“NDP and Libs may be willing to give proportioanl representation a go, but I can’t see the Bloc going along, assuming we’re talking about using % of the national vote.”

That may not be a valid assumption. It might make more sense, in any case, to use provincial totals to determine the %. So each province would send representatives selected on the basis of the province’s vote. The Bloc could still win the majority of representation from Quebec, just as the CPC could still win the majority of representation from Alberta. It’s just that those NOT supporting those parties in those places would ALSO have representation from the province.

There’s a lot of different options for PR, and we can consider them all. But if we were to have PR based on NATIONAL percentages, with a party list system heavily skewed to Central Canada (‘coz that’s where the population is!), we would just entrench all sorts of “alienations”.

It could also be used to determine representation at “the other place”, while we’re at it!

If Dion is running this on his own, then this is going to splatter everywhere. May get no shows, may get a few floor crossers.

Whoa….so if there is no coalition plan then what are they doing and why are they playing fast and loose with the countries stability? If there is no plan then this is about power…and if its too early to criticize them for that, which was my criticism theyhave no plan, then how in the world are the criticizing the govt

Re Parliamentary System….I weep, I weep for what the teach and dont teach in High Scool and University or even citizenship class.

Yes whoever can command the confidence of Parliament, which by convention is the party with the largest number of seats. But also by convention the people choose. I dont know what your King Byng lectures were about but mine were about how that crisis trimmed and circumscribed the role of the GG pretty severely, despite what the reserve powers say. Convention would say that the GG better have a damn good reason to refuse a PM request of disolution and not liking him or having a politcal preference for the either side isnt one of the boxes she can choose.

She needs an agreement from all three, including the toxic Bloc. Is accepting a deal that includes the Bloc support, for who knows what (Canada Quebec Coalition OMG!) a wise choice, or would it be better to grant dissolution and let the people comment on this new development.

Wells latest report indicates that this is Dion still working on this…..I wondered since Iggy said he had nothing to do with this in his airport interview (which was odd). If there is a coalition it is going to be Con Blue Liberal National Unity coalition, dare I say Progressive Conservatives and the Dippers, the Liberal Left and the Bloc can form the Sovereignty Association Party.

Lets see how this plays over another couple of days. I think we may see a majority government yet, and it isnt who you think.

NDP and Libs may be willing to give proportioanl representation a go, but I can’t see the Bloc going along, assuming we’re talking about using % of the national vote.

I think the above sentiment about the Bloc Quebecois is more about historical revisionism than reality.

The Bloc Quebecois’ origin was in Lucien Bouchard recognizing that the interests of Quebec, defined by many as “distinct” (if not distinctive), could not be sufficiently…in his mind…forwarded in the context of a pan-Canadian “big-tent” political party, Liberal or Progressive Conservative.

So a strictly Quebec based party would always be able to punch greater than their weight as the Quebec seats would probably always be needed to forward the agenda of a minority government, or even in some cases, a majority government that needed support from its Quebec MPs.

So far, that calculation has proved correct. Note that this is the same calculation that led to the genesis of the Reform Party. The Bloc has made the argument that they can best defend and promote the interests of Quebec, and the people of Quebec, as is their right, have agreed to varying degrees. Reform was never really able to convince an equivalent proportion of the electorate that they could do the same for the rest of Canada.

The notion that the “only” reason for the existance of the BQ was to divide the country is ludricous. It exists to represent the interests of Quebec within a still intact Canada, and does so unabashedly, directly, and without apology.

I don’t really have a problem with that, it’s just realpolitik. I wish more politicians and parties were so direct; instead, they water down their programme in an attempt to compromise and keep everyone under the big-top. The problem with this sort of compromising is that nobody is left content, and eventually it’s difficult to see what a party actually stands for beyond electoral success (get the point, Liberals? get the point, those in the CPC who are waiting for a majority to implement their specific agendae?)

What’s more disturbing is the implicit suggestion that the people of Quebec should somehow be disenfranchised of the right to vote for whoever THEY feel best respresents their interests, that they should be limited to the generally ineffective representation of the compromising “pan-Canadian” parties.

Until, and IF (hopefully not) Quebec was to seperate, the people of Quebec still have the right of representation at the HofC. The fact that this representation is a hell of a lot more sophisticated, in political terms, than other representation availble is not the fault of the Quebec people, or of the BQ. Maybe the other so-called national parties could learn a lesson from them?

Mind you, I’ve been living in Alberta for the last 31 years; the notion of political sophistication seems to be considerd oxymoronic here.

The cons did this to themselves. Harper had the opportunity to do the right thing and put the country ahead of politics. He didn’t do that. He decided all on his own that he would play political games versus doing anything beneficial for the country. As a greenie I’m sitting here laughing my butt off because the greens are the only political party not involved in this whole mess.

Harper gave the opposition exactly what they were looking for. They knew he would go right back to playing the bully and playing games instead of taking his job seriously. I believe that is why he had no platform during the last election. His entire idea was to wipe out all opposition… kinda like Mugabe. and now we also have the conservatives embroiled in a taped telephone conversation involving parties and people not their own. I believe if convicted that carries a five year prison sentence for whoever takes the fall on that one.

Harper is done. He threw the bait in the water and the opposition decided to eat the boat. Now; that he has been called on his bluff and has been put way in over his head he tries to back away and do the right thing. Too bad Harper… you should of done the right thing to begin with versus playing games. Canadians voted you into a minority government. That means we want government to work together; not act like a dictatorship or to spend you entire time focused on wiping out opposition. I support this coalition or so does over 50% of Canadians. Isn’t that more democratic than running your own show with 38%.

If I was the head of this coalition I would implement proportional representation into the house for the next election. Might not be the first thing I would do but it would get done before the coalition falls apart. Reason: the conservatives and liberals for that matter would never again form a majority government and politicians like Harper will be a thing of the past. Right away though it would be a death blow to Harper because his entire political life is based on getting that majority. If you make it impossible for him to do his purpose is lost. He would have no one else but himself to blame for that either. He had the chance to do the right thing and do what Canadians wanted… and he blew it. Back to the opposition benches for you pal.

I also agree that the Cons should test the waters for a coalition with the Bloc – they likely have more in common than the other opposition parties. So far it hasn’t been worth the cost to Harper, but he may start thinking about it now.

Which makes me think, if a coalition with the Bloc is clearly a prefectly viable option for all the federalist parties, why wouldn’t the Cons just do an end-around and secure the Bloc’s support? It seems to me that the Bloc would be happer in a coalition with just one other party rather than two.

Anyway, I also think this whole thing will fizzle.

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who feels this way. It just all seems too good to be true.

“As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

-From a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson signed by all three opposition leaders: Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper
(September 9, 2004)”

In other words, “Dear GG – if the PM asks you to dissolve parliament we think you should talk to us before automatically granting dissolution because we collectively hold a majority of seats and have been getting along famously of late”

The letter was asking for the opportunity to form a coalition gov’t. NOT asking for an election.

Those facts are straight, my friend.

Yeah, he got an improved standing, but that’s a pretty poor second prize given that the election was always his to lose… and, essentially, he did.

I wouldn’t even bother spilling bytes over the fact that the election, by Harper’s own law, ought never have been called in the first place except for the fact that Harper calls the opposition moves “opportunistic” power grabbing yet that’s exactly what he attempted to do in calling an election more than a year before his own law would have allowed for a legitimate writ to be called.

“Bald power grab” is exactly what this last election was all about for Stephen Harper.

While I doubt that a coalition can last, I’m prepared to listen. If the opposition pushes forward with this I should hope that they have very carefully considered what they are entering in to and that they have confidence they can hold and wield power effectively for the benefit of Canada, not for themselves. If they can achieve the former, they will benefit in time. If they can’t, they’ll be destroyed next election.

Its hard not to wish for an outcome that would see Harper cut down, ideally fatally (politically speaking) wounded.

The koolaid drinkers won’t like this but turfing Harper out would be the best possible outcome for the country and for the Conservative Party in the long run. I might even start cutting Irving Gerstein cheques again, once Harper and his goons are gone. I’d certainly like to see a real leadership race occur in the Conservative Party. Yes, I’m implying there wasn’t one last time. With Belinda Stronach and Tony Clement as the only other contenders? Ha!

Sadly for the CPC, if Harper does get turfed via losing the government he’ll probably re-establish his latent Albertan separatist notions and sulk off to do something else destructive for the country. It’s not like he’s ever had a real job … nothing else to fall back on.

Just like Harper proposed to do in 2004 in a letter to the Gov’ General, signed by him, Layton and Gilles Duceppe.

I saw interview with Iggy on CBC Sunday this morning and it sounds a lot like McCallum’s interview. The Libs are out there claiming the Cons have no plans but when asked about their plans or what they would differently, they answer with Sgt Schultz’s ‘I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing’.

Of course, you’re making a huge assumption about what the coalition will do, and condemning them for that. That’s not entirely without merit – the opposition parties did say late in the campaign that they felt increased spending was necessary to stimulate the economy.

Of course, Harper said exactly the same thing immediately after the election. He hasn’t moved on it, but now he’s hinting that he’ll release details of a massive spending plan to assuage the opposition parties.

So all sides – including the Cons – are talking about massive spending to stimulate the economy. Nobody – not even the Cons – has released a plan.

As for taking power without an election, that’s how parliamentary governments work: despite all the right-wing caterwauling and fear-mongering, this is completely constitutional.

Is that so? A lib/ndp would have less seats than the Cons, and thus cannot work (and democratically speaking would be an injustice). If you include the Bloc to gain a plurality of seats, then you have the federalist parties granting power to a party whose sole reason for existence is to split up the country. And you say this is a compelling case? What kind of a Canadian are you?

And practically speaking, giving power to the NDP, whose would immediately raise taxes and blow a hole in our economy as soon as they had the chance, this is a compelling case for Canada to handle a recession?!! The NDP have caused their own recession almost everywhere they’ve been voted into power (particularly BC and Ontario)! In this case, the NDP would have the chance to start with a recession and see how much more damage they could do! Heaven help us.

jwl, I couldn’t agree more. I finally saw a journalist (Andrew Nicol (sp?)) try ing to nail John MacCallum down to an actual dollar figure or even a specific sector to target for stimulus this morning on Newsworld and he (MacCallum) had nothing.

Change of government and massive increase in spending being attempted without a plan, without an election, media incapable, unwilling or too confused to ask pertinent questions and sleepwalking to this.

Either one is a problem, combined they are a serious problem.

Sorry if that isnt pithy and “zingy” enough for you.

I have been wondering about this all weekend. Where is Dion? Did he enter witness protection or something. If he proposes to take power away from the party that won the most votes/seats, he should be making his case. Instead, all I have seen so far is his surrogates saying the Cons are beyond the pale but proposing nothing that they will do differently. I thought Iggy was pathetic this morning on CBC Sunday claiming to know little and having no proposals to justify his desire to usurp power from Cons.

It is obvious the oppo parties got their knickers in a twist about the party funding and used other excuses to explain their behaviour. If Libs/NDP/BQ are going to bring down the government for not having any plans, it would be nice if they presented their plans but they can’t, because they don’t have any.

However, the Conservatives can maintain government if they themselves “kill” Harper first, and go to Parliament next week with a new PM and a new finance minister.

For the Conservative minority to survive, they have to eliminate the thing that threatens it, and that is Harper himself, since Harper is a mortal threat to the Opposition parties, and this is there one and only chance to get him before Harper gets them.

An election is still a better alternative than a bald power grab by Stephane Dion, whose Green Plan platform was overwhelmingly rejected at the last election.

So we had an election on October 14th…..we can interpret that all we want. But if the opposition story is to be believed many things have changed, their platform will change and the government is changing theirs from the last one.

Ok, IF thats the case, dont we normally call elections to air these things and get the consent of the governed before we head into these kinds of apparently dramatic changes? Usually time takes care of driving changed circumstances or need for renewed mandates. Well guess what, somebody hit the fast forward button. Unless it is truely a majority of MP’s that sign on to this, that includes the Bloc then I think the default position is ask the people. Why is that such a radical position???

If the argument goes well we just asked them, then you are left with why not live with the decision they rendered, despite the tow stubbing going on. If the justification is that there are changed circumstances then that means the choice the people made isnt relevant and they need to make another.

Only a signed agreement by ALL opposition parties,because thats the math that makes this work, is worth the GG substituting her judgement for the elctorates. 300 million, assuming this is the cost is 1/10th the amount of money the auto industry ALONE is looking for from the Canadian government, to attatch some perspective. Just how much “stimulus” is the opposition saying would satiate their thirst….1/10th what the Americans have put out there, which would put us close to 100,000,000,000, or is it the 2% of GDP that was mentioned…that is 29 BILLION, which represents a 15% increase over existing spending!!! That is slightly less than we spend on interest on the debt in a given year and its on a tax base of slightly more than 220 billion. Thats a massive change…usualy requiring some checkpoint with the electorate.

Is that to be spent now, or over years….why is nobody asking? oh right, the drama is too juicy to avoid, and if it is over years then what is the difference that drives a need for a change of government now. Isnt this just an expansion of government. For God’s sake would someone start asking these questions!

You cannot change the government based on a wing and a prayer, or at least you shouldnt, and if the “coalition” has a plan, once again maybe it should be put to the test of an election but if there is three party agreement then I would let it slide for a time frame. I am sorry but these are huge changes to solve a problem that…well what is the problem they are trying to solve? beyond Mr Oliphants wet hanky? Can someone please explain how this fire hose of money is going to help, what problem is it going to solve and how is it going to solve it.

I am angry about the situation as well Mr Selley but at this stage this is a pipe dream..someone described it as campus politics, pretty accurate on both sides. You may hate Harper, you might think he is a bully…dont think Chretien was much different…I cant say I like the timing of any of this. If an election takes the cons out of power then fine, but at least it solves the legitimacy questions, which will absolutely plague the coalition and spark an election anyway. If the fear of an election causes everyones sphincter to pucker then GOOD….maybe it will discipline them all. The conservatives for starting it and the opposition for continuing the charade.

Per my normal plea…would someone, Mr Selley this means you and your colleagues, please start asking what the heck is going to be different by substituting the players in a critical and relevant sense….and how this camel designed by a committee of a government would even begin to work…”well we will start with one guy who lost the elction badly, who agrees to be gone in 5 months and then there will be someone else…we dont know who, who may change the cabinet and then well we arent really sure what their agenda is…..oh and we have no idea beyond the colour of the government just what their policy is…..honestly am I the only one who finds this all rather self indulgent and borderline crazy? Is the government eye really going to be on the ball or is it going to be on manouvering.

If we are in the crisis the opposition is saying, then answers like, we’ll figure it out dont effin cut it.

The GG should threaten them all with an election to force a compromise. You think the tories want an election, doubt it.

I wonder if Harper has any muzzles we could borrow. I don’t know what Reid was thinking with this or what the libloggers are thinking by howling with glee over it.

Just because a guy plunges a country that’s already facing an economic crisis into a constitutional one as well, for no reason other than his own naked political ambition, that’s no reason to criticize him! We all make mistakes!

It’s “sheer madness” madness I tell you!