Of course Harper keeps on lying and fearmongering.
That is all incompetents like him can do.
Thanks, Dawg! I had only counted three lies, missed one.
Frank Valeriote does not favour a coalition government and instead hopes Prime Minister Stephen Harper can work toward rescuing the Canadian economy.
“I believe in working toward a solution, not working toward a coalition,” Guelph’s Liberal MP said Wednesday.
It begins....
I can taste that steak Dawg.
Dr. Dawg,
"7:00 p.m. statement: Harper keeps on lying to Canadians "
"Secondly, Harper seems to have forgotten the King/Byng affair."
One minute (7:00 pm precisely) he's lying, the next, he's forgetting.
I'm getting a headache. Please make up my mind. Is he lying or forgetting or both.
How can you tell which is which? Vulcan mind meld?
It's funny how we all had the urge to point out the lies on our blogs.
If our resident troll imagines that Harper really forgot King/Byng, he has less intelligence than I credited him with. And he is also sarcasm-challenged.
So, our choice is between a liar, and a guy who can't get a five minute tape together, coupled with a guy who can't teleconference correctly.
I weep.
Not wanting to get reacquainted with my lunch, I promised myself that I would quit listening to Harpie the moment he uttered his first lie. My ratio was switched off after 23 seconds.
He's truly incapable of shame, isn't he?
Steaks, Beer, and a decent bottle of claret...
The Wheels on this bus are falling off, falling off, falling off.
Take a look at the Lying Jackal. Never far from the carrion call is our Jackal.
Jay,
If Iggy some how screws up this deal, or is even seen to be screwing up this deal, he will become so toxic, so utterly unelectable that he might has well just go back to academia right off the bat.
Cameron, unless Iggy "screws up this deal" the Liberal Party will be so toxic that it may as well fold up its bankrupt tent now.
There are adults in the Liberal Party and at this point they are talking. By Monday they will have made their point.
The coalition is not happening and the video challenged M. Dion is done.
Jay, I've never voted for them in my life, and if they bring him down and don't make a mess of it, I'd consider it.
Something that I said I'd never do in my life.
When Joe Clark lost a vote of confidence, he went to GG Edward Schreyer to ask for dissolution. Not widely known: the GG initially refused, and asked Trudeau as Leader of the Opposition if he would form government. Trudeau refused, believing that he'd do better if there was an election.
Schreyer himself has verified this.
I'm worried that if Harper ever gets a majority, he will continue to misrepresent how democracy works and will pass laws preventing coalitions.
Today, if Harper doesn't get a prorogue, he still has the nuclear option to replace the GG with someone more likely to do what he wants.
Or, failing that, he could simply ask the United States to invade Canada, suspend the Constitution, and impose an entirely new political system upon us, Iraq-style. Bush, after all, is still in power for another month or so, and I'm sure he'd be happy to give a parting helping hand to good ol' "Steve".
Dawg, for once, I agree with you.
But I think the deeper problem is that there's a disconnect between the way our system operates de jure (which you described very well) and de facto, where people do vote for parties (and in particular party leaders) and not individual MPs (at least for the most part). In the latter model, it makes some sense to say no one voted for the coalition. And in particular, no one voted for a side-deal with the Bloc (just ask many Grit and Dipper voters, especially out west).
Craig:
I know that people vote for parties and even Prime Minsters--in their minds. But the net effect of their votes are either to send individual MPs to Ottawa or not.
The distinction here isn't as apparent when a majority of MPs belongs to a specific political party. It becomes more salient, though, in a minority situation when there are more than two parties involved.
MPs come to the House in the latter case and an attempt is made to find a government that will maintain the confidence of the House. At that point the electorate is irrelevant. It's in other hands--ultimately the G-G's.
Personally I like coalitions, and I support proportional representation. Imagine! Three parties actually cooperating with each other in the House! It's been painted as evil and undemocratic, but isn't that the way Parliament is supposed to work?
Dawg,
I agree with you, but we either need to change the system (move to PR, or weaken the parties and empower MPs), or engage in a big civics lesson, because a lot of people think about parliamentary government as if it were a republic with the PM as a president.
I also think we need to formalize these prerogative powers (say, by statute) so that there is less discretion in dissolution, prorogation, etc.
Interesting times.
Apparently not Dawg. I have a summary here.
The bullet - Coalitions will not work when they depend for their support on a party which is committed to leaving Canada. Canadians - as the polls suggest - will not stand for it.
Meanwhile the Liberals are lining up to underbus Dion and the whole idea of a Coalition.
I can taste that steak!
Commenting by HaloScan
