You need a haircut.
...
...
...
First!
"I think it's astoundingly undemocratic that Liberals and NDP would presume to topple the Conservative government just weeks after Harper's clear win in a general election, and just days after the opposition supported the Conservatives' throne speech."
No, Ezra, it is well within the British Parliamentary tradition. We don't elect our Prime Ministers directly. The PM is the party leader who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.
If Harper little exercise in prematurely nailing the Opposition backfires there is nothing "undemocratic" about it. Harper loses because Harper cannot command the support of the house on the measures he proposes. That's how the game works.
Ontario has experience with both of these "professional-politicians." The word "professional" in the same meaning as in "paid sex-partner." (i.e whore!)
In the early nineties Jack Layton and his wife Olivia Chow both were city counselors in Toronto.
During Bob Rae's tenure as failed N.D.P. Premier of Ontario (now being recycled as a Liberal!) it became public knowledge that Jack and Olivia, both well paid, were living in social housing meant for low income families. So much for their
social commitment. Every time I hear Jack spout that catch phrase "working people " I cringe.
Anyway, they were exposed for the frauds they were, and had to move in a hurry. It was just one of about half a dozen scandals during Bob Rae's tenure.
We all know Bob Rae totally mis-managed Ontario by increasing taxes and welfare. Bob went beyond the four years, and in June '95 the citizens of Ontario finally ended the nightmare by throwing the socialists out and making them the 3rd party, a fate from which they (fortunately) never recovered.
Mike Harris lowered taxes and welfare and put Ontario back on the map. In the mean time, Bob Rae, knowing that the N.D.P. was done for for decades, followed the example of Pierre Trudeau, and became a Liberal. With the same aspirations as Trudeau, as we have already seen.
Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Bob Rae, now there is one unholy trinity if I ever saw one. G-d help us!
Does Canada really need ANOTHER P.M. from Quebec? They have been screwing us for about 47 of the last 50 years.
Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin. This list is WAY too long already, for heaven's sake Quebec, do us a favour and separate. And please close the door on your way out.
Why does a Liberal-N.D.P. coalition make me think of a prostitute and a pimp?
I am still not clear on what the Liberal/NDP government would do differently. Meetings? Discussions?. What is their plan? Green Shift Part Deux?
Stephen Harper did not campaign on a platform of taking away the roughly two bucks a vote electoral subsidy for political parties garnering 5% of the vote or more. Yet, when he returns to the house, that's one of the first things he and Flaherty try to push through the legislature. Was this because he is still smarting that he got beat up by a girl, Elizabeth May, on national TV, as Rick Mercer once said Harper might be afraid of? He knows that about two-thirds of the electorate voted for parties other than the Conservatives and that taking away this subsidy would hurt those other parties and increase his chances of getting that majority he so desperately wants. He has made the same mistake Joe Clark made when he came into power with a minority plurality, and that was trying to govern as if he has a majority. With that he has lost the confidence of the house, and so soon after the last election it makes no sense to go back to the polls if the Liberals, NDP and Bloq Quebecois can pull together on common ground. It is they who will have a majority, and the Gov. General should grant them the power to govern for as long as they can hold it together, or five years, whichever comes first.
If there comes to be a Finance Minister Jack Layton, with all the damage that entails, the blame for it should be laid squarely on the shoulders of the Conservative Party and Mr. Harper for attempting to play partisan games rather than governing.
Flaherty and Harper basically held a knife to the jugular of the opposition and expected them to what? Blindly walk into it? Anybody with any hunting experience knows you don't corner an animal, wounded or not, unless you have the firepower to kill it. Harper was 11 seats short of that firepower.
That 30 million was directly aimed at crippling the opposition, we all know it. That Flaherty and Harper couldn't predict the reaction, in my opinion, makes them completely deserving of what's coming to them. Obviously they need a bit of a time-out to learn that parliaments is about governing, not game-playing.
Hopefully they'll have figured it out by the end of this time-out whenever it happens, and we can get away from this garbage and back to leading this country properly.
Either way, Harper needs to get removed from his position in the conservative party as well. Talk about screwing up a good thing.. he just gave the NDP and the Liberals the incentive for them to realize they really could work together. Brilliant.
Actually, Jay, to say that the Governor General can unilaterally dismiss the Harper Government and invite Mr. Dion or Mr. Layton to form a Government is to take an incorrect view of both the British and more specifically, the Canadian parliamentary traditions. There is no precedent in Canadian parliamentary history in which a Governor General has refused to accept the advice of a prime minister to dissolve Parliament in a circumstance where the prime minister's party (a) had a plurality of seats in the House, and (b) no motion of censure against the Government was before the House, whose resolution would be stifled by a dissolution of Parliament. These are critical differences between the situation today and the situation between Prime Minister King and Lord Byng in 1926.
Moreover, the decision by Lord Byng to refuse the advice of his Prime Minister was made at a time preceding the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and (obviously) the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982, when the "reserve power" of the Governor General as an agent of the British Empire was much more accepted than it is today.
Perhaps if the Governor General were to attempt to use her "reserve power" to dismiss Mr. Harper, Mr. Harper could advise Her Majesty directly to dismiss the Governor General.
Mr. Abernathy -
How can you say that Mr. Harper attempted to govern as if he had a majority? He hasn't been governing for more than two weeks since Parliament has reconvened. This is just a brazen attempt by the Liberal party to reverse the result of the October election. If Mr. Dion intended to form a government in coalition with the NDP and the Bloc, he should have announced such an intention during the election campaign.
As for those who claim that decision by Lt. Governor Aird of Ontario to invite David Peterson to become Premier following the defeat of the Miller government in 1985, it should be noted that Lt. Governor Aird's decision was made following the advice of Premier Miller, not against his advice.
Incidentally, the 1985 Ontario election produced a plurality of only 4 seats for the Conservatives, compared with a plurality of 66 seats for the Conservatives in the present federal parliament.
"Who's scarier as Finance Minister -- Bob Rae or Jack Layton?"
What's scarier....a coalition between them running Canada's finances.
I'm so sick of this BS.
Time for east of Ontario to make a stand, and leave this sinking ship.
I'll be moving West as soon as a decent name is found for the new country.
The electorate's judgement? 44% voted Liberal or NDP. 37% voted Tory.
Harper forgot that the electorate's judgement returned a minority parliament. Like Joe Clark he acted as if he had a majority and like Joe Clark he's learning his mistake the hard way.
It's a total win-win for Harper no matter what happens. The opposition parties have put their real selves on display and it is an ugly sight.
The Lieberals are blowing smoke. They owe millions to the banks and those loans are supposedly secured by their future "earnings" from their vote count share tollgate set by the last election. Except now the banks know they can't rely on that continuing to be secure so they won't loan them squat until they start seriously paying down the present outstanding loans.
Given the fact that a $100 party donation will still have a $75 income tax rebate, what is their problem?
God help Canada if this lunatic leftwing coalition comes to pass. What gives me hope is the fact not all liberal MPs are raving socialists and therefore may have second thoughts about Jack Layton as Finance Minister and abstain from voting.
However, if the government is defeated the people then MUST decide who forms the next government byway of another election and NOT the GG.
Well, now we all know for sure what the Liberals and NDP truly stand for.
Feeding at the public trough is just soooooo easy. They are willing to take down the elected government and Canada's economy with it during the worst recession in decades so that they can protect their own little secure and sheltered welfare fiefdom.
If every one of their "supporters" cared enough to each send them $2, they would have millions more than they take from the taxpayer. But it does not happen. So the Liberals under Chretien quietly passed a law letting them just steal the money from those who are otherwise unwilling to give.
The message is loud and clear.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: any coalition stability depends on the Bloc.
What, if anything, could the Liberals offer the Bloc in exchange for an undertaking not to bring down the government? And what does the sovereigntist-minded Bloc gain, given that its more hardcore membership is out to prove that federalism in its current form (and as represented by the other parties) doesn’t work to Quebec’s ultimate advantage?
The other thought I have is that any coalition of the left only needs to last until the end of March. By then, two quarters will have passed, equivalent to two transfers from Elections Canada. That should be enough for the parties to secure further loans for an election campaign, which is *really* what this is all about.
I beg to differ; you do not need a haircut. 
Hard to say who's scarier, but this might help you make up your mind on the Bob Rae front at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B...h?
v=B9nbwZ4wOAQ
"No, Ezra, it is well within the British Parliamentary tradition. We don't elect our Prime Ministers directly. The PM is the party leader who can command the confidence of the House of Commons."
I wonder if you would make the same argument if the roles were reversed. Typical liberal jackass -- what's right for me, not for thee.
No one campaigned on a global crises - there wasn't one at the time. The opposition parties are seizing on this to grab power, nothing more. If you disagree with what they are doing buy a membership in the western separatist party to send them a message. Where is the western separatist party these days?
Only a Tory would define getting 37% of the vote "a clear win". In fact, not recognizing the reality of the numbers in the House (never mind the popular vote) is why Harper is in this mess.
You need to run for MP somewhere. NOW.
Go ahead, bring on another election 
.
You are wrong on this one Ezra. Nothing un-democratic about a coalition government.
Frightening of course - Jack Layton as Finance Minister??
If the opposition go to the GG and say "We can run the country" is it that simple?
Does she HAVE to believe them?
Do they have to present a case? does she have to determine whether it could work?
Yeah, Exra, you called her Nancy. You were fairly good otherwise. Keep smiling. Drives them crazy.
As to Parliamentary tradition and convention, it was established in 1926 that if a sitting PM asks the GG for a disolution, it should be granted.
If anyone wants to point to the Ontario 1985 situation, the PC's and Liberals had almost the same number of seats. The NDP, under good ol plutocratc's gopher Bob Rae, had made a deal with Liberal David Peterson.
PC Preier Frank Miller could have demanded another election to let the people decide but he choose to pack it in. Therefore, the only way this coalition should be allowed to take office without an election is if Harper advises the GG to let them have the reingns of power. Harper was on weaker ground asking for the election in September than he would be now.
@Greg - it was a clear win, just as 38% was a clear win for Bob Rae back in the 1990's when he formed a majority government in Ontario (with only 3 parties running!). And just as 38% was a clear win for Jean Chretien in 2000, and 36% was a clear win for Paul Martin in 2004. (Majority and minority respectively).
It's rare to form a government with over 50% of the vote in our system; being far below 50% of the vote has never meant parties of the left didn't have a mandate.
Unless you spoke up against the Rae, Chretien, and Martin governments, noting that they didn't have a clear mandate (presumably they couldn't have that if they didn't have a "clear win"), then please don't interject your partisan theories into this discussion.
That said, I agree with Jay Currie, and disagree with Ezra Levant. There is nothing undemocratic about the Liberals and the NDP trying to topple Stephen Harper's government. It's our parliamentary system, and I think Ezra is speaking here more as a Conservative than as a conservative.
(My agreement with Jay is far from complete; I don't agree with what he has written on his blog, viz., that Stephen Harper has failed to be capable of doing what the majority want or that he has failed to explain).
I strongly support the withdrawal of these subsidies, but I think that the way in which the PM is trying to do it is wrong; I'd rather see them phased out over 4 years. As it is, it's too much trying to drive a stake through the Liberal party's heart by a sudden rule change.
I know a lot of people on the right would be fulminating with rage if the situation were precisely reversed with the Conservative party getting most of its money from the subsidy and teetering on the edge of fiscal collapse, and a Liberal government trying to pull the subsidy rapidly.
-Holmwood
Dear Worried
If I remember correctly, Jean Chretian managed to win a majority with only 39% of the vote. I do not remember any "outrage" that the Liberals would be governing with such a low % of the popular vote.
Also, good old Jean called two unnecessary elections to take advantage of the newly minted Reform and then the Alliance parties. No outrage then either. So what has changed? Oh I know, now it is a Conservative government that is in power. And we can't have that can we.
Taliban Jack hands down. Bob Rae is a Power Corp flunky as is Ontario,s Socialist Preimer. Ones a Stalinist. The other an incompetent.
"Perhaps if the Governor General were to attempt to use her "reserve power" to dismiss Mr. Harper, Mr. Harper could advise Her Majesty directly to dismiss the Governor General."
Michael Teper
--
I don't think that's what this is all about (Harper could save himself in this way, but the opposition could still hamstring him on all subsequent legislation he would attempt), nor do I agree with Mr. Teper's other comments about misunderstanding the Parliamentry tradition. Even if there is no precedent for a Governor-General allowing the Opposition parties to form a majority government over the objections of a minority government, is there a precedent of a Governor-General refusing to allow such a move?
I am certainly not an expert on this, but it seems to me that the Opposition are well within their rights to try to form a coalition; if the members of the public don't like it, they can hold the parties in question responsible at election time.
"I wonder if you would make the same argument if the roles were reversed. Typical liberal jackass -- what's right for me, not for thee."
Richard Romano, for shame. Jay Currie is pretty widely-known as a rather conservative blogger. Just because he disagrees with you on this one instance, he's a "typical Liberal jackass"?
By the way, there are some of us capable of taking consistent positions, whether those positions are to our personal liking, or not.
A non-emu's opinion wrote:
"Anybody with any hunting experience knows you don't corner an animal, wounded or not, unless you have the firepower to kill it. Harper was 11 seats short of that firepower."
Joe Clark (aka "Joe Who?") couldn't count when he headed a minority government following Trudeau's short-lived resignation.
Now history seems to be repeating itself with Stephen Harper's counting skills under similar circumstances.
Mr. Teper,
It looks like we will just have to agree to disagree. I don`t think we are viewing the same scenario from the same perspective. I like Mr. Harper in a lot of ways, especially on the international scene, but the bloke comes across as an arrogant partisan too often, especially in trying to remove monies that the other parties (including the Greens) were counting on. No, he didn`t say he`s going to govern as if he had a majority, but his actions with regard to electoral funding show that is exactly what he is doing; totally inconsiderate of the p.o.v. of the other parties. Sorry mate. Disagree with me if you like, but that`s not going to change my view.
I'll leave it to the Constitutional experts to decide what's "legal" but you'll never convince me that the takeover by the Cabal de Trois, just a few months after the people of Canada elected the Conservative Party to govern, is correct or moral.
And "Greg", would you and your ilk please stop with your stupid, phoney talking point that the Conservatives only got "xx %" of the vote. This disingenuous comment has been false from the first time it was uttered and is even more so today. If you're so ignorant that you don't actually understand what I mean then please look back at the popular votes of every government since we've had at least 3 parties. It's how our system works and is basic math. So just cut it out because it's really boring us all.
Finally, if the Liberals & NDP REALLY want an immediate financial stimulus then I hope that our GG gives them one, in the form of a new election. It'll quickly inject $300 Million into the hands of Joe & Jane Sixpacks across the country.
If we need to keep on having elections until a majority is achieved by one party then so be it. Clearly some of the participants don't believe in the democratic will of the people when a minority government is elected.
Dude, you need to shut up sometimes and let other people talk.
You act like Robin Williams did with talk show hosts back when he was doing coke : )
Inspired by an annoying comment on this post, I took the trouble to compile historical voting patterns since 1867.
You can view them here.
Nevermind politics and parliamentarianisms. I'm starting to lose sleep over these ideas that entitlement and government benefaction are true democratic ideals.
The opposition threatens to either bring down the government or form a coalition to protect the democracy. Why is this democratic? Because the opposition combined won a larger share of the vote? Then any vote that was not for the CPC was a vote against the CPC and all other votes combined are a vote for the same party? The Libs, NDP, Bloc, etc. are all the same? Is that really the picture they hope to paint? Deep down inside I've always felt it, with these hungry minstrels of Marxism defending the Canadian democracy by screaming for more handouts.
Whether the excuse is the political party bailout with $1.95 paid for every vote (is that a refund for vote buying?), or the "required" economic stimulus, the reds and pinks just want more tax dollars flowing wherever they would direct.
And since when is economic stimulus "required"? I don't see the same collapse happening in Canada that is happening elsewhere. Nobody heard any of the Big 5 banks say "We're too big to fail". They aren't going to fail, and they aren't going to be bailed out. By drawing analogies to other countries, the Libs say that Canada needs all the same bailouts as other countries. Timber, Automotive, Manufacturing, Dead money after Dead Industry. Let failures fail!
And give me a refund. Apologies for the verbal vomit above, but you get the point.
Canadians voted 2 to 1 for the conservatives over the Liberals. Only Quebeccers voted for the Bloc ... only idiots voted for the NDP. Canadians have shown that they really don't want any of those three opposition parties to govern. What makes them think that Canadians will okay all three of them governing?
I will not pay my taxes to an illegitimate coalition.
Let's have another election to decide or better yet, why not a referendum to decide whether or not massive spending is the way to go even when we don't know what the Americans are doing. Even it Canada is in much better shape and may not need a hell of a lot of stimulus.
I honestly think if you asked Joe Canadian whether he/she thinks it is the federal gov't's job to guarantee their investments, provide secure jobs, (regardless of merit or performance), and play Santa Claus, as Susan (Nancy) seems to think, you would get a resounding NO! Why do these idiots think the gov't is supposed to "do something" for me? Look after the military, Foreign Affairs, National Parks etc. Leave my private life alone. That's what they are supposed to do.
Have you ever heard it said that, when it comes to voting, Canadians are "politically illiterate."
A prime example of that is Toronto, which has (I believe) 23 Fiberal MP's and 3 NDP. And re-elected David Mao Tse Miller as Mayor.
About 10 years ago? Toronto elected Barbara Hall as mayor. Barb is now in charge of the ON. HRC. 'nough said.
Reading through these posts it is obvious that most of the writers here have done their homework, and are politically astute.
So you'll probably agree when I share something that I learned as a teen-ager, about 60 years ago:
"What is left is not right, and the left wired brain is incapable to grasp that."
"There is no precedent in Canadian parliamentary history in which a Governor General has refused to accept the advice of a prime minister to dissolve Parliament in a circumstance where the prime minister's party (a) had a plurality of seats in the House, and (b) no motion of censure against the Government was before the House, whose resolution would be stifled by a dissolution of Parliament. These are critical differences between the situation today and the situation between Prime Minister King and Lord Byng in 1926."
Yes, there is no precedent.
However, the issue of a "plurality of seats in the House" is likely unimportant - the question is whether a Leader can command the confidence of the House not how many seats his party has. I am not sure what your point (b) really addresses and would be interested in finding out.
I suspect the entire question is moot as I don't see Iggy being willing to risk his impending leadership for the sake of a couple of months of Prime Minister Dion.
Richard Romano, you might wish to revise your view of me as a Liberal jackass in light of this post:
http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/memories/
I think Stephen Harper made a monumental mistake. He forgot the very simple principle that when you are a minority government, it usually is NOT a good idea to give the opposition a reason to unify against you.
Harper did just that and now he is scrambling. As much as I like Harper, let's face it...he f***ed up big time and we, Canadians, may face a very steep price as a result.
I think the most likely scenario is that the government will fall, the coalition will get into power and will very quickly fall apart. I say we will be voting again before spring.
I can't help but notice the parallels between the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition, the Ford/GM/Chrysler coalition and Canada's "artists". In each case, they had products that people used to buy until these products were identified as rusty, unimaginative dead-ends. Now both are coming to the taxpayer begging for money, whining about how important they are to everyone despite evidence to the contrary. And they will scream an fight until they are paid off. What a pitiful spectacle.
What BS and I frankly have had enough. For sure I will never vote Liberal again, what a mistake in the first place. After having been born in Canada and living here for 69 years, I have never seen such a blatant attempt to overthrow a Canadian elected party. I sincerely hope Her Excellency has the authority to force an election rather than support any attempt for the other parties to form a coalition. I, as a Canadian, have the right to vote for the party I want in power not the GG.
It was settled in the 17th century that the Commons and not the Crown determines who Her Majesty's ministers are. If the Commons expresses a lack of confidence in the government, then Mr. Harper is out.
This leaves the GG with some discretion as to what to do next, because a lack of confidence in Harper doesn't itself mean that anyone else can secure the support necessary to enact legislation. The GG can ask another member to form a government or cause an election to be held. She'd have to judge whether there is a member with the requisite support. If she believes there is such a person, she's obliged to ask him or her to try to form a government. (This might be different if we were years into the life of a Parliament, but we aren't.) It follows from the basic constitutional principle, that the Commons chooses the executive, that a new Parliament's expression of confidence must be followed.
The idea that the Crown must follow a recommendation in favour an election from a Prime Minister who lacks the confidence of the House is nonsense. Without the confidence of the House, he's nobody, constitutionally speaking. A recommendation from a Prime Minister who has the confidence of the House is conclusive; the recommendation of a Prime Minster who lacks it has no more significance than my brother-in-law's.
I've often thought that fundamental difference between conservatives and others is that conservatives think the rules apply to them. I'm not encouraged.
Commenting by HaloScan
