A Coalition, yes, but one we could live with.

LIBERAL + CONSERVATIVE

I would accept Ignatieff, Harper or Manley as Prime Minister. Then perhaps we could get on with the job of getting on with the job.

He wanted to remove the rights of civil servants to strike, but now in effect has done that very thing himself by proroguing parliament to keep his own job. In fact proroguing is exactly that “striking”.

It seems now now that right wing ideology wants to replace our current democratic system, and there is a danger that this is about to happen.

Where are the past parliamentarians? They are not showing up to protect our parliamentary system. Have they ceded to this right wing ideology too?

Where are the Joe Clarks, Jean Chretiens, Paul Matins, Brian Mulroneys, former statesmen and women? What are there views on what has transpired as of late? We want to hear form you.

An interesting article in the New York Times about the current political situation.
Rational and fair assessment of what really has happened as opposed to divisive, useless rhetoric by some of our own journalists.

An incoherent argument. On the one side you are arguing that your side has democratic legitimacy. On the other side, you are arguing that Harper is “playing the Canadian people” by using the democratic legitimacy argument.

Secondly, it is you that does not understand our political system. The governor general makes decisions based on a lot of things – input legitimacy and output legitimacy matters. The governor general is not some automaton bureaucrat as she would be in the US. Sometimes conventions like (constitutional changes don’t require referenda) become obsolete because almost nobody supports them. Because our parliamentary rules are unwritten and draw from a wide body of evidence and considerations there is a lot more flexibility than you suggest.

Moreover, Harper is arguing that the coalition is illegitimate. Maybe that is a flawed legal argument, but it is a powerful outcome argument. The governor general may ignore that argument, but if people have genuine concerns about the coalition and, by cracky they do, they surely have a right to call on their MP’s to get the heck out of the coalition. That is what they are doing, and that is what we are seeing take place.

“…it turned out that we were the glue, and spotted and prepared for the opportunity, and had taken the steps that were required so that when that opportunity arose, which was when Mr. Harper made his disastrous strategic error, by not providing stimulus to the economy, and instead playing political games, we were able to move…”

You’re not ready “when the opportunity arises” unless you’ve prepared in advance.

And:

“…let’s just say we have strategies, this whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn’t have been made with the Bloc to lock them in early, because you couldn’t put three people together in one, in three hours.”

If the NDP want to lay down the timeline at which they started to take steps, and when exactly “lock them in early” took place, I’m sure many people would be fascinated to know.

Here’s the motion:

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

No, Layton and Duceppe layed a trap for Dion. In their own words, including and especially Dion’s, the trigger for the coalition was lack of sufficient fiscal stimulus. That means with respect to the gambit to replace the government, Harper can be blamed only for failing to spend enough money – hardly a shameful provocation. The other issues – political funding cut, strike ban, pay equity – are all tangential. Any triggering event/excuse would do; then, the bait was set – PM’s chair, most of cabinet, resurrection of reputation, etc. A man might be expected to seize such an opportunity without thinking it through very far, especially folllowing a humiliating election defeat and a firm push toward the door.

It’s quite likely we will come to learn more about the chain and that in some respects my estimate is wrong, but these things stand out:
- Layton and Duceppe prepare the ground
- wait for an assured upcoming opportunity to vote non-confidence
- make the offer to Dion

Miscalculation: that the opportunity to vote non-confidence could not or would not be blocked.

The reality is as it has always been. In order to be heard, you must spend money. If you have no money to spend, you cannot make your voice heard. Mclean’s and all the other media outlets don’t take you seriously unless you have the resources to make yourself heard.

When you cut off a party’s access to financial resources, you cut off its voice. The only reason the Green Party got anywhere close to 10% of the popular vote is because it had access to the financial resources that it needs to make itself heard.

Stephen Harper knows this. He knows that, if he can use the financial resources that the levers of power give him, while denying these resources to others, he can silence his opposition.

There are four parties lined up against him. Yes, they are fighting for their own survival; but, in doing so, they are also fighting for the survival of multi-party democracy in Canada.

If you really want, there’s lots of stuff in here that you can take out of context. Just remember, When you rip something out of context, you are deliberately choosing not to be fully honest about what was said.

This all started with Layton and Duceppe, before the Harper government said anything about funding. Let’s not lose sight of the chain of events. And the coalition has insisted its reason to defeat the government is lack of fiscal stimulus, not party funding cuts.

So what you’re saying is, politics and the extreme concentration of power and money in the State tend to attract rats, no matter what the supposed ideology of their respective parties? And that rats will stop at virtually nothing to secure and maintain a grip on the power and money, even when their supposed partisan branding says that they stand for limited, open and accountable government?

Hmmm, something in that I think.

I know, officially, the Conservatives proposed to cut funding to all political parties

However, before they did this, they appointed 16 new ministers to cabinet.

Each of those 16 newly minted cabinet ministers has an office and staff. These new staffers are government employees paid for with taxpayer dollars. Each of these new staffers work for and report to the cabinet minister and therefore, by extension, to the Conservative Party of Canada. This represents several million dollars of research and preparation work that would otherwise have to be paid for by the Conservative Party.

Having done this, the Conservatives then proposed to cut off funding to the other political parties.

So, these aren’t two different and seemingly contradictory policies. They are components of a common policy that is intended to ensure that only the governing party has access to government funding and that only the governing party has the resources necessary to ensure its voice is heard.

Why those items

1) The elimination of the subsidy
2) The Pay Equity challenge
3) The rigth to strike
4) The limit on Civil Service Pay raises.

All are hot button red meat issues for cons…no doubt….but the Libs could have lived with 3 and 4, the Dippers could likely have lived with 1) maybe….but all four were like specific pokes in the eye to rile them all up.

It was intentional, so was it to force them together because the cons knew there was something brewing, the mole the mole! I have my doubts because I dont think they intended the coalition to coalesce, such as it was, so soon. Was it to push to see how far they had got? Was it to force them to reveal the Bloc’s support?

One way or another it was intentional, I dont think the Cons expected the coalition to stay together and push it this far. It is odd because the coalition built its strategy entirely around the idea that the GG HAD to hand over the keys. The cons didnt count on the coalition being so invested and not having a back down point.

The cons correctly saw that an election would have been suicidal for Libs in particular. The NDP would maybe have grabbed the mantle from the Libs, the Bloc wouldnt care. Dion’s unfathomable lemming like rush to the cliff along with his equally unfathomable link to the Bloc was the miscalculation. Also along with it being clear that there is nobody in control of the Liberal party right now.

The cons now know that nukes are effectively unguarded in Liberalland. This has implications for the budget negotiations, you cannot count on Dion to deliver. The cons will either cut a deal with Layton (possible since Jack has proven he would sell the family heoirlooms to move to the next rung) or the cons have to negotiate the factions within the Liberal party……right now that is Iggy’s caucus.

This is not easy since the Lberal party has now effectively gone rogue, nobody knows who is in control. This is not a good thing. Only Dion being gone over Christmas will make any difference.

Cons miscalculated, Oppsoition over-escalated….finding a new equillibrium will not be easy.

All Gone Wrong Michael Chong (cockney slang)……signals are important, said a wise man once, as are back channels. Like Kruschev’s politboro in October 62, knowing which letter to respond to will tell you who is in charge. Harper said he wants to talk…..Dion has said massive changes (unspecific) I wonder if Iggy or Rae will start to mention specifics, maybe even Jack?

Watch the skies.

I blame Layton. Layton cut the deal with the Bloc; Layton talked Dion onside.

Would Harper be blameless if all he had done is present an update with insufficient fiscal stimulus to suit the coalition, and the coalition pulled the trigger? If yes, then Harper is not to blame, period. You’ll have to decide for yourself from available evidence how eager Jack (and Stephane) were.

Why? If the coalition can’t hold itself together until the budget vote in January, then it does not deserve to govern. If it can, the members will have time to draft a solid budget proposal and we won’t have to put up with “council of 4″, woops, “3″, woops, “2″ (when they get around to formally asking Romanow), “advisors” amateur hour policy statements.

Everyone needs a way out of this, the government can fall in January if the opposition still wants it to. If the PM has tried to incorporate opposition ideas to obtain support and it still falls then an election is a reasonable thing to grant, if he doesnt try hard enough in the GG’s opinion then she can withold….although not terribly wise to that but within her pwers.

I was reading on other posts that she was meeting the Oppsoition Leaders this afternoon? Did this happen because that makes no sense to me. She doesnt do that, or isnt supposed to do that in my understanding. One counsellor at a time. Prevents the crown from being drawn into politics. I would be very surpised if she did….but wouldnt be surprised if the CBC reported it incorrectly.

But please correct me if I have this one wrong.

Obama didn’t become president in a week.

If that’s true then we’re in a lot more trouble than you think.

Whenever I’ve heard a soundbite from this guy I noted a remarkable lack of coherence. He sounds like a hockey player stumbling through an interview trying to remember the correct cliches. Surprising considering the guy is a lawyer, but then again people who are competent, sought-after and successful in non-political fields never enter politics anyways.

As for “right of centre” … well I suppose, if the centre is somewhere between Marx and Engels. But that’s Canada for you.

Any bets?

They hoped to create a left wing government, not centre left since they wouldnt have to talk to the cons. Hey thats politics, but they broke a taboo, a formal deal with the Bloc and effectively created Sovereignty Association. Nicely done Mr Layton, Mr Dion and Mr Rae (cheerleader on the side). Unintended by predictable.

Too many cooks spoil the soup… perhaps during these time when things change by the minute it is best to have less voices, there will be time for all others to speak for the Progressive Canadian Coalition. Interesting or what?

As someone who has leaned both left and right depending on the issues and personalities in play, I would get behind any Manley’s bid to rescue the Liberals and the country from this crisis of confidence in a heartbeat. Being someone who is cut from the centre-left of the political cloth, Manley would have my vote in the next election for sure.

I think it will take an ‘outsider’ such as Mr. Manley to restore shattered trust both within the House and across that nation. One thing is clear – after Mr. Dion’s disastrous performance these past few days and his inexcusably botched appeal to Canadians last night, he and his ill-conceived coalition are indeed toast.

Who knows, maybe Harper take a walk in the snow, step down someday soon, and allow the Conservatives will steal Manley away from the Iggy-only Liberals.

“Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.
Going to the candidate’s debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose”

“What’s that you say, Mr. Dion sir,
Your support has left and gone away,
Hey hey hey.”

No doubt, this is an opportunity, although I am skeptical that Manley wishes to jump back into the fray.

It makes me think that Iggy is also thinking the same things. He has several options, to join with Rae and become a cheerleader, to sit back and not become involved (the option he has chosen), or to jump forward as the anti-coalition leadership candidate. It is an intriguing choice, since it involves either choosing between unity or choosing to stand out as an alternative.

Not only that, Dion’s actions may result in a leadership race that begins sooner than expected.

These are the facts:
Harper and the Conservatives are trying to delay a LEGITIMATE and CONSTITUTIONAL non confidence vote. And they are even willing to shut down government to do it. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. Harper should let the system work the way it was designed to work and let the politicians fall where they may.

I realize that the coalition is little more than an attempt at a power grab by the opposition. But that is politics. Is what Harper doing any different?

Well yes, actually.

The difference is, the coalition has the RIGHT to vote down the government if they so choose. Should Harper have the right to suspend parliament and shut down our government just because he doesn’t like what the opposition is trying to do? Even though it is perfectly legal and constitutional? Like a bullying child, he is trying to change the rules of the playground for his benefit.

Harper is just playing for time, and he is trying to play the Canadian people.

He desperately hopes the Conservatives can keep on spinning this debacle as an attack on Canada, until the public gets so outraged that the coalition bends to the pressure and folds.

The coalition represents about 66% of the vote in the last election; the Conservatives about 36% (if I remember correctly). Put aside the propaganda about separatist this and coup d’etat that. The coalition represents a larger portion of the Canadian electorate than the Conservatives.

Now, I don’t like it either. As far as I’m concerned, they are all devious power mongers and if the tables were turned the Liberals would be saying the same thing about the Conservatives. However, it is what it is.

Harper should let parliament function as it’s supposed to. The people of Canada will eventually have the last say.

We need Peter Lougheed and Bill Davis to come forward and negotiate with Rae & Iggy on how to settle this thing down. Agree to let the government stay. Let both the Libs and Cons have a chance to change leaders and then hold a proper election to settle this thing in a calm and rational way.

I thought Harper’s TV performance was utterly dishonest. I was disgusted. Dion’s was disturbingly amateurish and may well have damaged the coalition’s chances. I agree with those who say both the Conservatives and Liberals need new, credible leaders ASAP.

Too bad.

Same deal with Frank McKenna and abortion; he has the most hardline anti-abortion record out there, you can forget about him being associated with the Liberals ever again.

In both cases, you see how the Liberal big tent grew greater than necessary for minimum winning conditions, hence the collapse. All the accomplished Old White Males of good character are gone, the same guys who made sure tapes got to the CBC on time and who could have told you the Green Shift wasn’t going to fly. When diversity replaces merit as a guiding management principle, it all falls apart, and that is what is happening to the LPC right now.