Coalition government: Even more debate!

In contrast to what enemy_of_capital was saying in the other thread about the NDP losing votes, I don't think the NDP can do anything but come out of this stronger electorally.  It's looking more and more like the NDP is the strong, united party against Stephen Harper.  The more the Liberals disintegrate, and the more the Conservatives act like autocrats, the better the NDP looks.  On top of that, Jack Layton has consistently appeared to be firm, confident, in control, and just generally statemanlike throughout this ordeal.  If the Liberals back out of this, I'd expect you'll see a big NDP push in the next election when it becomes obvious that the NDP are the only real alternative to Harper.  If the Liberals don't realise how much their survival depends on this coalition, they're incredibly stupid.

I think people should relax.

Obviously Harper asking the GG to prorogue was a dictarorial, and proto-fascist manouver, and it should be portrayed as such. That said, we all understand that the GG's unelected status give her place as a moderator very little real legitimacy, and after all, Harper does have some mandate from the electoral system, and this gives him a kind of authority that the GG does not have. Giving Harper what he wants only strengthens her authority in the future, when and if there is a confidence vote.

It will be clear that because she is assenting to Harper's initial demand, that she is acting in a non-partisan manner, and if Harper can not pull the situation out of the tailspin, she will have far more authority to ask the coalition to form the government later, without it appearing that she is being partisan.

I say this even though, obviously it is a bad precedent, and undemocratic, and quasi-dictatorial manouver. But appealling to the protection of the last vestiges of the monarchal system, over the head of an elected representative, likewise, can be construed as undemocratic, and certainly would be spun this way.

I don't think there is any reason to panic. Certainly, panicking does nothing but make the coalition look as desperate as Harper looks now.

Coalition supporters should be clear in their resolve, and histrionics only make it look as if Harper has a point about the coalition. Indeed, if it can not survive until the 27th, and then win a confidence vote, it would seem that the charge that it is too fragile to govern is well founded.

Coalition supporters need to be firm in their resolve, and confident in their right, and respectful of the power of the GG if they want to reign in wayward Liberals and attract dissident Tories, and win the day in the end.

I think most of all, this episode has evaporated my remaining trust in the political literacy of Canadians. (Or maybe I just need to stop reading the  comments on the CTV and Globe and Mail websites.) Nevertheless, today's Ekos poll shows Conservative support spiking to 44%.

Hatemongering and lying boldly works like a charm. 

 

 

Will it be possible, in the month of down time that proroguing has created, to renegotiate the Coalition agreement, to at least possibly get the Liberals to back down on their insistence that the Coalition back their right wing tax proposals and on staying in Afghanistan until 2011?

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Our Demands Most Moderate are/
We Only Want The World!
-James Connolly

I agree with Cueball also.

Unionist wrote:

I agree with Cueball also.

As do I.  Although I still think this is a dark day.

 

---

I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. Bob Newhart

madmax wrote:

Cueball wrote:

I think people should relax.

Coalition supporters should be clear in their resolve, and histrionics only make it look as if Harper has a point about the coalition. Indeed, if it can not survive until the 27th, and then win a confidence vote, it would seem that the charge that it is too fragile to govern is well founded.

I said early. Dion was likely the only possible choice with the capacity to give the ball back to Harper. You can't put a weak leader in charge of a coalition. You can't come up with something should a greater lack of foresight.

So... I agree with your comments Cueball (thats twice in one year), but here is whats happening.

"Our Communications sucks"

"The coalition -- the way that we're going right now -- it won't survive. I can't see it surviving. We have somebody who can't communicate and someone who can't communicate, its hard, its very hard..."

DUH!!! 

 

Well that is the hand you have been dealt. Asking for new cards now, will just make it look like you have bad cards, overall.

[[i]Earlier today, someone identifying himself as Eric Finley posted this as a comment to a blog post I'd put up saying that he wanted to start a meme. I put it up on my front page as a guest post. At this point, it's been picked up by at least three other bloggers who have done the same. For your consideration (and knowing that when I paste it into this cockamamie edit window the formatting's liable to go silly). -p[/i]]

Keep meeting.

To the coalition: Keep meeting.

Parliament has been prorogued. So you're not meeting in an official capacity. But nonetheless meet as if you were not prorogued.

Find a site. Pay for it yourselves, and be explicit about that.
You're citizens meeting to speak. But in so doing, keep up the business
of Parliament. Debate. Draft bills. Hold (unofficial) committee
meetings. Vote... on memoranda of understanding.

Show the country, its citizens, and its investors that while you do
not argue with the legality of the delay, you see no need to go on
vacation in this crucial economic time. Assume (without even explicitly
saying it) that in January when Parliament reconvenes, Harper will
fall, the coalition will form government, and the memoranda of
understanding and drafted bills will be dealt with, bang-bang-bang,
because you have already hashed this out.

Invite the Conservatives to join you. If you get some momentum, you
might get no few disgruntled members willing to bet that Harper's fury
will not control their lives.

Let the Conservatives take an extended vactation. Shrink the
proposed vacation period instead, to mark the severity of the economic
need.

Make it plain that you do not dispute Her Excellency's right to
consent to her nominal first minister's request to prorogue, and that
you respect her for making a difficult decision in uncharted waters.
Open each session with a consistent, well-crafted adaptation of
protocol which is sufficiently distinct that it does not trespass upon
Parliament's formal privileges... but that nonetheless shows clearly
that you do this out of the uttermost respect for the Queen, the
Governor General, and the Canadian people.

Repeat frequently that you're just trying to get work done now, so
that things can happen fast when the doors unlock in January. It can't
be trespass upon the privileges of government if its level of formality
is that of a caucus meeting.

Be completely transparent. Defeat the smoke-filled rooms meme. Heck, hold it in a bar, if you can find one big enough.

The media will come to you. I can think of no more efficient way to
stretch your advertising dollars than a bold, newsworthy stroke like
this.

If you do this, I will donate to the limit of my ability. I will
write letters to the editor praising your actions. I will take my four
children and go door to door. In Edmonton. In December.

Pass it on.

KEEP MEETING.

 

 

Thanks pogge, I have written to both the NDP and Liberals asking them to do this.

I have also printed off "I am part of the 62% majority"  signs and have them in my house windows and vehicle back window. Link below

http://www.62percentmajority.ca/action/tools

__________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Thank you pogge. 

 

That is the most positive response I have seen.  I would definitely donate money to ensure such a think occurs.  It would be the best free advertising available to counter the onslaught to come from the Conservatives.  You could even move it around the country so that citizens could tell their stories and give their advice.  It would be a much more democratic process then the 'consultations' we taxpayers will be paying for with the Conservative.

Best idea I have read in a long time!

We have all learned that a week in politics is a very long time - and we have seven more weeks just until Parliament comes back - let alone everything after that.

I would not be surprised if the Liberals blink and that Harper makes a lot of concessions and the Tories hold on a bit longer. If I was a Liberal, I'd probably think twice about coming to power at such a bad economic time with a leader who is so weak and who has no respect.

Here is what I predict will happen. The Tories will come out with some sort of a stimulus package and a budget that is heavily larded with spending etc... and the Liberals will crack and go along with it and try to take credit for any changes. The economy will continue to sink like a stone and when the Liberals have their super weekend to elect delegates in March - Ignatieff will be the clear winner and will have clinched the leadership. Ignatieff will have the advantage of NOT being tainted as a result of being one of the major figures in this who episode and by May/June - he may actually look pretty good to people in comparison to Harper.  We could then move into a period where the Tories start being the ones who are afraid of an election and who start avoiding confidence votes etc...

 

Just my two cents worth

Sure go ahead sierratango that is what I did, in a letter to both the NDP and Liberals.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

lefdem wrote:

I was reading in one the recent threads here, I think it was from remind, that Harper didn't actually ever pass a confidence vote in the just-prorogued session, that the vote was some kind of deferral to vote later. Is this actually a fact? If this is so, then the nature of what just happened is truly an assault on Parliament. 

The Address in Reply to the Throne Speech (to give it the official title) did pass. 

Hansard

Ye gods and little fishes.  I just looked at Hansard.  I had no idea that the timing was as tight as that.  They got to the end of the debate at 4:10  which is the time for "Routine Business".  That was the economic statement with all the hand grenades.  Immediately following that there was a voice vote where the Address passed.

Damn, if someone had managed to figure out how to stall that vote Harper would have been dead.  No way you prorogue without a vote on the speech from the throne.

lefdem, i'm sure others will give you better clarity on your question, and i don't know the protocols here, but i'm hearing from this thread that people are appreciating Cueball's calm and sensible and respectful stance, along with pogge's/Finley's sense of dignity and responsibility, and I'm just hinting that there have been historical precedents for such. Of course in the past the decisions made by exile governments were considered real decisions.  Finley is suggesting that the process of hashing through is key, which is certainly most true in our present situation, and of course the only 'legal' option.

on Don Newman's Politics today the same/similar ideas as those expressed by Cue were represented by a prof from the U of Ottawa Law Faculty...

Edward Ratushny U of Ottawa Law Faculty

"I don't think it's really a precedent. I think if she (the GG) had gone the other way it would be a precedent because the normal process is for the GG is to listen to the PM and follow the PM's advice. Now the circumstances here were rather unique, but the GG doesn't get into the circumstances. The GG looks at the bigger picture."

"I think that it was a good decision, that it was the right decision and the vote will come. It can't be put off indefinitely. Tactically,as well, it was good because she kept up her position of being a non-elected official - the Head of Government - but she listened to the PM, followed his advice, and the next time, when she doesn't, it will make her all the more credible." 

 

Key phrase .... the next time, when she doesn't, ...

 

interestingly, Ratushny felt that the Coalition played their cards too soon and could have waited to reveal themselves, say, after the GG rules against Harper. Now the jackass has a target. The visiting prof also mentioned that he was puzzled by Harper's insistence on acting like he had a majority, ... leading to Newman to quip that the professor was asserting that the political leaders in Parliament were all dummies! ha ha

 

 

 

 

 

SierraTango wrote:

Do you think it would be alright if I cut and paste it in an email to my NDP MP?

Absolutely. I've had other comments at the blog to the effect that it's being sent out to MPs, listservs, etc. That's what Eric said he wanted.

They should be accepted.

Stockholm wrote:

I would not be surprised if the Liberals blink and that Harper makes a lot of concessions and the Tories hold on a bit longer. If I was a Liberal, I'd probably think twice about coming to power at such a bad economic time with a leader who is so weak and who has no respect.

Here is what I predict will happen. The Tories will come out with some sort of a stimulus package and a budget that is heavily larded with spending etc... and the Liberals will crack and go along with it and try to take credit for any changes. The economy will continue to sink like a stone and when the Liberals have their super weekend to elect delegates in March - Ignatieff will be the clear winner and will have clinched the leadership. Ignatieff will have the advantage of NOT being tainted as a result of being one of the major figures in this who episode and by May/June - he may actually look pretty good to people in comparison to Harper.  We could then move into a period where the Tories start being the ones who are afraid of an election and who start avoiding confidence votes etc...

I think this is very plausible. Both as a specific scenario, and an illustration of multiple possible outcomes.

But I would not yet write off the Liberals sticking with this. But it is going to require Layton, Rae and Dion pushing things along. It can work with Dion being just along for the ride. The poor quality of the tape was an indication of continued dissaray around Dion. Not good. But still correctable. If he was himself flubbing the communication, that probably would be fatal. And the dissary around him is correctable since it is apparent he has finally started listening to advice.

Like Stock, I expect the Conservative package is going to be quite attractive, and entirely stripped of even remnants of the gratuitous pokes that got Harper fighting for survival. So it makes sense that the Liberals are likely to crumble in the end. [When Bob Rae starts saying "maybe we can work with Harper" we'll know the Coalition is finished. Because the Coalition is his only ticket to the Leadership.]

If they do crumble I'm not so sure that it will come out as pretty for them in the end as the picture Stock outlines. But it sure looks like the days of Harper bullying them are over. and once Harper has to act like a normal minority PM, things do open up for the Liberals.

JeffWells wrote:

I think most of all, this episode has evaporated my remaining trust in the political literacy of Canadians. (Or maybe I just need to stop reading the  comments on the CTV and Globe and Mail websites.) Nevertheless, today's Ekos poll shows Conservative support spiking to 44%.

Hatemongering and lying boldly works like a charm. 

 

Cueball's advice to relax is spot on.

And the poll does not show that hatemongering and lying works.

It makes perfect sense that so many people think a cooling off period is called for. And that until given a compelling case otherwise, they will prefer the devil they know in these difficult times.

I've been saying all along that these quasi-natural tendencies give Harper the advantage. So its no surprise early polling comes out like this.

People can dislike the hate mongering and think that there is probably lying going on, and still mostly let it roll over them.

And the 'political literacy' it takes to really know what is going on right now is possessed only by junkies. Even a high standard of civic duty should not require people to be political junkies. Most people are normal you know.

KenS wrote:

...

It is a normal skeptical view for people to suspect it is just too convenient for all the blame to be put on Harper and his actions.

I don't think the person on the street is aiming specifically at Harper any more than the other three.

 That's the disturbing thing.  They also think the coalition isn't cooperating.

tostig wrote:

I don't think the person on the street is aiming specifically at Harper any more than the other three.

 That's the disturbing thing.  They also think the coalition isn't cooperating.

  

Its perfectly sensible for people to look at politicians collectively.

And the coalition isn't cooperating in the overarching sense. That trumps whether they are cooperating among themselves.

Are people being realistic? No.

Do they have a point? Yes.

Like I said- this is the hand we've been dealt. And a pretty predictable one. And IMO, not one to despair about.

lefdem wrote:

I live in Saanich Gulf Islands and I'm tired so tired of watching Gary Lunn keep winning with a minority and splitting the vote, to the point of even causing the strange and upsetting events of the last election. Were doomed to Conservative or Blue Lib domination until we can achieve PR.

Good points above that, and I feel for your case.

But you've probably been reading babble long enough to know that for most of us- and not just the NDP partisans- that kind of electoral cooperation is a non-starter.

People can give the proposals all the details and hedges they want, the end result is a Liberal part with a slightly bigger tent, but no difference in what comes out the pipe. A two party system is not the answering. And the slippery slope is bad enough in its own right.

There is absolutely no appetite [with traction] in any party for that kind of cooperation.

Thanks for the compliment.

If by temporary coalition you mean something like an aggreement of parties negotiating standing down in certain ridings for just one election- I think you are right: even that is a non-starter.

You will find people in the NDP who support that idea. But a very small to non-existant group among party activists. Many woud simply flat ot oppose it on principle. And the rest for a mix of that and the familiarity of what that means in real terms to the grassroots organization. Anyone who has been active enough in the NDP to have an idea of what goes on at Councils, could picture the riot if anyone were to try to tell riding associations they are not going to run candidates. Folks would be hugely offended it would be done to any riding, let alone try that with mine.

And there are even fewer people in the Liberal party who would countenance such an idea. Its just more likely to get traction on the margins in the NDP because there schemes that sound good in the abstract but with zero means of being put into effect can achieve some kind of circulation.

I just thought as a curiousity item I'd post a summary from the US- the LATimes.

I think its actually a pretty good thumbnail.

Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper heads off defeat. The Conservative leader gets permission for a rare suspension of Parliament, allowing him to avoid a vote that would have toppled his government.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-canada5-2008dec05,0,3038908.story

The NYTimes story talked more about the troubling precedent constitutional scholars saw in this.