General discussion about coalition government - news and views

Let's continue here.

SorrY michelle didn't see the thread about loweing thread proliferation.

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

Thanks for reopening this thread. However, I really would like it if the discussion for or against the Liberal-NDP coalition could be seperate from the breaking news about it.

It's happening in the news threads anyhow.  I'd rather keep it in one place. 

CBC Newsworld has a 90 minute special about the coalition beginning at 730 tonight.

What happened in the press conference?

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

remind, here's the CBC story that was updated after the news conference.  A deal has been signed by all three parties, and Dion will be the leader and PM if the coalition goes through.  The NDP and Liberals will form government, and the Bloc will support the coalition government.

Heh, check out the comments while you're at it.  All the freepers are out in full force, many of whom are pretending not to be Harper supporters and saying that this is a "coup".  Nope, it's a coalition, dude, and that's what happens when the assholes you vote for get too big for their britches.  Take a freakin' politics/civics 101 course if you don't get how the parliamentary system works, dumbasses.

I'm not sure if this has been posted in the myriad of other threads, but rabble has an exclusive by Elizabeth May on the coalition. 

She supports it, of course!

If this is where we are discussing the coalition in Ottawa [enough about where the discussion should happen, and more about what is happening please!!]... then I just want to say that my complaints about the way election results worked out are mostly wrong! At least I admit it...

I was feeling something was wrong with the system where the party that gets such a small majority could be the government, but now I see that when "all the others" are outraged enough at Harper, then they can get together and defeat him. Ok, so you allready knew that, but I had to point out that IT IS WORKING.

That being said, PM Harper has been a real weiner in acting like "the big boss" - he does not have "a mandate from the people", as he keeps saying. If an election is called [of which there is no appetite for amongst voters at this time], it is Harper's fault, not the fault of the coalition who is resisting Harper's agenda.

We sure don't need this kind of political commotion now, when there are real problems to be finding solutions to - the TSX took a dive again today, the biggest EVER [again], and it might have had something to do with the political instability here [and a lot more to do with commodity prices, ya ya].

However, there are two things I like about all this - I am enjoying seeing Harper have to swallow his pride. He is trying to act like he didn't do anything out-of-line, but he must be feeling pretty well rebuffed. There might be socialism - as in government helping the economy function better - happening under Harper's nose.

On the current set of crisisis, including the necessary restucturing of Parliament,  I back Jack, even recognizing  a strong likelihood of betrayal from many quarters.  We should hit the streets in critical suppor tand hit the streets in unconditonal support for the sisters December 6. The two are linked.

.

If thhe GG says no to the Coalition but instead orders a new election, then what? I think the Liberals are broke.

She likely understands that another election right now would just piss people off. I don't think she has a choice considering how serious this coalition is.

Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)

Kim posted the text of the coalition agreement in this thread, but it got closed by Michelle.

The text of the coalition agreement says nothing about withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thus, if this coalition goes through, the NDP will be complicit in war and occupation in Afghanistan.

How cant we see the hypocracy here the NDP has agreed to join a Liberal government in a liberal agenda. The Liberals win on the war the  Liberals maintain control of the Finance portfolio (remember it was the Cretien-Martin Mantra that got us into this mess) and Dion gets to select which New Democrats are to be in the cabinet. What did we win for these massive concessions? cap and trade (a republican policy that doesnt work but the party took up anyhow, the membership at convention thought this was embarrassing), vague wording on infrastructure, Mass Transit and the EI crown Corperation (a fine policy the Liberals will be happy to take credit for). Also not on the agenda was any form of PR and any attempt at a more open and transparent Cabinet room (wonder why this is?) This is a sell out and a sad one at that. buckle your belt were in for 2 1/2 years of Liberal government.

There's nothing in the agreement about Omar Khadr, either.

Will he continue to rot in prison without a word of protest from the NDP? 

Amen. The debate in the labour movement is over. Buzz Hargrove has won, hands down.

Yawn.

Is the Cons attack on pay equity and the right to strike a better option?  I don't get the criticism sometimes.  This shows the NDP as working towards their goals.  They need more votes to implement the full mandate.  Seems like some of you would rather the Con daggers than some gains.

It's time you were off to bed. Us grownups have serious stuff to discuss. 

I fully understand that the NDP's agenda would not be implemented in full by a coalition. But what are the real alternatives? Some of the Harpers are blaming their fearless leader for fumbling the ball, and I don't blame them.

As posted in the thread in the activism forum:

We already have this problem, except it is with the labour bureaucracy's tendency to hop in bed with the NDP rather than mobilize the members to... what you said.

I don't see how a coalition changes this reality for better or worse.

I have called it the Obamafication of Canadian politics. 

I don't see the hypocrisy.  Three capitalist parties working together?  That's not selling out, that's their nature.

Genestrike it makes a difference because without the 1 thrid say in policy formulation the unions have in the NDP, the movement has no say in the process at all.

I suggest you spend time building your r-r-r-r-r-revolutionary presence in a union and garner enough local respect to rin and win a seat at the helm friend. I have tried my hand at it and been largely successful as an overt Marxist. The Labour movement we have is whats there you cant wish it into revolutionary posturing and deeds.

And now, of course, there won't be.

BTW, why not respond to my post in the thread in which it originally appeared, instead of here?  

Thanks Michelle, and yes I read way too many of the plus 3400k worth of messages. The freepers, and the propagandists are out full force and it is pretty entertaining from a personal viewpoint. 

Of course many there are shedding propaganda, while people are in a high state of agitation, and are being even more agitated by the false rhetoric. Thus rational thought is a threatened commodity amongst the pro-Con crowd.

Then you see the odd reformer, do an excellent imitation of Rudy Giuliani when they yell  "referendum" and "western separation" repeatedly, of course with different variations.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

I think the critics of the deal here make some good points.  6 posts is pretty slim pickings and its starting to look like the NDP is going to be kept away from the important economic positions.  I would have hoped Afganistan would have been a deal breaker.  I have some hope that the NDP hasn't sold out on everything but considering the backlash that is going to be coming from the right, I hope they've managed to secure some important rallying points for their own base. 

I posted in the other thread, but realized we were getting off topic about the rallies which were the original point of that thread and going into general criticism, and figured it should go into the general thread so we don't have too many threads on the same thing again today so that it gets too hard to follow and posted as that explanation there.

But I guess you hit the nail on the head there.  In these far left circles, there is one analysis that says that all the capitalist parties are the same, and one that says that the NDP (or other parties that fill the NDP's space such as various Labour parties) is somehow different from the other two, based on either its association with the labour bureaucracy, or that it is somehow a working class party and the others aren't.  Living in Manitoba under a very centrist NDP government, I have to sympathize with the former, and thusly don't see how a coalition between three capitalist parties is something that the anticapitalist left has any ground to oppose based on a distorted vision of one of the parties as socialist and arguing for no collaboration with the capitalists.  What some people are arguing for is essentially for a capitalist party to refuse to cooperate with capitalists, which is a rather bizarre notion.  What are we going to do, appeal to the socialist principles of the capitalist parties?  We might as well be appealing to the federalist principles of the Bloc.

I am active in my students union, but not in a leadership role (I tried to get on council, but didn't come close to getting elected in my reactionary faculty) per se, although I do serve as a student at large on a committee.

 My favorite variation of this one goes generally like this, "This coalition with the BQ separtists amounts to treason! What the hell is this getting into bed with those %*^* people who want to break up the country! It makes no sense, political opportunism, coups, undemocratic  blah blah blah....so in conclusion...it's time to separate!"  

 LOL.  Talk about some major cognative dissonance with that bit of logic. 

The Four Wise Men?

I didn't like the thread proliferation at all.

But now this is allegedly the general discussion thread, but it isn't.

Its just people opposed to the coalition, and the limited number of people interested in engaging them.

Maybe the bulk of us who want to just mull over what is going on have exhausted that for a while. But it may also be that people don't tend to diverge radically from the apparent intent of a thread. And straightforward discussion about the dynamics unfolding just would not fit here.

At any time some new development is going to pop up, and the many faceted discussion of what is going on will take off again and swamp the discussion now going on in this thread if there is only one thread for general discussion.

Ten threads was too much to follow. But only one is too limiting.

OK, I sort of understand now but I still think the NDP could still come out looking better.  They're not going to take the country overnight unless you think the Liberals will disappear.  Maybe, I'm thinking too much in the here and now.  There is a recession and I fear the Cons greatly.

I doubt the NDP will come out of this looking better.

For one thing, how can they attack the Liberals in the next election campaign, after having signed off on the coalition agenda?

More important, whoever is in government over the next couple of years is going to look foolish and ineffectual, because there's an economic tsunami heading this way, and nobody can stop it. Stephen Harper can bluff and bluster about how Canada is in good shape to withstand the crisis, but in truth he knows there is no way Canada will escape the fate that awaits the rest of the world capitalist system in the short term. He is secretly rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of an NDP-Liberal coalition trying to make capitalism work again, while he stands on the sidelines blaming the "socialist" economic policies of the coalition (which of course will be nothing of the sort) for the dismal economic news that will be coming day in, day out, for a long time to come. His next election campaign will be based on an attack on "socialism", whose failure will be apparent for all to see, and he will win a majority government. The NDP will be reduced to five seats; why vote NDP when you can vote Liberal and get the real thing?

 Perhaps worth bearing in mind that she was a Liberal appointee.

OH, let's demand proportional representation!  Please, make this the loudest cry within this ridiculous fiasco!  Without Proportional Representation we're doomed to shaky minority governments.  This proposed 'coalition government" is a fake: it is quasi-legal, leaves a bad taste in the electorate's mouth, and will operate under the shadow of the next 'election' wherein each party will continue to operate in the hopes of winning next time 'round.  A real coalition government is formed during a Proportional Representation vote, when parties can forecast that they'll have to co-operate to make a government.  Then, the coalition is hammered out before parliament reconvenes (providing stability), and thereafter operates in an atmosphere of mutual respect and concessions.  This is the way they do it in Europe.  Proportional Representation is our democratic right! ONLY using Proportional Representation makes EVERY VOTE COUNT and will return us to high voter turn-out. 

DEMAND PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION NOW!

I think you misrepresent mr harper.  I think that he is currently worried about going down in history as the dumbest  prime minister ever.

If the coalition comes into being, Harper will not be allowed to get anywhere NEAR the sidelines. The conservatives will kick his dumb ass out of politics forever.

You simply do not realize how dangerous this guy is.  Tyrants like him are drawn to politics. Harper lives in his own mad world as a God and does not even hear cautionary advice anymore. The removal of federal funding of partys has got to be the stupidest move ever. And yet harper did not expect a reaction!  If I could interview him right now, I would definitely ask him "can you bark?" 

This will be about  the 3rd time we got saved from him. Cadman voted against him, Stronach crossed party lines and now a coalition.   

l

Anyone have any opinions or views on what is going to happen to military and the Afghanistan mission?

Will the military be pulled out?

Will there be new UN missions to Africa?

Will the military budget be reduced?

Who will the Minister of Defence?

These are interesting times.

While I have nothing against prorep in principal, I must object to this comment. A thing is legal or it is not. There is nothing illegal about a coalition government in Canada, nor is it without precedent here. Nor in other commonwealth countries with more than 2 parties.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/coalition-governments-canada#canadi...

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

Not going to happen. Since 1980, 6 of the last 9 Canadian general elections have co-incided with US elections, and without exception, the political trends in Canada have always followed those in the US. US goes Republican, Canada goes Conservative. US goes Democrat, Canada goes Liberal. The expiry date for this accord goes beyond the 2010 mid-term elections, and there is no way the Republicans are going to turn around their fortunes by then. Not to mention that there are cracks within the Conservative Party.

I'm beginning to think that it is you who underestimate Harper, not me. Harper knew the opposition couldn't vote to remove their own source of public funding. He was simply baiting the trap. And the opposition went for it.

Political fallout or no, I think CPC fiscal/social policy is disasterous, and this is the best chance of stopping it now.

And by the way, the re-election of Harper with an increased minority in a year when Obama won the Presidency contradicts your little theory of poltical parallelism.

Most people associate Republican policies as what got them into the mess in the first place, so there's not a great deal of room for them there. As for re-electing Harper, yes, that's correct, but even with lag time of 1 or 2 election cycles, Canada has always followed the US in terms of the political cycle.

If that's true, then they are of course badly misinformed, since the present crisis is the result of 20 years of neoliberal economic policies, combined with the internal contradictions of capitalist economics that no government has the power to control.

They will be made aware of this misinformation when they see that the Democrats are powerless to stop the whirlwind they sowed themselves.   

Coalition? Back off Jack!

Trying to convince us that the Liberals slashed social programs? Thanks for the brilliant discovery, Mr. Tieleman.

The Liberals need to "reform themselves"??? Wow, what a profound call to arms for progressive forces.

There are excellent arguments against a coalition. They are not to be found within the exclamation marks of Mr. Tieleman's screed. Unless he assesses and places in the balance the historic significance of (potentially) dumping Harper after he has "won" an election, Tieleman's arguments will draw no blood. Whether he likes it or not, the whole country is engaged in this historic debate - far more so than they were engaged in the tedious election campaign.

We don't always get to choose our battle fronts, but we'd better be ready when they are cast upon us. This coalition is a reality. Let us see how to use it for good and minimize the risks involved. Wishing it had never happened, and returning to the comfort of "opposition", is not an option for the moment.

And so you will end up with both of the "alternatives" you mention: destruction of the NDP and the election of a Harper majority.

I have yet to address the question of "democracy", so here goes.

62% of voters rejected the policies of the Conservatives.

74% of voters rejected the policies of the Liberals.

82% of voters rejected the policies of the NDP.

So what are they going to get? Mostly Liberal policies with a few NDP ones thrown in. Each of which has been overwhelmingly rejected by the voters.

I predict there will be a lot of people who don't think this Kanadian Koalition is any more "democratic" than the Conservatives.

I would suggest that the democracy argument is not exactly your trump card.

Did anyone read Duncan Cameron's column on the front page, "Making coalition government work" ? It's very good.

DC wrote about a need to form a coalition months ago. I wonder if he saw this coming down the pike?

The Harpers were invited to form a government by the GG. And as Canadian governments are formed by parliament, so, too, can they undergo reorganization by democratically elected parliamentarians. They are all legitimate politicians in Ottawa. None of them snuck in the back door. This is not a military coup a la Pinochet, DINA and CIA.

Right now Harper has 22 percent of registered voter support. Apparently nearly 80 percent of eligible voters in Canada did not vote for him or his party. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Harper is a weak pretender to the throne, and now it's time for him and his posse to catch the high noon outta Dodge.

Fidel, I don't care if the coalition government 'works', if Dion is able to govern as though the Liberals have a majority. I don't care if the coalition 'works', if the NDP has to defend Liberal policies, including the war in Afghanistan. I don't care if the coalition 'works' if Michael Ignatieff can become prime-minister in May, without any Canadians voting for a Michael Ignitieff led Liberal party in a general election.

I don't understand the fuss. Harper doesnt even have a phony majority.

What he does have is an exaggerated minority.

 And they were over-awarded seats by a count of 28, if rep was proportional.

Harper isnt even legit by our dated 19th century electoral standards. It's typical of the democratic lows achieved by our first past the ghost electoral system.

I dont even think Harper would be favoured by the old Anglo-Saxon witan of ye old Ingerland.

 Layton, Duceppe, and Dion arent making these rules up. The rules they exercise today are pre-existing ones outlined by our obsolete 19th century electoral system.

Here's the text of the agreement!  Our publisher, Kim, posted it yesterday.  I think we even scooped the Globe and Mail with it!

Thanks, Michelle.

Moving the view outward to the real world and away from awesome egos just in time!

All four key documents are posted on the Liberals' website.

This is a faulty premise based on an Americanized view of politics and governance.  We in Canada have Parliamentary Democracy.  We elect individual members of the House of Commons in 308 ridings.  The Prime Minister is in fact selected by Members of the House, not Canadians.  We have passed that over to parties, but the reality remains that it is those individuals that make the decision.  That is how the Liberals, for instance, could have chosen a different parliamentary leader than Dion.  They didn't because of rivalries, but they could have and they would have been perfectly within their rights as a caucus to do so.

So the argument of how many people voted for or against a certain party is completely irrelevant.  It is the individuals elected to the House that matters.  If a majority of them have decided to coalesce around an Accord they are acting perfectly democratically and within the bounds of our system.  Some people might not like it, and that is their right, but claiming there is anything anti-democratic is simply wrong.  Period.  You can argue that a more representative system is needed, but you can not argue that we have it right now.

I have been astounded by the complete lack of competence displayed by many in the media about how our governance system actually works and the profound ignorance so many citizens have displayed.

Your numerical argument assumes that when a voter casts a ballot, she does so for a party (not a candidate) and for every single element of that party's platform and against all the other parties' platforms. That is not even close to an accurate representation of reality.

Which policies would you say were "overwhelmingly rejected" by the voters, but which now form part of the coalition's published economic platform? I haven't found a single one.

As for the coalition itself, anyone who was paying attention clearly heard that (for example) a vote for Jack Layton's NDP could very well lead to an anti-Harper coalition. I heard it clearly - and it was one of the factors in my (uncharacteristic) decision to vote NDP this time:

That was September 22, 2008. I assume all who voted NDP were aware of this.

As for the Liberals, well, Stéphane Dion is still a liar, hypocrite, and generally unsavoury and politically ignorant character. You want to know how I really feel about him?

So here was how he reacted [89] to Layton's very principled statement quoted above, the next day:

This coalition is clearly a victory for the NDP and the Bloc, and an act of desperation by the Liberal Party. That doesn't mean it can't yet blow up in all their faces. Our job and the job of all progressives (IMHO) is to ensure that the people derive maximum advantage from this scenario. That - and not with respect your percentage figures of which minority of Canadians voted for which party labels - is the true measure of democracy.

I think it's worth remembering that Jack Layton has consistently and by a wide margin won every leader's popularity poll that I've seen since at least 2004.

Government supporters said they are planning rallies across the country and will go door-to-door to gather signatures on a petition protesting against the deal that could lead to the Conservatives' ouster as early as next week by a coalition that would make Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion interim prime minister. Rally locations will include Rideau Hall - home of the Governor-General - and Parliament Hill. Sources say broadcast or print advertising is also a possibility.

"It's a PR war now," one senior Conservative said.

http://tinyurl.com/5mhg74

Sounds like an attempted  extra-parliamentary coup by the Government supporters.

According to the CBC's Don Newman, the CPC's massive War Room in Ottawa is up and running, and the Cons have a massive war chest. Even if the Cons out-spend the combined Opposition parties and win the public relations battle, should that have any effect on how the Governor General proceeds?

Excellent article by a Windsor professor:

The coalition will govern. It may not govern in December, but it will be government by the end of January. And Harper will not be leaving gracefully.

Yes the coalition will make some mistakes, but with Layton's brilliant leadership, Canadians will be much better off overall than under the right-wing Harper regime. There will always be naysayers, but we don't live in a perfect world, and politics is always about compromise.

These right-wing articles are warming my heart.

 Left-wingers don't often get a chance to celebrate so we need to take full advantage of our victories when they occur.

"This is because Liberals need to make way for Jack Layton and five of his NDP colleagues. Mr. Layton will also be able to pick six parliamentary secretaries from his caucus, meaning that an NDP Member of Parliament has a 33% chance of landing a plum job in government ranks. Not bad from a party that has in the past been systematically shut out of power in Ottawa.

A small point, perhaps, but a pretty good indicator of where this accord is taking the government of Canada. Under this agreement, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, would have their fingers on the policy triggers of the government of Canada. Anyone who thinks they do not intend to squeeze or threaten to pull that trigger now, sending the Liberals scurrying, doesn't appreciate the hardball wing-nuttiness of Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe."

 http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=2f59c9c7-fac7-47fd-a761-1be09bc20e04

To say, as some pundits have, that Stephen Harper has "won" the election before he demonstrates that his government can gain the confidence of the House of Commons is akin to an umpire in baseball calling the baserunner "safe" at home plate before either the runner or the ball has arrived. We must see the play in its entirety, then make the call.

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

Thanks to the professor and Wilf.

In a parliamentary system you do not elect the PM, you elect a Parliament!

Marvelous!

PR war?  the coverage is going to resemble the documentary "the revolution will not be televised". Without the violence of course.

 So which of the two governments is having a coup?  Harper or Coalition?

messy, messy,. 

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

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?

So under Layton's leadership, the NDP and Canada has gone from a Liberal majority government, to a Liberal minority government, to a Conservative minority government, to an NDP caucus with representation from Quebec, and now to the possibility of a coalition government with 6 NDP cabinet ministers chosen by the NDP, and six Parliamentary Secretaries chosen by the NDP, and people here are still attacking Layton's leadership.

And foks on the left pride themselves on their intelligence.

--

And in the United States, you don't elect a President, you elect an electoral college.

Funny how all these advocates of electoral reform and pro rep suddenly minimize the importance of the popular vote when it's inconvenient to their current political purposes!

So it turns out that what's really important is not the will of the voters but the will of the members of parliament, whose motives are, of course, beyond reproach! 

Who's minimizing the popular vote?  It's the strongest argument the coalition has.  The voters gave the coalition 58% support (62% if you count the Greens) as against 38% for the Conservatives.

AS old Churchill said, (reoughly paraphrased so as not to bring a parsing attack)....our democratic system is the worst except for all the others.

Perfection would only come with a perfectly knowledgeable and pure public I guess. The electorate would have to see themselves as citizens, not just something to be appealed to as "taxpayers" and "consumers"...you know the type that love the Conservative's cynical pitch.

Or did you have a different public in mind?

This is a curious interpretation. Whose name is on the ballot when Americans elect an 'electoral college'?

Bill Casey was on the news last evening discussing this from an inside/outside view. He is definitely not going to be siding with Harper, and that is what the current state of the Canadian government is. This cooperative government is not even a bringing down of the CPC government, but a bringing down of a 1 man state government.

If this move acheives nothing else, other than bringing us back to a elected representative government, instead of a 1 person dictatorship, then that is fine with me. 

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

You know repeating the same argument, refuted time and again, doesn't make it any less simplistic or even close to correct.

The Coalition is no surprise as Layton has been going on about it since the election ended as alsmost first things out of his month was about Harper's approval rating and how something could be done.  Whats the Little 3 stand for Seperation for one and they also agreed  money received from government for their campaign costs should remain intact.  And the Big 3 bailout is also another must do as far as the Coalition is concerned.  Harper's government was opposed to bail outs for automobile companies but much pressure from outside sources and the Little 3 have shakes up Harper's Conservatives with their demands for bailout for Ford, GM,etc and yet autos friendly to the environment go it alone.  Ford and its monster trucks are a thing of the past as they have been completely irresponsbile with making their autos despite knowing the harm to the environoment.  But then they always have the Little 3 to count on to bail them out.  Honda has opened up a new plant and there will be more to come as market demands and whats Ford and GM up to when not looking for handouts well looks at their production line its Big ans dirty and lowdown when it comes to the environment as big trucks are still a thing of the future as Ford builds electric monster truck.  And Layton is the guy who came packing a check for Cambpell for buses.  (we haven't seen those yet either)  And Martins behind the whole thing as he helps plot the take over the same guy who made homelessness a household name in Canada as he gives Campbell permission to do what he wishes with money alloted for its needy citizens.    http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/detroit-2008-ford-f-150-reveal/579028/    

There seems to be two very different things being argued in the media and on discussion boards around this issue: the ways the system actually works, and the way we each think it should work to represent the One True Democratic Will of the People.

The way the system works is that the government is responsible to Parliament, and whoever can gain the confidence of the majority of elected representatives should lead the government as PM.

The way I think it should work is that parties should be elected proportional to their popular vote share, and a majority of MPs representing a majority of voters needs to be formed through compromise and cooperation. The present coalition option vaguely resembles that process, though in a truly proportional House, a Liberal-NDP-Green coalition would not need the Bloc and have over 50% of the seats on its own.

The way Harper thinks it should work is that he should be President of Canada because he got more votes than anyone else.

The GG was caught in Prague by a CBC reporter for a brief interview, and she said she has been following events in Canada closely, and has decided to return to Ottawa tomorrow instead of Friday as originally scheduled. She thinks her first action will be to have a conversation with the Prime Minister and then will take it from there.

The GG was caught in Prague by a CBC reporter for a brief interview, and she said she has been following events in Canada closely, and has decided to return to Ottawa tomorrow instead of Friday as originally scheduled. She thinks her first action will be to have a conversation with the Prime Minister and then will take it from there.

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

Will she deny the bastard his application for retirement of the house until late January?

If she tells him that, in light of the present crises - economic and environmental -  the Canadian people and their economy cannot wait that long for direction, my faith in this creaky old system of traditions will hold firm. Not otherwise.

My goodness isn't real ( not just potential) human intervention on the side of "the good," wonderful?

Oh, I think we can count on the GG to move in favour of the coalition. Don't forget, she's a separatist!

Harper asking for a prorogue? CTV last night had Prentice on with the proroge legistlation breakdown. Or part of it, as he left out  the portion which contains Harper's inability to have confidence, which he must have in order to ask for a prorogue.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Yes, she should have a conversation with Harper.  Then she'll find out what a big baby he really is and tell him to play fair with all the others.

Closing for length.

How 'bout instead of starting a new one, finding one of the many open threads on the subject to post in.  Save a virtual tree.