Chretien, Broadbent brokering possible coalition

Reuters: Conservative gov't on edge of collapse

The idea of selling substantial government assets into a market where others may need to unload assets is stupid on three counts:

1) a value for money point of view -- less money can be realized from these assets than if the government waited.

2) the market will have to absorb the sale and as private money goes to buy the government assets other private asset prices will fall (basic supply and demand theory).

3) a fire sale of government assets now sends the worng message and panic into markets.

The limiting of collective agreement rights, rollbacks and loss or right to strike is also a bad message to send now to consumers who work for the government and as leadership fro provincial governmetns to follow.

 As the G20 leaders stated- stimulus only works if everyone is working in the same direction this undermines to a small degree (as Canada is not significant) efforts agreed to by other nations. For Canadians this also undermines provincial efforts to stimulate their economies because leanign in the opposite way from the feds is a recipea for disaster.

 I hope that the Liberals New Democrats and BQ come to an agreement on an agenda and end this-- before the Cons for their own political and idealogical agenda do more damage.

tres interesant

Ha! This has to be the funniest thing I have seen all week.

Say what you like about Chretien, but that is the stuff I miss.

Smoke.  Mirrors.  Sound. Fury.  Signifying nothing.

I'll believe the coalition when I see it.

Sean in Ottawa, poses the real issues, beyond party financing, as why the Cons need to get the hell out of Dodge.  Say nothing of  their incredibily short sighted plans to spur the economy through government infrastructure actions.

Why in hell would they sell anything if they are going to do more infrastructure building? This to me indicates that they were just going give a whack of money to private concerns who supported them and then say, "we did all we could and it didn't work".

Moreover, restricting public service collective bargaining that is a human right issue is beyond belief.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

What would be interesting if Layton gets the PM - or coalition leader position as a way to bring the BQ and Liberals together.

 Keep Hope Alive.

Malcolm you sound decidedly disgruntled about the Harper government coming down, in fact there is only 2 of you who have sounded this way about this issue and possible reprieve for Canadians from a evil  Harper government.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

I have to say that this whole episode has caused me to feel a wave a revulsion at the Tories that goes beyond anything I ever felt before. I feel like we are being ruled by a bunch of Ayn Rand-quoting 25 year olds who think they are amateur Karl Roves.

The idea that in the midst of all this crisis - the first thing they would try to do is to gratuitously drive all the opposition parties into bankruptcy is really beyond the pale.

If FDR and Churchill were able to make a deal with Stalin in order to rid the world of Hitler - surely the NDP, Liberals and BQ can cook something up to get rid of this government of psychopaths before they do even more damage. 

And Dion's unacceptability and the Liberal leadership race are the conditions that could see that happen. Give Layton the PMship until May (6 months), then the new Liberal leader assumes the office for a year.

Here are some of the conditions the NDP is apparently posing:

- One-third of the cabinet seats

- Some important portfolios (Environment, Finance)

- A repeal of the planned corporate tax cuts

Chantal Hebert was on Radio-Canada half an hour ago saying that the main condition put by Layton to a Grits-NDP coalition governement is that neither Dion or Rae be the new PM.

Iggy's coming! Iggy's coming! Arrrggghhh...

That last comment is interesting.

 I can see why no Dion, but why no Rae?  Is Layton angling to have Ignatieff installed, so as to free up room on the left for the NDP?

We've heard some conditions the NDP is insisting on. What conditions do the Libs and BQ have before entering into this arrangement?

Better Iggy than that repulsive monstrosity Bob Rae.I can see why the NDp would refuse to let him e PM. The guy is the Liberals number one incindiary attack dog against the NDP and there is so much bad blood on both sides that it could never hapen.

It would be bad for the liberals too because the optics of having a Liberal/NDP coalition gov't lead by an ex-NDP Premier of Ontario would look too much like an NDP government (to people who don't know what Bob Rae is really all about). 

Giving the NDP the Finance ministry might spook the markets more than they have already. Does the NDP have anyone in their caucus that would appeal to Bay Street?

They could have environment but as I stated in another thread perhaps in an effort to get Dion to move out of the Liberal leadership you could offer him that ministry since the subject  is dear to him and he would be reporting to a different master.

As for the repeal of the Corporate tax cuts - why would you repeal the tax cuts and then turn around and give loans to the Big 3 Auto makers and the Forestry companies. Either way it will cost the taxpayer money

Suddenly Dippers who were repulsed by the idea of a coalition with the evil Liberals (Harper enablers, they were called) during the election are enthralled with a coalition today. Of course, I am too.  BUt then I argued the left can only come to power through coaltions both official and unofficial; at the leadership level and at the grassroots level.

I like this from my friend Stockholm:

So much like debating politics on babble with mindlessly partisan party-firsters (and lasters) like himself. 

Where's our resident NFU guy on this (I've become  an associate member by the way)? I assume he must be mad as hell and marching to Ottawa to take Broadbent by the collar and tell him no way on earth will honest, salt-of-the-earth, hard working NDPers join arms with self-interested, sell-out, namby-pamby Liberals. I'm absolutley sure that's what he would say.

This would be a great time to revisit some of those threads, wouldn't it?   

To benefit from a tax cut you have to have a profit in the first place. The Big Three are all losing money so its not as if they would be getting a tax cut in the first place.

 Tom Mulcair is the NDP Finance Critic and a former cabinet minister in the Charest gov't in Quebec. What better person in the NDP to reassure financial markets?

I've never had a problem with the NDP making deals with the Liberals in a minority parliament. It worked well in the 60s, it worked well in 1972-74. It worked well in Ontario 85-87 and we got concessions for a while in 2005.

That is totally different from cooking up electoral deals before an election.

"neither Dion or Rae be the new PM"

Why do you assume it will be Iggy - it could be Goodale or McCallum or Dryden or Brison or LeBlanc or Ujjal.

Seriously it would have to be someone that both sides feel that they can work with and compromise otherwise the GG isn't likely to let them form a gov't.

And totally different than merging into a coalition during an election.  This is taking the cards dealt by Canadians and working with them.  In a minority parliament this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I would expect leaders to do and something Harper just does not get.

Glad to read you have seen the light on the NFU though! 

FM, as I said before timing is everything.

I will always  be consistent on this: the NDP should not talk deals or coalition with other parties during an election and should always talk deals and coalition if there is a chance to make policy afterwards. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with this position. There is somethign inconsistent about pretending to be different parties and makng pre-vote agreements. It is always appropirate to let voters have their say and then construct the best result possible with what the voters elected.

So you can see this is why I opposed your idea of coalition in September but agree with a coalition in November: that minor detail of an election in between.

Wow-- so many posts at once I did not see Left JAB or Stockholm's posts which of course I agree with.

Although I am not sure I get the reference Left Jab is making- can you explain what you eman by your last sentence?

" NFU"

National Farmers Union?

Another thing the two parties are probably discussing would be just what would be considered a confidence vote - I also think that the GG would want some assurance that whatever arrangement is agree upon would have to have some staying power.

"Why do you assume it will be Iggy?" Chantal Hebert offered this inference - based on the buzz at the Grits national office - and host Pierre Maisonneuve was in agreement.

(Personally, I would prefer Pierre Paquette!)

So. That "idiot" Alice Klien might have been right after all.

How

the

hell

did

that

happen

Yes that's it.  The most progressive hope for change in our food system and a group that has been directly challenging the assumptions of right wing economics from a very grassroots, but high research level for some time.  Check out this thread http://www.rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/national-farmers-union-convention-2008 for more on them.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

I wasn't sure if it was BA or me.  BA is more 'NFUish' than me, but I don't shy away from talking about it.

Either way it is pretty low FM.

CBC is now reporting that the Liberals are going to introduce a motion to bring down the government on Monday and that there is some sort of deal in place that will see Dion lead a coalition government.

I don't give a rat's ass about the public subsidies. I think the subsidies are a good thing, but they are nowhere near as important as halting the proposed deep gutting of government programs and assets. Of the rumoured NDP conditions, the one they should be at least slightly willing to compromise on is the issue of corporate tax cuts. The reason for this, is that keeping at least part of the corporate tax cut would provide some helpful stimulus to the economy, due to the anticipated and current problems in the private sector. The same cannot really be said about other Conservative ideas like the two cent diesel tax cut, the criminal justice program, or the hairbrained and hurried spending spree before the October election.

 For me, the NDP could and should be playing two chip$ off against one another. One chip is troop levels and the length of commitment in Afghanistan, the other chip is corporate tax cuts. Both are very expensive programs with questionable "progressive" virtue. I also see the possibility of a rushed/makeshift cap and trade + fines or a small carbon tax system as a third chair leg that could prop up any increased spending that might be necessary to broker a coalition. I hope any coalition will not make the mistake of taking the country into deficit this early. There is more economic damage to come and the government should be subtracting from the macreconomic instability- not contributing to it. If anything, the coalition should be modest in their goals and focus mainly on the task at hand which is making sure that the Conservatives proposals in the fiscal update never again see the light of day.

 As for people hounding on Malcolm. I partly agree with him. I can still see this coalition idea completely falling apart. It depends on how quickly the process moves forward and how quickly the Cons back track and come back with a reasonable proposal. At this point though, I'm inclined to believe that the matter is almost completely within the opposition's hands.

This is so fabulous.  I know it sucks that it can't be a pure NDP government, but this is as close as it's gonna get, this millennium at least!  Just think of the influence the NDP could have on the budget, on social programs...this is really good news if it happens.

This would do it

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081127/Tories_fisc...

e Liberal Opposition plans to introduce a motion on Monday that proposes a governing coalition and declares non-confidence in the weeks-old Conservative government, according to a report.

The Canadian Press reported news of the motion as representatives for the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois met to discuss the possibility of forming a coalition government.

CTV's Ottawa Bureau chief Robert Fife broke the news on Friday morning that former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent were meeting to discuss toppling the government and forming a coalition.

If the opposition parties can agree to a "viable Liberal-NDP coalition with the support of the Bloc Quebecois" then there is a very strong likelihood that they might try to defeat the government,' Fife reported on Friday afternoon.

The Liberal motion, which has the approval of the NDP and Bloc Quebecois, reads:

"In light of the government's failure to recognize the seriousness of Canada's economic situation and its failure in particular to present any credible plan to stimulate the Canadian economy and to help workers and businesses in hard-pressed sectors such as manufacturing, the automotive industry and forestry, this House has lost confidence in this government and is of the opinion that a viable alternative government can be formed within the present House of Commons."

Looks like the process is moving forward faster than I can type. 

Dion is a dud. It's not the best way to start off a coalition government, but it could be worse. The parties should tried to go with someone more popular. I hope there will be an explicit expiration date for Dion's leadership, like the second the Liberals elect a new leader. The Liberals should very be careful about who they elect. They need to choose a conciliator who can work with the other parties or we will be plunged into an election in the middle of the annual spring uptick in unemployment numbers. It is also going to probably take probably a year until the corporations can work most to all of the financial losses out of their system and that's assuming a better international situation.

 I hope the three parties will be allowed to propose legislation without necessarily needing the support (or full support) of the other two. This allows the NDP and Conservatives to combine on passing some crime and senate reform bills, the Liberals and Conservatives to combine on some more economically right-wing agendas, and the BQ and Conservatives or BQ/Conservatives/NDP combining on certain "soft" nationalist legislation. This way, the public gets more of their points of view represented.

The train has left the station. If the libs have ANY poltitical acumen then they know it's now or never. They ack outit will be seen as crass politics. Course we get stuck with diaper that harper left ehind. At lest we can see all the bookeeping shinanigans that have been happening. This is what is scaring the cons. We get to look at the books we can see all the shit they pulled and report back to the people just like they did....num num that crow is getting nice and warm.

______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky

If this happens, it will be such a HUGE slap in the face to the Harperites!  Not to mention to Harper, personally.  You can bet this was his gamble to make, his over-confidence leading the action.

The CBC article suggests Harper could still hold on via "procedural tactics" but does not offer up an explanation of what they may be...

So... Dion won't be the first Liberal leader not to hold the PM post. That. is. amusing.

That said, this is poltically the right move for the opposition parties. They would all get destroyed under a regime without both public financing, and large donors. The Conservatives would be the new naturally governing party, and nobody, nobody on the left want that.

Its kind of strange. I wonder if the Conservatives actually want this... want to see a Dion-led coalition, and then run the next election (in 2010, or whenever) on the allegation that the opposition subverted democracy, since clearly a plurality of voters want a Conservative-led government.

Ed Broadbent has to be storming the airwaves for this to work with Canadians.

I suspect the Cons will try to retain power at any cost. Maybe they'll call on their grassroots supprters this weekend to lay seige to Parliament Hill, blocking the Opposition from getting to the HoC for the confidence vote Monday. Maybe Harper will even call on the military to restore order.

CBC announcing GG on her way back to Ottawa.

Let's not get hysterical.

 I don't want to count the chickens before they hatch, but my sense of this being a bad idea has given way to anticipation of watching the Cons fall all over themselves.  I really hope our hopes aren't dashed.

Work this out and send out Broadbent, and even Chretien to sell it is my advice.

I misspoke. The CBC is saying there are CONTINGENCY plans to bring the GG back if needed

Not Cretien. He's funny, but not exactly a man who invokes trust.

No, but let's at least have fun with it.

NDP Leader Jack Layton and Stephane Dion have discussed "roles and responsibilities” in a new coalition, an NDP official confirmed.

 It is expected that Layton would have a place in the new cabinet, and “various players would play different roles,” the official said.

..........

BQ leader Gilles Duceppe told reporters he laid out conditions for Bloc support for a coalition, and that he is quite open to the idea.

“We said that we won’t be part of a coalition and having ministers from the Bloc; this is very clear. But we’ll consider a coalition that would respect more Quebec values and interests.”

Duceppe has had meetings with Layton and Dion, and still wants “stimuli concerning economy, to have a real plan for manufacturing and forestry sector, to have a better conditions for the employment insurance and so on.”

“We had meetings. I discussed with Jack Layton yesterday and Stéphane Dion. But we’re having those discussions looking at if we can come to an agreement but we’ll take the time we need.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/545220

The Libs need to bring their rightwinged support into alignment.  Given the comments at CBC and other places, there are rightwinged folk complete against this, and I don't think all of them are Cons.  So, whomever it may be who can calm those Liberal rightwinged folks needs to do so.  Goodale might have some traction there, I dunno.

Oh, such *interesting* times!

And ya, here's hoping we all get to see Stevie Sweater Guy sink in his own shit.  Oh dear, am I falling into shadenfreude?

How about changing the thread title to reflect the general topic? Especially since this is the main thread now on the topic.

Watch for people trying to cut deals. Rae is trying to throttle the process by insisting on some sort of common protocol for the Liberals. He doesn't want to be out manuevered by the support Ignatieff has in caucus. It is also important to understand the NDP and Liberals true motivations behind such a coalition. Both oppose cutting the subsidies. The NDP opposes cutting the public funding. What else the Liberals oppose is unclear. The Conservatives are willing to pull the subsidies off the table, what else do the other parties need in order to reach a deal?

At this point, I think the details of a coalition have been well outlined. I think now there is a lot of negotiation going on just about details. If the Conservatives can bribe off any one party, the coalition dies. The opposition parties have to know, however, that whichever party gets bribed will not be viewed as a viable coalition partner again. The trust will be lacking. As such, I think the Liberals will stick to the plan. Government sounds good for now, they can work on destroying their enemies later. The BQ probably has the least to lose by pulling out of the process. The NDP has to have a strong argument for pulling out.

Nothing has been ruled out on the coalition front, one New Democrat said, contradicting reports that NDP Leader Jack Layton would not participate in a coalition government with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion as prime minister.

That rumour must have come from the camps of one of the Liberal leadership contenders, not from the NDP, the source said, adding that every thing is on the table - including bringing in Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale to be prime minister.

 http://tinyurl.com/5q69dc

The new babble doesn't allow the thread creator to edit the lead post or title after the fact.

That's called progress.

Somebody changed the title of the predecessor thread.

I notice no one responds to this post

Although I agree with the coalition myself, I'm still not onside with a unite the left concept that would merge the two parties into one.  This is more like a popular-front, to which I actually wouldn't be anithetical.  For example, in ridings where the Tories were first or second, only one candidate from either the Liberals or NDP would stand for election, depending on which party had the higher vote total. However, an explicit merger is something I would personally oppose.  I'd sooner support the non-voter movement.  And if the NDP-Liberals ever merged, I probably would.

Suddenly I'm interested in Canadian Politics again!

Aren't y'all glad they didn't get a majority? 

CBC.ca/news

IMHO, I think that Dion would be an excellent coalition leader. His style of leadership although unpopular during the election could come in quite handy for this. 

CP [63]

I am sorry to be reading this. "dion is a dud". People have so bought into the bullshit that has been written about "strong" leaders. And the bullshit that has been written about dion. Are your hearts and minds always to be ruled by what some guy writing in the newspaper says? 

Harper is the "strong" leader here. He is all about totally destroying the enemy (all the other partys) by starving them of money. He cares dick all about Canada. Canada is just the cage in which he wants to be the biggest ape. What Canada needs is a dealmaker not some primitive savage who doesnt care about the plebes. 

For me dion is a far better choice than ignatief. Ignatief has snob value and not much else. He is one of these unknown thingys that the newspapers groom to be the favorite. Who knows what he really stands for?

And anyway it is to be a coalition. A "strong" leader is unable to show respect for partners in our system. A supposedly weak leader like Dion is perfect for a coalition. 

If it does pan out, who is going to drag ignatief kicking and screaming into the house to vote?  I want to see the guys face! And a few of the other liberals will be pretty sick that day too. HA HA

I hope it happens. 

Its worth noting that the Liberals are the ones who have the greatest need of a clearly outlined coalition/agreement.

They are in very serious trouble if the new government falls anytime before the end of the Spring session of the House. So they are vulnerable to the NDP or the BQ deciding its in their best interests to pull the plug.

So both the NDP and the Bloc are in very strong positions as to demands they can make. And it boggles my mind to think how complex would be guarantees that would keep the Bloc in line even if pulling the Bloc becomes sufficiently in their interest. But it probably helps a lot that they are most concerned about their competition with the Cons- and they do not need huge or endless goodies for Quebec from the government to be in good standing against the Conservatives.

I was skeptical that the PM designate for this animal would be anyone but Dion. Because of the dynamics of the Liberal leadership contest.

Too much chance Goodale could build up so much political capital and popularity that he would get 'drafted' to stay on. That would be the worry with Dion too. But with Dion the rivals can extract ironclad guarantees [guarded by a poison pill probably] that Dion WILL step down for the new Leader, no matter what.

So the rivals presumably got those guarantees, and as soon is it is strategically feasible Dion will be making his promise, and maybe making the guarantee method public as well.

And I don't think this would have been difficult to achieve. Dion stands to be able to leave on a very high note- the polar opposite to his present image. Its a win-win for everyone in the Liberal party.

CBC Newsworld: Harper will react in the next hour to Opposition plans to take down his government.

If you organize the comments on CBC by how frequently they're recommended, you'll see that a number of comments in favour of a coalition have well over 1000 people recommending them.  That's pretty huge for an ongoing news story.  I think the Conservatives seriously misjudged this on a number of fronts, but the PR front is clearly the biggest.  It appears right now as though there are a lot more people in favour of a coalition government than against it.

EDIT: In the time since I last checked, apparently a number of anti-coalition comments have been bumped up, so it's not as clear as it once was.

I stand by my statement. Dion is a dud. He spent the whole election slamming the NDP as bad for women, job killers, anti-environment, vote splitters, etc. He was first out of the box calling for corporate tax cuts and wanted deeper ones than Harper would propose. I shed no progressive crocodile tears over him. Where Dion really becomes a dud is not in failing to convince Canadians that he was part of that warm and fuzzy Liberal "progressive" wing that should lead, but rather the fact that he couldn't muster any opposition to Harper when his job title was "leader of the official opposition." A wet blanket would have done a better job.

EDIT: It seems there are conflicting reports on who would lead the government.

CP has a source stating that it has already been decided that Dion will stay on for the next little while, but others are saying that the other opposition parties do not want this and neither do the liberals, so it's very unclear.

I really don't want to see Ignatieff as PM though!

I just heard on CBC Radio that Harper's going to speak in 2 minutes, reacting to the coalition news.

Wouldn't it be fabulous if everyone in the media said, "Oh, now you want us to report on what you say, when you won't give us access any other time?  Sorry, we've got other stuff to do." 

I've defended Dion on here before but in all honesty, I'm not sure he would be the best choice, it would have to be someone who is good at working with others, he hasn't really demonstrated that ability.  Still, maybe he has learned something from the past year.  In any case from what Kinsella has posted, it doesn't sound like Iggy has any desire to focus on anything but the convention at the moment.

I don't think that Harper left the opposition any choice. The NDP can never vote for this crap just on the basis that the first thing the Canadian government is proposing is restricting the right to strike.

Also I haven't heard much about the pension plan stuff but it appears that they are proposing that corporations get to not pay into their pension funds for awhile. If that is true then it is a second wave tsunami building getting ready to wipe out much of the middle classes expected retirement packages. Not bad enough normal people are getting devastated by the stock market crash now lets have the government fuck up the private pension plans as well.

Bully Boys Out Now ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny

  I don't think many Canadians do either, which is why the NDP might go for it. The Liberal caucus, however, seems pretty gung-ho on Ignatieff. It's anyone's guess.

Cueball in the previous thread:

"Just a quick question... the Liberals and the NDP are thinking of taking the government down, because the CPC is talking about taking away government election subsidies. I am right?"

I'll give a more complex No answer to that.

In the first place the question of the subsudies is different for the NDP and the Liberals.

The NDP is against the move primarily because it is simply the right thing to do, and because the intent behind the Conservatives' ploy as so utterly outrageous. In realpolitik terms, the sudden dissapearance of the subsudies would if anything be an opportunity for the NDP.

The NDP would really have no more difficult a time digesting the change than would the Conservatives. While the Liberals and Greens would be thrown into absolute turmoil. So opposing the Conservative ploy was not an expression of self interest.

And I would not even say that the public financing thing is why the Liberals would be bringing down the government.

Bringing down the Consevatives in this manner was always technically possible for Dion. It was always even possible he could force the leadership rivals into line behind him. Possible, but more than unlikely. It would take an adept politician to pull that off. And that Dion is not that is a big part of the reason he is such a dud.

But the real reason the Liberals did not go this route is because they are so utterly and hopelessly constipated around their internal struggles and sheer floundering.

But Harper being too clever by half galvanized them. Talking about taking away the subsidies on which their survival probably depends got them to lift their noses off the grindstone. Suddenly they had something bigger than their leadership rivalries and sheer pettiness and defeatism.

And once the train was in motion,  amandate dropped onto Dion' lap. A very hedged and limited mandate indeed, but a mandate nonetheless.

The NDP loses something like 50% of its funding if the subsidies are dropped. The Liberals lose something like 66%, right?

The NDP and Liberals fundraise comparable amounts. The funding changes would level the playing field between the Liberals and NDP and probably mean they couldn't spend the campaign maximums anymore.

The Tories on the other hand would have no trouble spending the maximum. Who really wins here?

Don Newman: Canadian Press reporting Harper will push Monday's LPC confidence vote back one week. But Monday night is still the Ways and Means vote, also a confidence measure.

I think that most Canadians recognize that this would be temporary. They might be unhappy to see someone who is running in the leadership race be PM-- we need a full time PM but beyond that the public who would support a coalition would not care.

Funny as it my sound, I have e faith in my party and my leader. GO JACK GO!!!.

this must be a sign of an impending apocalypse. Canadian poltics are interesting!

Don Newman and Keith Boag: Flaherty's credibility has been hurt by backing down 24 hours later (on political funding).

THere is one problem, not only do I think Dion stinks and is a weak leader, like the majority in his party who want this "out to lunch" clown gone, the public definitely doesn't want to see Dion as Prime Minister, even for a day!!! He is viewed as a useless twit and he made that impression in ridings he visited. There is a credibility problem to back Dion after suffering the worst electoral % in LPC history. Dion is not liked and viewed as an idiot inside and outside parliment by members of the LPC. There has to be choices better then Dion.

Just don't say Bob Rae.... and I can keep my supper down.

The pollsters are already sharpening their pens.  I just got a call from Ekos.  The political thrust of the poll was pretty obvious: the questions were all centred around how various Liberal candidates would fare if there were an election today.  Strangely, Paul Martin was included with the obvious choices of Dion, Ignatieff, and Rae.

Harper: Opposition is working in the back rooms to take over power rather than winning it.

Don't you want to hear what Harper Says as his first/last statement to the press as Prime Minister.

Once he is in opposition, he should be happy to be ignored by the press. It is how he likes it.

If you say Dion is a DUD and you are not alone in that thought then, he should not be Prime Minister ever.

And just having something fall into your lap, is no indication that this individual has any ability to govern. Who knows what nutty stuff he will come up with. 

Dion is in the position he is in because he is incompetent. Harper is in the position he is in, because he is a selfish, thoughtless powermongering bully. But that is no reason to take the ball from the bully and hand it to someone with the proven ability to hand the ball back to a bully.

Dion didn't orchestrate this.... this is not Dions time. Even the LPC don't need a dud, even as a figurehead. 

I don't think Harper will get much traction by whining about things being unfair. 

I guess you mean me - sorry I didn't realize I was to delay the work I had to do today to follow threads on babble.  In the future maybe you could have Michelle or oldgoat give me a call at home to turn on my computer.

For what it is worth here is my take, although it has already been addressed by others.  There is a huge difference between shacking up during an election and trying to rig the outcome.  Once Canadians have spoken though is different.  Much different actually.  As a long time supporter of PR I understand that this kind of governing is in the best interest of Canadians - in this case a clear majority of Canadians.  That you seem unable to tell the difference between the two suggests to me that you need to do some reading on how our Parliament really works and evolved into its current form.

That said welcome to the NFU.  You will find vigorous, heated, but friendly debate is the norm within the organization.  You should fit right in!

By delaying the motion to Dec. 8, Harper has given the combined Opposition a week to get organised on this!

Here's some coalition scenarios.....

The economy worsens, and people blame both the Liberals and the NDP for screwing up, and elect a Conservative majority next time, just in time for economic recovery.

And, as a result, the Conservatives become the "Natural Ruling Party" as the Liberals did after Bennet. 

Nice bequeath to your kids and grandkids.

Or,

The economy gets better faster than people expect, and the Liberals look like heroes, and they get elected to a majority government that undoes whatever cool things the NDP managed to get done during the coalition period.

 And, the capital L Liberal and capital C Conservative buerocrats do everything in their power to embarass any NDP Cabinet Ministers we have in the coalition.

 Politically, this is suicide for the NDP.

I got polled on that one *last* night.  Boy oh boy I would love to know who commissioned that poll so quickly.

Tommy Paine, Your scenarios are certainly possible, but no risk no reward.  I don't think, 'the economy sucks right now' is a sufficient excuse to abdicate an opportunity to influence government policy.  The NDP can only do their best at making that influence effective and successful and hope that the public recognizes their contribution.  But that's democracy, what is new?

"

By delaying the motion to Dec. 8, Harper has given the combined Opposition a week to get organised on this!"

(and perhaps Conservative time to spend a few million on propagands. Can't imagine Harper aiming at his foot.

Hold on to your hat.)

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

"

I got polled on that one *last* night.  Boy oh boy I would love to know who commissioned that poll so quickly."

(I wonder who might be most able to fund that and find out the softer parts of the Liberal anatomy before the coming week's propaganda barrage.?   Hmmmmm.)

There will be some wealthy spinmeisters  made wealthier this weekend.

I don't think the Conservatives would hire Ekos, though.  Paul Martin might.  I can't imagine the Liberal party itself running a poll like that, using Martin's name but not Chretien's.

 CBC has been swift boated, the number of con recommens is almost as high as other comments, no fucking way are canadians that stupid. I know I managed to vote for the same comment at least 3 times today. So if they set up a bot they can vote away and pretend they are actually voting. My habs have seen some stupid fans do the same thing for the starting lineup at the all star game.

______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky

"...but no risk no reward."

All risk, no reward.

The Conservatives would definitely NOT hire Ekos. if anything they are trying to drive firms they see as Liberal-friendly into bankruptcy. the poll is probably for a newspaper.

CBC

"Early Friday, the prime minister's communications director, Kory Teneycke, dismissed talks of a potential opposition coalition as "undemocratic.""

Of course, an argument can be made that a minority government is undemocratic.  

What's the alternative?  Allow the bills to pass?  Or vote down the government and run another election?

I think a coalition is a good thing.  But even if you think it isn't i don't see how it coule be worse than the other alternatives. 

What nonsense is this?!? :

Étonnamment, ce n'est pas le chef du Parti libéral, Stéphane Dion, qui a répliqué à la déclaration du premier ministre Harper, mais deux députés, John McCallum et Marlene Jennings. Ne cachant pas qu'ils discutent avec les autres partis de l'opposition, il semble que les libéraux cherchent à gouverner avec l'appui des autres partis. Ainsi, selon toute vraisemblance, ils ne formeraient pas un gouvernement de coalition avec les néo-démocrates, tel qu'il a été question jusqu'à présent.

Are the liberals seriously trying to pretend that they expect the NDP to install them as the sole governing party—without any role in the cabinet for the NDP?

If  he goes into government, he goes into history. 

Shit youself and run away is not really  an option for a potential future leader of this country.  He wants pro rep. Well pro rep is coalitions most of the time.  This can be a dry run for a new Canada.

 The reward is government experience, and with luck and hard work, some evidence of competence. The lack of that is a big strike against the NDP in a lot of people's opinion.

I concur.  Earlier today the comments that were in favour of a coalition government were by far the most popular, then as soon as someone posted a message pointing that out, the pro-Conservative posts started getting boosted incredibly.  I've often gotten a similar feeling with the Toronto Star: major articles and editorials on the government nearly always have comments with a heavy pro-Conservative slant that I don't believe is actually representative of Toronto Star readership.

There's no gaurantee that a coalition will be the outcome if the government is defeated, is there? Especially if the Liberals are still as disorganised as they are today. What if the G-G decides a coalition is unworkable with the Liberals in turmoil over their leadership campaign? Is anyone besides the Conservatives ready for an election this soon after the last one?

Harper is trying to delay the opposition day by a week but I heard Libby Davies say that he can only do it for a day.

Anybody know what's up?

Well, Sean in Ottawa, to be clear, it was never my idea. My argument was very simply put. The Left, by definition, is a coalition of interests and the only way the Left gains power is through coalitions. To argue a coalition is acceptable after an election but not during is hair splitting in the interests of reconciling disparate view points.

The party partisans are quick to jump on your bandwagon, of course. But let's be clear, those very same people, on this board, have demonized Liberals -- the very same group of people and politicans they are now prepared to jump blindly into bed with. 

And they are ecstatic about it. So are the Liberals not really as evil and demonic as they have been characterized on this board, or is the NDP, once more, sacrificing principles for the taste of power?

Well, Sean in Ottawa, to be clear, it was never my idea. My argument was very simply put. The Left, by definition, is a coalition of interests and the only way the Left gains power is through coalitions. To argue a coalition is acceptable after an election but not during is hair splitting in the interests of reconciling disparate view points.

The party partisans are quick to jump on your bandwagon, of course. But let's be clear, those very same people, on this board, have demonized Liberals -- the very same group of people and politicans they are now prepared to jump blindly into bed with. 

And they are ecstatic about it. So are the Liberals not really as evil and demonic as they have been characterized on this board, or is the NDP, once more, sacrificing principles for the taste of power?

P.S. This web site is slow as hell. 

If Harper wants to eat crow and come out with substantial economic stimulus now, I can see the Liberals crumbling. [Fueled in part, by the leadership rivalries.]

I think that even if the government does not lose a vote, Harper may well have run himself out of the ability to cow the Liberals with bullying confidence votes. Now that people have tasted another option, it will come back. And the minute Harper Crew cannot be confident that bullying confidence votes will definitely that game is up.

Because they will only be able to climb down once, maybe twice.

Not that I expect them to eat crow and essentially climb down on their whole package. It's just as likely they are just stalling to take the momentum away from the coalition/agreement building process [give the obvious internal tensions to the process a chance to make it stillborn].

Y es  Indeed  the  ne w    b abbl e   is  

as              slow                            as                           hell.   

What           is        up                     with              that?

I bet everybody has double posted a few times because of it.  I know i have.       

The way I understood it, she said they can delay the vote for a day.  But she also said they could defer the Opposition Days themselves.  The direct quote was "that's been done before".  Which of course was the beginning of the end of the Paul Martin government.

Y es  Indeed  the  ne w    b abbl e   is  

as              slow                            as                           hell.   

What           is        up                     with              that?

I bet everybody has double posted a few times because of it.  I know i have.       

 FM that is complete mischaracterization.  There is, whether you want to believe it a significant difference between an electoral coalition and a government coalition.  There is also the old adage- the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  With the behaviour of the government, despite the clear message Canadians sent them to work with the other parties the most responsible thing to do is try to find common ground.  Do I still mistrust the Liberals - yes.  Will I watch any coalition like a hawk - yes.  Am I willing to give an alternative to Harper, with NDP checks and balances on it, a chance- yes to that too.

And yes to slow as hell as well!

If these were ordinary times, I would, if not outright agree with you, at least see much more reason in that view.

But these are not ordinary times.   Take a look at political parties in Canada and in the U.S. that were in power at the onset of the Great Depression, and note their fortunes afterwards.

I guess it depends on one's view on how bad the economic meltdown is going to get.  

This is an instance where I would really, really, really like to be wrong, and something we could all laugh about in six months.  

And you know, the liberals are on the ropes right now, I don't think in any circumstance letting them off helps the NDP politically, or working people generally.

Nothing good can come of this.

And, it's all predicated on making a deal with the champions of "bait and switch",  the party of institutionalized corruption, the most perfidious political party that ever existed in Canada.

Tommy -that was my first reaction, but I am sort of coming around, although I am not totally there yet.  I see big potential downsides if things go bad, but at the same time I do see some pretty postive outcomes if it goes well.  It might mean the NDP is relegated back to opposition in the following election, but an important milestone of imagining the NDP as goverment will have been reached.  If the Liberals are seen as the 'senior' partner there is also a good chance the NDP would not wear it as much.  But I do share your concern and am a little less whoo-hoo than others here.

 "I see big potential downsides if things go bad, but at the same time I do see some pretty postive outcomes if it goes well. "

Well, yeah.....

 But before other events eclipsed it, the news this week was word of deflation and if you read your advdertising, we can actually see signs of that already.  And, all this money we have thrown at the banks in the U.S. --- and very quietly here in Canada to the tune of about a hundred billion--- in effort to loosen up the credit restrictions have not had the desired effect.

So yeah, if things go well..... but what indicators do you see that tell you that things going well are anywhere near as likely as things going bad? 

Very bad.

Ok, as posted in pevious threads,  I believe that if a majority of MPs vote non-confidence in PM Harper and indicate they want somene else as Prime Minister (something like the Liberal motion)  the Gov-Gen has little chocie but to accept the wishes of the House, particulary given the last few elections and in particular the elecion a few months go  one where Harper broke his fixed electiion date law and dissolved Parlaiment as unworkable in a failed  quest for a mandate.

Add to that the economic crisis going on and getting worse, and the timing of the Harper govenment fialure to bring in a response the majority of the House can support and the situaion calls for a new PM. Harpers move of the non conficence vote to Decmber 8 makes this a true scheduled vote of confidence, no excuse for MPs to miss it or for the Gov Gen and her advisrs to be surprised and lots of time for the pundits and the people to weigh in on the desired outcome. 

We can predict prety well the  exact time the government will fall and book a spot in the Gov-Gens calendar to approve the new PM.  I cannot see the Gov- Gen allowing a new election  ,once again over Xmas,  after the failure of Harper to obtain the confiidence of the House in this economic crisis.. 

I just got home from a small town Santa Claus parade so maybe I am just more positive right now.

I see things as getting bad, but I honestly believe that more positive economic policy will pull through average people.  Maybe it is my experience struggling in the farm economy, which has really only been expanded to everyone else now, that leads me to believe people will find a way through, somehow, someway. 

But like I said I am a lot less whoo-hoo than lots of others seem to be.  I guess I am of two minds. - at least -

I was raised by parents who grew up durring the Great Depression.  My mother, in fact, had rickets as a child.  I know how bad things can get.   And, besides my parental annectdotes, I've read a thing or two about it.

The similarities between then and now are alarming. 

And, the best a government can do is ameliorate or, in the worst case, exacerbate.  We may be beyond the point already where governments can actually effect a solution, left wing, right wing or centerist.

In the short view, maybe the more courageous view, maybe the NDP can sacrifice it's long term objectives to try to ameliorate things for some people in the short term through this coalition.

However, if I am right (and I, believe me, go to bed everynight hoping that I am an alarmist idiot)  the storm is already upon us.   Real economies that truly help people, that allow them to truly pursue life, liberty and happiness are years, if not decades in the making.  

I think the NDP should focus on that.

I think that in politics you can wring your hands on the sidelines as harper starves your people or you can take the place of harper and help them survive. The endgame for harper could be to be the right wing canadian version of Hugo Chavez.  If that happens (and it could in times comparable to the 1930's)  the NDP will be of no use to anybody. 

I'm not disgruntled about it.  I just don't think it's going to happen.

That said, my certainty on that score is slightly less now.  The chances have moved from two-thirds of four-fifths of fuck all to merely fuck all.

If it is so unlikely as you say, then how come Harper postponed the votes for a week? To me their reaction speaks volumes about the plausibility.

 "...or you can take the place of harper and help them survive."  That's a valid way of looking at things, and it's not like I do not consider that viewpoint.

But, if we oust Harper now before he is firmly branded as the Leader who did nothing while we lost our jobs and our houses, he can come back as the saviour-- or martyr-- later.   Which is not the worst of it.

The worst of it is the economy getting worse -- through no fault of progressive or left wing economic ideology-- and people associating that with progresive or left wing eonomic ideology.   Which is the death of those ideas for fifty years, if the lesson of the 30's is any indication.

 I think it comes down to short term vs. long term.   I believe that working people and the poor would be much better off with the Liberal party removed from the political landscape.   I do not think we should veer from that course under any circumstances.

Possibly fuck all and a bit.

But IO, you should remember that an extra week gives the business Liberals a chance to organize, and it gives an extra week for something to go wrong.

And even without the extra week, it doesn't take very many disobedient Liberals to hand Harper his majority.

Consevatives + Casey + Artur = 145

Liberals + Bloc + NDP - Speaker = 162

162 - 145 = 17

17 business Liberals and or rightish Bloquistes go potty and the vote is 145 - 145, meaning that Mr. Speaker Miilican votes to sustain the status quo.

And that's even assuming this not yet done deal a) gets done and b) holds til December 8.

I'm not ready to bet the farm.

While no one in my family had rickets my parents were both children of the Depression.  It is why we never threw anything out that could be used  4 or 5 times.  There is still a quite a bit of that in me yet.  Times were very hard for my father's family in particular.  My father left school in grade 6 to start working full time on a neighbouring farm (why do I hear a Monty Python skit in my head)

Anyway I get how bad things will get, and I expect it is far worse than most people think.  One of the reasons I cling so desperately to our farm, despite the difficulties, is so I know I will always be able to feed my family and friends.  That said I beleive government can do two things, make things a lot worse, or make things a little better.  If people can get through with food and shelter and a little bit of cheer now and again then I think government will have done the right thing.  Harper, to my mind has shown he is not moving to the centre, but is moving economically the absolute wrong direction. 

This would be a gamble for the NDP no doubt about it.  But the alternative of standing by and doing nothing is far worse.  Much, much worse.   That is the alternative facing progressives right now - do nothing and share the guilt of the hardships to come for working people and the vulnerable by sitting on hands, or try to do something and maybe wear the blame.  It is not an easy choice and frankly I am glad no one is asking me what the right thing is.   Because I sure as shit don't know, although my inclination is always to roll up the sleeves and get to work.

I would like to see proportional representation on the table as one of the points of unity for this coalition.

For Harper to complain about undemocratic backroom deals and to accuse Dion of a coup attempt is quite amusing. Remember just last week Harper talked about putting the smaller issues aside in an attempt to work together with the other parties on the big issues for the good of Canada. Now this. Not just the now withdrawn public funding issue, but his attacks on labour and notice of intent to sell off government assets to his cronies.The whole package sounded like it came right out of Mike Harris' 1990's playbook. 

All that said,

1. The NDP conditions are apparently 1/3 of all Cabinet seats, including both Finance and Environment.  Finance may be the deal-breaker.

2. I can't see the Liberals letting any declared leadership candidate be PM.

3. I can't see the Liberal caucus letting Dion be PM because it gives him a window to unresign a la Pierre Trudeau in 1979.

4. Since the NDP have called for both immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and cancellation of the corporate tax cuts, I can see one (probably the tax cuts in the present climate) giving way as part of the necessary compromise.  Alternatively, I could see some compromise on both - ie reduce the corporate tax cuts and set out a detailed and concrete calendar for withdrawal.

5. If I'm right on 2 and 3, the most likely Liberal acting leader / PM designate would probably be the stalwart Ralph Goodale.  Apparently McCallum is a possibility despite his rumoured drinking problem.  (This was the guy turfed by airport security after an alcohol fueled rant.)  That would make Goodale the fourth MP elected in a Saskatchewan constituency to serve as PM,  (Laurier, King and Diefenbaker) but the first such not to represent Prince Albert.  He'd be the first Prime Minister born in Saskatchewan. 

6. There is, of course, nothing to say that the PM has to be from the larger coalition partner.  Prime Minister Layton?  He has applied for the job. 

7. There is also nothing to say that the PM has to be one of the party leaders.  we could have our first (openly) LGBTQ Prime Minister, or our first Prime Minister of Colour, or our first non-Christian Prime Minister.

8. I still don't think any of it is going to happen.

You mean like a government with members who use taxpayer money to try and influence an open election process.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/11/27/anderson-cwb.html

I see where you're coming from Malcom, but as some commentators on tv have stated: 'The train has already left the station.'

The track we are on already is leading us towards defeating the government. Another election is absolutely unacceptable and totally undesirable. An Accord in my mind is unlikely as the ndp seems deadset on a coalition. So that leaves a formal Coalition.

As for 'business' liberals, I doubt they would change their mind unless some major concessions were made on the part of the Conservatives, but even then they would be foolish. Ed Broadbent was saying earlier today that business leaders are totally opposed to the harper agenda as it stands.

However, like you said, a week is a long time. I just can't see Liberals backing down on this under the circumstances.

So the NDP has resolved to become another party in the process of the Boss's Democracy. The NDP was supposed to be a labour party but apparently we will sell the working class up the river for a bloody cabinet post. we ran against the right wing agenda (both tory and grit) and yet now we will jump into bed with them so long as the job titles and subsidies keep rolling. despicable, the party will lose all credibility when this missadventure in capitalist government falls flat on its face. NDP must no join the bosses parties in coalition or else we should clip our orange cards and subscribe to the TINA mantra. Socialist solutions the way forward.

www.marxist.ca

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the ndp has not been strictly a labour party for some time now. They created a larger coalition some decades ago when they changed their name from ccp, no?

 I also highly doubt you hold an orange card, unless you have two memberships, which would be against official ndp policy!?!

I hold no two cards and that sir is a accusation I wont except. apologize. I support Marxiist Ideals within the \NDP and support a magazine that supports my ideals (a democratic right) if I am to be outed as being a entrist then we must also look to purge socialist caucus and NDProhibition.ca, all other pressure groups in the party.

"a dry run for a new Canada"

Jeez, I really like that!

I hafta say that I've got permagrin today.  I suspect that if it does happen, Dion will be PM until after the Libs leadership convention and then, perhaps Jack will take the reins...

What would be great is a jobshare, but Parliament is so not into progress on that level! 

FYI, I am not an ndp member.

I made an assumption, and you proved me wrong. I apologize.

However, I fail to see the logic of what you said. Not all labour are marxists, and the ndp would not be compromising their ideals in order to get part of their agenda through as they are only partly socialist in their viewpoint. Workers need help right now, not another election. This seems like the only way to accomplish that goal. 

 As far as I can tell, this economic crisis has essentially killed TINA. European nations want to completely rework our global financial system away from the neo-con republican delusion that has dominated for some time.

However, the alternative, or rather TATAs are many, and they aren't all marxist in approach.

I was prepared to go into political hibernation until the next election until this happened.

To continue discussion with FM

What is wrong with wanting power? What would you call a politician who did not want power? It is what you want to do with the power that defines you not the desire for it as they all desire it -- after all why submit to public abuse if you don't want the prize?

To jump into the convo between SiO and FM

Who says the NDP are sacrificing anything in working with the Liberals for the best interests of Canada, democracy and Canadians?  And as for demonizing, what party is guilt-free on that accord?

From where I sit on the globally-warmed prairies, this has become, for the Liberals and the NDP, a matter that goes beyond party politics, that transcends a partisan response.  Finally, I think, the politicians *get* that it is Canada that is losing because they could not find a way to share power.

Here's hoping they learn.  Really.  Fast.

"That is the alternative facing progressives right now - do nothing and share the guilt of the hardships to come for working people and the vulnerable by sitting on hands, or try to do something and maybe wear the blame.  It is not an easy choice and frankly I am glad no one is asking me what the right thing is.   Because I sure as shit don't know, although my inclination is always to roll up the sleeves and get to work."

I think sometimes we forget here that we are different.  We're wonks, or nerds, and we spend time looking at things many people don't, or we look more extensively at things most other people glance at.

For example, many people have been decrying deregulation, or neo liberal economics since Reagan and Thatcher.  But it all fell on deaf ears because everybody saw themselves one day being at the top of this grand pyramid scheme.

So, unfortunately, I think for the lesson to be re-learned  it has to be evidentially brought home to people. 

The time when government action could have saved the day was back under Reagan.   And, it could have saved the day if Bush the elder recognized the Savings and Loan debacle for what it was, and re-regulated the financial sector of the United States.   And maybe government could have done something if they would have recognized the Enron scandle for what it was-- the tip of a very big ugly iceberg instead of an isolated incident.

 I fear it's too late now.  Again, I dearly hope to read these gloom and doom posts six months from now and be embarassed as to how wrong I was.  What should be even more disturbing to you guys is that I'm a glass half full person, given to optimism, giving apocalyptic claims a wary scpetical reception.  But not these days.

 Roll up our sleeves and get to work.....

 This morning, the above mentioned McCallum was on the CBC radio, working to soothe the fears of the financial world over the idea of a coalition, saying that the needs of the financial world are upmost in the priorities of the proposed government.

Still, we see the elephant in the room being ignored.  And the elephant in the room is the fact that at base, the problem is that too few people have too much money, and until old mechanisms or new are put in place to redistribute wealth, this economic meltdown will intensify.

We need money at the street level.  People need to feel secure in their jobs, in their farms, in their small businesses-- the ones that have them still.   And we do not get that by wasting money throwing it at Bay Street.

 We need to keep the Conservatives in power until their right wing dogma is firmly ensconsed in people's minds as the cause of our economic ruination.

 In the mean time, we, here should be demanding more revolutionary actions by leadership on the left.  The new leader of the CAW is touring doing an "education" junket with Local leadership.  

What Ken Lewenza, and other union leaders should be doing is leading a protest on Bay Street, complete with wax effigies of heads on pikes.

I assumed this long thread would be closed last night. Moderators?

Tommy Paine:

 We need to keep the Conservatives in power until their right wing dogma is firmly ensconsed in people's minds as the cause of our economic ruination.

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

By which time we would be able to do diddly squat about their tenancy in power.

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

FM on New DEmocrats:

And they are ecstatic about it. So are the Liberals not really as evil and demonic as they have been characterized on this board, or is the NDP, once more, sacrificing principles for the taste of power?

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

You use as template a model of Homo sapiens and its institutions not yet evolved, FM. But golly ain't it great to see it being worked at?

Now, moderators, now. Before the crushing  reply!

I cannot imagine a circumstance where Liberals backing down is even unlikely, let alone impossibe.

Backing down is what Liberals do in the face of the right.  This is because they don't really believe those progressive things they say.

Never underestimate Liberal perfidy.

 My opinion of the Liberal Party has not changed.

However, this is the Parliament Canadians elected, and all parties must deal the hand they've been dealt.

Liberals are also motivated above all else by self-preservation. They have to know that if they don't take this opportunity to dump Harper and bring in a Liberal/NDP coalition - then Harper will bring in a stand-alone bill in the next couple of weeks eliminating the subsidy for political parties - at which point the Liberals (and perhaps the NDP and BQ) are unable to pay back any of their bank loans from the last election and they all have to file for bankruptcy and ceased to exist as viable political parties.

Don't kid yourself, when Harper does bring in a bill to eliminate subsidies for parties, it will be a confidence vote and surely the Liberal would not want a January election on those terms.

Holy Bajeezus, long thread!

If computer bots are the reason, then I hope media outlets put CAPTCHAS on thier web forms. Mobilization of CONs however cannot be helped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha 

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

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?