Coalition government: the debate continues!

Here they had full discourse by Harper, Dion Layton and Duceppe. In fact, Global re-capped Dions statement by saying he called for government actions, regarding the economy and hardships faced by Canadians, as needing to be compassionate, calm and unified. And that he stated this was not a time for discord in the House and the playing of political games that Harper is playing.

They also noted again Nathan Cullen's riding office was fire bombed.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

A pro-coalition sign was fire-bombed and Dosanjh's office was vandalized.

Lasker wrote:

Tommy_Canuck wrote:

If I were to be able to exercise my democratic
right to vote between the Conservatives and a coalition government, I
would need a lot more information than I do now.

You just worded the fallacy. Refer back to lesson 1: you don't vote
for the Prime Minister and you don't vote for the party in power. You
vote for your MP. That's the essence of a parliamentary democracy.

Despite argument that we vote for MPs, realistically we vote for the
party and its leader. The leaders know this as well, "Vote for strong
Leadership, vote for Jack Layton", "Vote Green, Vote Red", "Choose
Canada" with the liberal logo behind it, not to mention all the attack
ads. If it is not about the leaders or the government, why the party
ads? why the attack ads?

I vote for the MP who represents the party and leader I want. Over the
past 24 years, I have voted Liberal and I have voted conservatives

First time I ever heard a politician say we vote for parliament not
government was this past Monday. Now it seems like everybody is saying
it. I don't fall for political spin that easily.  Tonight, during Dions
address to the nation there was a book behind him that clearly said
"HOT AIR". A sign perhaps?

All the leaders need to get together and make this work. Canada cannot
afford to be governed by this shaky coalition, made worse as the liberal party heads into a very nasty leadership race.

Stablility is required now.

Slumberjack wrote:

Cueball wrote:

This is what I was arguing yesterday, more or less. But today ot looks differntly to me. The whole tenor of the Tory attack has been cast in a manner which confronts the legitimacy of the constitution....At this point, it might be nice if the GG, were to send the coalition back to the Tories to negotiate further, or call an election, but the coalition should not back down from their rights, and the rights of the GG to determine the course of action.

And if the fascists are true to form, power is their main goal, the more the better to further their agenda, unhindered preferably.   If they are capable of anything, and most assuredly they are, is it not outside the realm of possibility that they've purposely engineered this entire crisis from the beginning.  Is it imaginable that they’ve stumbled as badly as they have from one issue to the next, from the threat against democratic funding, to the assault on labour, to the attacks on the constitution, to push the opposition to the point of no return, so that there is no other option than to have them take the wheel in a time of economic difficulty?  Yes, I do think that is the best option for the GG, to send the coalition back to negotiate, on their terms.

And I think there is every possibility that you are right about Harper's prescience in this matter, and something of this kind might very have been in the back of his mind. I sumise that he did not care one way or the other, thinking that this is not the best time to be in government. I have argued as much on this board several times.

His view would seem to be that he would govern "as if he has a majority, now or govern later, with a majority," after the coalition collapses or is discredited even further by the economic Tsunami coming down the pike.

I note that in this scenario the only sensible reaction of the NDP and the Liberals will be to formally organize collectively in the next election, and realize the coalition as a political and organizational fact. But that is another story.

But in the immediate frame, it is important to assert the rule of law, in the house, and in the office of the GG, and the coalition must stick to its guns. There really is no turning back now.

Well, I saw it so perhaps CTV made a point of not having the tape. 

Anyway, Jack drove one out of the park with this one liner and should be how we talk about this coalition.

"He seems to be more interested in protecting his job than your job" -Jack Layton on Stephen Harper trying to avert democracy

Right on!

Jack Layton's speech just blew up in Harper's face.

______________________________________________________________________________________
Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Tommy_Canuck wrote:

Despite argument that we vote for MPs, realistically we vote for theparty and its leader. The leaders know this as well, "Vote for strongLeadership, vote for Jack Layton", "Vote Green, Vote Red", "ChooseCanada" with the liberal logo behind it, not to mention all the attackads. If it is not about the leaders or the government, why the partyads? why the attack ads?

I vote for the MP who represents the party and leader I want. Over thepast 24 years, I have voted Liberal and I have voted conservatives

First time I ever heard a politician say we vote for parliament notgovernment was this past Monday. Now it seems like everybody is sayingit. I don't fall for political spin that easily.  

Sad to see that civics courses no longer teach the basic workings and history of our parliamentary democracy anymore. 

Having watched Harper tonight deliberatly misleading the Canadian people I can say without a hint of irony that if the GG allows prorogation tomorrow it is time for a democratic revolution in this country.  I have rarely been so offended by a politician, even at the height of some discussion on social issue, as I was by this creepy, petty little man.

Quote:

Despite argument that we vote for MPs, realistically we vote for the
party and its leader.

Really, and literally, you vote for an MP. MPs belong to parties because we have a brokerage system whereby parties, represented by candidates, vying for the position of MP, sell a set of policies and hope to be elected as part of a franchise. But, and this is very important, you do not elect a party and you do not elect a Prime Minister. You elect an MP and the party leader who can claim the confidence of the house, rules.

The Conservative hypocrisy is resounding. In neither of the last two elections was Stephgen  Harper elected PM. He claimed he the position by claiming he had the confidence of the House and made every bill a confidence motion to prove it and he took great pleasure out of cowing the Liberals.

Well, here we are, and the Bully's bluff was called and suddenly the entire parliamentary system which Harper was so pleased to manipulate is now "undemocratic".

Fuck off! What a joke.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Having watched Harper tonight deliberatly misleading the Canadian people I can say without a hint of irony that if the GG allows prorogation tomorrow it is time for a democratic revolution in this country....

I would say that if she does authorize prorogation, the act of doing so would fall within the constitutional boundaries as they are structured.  Just as the coalition is entitled to represent themselves as an alternative government and seek a transfer of power, the GG is entitled to permit Harper's request for prorogation, based on her own determination after considering the overall circumstances.

BTW, for anyone who hasn't received it yet, this just arrived in my inbox:

----- Original Message -----

From: "Layton, Jack - M.P." <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:21 PM

Subject: Coalition for Change / Coalition pour le changement

Coalition for Change

In tough economic times likes these, Canadian families expect real action on the economy. And they expect a government that will work for them.

New Democrat and Liberal Members of Parliament, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, have a plan to stimulate the economy in a stable and responsible government.

Our priority is a stimulus package to kick-start the economy, create jobs and grow consumer confidence. We've put aside our differences and agreed to a strong plan. We will govern for all Canadians.

To read the entire policy accord, visit:
http://www.ndp.ca/press/coalition-for-change-statement-by-jack-layton.

We know there is an alternative to Stephen Harper's negative Conservative politics.

Progressive Canadians are uniting behind the Coalition for Change.

If you're not already involved, the Coalition invites you to be part of the change. We want your voice to be heard. All across Canada, we'll be holding town hall meetings and rallies. Join us and tell us what you think. This coalition will be your Coalition.

There has never been a moment in our shared history as Canadians where more has been possible.

You are the majority. Be part of the change.

A majority of Canadians voted against the Conservatives. Nearly two-thirds of Canadians voted for the opposition parties. Only 38% voted for Stephen Harper.
   
On Thursday evening, our voices will get louder.

Please, join thousands of progressive Canadians Thursday night and demand better. I want to make sure your voice is heard. Be part of the coalition for change. Be part of organizing the Conversation for Change this Thursday night.

To find out where and when you can attend a Conversation for Change rally, visit: http://www.62percentmajority.ca/events.

If you're ready for change, then you're a part of the 62% majority. Get involved.

http://www.62percentmajority.ca/events
http://www.62percentmajority.ca/action/yourvoice
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37994407715

Thank you for your support, encouragement and actions. Together, we are the progressive Canadians who say I'm part of the 62% majority.

Jack Layton
Leader, Canada's New Democrats

M. Spector wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the Dion video was out of focus?

His face was fuzzy, but you could read the titles on the books behind him.

"Do you think it's easy to auto-focus?"

A CBC talking head said it looked like it had been shot with a webcam.

Jack's response (which the networks did not interrupt their schedules to show) looked and sounded great.

miles wrote:

KenS wrote:

If Harper gets his way on prorogueing- that is 2 months without a government

Ken you have it wrong. I hate Harper with all my being but it will not be 2 months without a government.

 It will be 2 mos without the house sitting. no different than normal when the house rises in December and comes back in March. Like it has every year

And you are being a formalist, so for what is relevant here, you are incorrect.

It is the promise ASAP of an economic stimulus package from whoever is deemed to be the government that matters.

As in the US where Obama is not President yet, but the outlines of specific economic initiatives his administration will take have a material effect now.

The House does not need to be sitting for our government or government in waiting to take action that will have a similar effect in Cananda. But that cannot happen until Harper or the coalition establishes to general satisfaction that come the sitting of the House they will be in power.

democritus wrote:

 (Is the person most affected by proroguation called a proroguee?)

In that sense, wouldn't they all be? 

Do you mean us ... proroguees?

democritus wrote:

It's already in the bag.  Ms. Jean will cave to whatever Harper asks; if she does not, she will be fired on the spot and Harper will appoint Preston Manning as the new GG.

 

The indignant reaction of Harper to the 'Great Unwashed' rising up in revolt will play well with his base ... the religious fanatics and the Western separtists.  All they see is their boy being dumped by nervy leftists.  The Cons have all the money, all the grassroot support, every evalgelistic pulpit, the RCMP, CSIS and the armed forces on their side.

 

This 'constitutional crisis' is a fun, theoretical exercise that will end on Friday when Parliament is prorogued.  (Is the person most affected by proroguation called a proroguee?)

Under normal circumstances, with the clear confidence of the House he could do such a thing, but not given the situation.

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

democritus wrote:

It's already in the bag.  Ms. Jean will cave to whatever Harper asks; if she does not, she will be fired on the spot and Harper will appoint Preston Manning as the new GG.

 

The indignant reaction of Harper to the 'Great Unwashed' rising up in revolt will play well with his base ... the religious fanatics and the Western separtists.  All they see is their boy being dumped by nervy leftists.  The Cons have all the money, all the grassroot support, every evalgelistic pulpit, the RCMP, CSIS and the armed forces on their side.

 

This 'constitutional crisis' is a fun, theoretical exercise that will end on Friday when Parliament is prorogued.  (Is the person most affected by proroguation called a proroguee?)

Oh.  My.  A happy person, you are not.  Someone did something to your oatmeal this morning?  Or a diehard cynic?

LONG THREAD!!!

"I can't find out anything about Nathan's office being fired bomb. Is there a link to this story? that's scary."

It was a billboard

http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/12/3/4005920.html

Cullen's office wasn't firebombed, someone torched a sign. 

 http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5if0E3NDTiZS... 

Quote:

There is also a real danger that many people could end up tolerating government policies that hurt working people because they come from a Liberal-NDP government rather than from the more blatantly pro-business Tories. We see this in the US, where many people swallow reactionary measures brought in by Democrats that they would reject if implemented by Republicans.

What should we do?

Relying on a Liberal-NDP government to deliver what people need is a recipe for disappointment. If a coalition government is formed (or if it isn't), everyone who believes that people shouldn't suffer because of a crisis we didn't create needs to mobilize. Now is the time to get organizing in unions, community groups and on campuses. Now is the time to start planning forums where people can come together and discuss campaigns that put demands on the federal government.

We should build campaigns to demand genuine reforms such as a full-scale pro-worker overhaul of EI, the construction of non-profit housing and better public transit systems, the strengthening of public pensions, tough regulations to slash greenhouse gas emissions, status for all, and the nationalization of the banks. Vigorous efforts are needed to oppose every effort to scapegoat unions or immigrants for the crisis, and to call for the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan.

If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.

democritus wrote:

It's already in the bag.  Ms. Jean will cave to whatever Harper asks; if she does not, she will be fired on the spot and Harper will appoint Preston Manning as the new GG.

This 'constitutional crisis' is a fun, theoretical exercise that will end on Friday when Parliament is prorogued.  (Is the person most affected by proroguation called a proroguee?)

What we have is a political crisis. If Harper did try to fire the GG under these circumstances, there would be a constitutional crisis.

M. Spector wrote:

We should build campaigns to demand genuine reforms such as a
full-scale pro-worker overhaul of EI, the construction of non-profit
housing and better public transit systems, the strengthening of public
pensions, tough regulations to slash greenhouse gas emissions, status
for all, and the nationalization of the banks. Vigorous efforts are
needed to oppose every effort to scapegoat unions or immigrants for the
crisis, and to call for the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops
from Afghanistan.

*ahem*

No disagreement here, but how about a national childcare plan now, instead of "when there's money"?  Or putting "equality" back into Status of Women Canada's mandate and funding SWC properly?  Or moving forward instead of backward on pay equity?

My kid was an infant when I started working on the childcare issue.  She's gonna be eligible to vote -- an adult -- in spring. I think women have had to bear way too much of the burden in this wealthy society.  Way.  Too.  Much.  And the coalition needs to hear that first and foremost, loudly and clearly.  We women are the f*cking majority.  It's about time our issues were addressed!

Highlander, lets hope that the GG does appreciate the historic significance of her role, resulting from premonitions of dark posssible futures on her flight back home, but that she at this moment sleeping well, confident that her answer in a few hours time can forestall your dark forebodings ...

Long thread!  I'll start the continuation thread.