit. And the Liberals' ideas were second-hand ones for the twelve years they were in power. But there can be no doubting now that neoliberal ideology is a road to serfdom for Canadians.
To be sure, we should be reluctant to accept just any new faces for the sake of their promises for change. In the U.S., Barack Obama is already being labelled a con man by the left for promising change and demonstrating that he will maintain a revolving door of continuity between Wall Street and the halls of power in Washington, and that warmongers fill the ranks of his defence department and foreign policy team.
But unlike the U.S., Canada has the opportunity to insert Ralph Nader's equivalents into government. There are few guarantees in life, and I think the NDP accepts that. It's about the good fight and unlike Stephen Harper, the NDP doesnt quit on Canadians.
I am really torn with the coalition idea. If we can still bring our agenda to the House on non financial confidence matters then we may survive and come out stronger. I actually trusted Dion to be a man of his word and so I intially supported the coalition whole heartedly.
The best interview I think I heard on the CBC was with Bill Casey. He nailed it the whole affair was about respect. And I know I never have confidence in anyone I cannot respect. I could not contemplate going to my place of work after the Bossman had openly told me that he owned me and would add personal insult to financial injury. His document was carefully drafted and included items specifically designed to be unpalatable. When his "braintrust" was discussing the Economic Update I am sure that Harper had that little smirk that you see on his face in unguarded momemts.
I think the coalition will fall apart when the Cons deliver a Sweater budget. Not bad enough for the Liberals to defeat but still unpalatable to the NDP and the Bloc.
If the coalition is still functioning then I think the GG will ask the leader of the Liberals to go to the House and seek its confidence. I thought the right decision for her was to refuse the PM's request so I obviously don't have an inside track on what the GG will do.
No actually they didn't give them a week. Didn't Harper use the rules to delay the original vote by a week. I think he even made the announcement on Sunday because they didn't leave him much time.
Based on te G-G granting Harper's request for a prorogation, I think she'll deny handing power to the Coalition if the Budget is defeated in January, and grant Harper's likely demand to call an election instead. I must say I'm completely flummoxed by this G-G - I used to think she is a progressive, I guess I was wrong.
BTW, looks like the software is working better.
All this talk about the coalition is becoming academic. The coalition is on life support, and Iggy is just waiting to pull the plug.
Get ready for Team Orange's righteous indignation at.... shock of shocks... blue blood count Iggy Thumbscrews supporting "untrustable" Harper. Layton actually has him pinned.
(Assuming Rae doesn't manage to make the Liberal riding associations get really pissed....While he has also managed to make the coronation of Iggy the hight of Liberal hypocrisy...that happens and both the Cons and the Libs are fighting their own parties. Unreal.)
Watching Liberals self destruct when they could be governing is truly astounding.
If Iggy becomes Liberal leader without any "due process" and he were to then shut down the coalition and start propping up Harper - would some progressive Liberals start switching to the NDP???
Like who? Bennett? Dryden?
I'm not thinking so much of MPs (yet) but more of Liberal rank and file.
His document was carefully drafted and included items specifically designed to be unpalatable.
I wonder if we'll ever learn why Harper did this. Harper is supposed to be this grandmaster political chess player who is always thinking 3 moves ahead. So what was he thinking?
On a similar note - what was Harper thinking when he made his comments about arts and culture that cost him his majority in Quebec?
I think that Harper's tactical smarts have been highly overrated. he has made lots of mistakes over the years.
Just because the GG said yes to prorogation this time, in these circumstances, does't mean a future time will be decided the same way. Each case on its own merits. In this case, we had: an opposition that was not planning a coalition, the main leader of which was a lame-duck leader, the prospect of an immediate Christmas break, probably a promise from the PM to be more conciliatory in January, a promise to withdraw the objectionable items, and a promise to address the economy in a meaningful way. By saying yes to the PM this time, she makes it easier to say no when he comes calling for another election and saying yes to coalition - IF the coalition can prove that it stable enough to last a whole month and a half and that it has a serious plan to govern. All in all, I don't mind an approach that says to the coalition: "you say you can govern for 18 months, let's see where you're at in 6 weeks". (Don't get me wrong, I would have loved for her to have said yes to the coalition right away, but I'm not outraged that she did not.)
Just because the GG said yes to prorogation this time, in these circumstances, does't mean a future time will be decided the same way. Each case on its own merits. In this case, we had: an opposition that was not planning a coalition, the main leader of which was a lame-duck leader, the prospect of an immediate Christmas break, probably a promise from the PM to be more conciliatory in January, a promise to withdraw the objectionable items, and a promise to address the economy in a meaningful way. By saying yes to the PM this time, she makes it easier to say no when he comes calling for another election and saying yes to coalition - IF the coalition can prove that it stable enough to last a whole month and a half and that it has a serious plan to govern. All in all, I don't mind an approach that says to the coalition: "you say you can govern for 18 months, let's see where you're at in 6 weeks". (Don't get me wrong, I would have loved for her to have said yes to the coalition right away, but I'm not outraged that she did not.)
I think a clear precedent has been set. To undo this Parliament will have to pass legislation saying that in the future a Prime Minister can not use proroguation to avoid a non-confidence vote.
It's really sad that Canada has come to this. The headline for this story in many newspapers around the world has been:
"Canadian PM Suspends Parliament to Keep Power" (Just Google it)
I wonder how Harper would feel knowing that that was the headline on Fox News
Canadian PM Suspends Parliament to Keep Power
Yahoo! News
OTTAWA – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper shut down Parliament on Thursday in an unprecedented attempt to keep his government in power, fending off a no-confidence vote he was all but certain to lose.
Harper is such an imbarasment.
Yahoo! News
OTTAWA – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper shut down Parliament on Thursday in an unprecedented attempt to keep his government in power, fending off a no-confidence vote he was all but certain to lose.
This really is the issue, isn't it. Harper.
We have a PM who breaks his own election law and asks the GG to disolve Parliament because it is "unworkable" - even though he was able to have the Liberals cower and avoid a confrontation whenever he would present anything confrontational. We have an election and he is still denied a majority.
So we start off with a Speech from the Throne filled with platitudes of cooperation and working together and within a week we are back to kicking the opposition in the teeth. Only this time they stand up to him and threaten to bring him down.
Really, this reation was not unexpected. It was a provocation and the opposition was expected to bleat thier disapproval. That was the plan actually since with a disunited, dispirited and broke opposition led, within the Liberals, by a lame-duck leader Harper wins, he thinks, whether they bring him down or not. The opposition, and here we mean the Liberals, either trigger an election they have no hope of winning. An election fought over the issue of public money funding political parties - a better ballot question I have never seen - or they back off, again, and we move forward on gutting the opposition's, read Liberals, funding for when the election that is coming sooner or later, finally arrives.
Everything is going according to plan. Economic crisis creating cover for draconian measures. Check. Opposition divided and cornered into no win scenario - give me what I want (which is to kill you slowly) or I will kill you (quickly). Check. Harper the strategic genius gets his majority right away or shows that he can act like he has one anyway. Check.
All is going according to plan until Jack concocts, reveals that there is an alternative government for the GG to consider - the Coalition. Ok, now Harper has a problem.
This is no longer part of the plan, or at least not the Dec 08 plan - more like Harper's old Anti-Martin 2004 plan, without the Harper. No this will not do at all. Everything is thrown at this coalition. Undemocratic. Coup. Traitors. In bed with Seperatists. If you need further proof of the potential of the Coalition to derail Harper's plan, you need find no better example than his vociferous opposition to it.
This is a man who is clearly prepared to exploit an economic crisis to create a self-serving political crisis which, when it goes badly for him, is then prepared to plunge the country into a national unity / constitutional crisis. How on earth can anyone who isn't a blinded-by-the-light Conservative not want to stop this demagogue?!
There are two things that the Coaltion needs to bring this about. 1) Resolve to see the deed through. Keep the Coalition together. Without an alternative government clearly available then the GG has no prospect that the House would work with another PM and we head into an election. Bad for every party not lead by Harper (or perhaps Duceppe). 2) Do it quickly. While I still believe that the GG's "time-out" was just that, a stopping of the 40th Parliament's clock, and that when we resume in January a non-confidence vote would be treated no differently than it would have been on December 8th. There can't be anything but the government's downfall on the opposition agenda - any diversion, any side-issue, any element of accomplishment by this Parliament will give the GG the excuse to say that its work has been accomplished and a new Parliament is needed.
I still think that Iggy could be PM on Feb 1st, if he plays this right. Whatever his shortcomings, and they are many, I don't fear him like I fear Harper. I've seen what Harper is willing to do for power - for Iggy to do it he will have to cooperate and compromise. Immediately the difference would be apparent.
Yahoo! News
OTTAWA – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper shut down Parliament on Thursday in an unprecedented attempt to keep his government in power, fending off a no-confidence vote he was all but certain to lose.
This really is the issue, isn't it. Harper.
If the GG had not given in, there would be a coalition right now and harper would be finished. I do not know who she gets her orders from. Perhaps the liberal executive council? As I see it Dion almost beat the backroom boys who control everything in the liberal party but they had an ace up their sleeves. And she was played. They do not give a flying u know what about harper. It is all about control.
Why do they have to bring in outsiders to be leader? Because all the rest were chemically caustrated as part of the joining oath?
In a real party, a corus would go up, "back of the line iggy, dont even think about it, you blow in fokker". Politics here is so phoney, and the reporting is so bluddy backward, why are even drawn in to it? It is like wwe wrestling, except more fake. We had a great chance and iggie will blow it.
I haven't given up on the GG just yet.
I think you can look at the time-out as a gift for the coalition - if played right. Harper now has to bow to the coalition and, outside his head served up on a platter, he will fall short and is clearly "still playing partisan games". The GG gave this bombastic and provocative PM one last chance to show that he was willing to work with Parliament but this Budget shows that he is genetically incapable of doing so. Fortunately there is an alternative ready to go that is committed to working with each other for the benefit of all Canadians...
This time can, potentially, be of some use to the Coalition. It will not seem like something hatched up on a dinner napkin after 6 weeks of calm reflection. It can, potentially, look like a way out of the partisan bickering that is Harper's Ottawa.
And it would be nice if there was no election because it really really messes up the psychology of the web site.
Yes Cueball, there will be an election. I know this because Harper passed a law last Parliament saying that we will have one every 4 years after the last one - unless he breaks the law again, that is.
Harper will pull the plug on this Parliament whenever it suits his purposes. The reason he will not do it in January is not that he doesn't think he could win an election - he thinks he can, and win a majority in the process - but that he can't be sure that only 16 days into this new Parliament the GG will disolve Parliament. I think he is absolutely terrified that she might just hand the keys over to Iggy and the Coalition. He should be - This is the same GG who had him disolve the last Parliament because it was "unworkable", prorouged this one because everyone needed to calm down and think things through calmly. Three strikes and you are out - maybe it isn't the Parliament that is unworkable, maybe it's the PM.
But let's say you are right. The GG is Harper's pet and will do whatever he says - that is also an arguement to vote down Harper. The worst case scenario is fulfilled and Harper guts the opposition, including us, on way to a majority. I'm not sure that now is any worse a time for us than whenever Harper triggers the next election 4-6-8 months from now and at least we get to the end of the nightmare earlier. Could the Liberals possibly do as bad under Iggy as they did under Dion? How do we fare in the next election - yup, we wear the Coalition but we talk about the idea of working to make Parliament work when others want to cynically manipulate the process. The NDP has gained in Quebec, a goal for us (congrats all BTW for the National Assembly Seat out there last night), and I see no reason to believe we don't hold what we won on election night in October. We are sitting within the MOE of our totals from last election in the midst of the worst media spin - I'll take my chances. New year, new tax-rebated donations.
Asa scnario how does this work out... Iggy dumb as a door knob has a dozen libs miss the vote or abstain(like usual the volpes mackays etc) I figure this ego maniac thinks the libs can go without the left. He is more aligned with the cons anyway. The watered down buget passes. Cons will now be weary of making everything a confidence motion. Les partisan poltics between libs cons...just the usual slamming of the NDP and the evil bloc (remember it is not in either con or libs bset interest for a strong bloc in quebec)while co operating the whole time to bring in oppressive right wing agenda.
The economy continue to crumble and they both wear it while we keep our hands clean. To be honest I am not pleased with Iggy as leader. Though it may be to our benefit. Iggy is on CBC tonight so it should be interesting and insightfulas as to his intent. Somehow I don't think Iggy will hold the accord together. He's got to many people to torture in afghanistan to be partnered with 2 anti war parties(i'll give the bloc benefit of the doubt). I got the sneaky suspicion he will back out. It may just be rhetoric to not sound like being inflexable, but I do think he is more prepared to work with harper than the NDP.
______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
Somehow I don't think Iggy will hold the accord together. He's got to many people to torture in afghanistan to be partnered with 2 anti war parties(i'll give the bloc benefit of the doubt).
I think this is unfair. We should let Ignatieff's words speak for themselves.
Michael Ignatieff, 2006. Extracted from "Torture: Does it Make Us Safer? Is it Ever OK?,"
So I end up supporting an absolute and unconditional ban on both torture and those forms of coercive interrogation that involve stress and duress, and I believe that enforcement of such a ban should be up to the military justice system plus the federal courts. I also believe that the training of interrogators can be improved by executive order and that the training must rigorously exclude stress and duress methods.
...We cannot torture, in other words, because of who we are. This is the best I can do, but those of us who believe this had better admit that many of our fellow citizens are bound to disagree. It is in the nature of democracy itself that fellow citizens will define their identity in ways that privilege security over liberty and thus reluctantly endorse orture in their name. If we are against torture, we are committed to arguing with our fellow citizens, not treating those who defend torture as moral monsters. Those of us who oppose torture should also be honest enough to admit that we may have to pay a price for our own convictions. Ex ante, of course, I cannot tell how high this price might be. Ex post—following another terrorist attack that might have been prevented through the exercise of coercive interrogation—the price of my scruple might simply seem too high. This is a risk I am prepared to take, but frankly, a majority of fellow citizens is unlikely to concur.
Those are politiks. Everything this guy says and does leads me to believe he is not much different from harper. In fact I am more and more taking the view of Spector and Payne with Iggy in the coaltion. Rae is at least sympathetic to those on the left, even if his policy doesn't follow. If Harper wasn't such an egomaniac control freak, constantly pushing ideology before country, I would say the exact same. In fact Iggy is about as much of an ego as harper, so the differnace will come down to the vote. If he cares one wit about country and not ideology, Iggy will stand in the coalition despite whatever harpy puts forward, otherwise he is the same as harper. Because we don't need to see jan 26 to know what will be in harpers
tax cutstimulas package.______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
If he cares one wit about country and not ideology, Iggy will stand in the coalition despite whatever harpy puts forward, otherwise he is the same as harper. Because we don't need to see jan 26 to know what will be in harpers
tax cutstimulas package.It would be irresponsible to pass judgement on the budget BEFORE it is presented. That would look like a power grab. The interests of Canada must come before the interests of political parties. But once the budget is presented, the Coalition parties must attack its every flaw. The Coalition parties must to show how their economic plan is in the best interest of Canada. Only then will the Coalition be in a position to vote against the budget. And then it will be up to the GG to decide whether we have a Coalition or an election.
The Coalition will succeed if Canadians can be shown that the Coalition is more suited to govern then the Harper Conservatives.
You can forget it now, the libs have already signaled that they intend on scrapping the coalition. The NDP is just the backup date in case their beau decides to go on his own.
______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
thorin,
The key, for Iggy - and even Jack, is to not spell out your demands of Harper. If Iggy does that, then I think you are correct - the Libs are backing down from the Coalition. As long as he doesn't give a specific target for Harper to hit - he can still claim that the stimulus package is inadequate (recall Chretien's Kyoto position was simply "more than the US") and any sign of anger or spite by Harper is a sign that the current PM is unwilling to work with Parliament.
Harper's meeting offer is an attempt to get a concrete target from Iggy so he can characterize any rejection of the budget as just such a power-grab: "I gave them what they wanted and it still wasn't enough." If Iggy is smart he will say very little and listen to a lot. "I am open to seeing what the PM intends to offer Canadians..." without making any commitment to whether it will meet the need that is out there.
There is no advantage to Iggy giving any signal of what would satisfy him. If the demands for him to give specifics become too loud then we have changed the dynamic to his favour: how much more generous would the Coalition budget be? why won't the government open all the books? what forcasts are the PM and the finance minister hiding? the Parliamentary budget office has already undermined the $ predictions in the economic update so suggesting that Harper is hiding the truth (and continuing to play games) will start to resonate.
Iggy can't close the door on working with the Conservatives because his caucus is jittery but also because Canadian's will not reject Harper as inflexible if Iggy is seen as just as inflexible.
I undertand that it's real politiks, but I have my doubt that Iggy will tow the line. I hope I am pleasantly surprised on jan 27, but I'm not getting my hopes up. This could blow up in his face too. Harpy makes some kind of concession and he doesn't go with it the libs wil get pissed(the rightwing esp) and jump to the con boat...AGAIN. Which is bad for us too.
______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
From another thread:
...
At least some of the restrictions would relate to the PM's executive powers which run through the Governor General - appointments to the Senate and judiciary in particular. He needs to her to, literally, sign off on those things.
I'm sure he'll think of ways around those too. If he tries to appoint senators and she refuses, he can start a publicity campaign against her stating ... (what else?)... the appointed GG is refusing the decision of the democratically elected PM.
Harper's response:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/552046
Yeah, she really made him work for that prorogation. (this is where I normally would insert a rolleyes emoticon, but we no longer have one).
I know that there is natural disdain for all monarchist trappings in this place, probably with good reason, but as a democratic socialist I will deal with the rules that we have until we change them. For now, we have a GG who gets to be the Constitutional referee on some items - such as when the PM holds the confidence of the House.
Josh, were I to accept your premis that the GG was being Harper's lapdog - then it wouldn't have taken 2 1/2 hours to grant prorogation. It would have been: "I'm the PM, this is what I want, give it to me." Clearly something more was going on. Peter Hogg, literally the guy who wrote the book on Canada's Constitution, was the only person in the room as the GG's advisor - I suspect that he and the GG decided on the minimalist tack vis a vis prorogation. There was plenty of discussion, I'm sure about other extingencies, such as what were to happen if the House were to vote non-confidence: disolution and a new election or whether, given how "young" this Parliament is, to see if the Opposition Leader can command the confidence of the House.
I will continue to state that the GG's position remains essentially unchanged from December 4th. This Parliament is only 16 days old - it would be stunning to conclude that it can not function when we have had no evidence that it can not. Indeed the fact that it selected a Speaker and approved, albeit only by an oral vote, a Throne Speech would suggest that it can operate. It was the Throne Speech arguement that probably gave Harper the authority he needed to have to recommend prorogation - which was granted - but he would have to explain why Parliament needed to be disolved and the impending dimise of his Government would seem a poor excuse.
The fact that we have not been in a situation like this since 1926 does not mean that the conventional interpretation of the King-Byng affair - an electoral repudiation of the GG's decision - was correct or that the GG's decision was wrong. Had Meighan held the confidence of the House, even for a few months, I don't think we would look back on the decision in the way we do now. Conversely I think the GG's decision would be a reminder to future PMs that Parliament is supreme, not the PMO. Thus, I do not believe that the question of a coalition has been decided at all. Unless something fundamental changes between now and January 26th, I still believe the coalition option will be there for the GG to select. In some respects, having held together until January 26th would make the option seem more likely to endure than before.
I think it takes at least a good 2-1/2 hours to make a decent batch of perogies. And by the looks of Harper, I think he likes his snap.
Liberals say Flaherty and Cons now clued-up on economy
...or iows, the 62% majority have woken the Harpers from their lazy-faire slumber