Coalition

Coalition?? yea or nay or whatever

  • For the Coalition

  • Against the Coalition

  • Don't care abou the Coalition


Results are only viewable after voting.
I agree, we are way too regionally divided...and I don't see a way out of it either. Oddly enough if the travel in this country was affordable maybe people would see more regions of Canada and get some understanding...but as it stands I can go to Vegas for 4 nights for $130 or pay probably quadruple that to fly to a different province....lack of exposure certainly doesn't foster any acceptance.

Personally the two leaders I'd like to see possibly taking over the conservatives are Peter McKay or Chuck Strahl. Peter McKay would be the better choice...but Haper needs to step down ASAP. He's not only hurting the party at this point but the country. I'm actually surprised how for Conservatives haven't complained more...it's like the don't care if the party is ever in a position to get elected again.
 
I agree, we are way too regionally divided...and I don't see a way out of it either. Oddly enough if the travel in this country was affordable maybe people would see more regions of Canada and get some understanding...but as it stands I can go to Vegas for 4 nights for $130 or pay probably quadruple that to fly to a different province....lack of exposure certainly doesn't foster any acceptance.
I agree. From where I am in Ontario, it would be cheaper to fly from Detroit to Seattle than from Toronto to Vancouver - even with the drop in the dollar again. However, just as an FYI, in my life I have been to the west more times than the east. I've been to Quebec more times than any other province, of course that's easier as it only takes me about 7 or 8 hours to drive to Montreal.

Personally the two leaders I'd like to see possibly taking over the conservatives are Peter McKay or Chuck Strahl. Peter McKay would be the better choice...but Haper needs to step down ASAP. He's not only hurting the party at this point but the country. I'm actually surprised how for Conservatives haven't complained more...it's like the don't care if the party is ever in a position to get elected again.
Strahl is an interesting option, even though he is originally from the Reform movement, he's recognized as a moderate. However, since he was the coordinator of an in-party rebellion back in 2001 (those who opposed the leadership of Stockwell Day), that has forever hurt his chances for party leadership. Additionally, I haven't heard recently about his cancer - he was diagnosed in the summer of 2005. Considering it was classified as inoperable/terminal, people would wonder how much time he has left.

Obviously, you likely have a better feel for opinions in the west. Considering the fact that western Canada is truly the conservative (ideologically) stronghold, would MacKay be good enough? I'm okay with him, but I wonder if the fact that he's from the east and originally a PC be overly problematic. My guess (although I don't know) is that western conservatives, while preferring a westerner with roots in the Reform Party, would still vote for an Atlantic PC Conservative before ever voting for another party.
 
The way I view the right is that Brian Mulroney basically blew it up. West went reform, quebec went bloc (which then went far left), and the East stayed PC. Personally I don't mind non reformers...it's pretty clear the things that were important to me are never going to happen...the triple E senate, fixed election dates, and more receptive government...it all started going out the window years ago which is too bad. I'm not so stuck on where somebody is from; I'm not all that alienated though...but I live next door to Alberta so I get their annoyance at some things lol.

I vote on the issues...I didn't like the gun registry (in my family alone we had to destroy two historic guns including a WW2 Luger), I don't like the idea of national daycare or pharmacare and would rather see medicare running smoothly before we move on to other things, I don't really get arts funding at all to the point every time that stupid government sponsored ad on Cameron Diaz's career comes on it gets me a little more irritated, and I am an all around FISCAL conservative. Oddly enough my second choice in parties is the green because I also believe that the environment is important. So in a nut shell I don't like spending tax dollars on unproven/useless programs yet I also want to see some environmental inovation. Wouldn't it have been nice if the money from the gun registry went to some accountable tax credits or even subsidies for green technology research? So ya I don't really care where somebody comes from as long as they aren't going to waste my money and not track where it went, bribe people, give money to their friends, can pay for their own art, and aren't going to tank the economy.
 
Got my first automated telephone call of the prorogue. First of many, I'm afraid. How annoying.

Anyone else?

M.

(It was from Canadians4Democracy)
 
Got my first automated telephone call of the prorogue. First of many, I'm afraid. How annoying.

Anyone else?

M.

(It was from Canadians4Democracy)

Yup, about 15 minutes ago. You won't get many though - only the Conservatives have enough money to set this up. This is entirely their doing.

From The Star Phoenix in Saskatoon:
The Conservative party also launched a new website at canadians4democracy.ca and was trying to organize various anti-coalition rallies across the country. Conservative activists are also being encouraged to call Liberal and NDP MPs to convince them to reconsider.
So, these calls are literally on their nickel.

My concern is that both the call and the website are extremely misleading - this thread has covered the issues, but - for the purpose of people being aware, this is what is on the website and was included (at least in part) during the call:

PETITION TO THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT OF CANADA:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:
THAT in the recent federal election concluded October 14th, 2008 Canadian voters provided the Conservative Party with a clear and strengthened mandate to lead Canada through the current global economic crisis.
THAT the opposition are looking to impose an unstable, unelected Liberal-NDP-separatist coalition that during said election they promised they would not entertain, with the Liberal leader expressly rejecting such a move as being bad for the economy.
THAT Canadians have the democratic right to choose who will govern them and not have a surprise Prime Minister chosen through an unseemly and undemocratic backroom deal.
THEREFORE your petitioners call upon Members of Parliament to oppose any political arrangement that would replace Her Majesty’s democratically elected government without first consulting Canadians in an open and democratic election.
Misleading segments includ that it is not a Liberal-NDP-Separatist coalition, it is a Liberal-NDP coalition with a promise by the Bloc not to vote down the coalition. Additionally, every Liberal and NDP member of that coalition would be an MP duly elected by their constituents.

The phrase "an unseemly and undemocratic backroom deal" is also misleading. Those MP's were democratically elected. It is not common, but our Parliamentary Democracy allows for it to happen.

This is what I have disliked about Harper's conservatism since day one. It is Bush-style Republican tactics - repeat a half-truth (or outright lie) often enough with your PR machine and a good chunk of the electorate start to believe it. Far too many Canadians are simply too politically apathetic or uniformed to know when they are being fed a line of crap.

Is having a coalition government put in place the way it could happen legal? Yes. Is it ethical and fully democratic? That is debateable. There are arguments on both sides.

By the same token, Harper Prorouging Parliament under these circumstances, if you listen to the coalition spin (especially from Layton) sounds as though a dictator has prevented your democratically elected representatives from having their voices (and by extension, your voice) heard in Ottawa.

However, was what Harper did legal? Yes. Is it ethical and democratic? Again, that is just as debateable.

This whole situation, from both sides, is just bad on so many levels.
 
I also find the tactics the Conservatives are using downright insulting. I'm not an idiot...I passed grade 11 social studies...this is completely legal and democratic. It's not even the first time it happened. I don't need to be talked down to. There are so many other ways they could argue against this!

I also REALLY hated their campaign to call into radio stations with scripted complaints. It just made you doubt the calls coming in as authentic and heartfelt. Bleh.

Would it be so hard to say "we're concerned about this because coalition governments tend to be very unstable and the last thing we need right now is instability. We suggested a couple things that would force the other parties to agree to their demise if they supported them. Sorry our bad...lets try to get things together for the budget next month". But noooo they are feeding into the base fears and gut reactions everyone had; and since everyone had them there is no need to try and convince people of them! I think I'm going to be voting Green next time; haven't done that since the Tories were supporting the Iraq war in 2003.
 
I also find the tactics the Conservatives are using downright insulting. I'm not an idiot...I passed grade 11 social studies...this is completely legal and democratic. It's not even the first time it happened. I don't need to be talked down to. There are so many other ways they could argue against this!
Probably one reason you find it insulting is that you know enough to realize that they are intentionally misleading those who DON'T know enough. Unfortunately, in "knowing enough" you are not part of the majority of Canadians.

I don't mean to insult anyone, and I point no fingers specifically, but the degree to which many Canadians are capable of being politically unaware astonishes - and frightens me. It is inexcusable to have no idea how your government works - and it leaves you open to being mislead through half-truths and lies from your elected representatives. Fine, they shouldn't do that - but politicians aren't the most ethical bunch as we all know. But this type of BS wouldn't be possible with an informed electorate. Unfortunately, just like the $20 bills I was hoping for from my maple tree I was mentioning earlier - I think the odds are about the same for getting the majority of Canadians to know exactly how their government works.
 
Let me start out by stating I do not want Stephane Dion to be PM of Canada.

I am very disappointed in Stephen Harper in that I feel he is lying to Canadians. He is deliberately misleading citizens on the legitimacy of the parlimentary tactics (ie calling it an undemocratic coup). The Liberal/NDP tacts are legal, and constitutional.

No one in Canada voted for a Conservative or Liberal government. We all voted for MP's in each of our ridings. The Conservatives happened to elect the most number of MP's (but not a majority). However, since the Conservatives held power in the previous government, the Governor General gave them the first opportunity to form a government (by convention, the Conservatives would have to seek the confidence of the House of Commons, it order to retain power).

However, even if you believe the coalition government proposal was undemocratic, it was only a proposal. The only person who actually executed an undemocratic proposal was Stephen Harper, who convinced the Governor General to suspend Parliament - which is the ultimate in undemocratic acts. If this was a 3rd world country, there would be a United Nations vote to condemn the government.

I'm disappointed in Harper as he has been hypocritcal in his actions:
1) criticizied the coalition proposal as undemocratic, when his party tried a similar tact previously with the BQ
2) suggested it would be a coup d'etat for the Liberal/NDP coalition to take power without an election, when he himself wanted to do the same thing during Paul Martin's government.

While most politiicans have acted and said idiotic / stupid things over the past week, the Prime Minister of Canada must be held to a higher standard. He/she must always put the interests of Canada first. In my opinion, Harper has put his own interests first.
 
I always assumed when he was trying to wrangle a non-confidence vote with Paul Martin's gov it was to force an election, not take power...

Anyways nobody has done anything that isn't allowed in our system. Shutting down parliament wasn't either. Technically it only has to convene once a year under the constitution. But it was still silly.

Anyone else think the coalition was really really really dumb going public about not voting on the confidence vote? The smart thing to do would have been to set it up then vote it down without a press conference ahead of time. I don't think Trudeau let Joe Clark know when he did that in the 70s lol.
 
I always assumed when he was trying to wrangle a non-confidence vote with Paul Martin's gov it was to force an election, not take power...

In 2004 Harper wrote a letter to the Governor General asking that he be appointed Prime Minister, if Paul Martin's government was defeated in the House of Commons.
 
Anyone else think the coalition was really really really dumb going public about not voting on the confidence vote? The smart thing to do would have been to set it up then vote it down without a press conference ahead of time. I don't think Trudeau let Joe Clark know when he did that in the 70s lol.

Pretty much everything the coalition did was dumb. They lost the PR war.
 
Taking away funding hurts our country more than it helps. This funding helps all parties create an effective governemnt and opposition. By taking away this funding Stephen Harper knew he would hurt an already weak oppposition and position himself to win a majority. It had nothing to do with helping the economy.

I believe it was put in there to stop sponsorship scandals.
 
Looks like Dions going early..........

Sources predict early Dion departure

Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA – Federal Liberals say that Stéphane Dion's leadership role could be coming to an early end as the party gears up for the next round of political conflict with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.

Dion, who stayed on as interim chief after the Liberals suffered a disappointing loss in the October election, is under pressure from his caucus to rethink his current commitment to remain at the helm until a leadership convention to replace him is held in May.

Liberals' lack of confidence in Dion peaked this week when his videotaped statement on national television regarding the showdown in Parliament arrived late and appeared amateurish and unprofessional. In a closed-door Liberal caucus meeting on Thursday, MPs made their impatience with Dion's performance as leader clear.

"There's a good possibility that he will step down early" as leader, said one well-placed Liberal insider.

CTV News reported this afternoon that Dion would likely be resigning his position as interim chief before Christmas. But there was no immediate statement from Dion's office on his future.

Many Liberals have expressed concerns about going into another election with Dion heading the party if they join with the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois to vote down the Jan. 27 federal budget and defeat the government.

The question of leadership is a key question mark as the Liberals plot strategy in the wake of Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean's decision to allow Harper to suspend Parliament rather than face a confidence vote on Monday that was virtually certain to bring down the minority Conservative government.

Unless Harper's Jan. 27 budget includes important concessions to the opposition parties, particularly a major economic stimulus package, the Liberal-New Democrat coalition (supported by the Bloc Quebecois) is committed to voting down the Harper Conservatives at that time. If that happened, Jean might ask the Liberal-NDP coalition to take power or dissolve Parliament for another election.

This prospect has led some Liberals to look for ways to install a new leader – possibly an interim head such as former cabinet ministers John McCallum or Ralph Goodale – as soon as possible so the party does not wind up fighting another election under Dion.
 
Looks like Dions going early..........


This prospect has led some Liberals to look for ways to install a new leader – possibly an interim head such as former cabinet ministers John McCallum or Ralph Goodale – as soon as possible so the party does not wind up fighting another election under Dion.

I've seen a few articles, including some that say he promised to stay on until May, and that is still his intention. He's still probably gone, IMHO - but not by choice. The knives are out.

However, as I posted earlier, another "interim" leader for the Liberals is next to useless - especially if the Conservative government falls in a confidence vote in January and the result is another election. Going into an election with an interim leader is not that appealing to voters - they will want to know who would be PM for the forseeable future if the Liberals formed the government. An interim leader doesn't give that sort of stability - therefore, the Grits would lose yet another election.


Here's a side bit of information I found in an article in the London Free Press:


"I'm worried," said Pearson (Glen Pearson, Lib. MP - London North Centre).
He said he fears "a ground war" will be waged in the interim. "The atmosphere in Ottawa is very personal right now," he said.
A co-director of the London Food Bank, Pearson said he sees fear in the eyes of food bank customers for the first time. MPs have a responsibility to deal with the economy "that is giving rise to such fear," he said. He said he plans to continue work on his private member's bill to ban partisan, attack-style advertising outside the election campaign period.

Now that's a piece of legislation I would like to see passed. The moment Dion was selected as leader of the Liberals (regardless of what you might think about that choice personally), the Conservatives immediately started campaigning against him - in various media formats. That was outside of an election period.

If the Liberals can replace Dion before Parliament resumes (whether the leader is an interim replacement or permanent), the Conservatives will immediately start an ad campaign questioning that person's ability to be PM - well before any possible election call. If Harper is still leader, he has shown repeatedly that he is only capable of governing as though he has a majority - a majority he thinks he deserves. Political commentators (even some pro-Conservative ones) have described Harper's desire to destroy the Liberals as verging on the pathological (I think that was the term the Globe & Mail used - usualy a pro-Conservative paper).
I'm not a fan of negative campaigns in general, but I've resigned myself to their existence. But I agree with Pearson, there's no place for that kind of advertising outside of an election campaign.
 
All I know is that all the parties are useless. I think the reason you do not get excellent people in government is unless you are a cut throat, arogant, self asbord individual you would be slaughtered by the constant negativity of most politians. We want honest people in government but it can not happen unless we elect all new members with no experience. Because to me politics is a game of one upman/womanship. Trying to stay one step ahead of the oppenent. any means possible.

You know Harper knew what the NDP and liberals were doing. And he called them on it by trying to hurt there funding. Bad bad move. Though 60% of candians agree with this issue no one agrees on the the timing of it. he should have waited till the budget.

The liberal and NDP are too self absorbed in there own power. They had no clue what Canadians would do. And even after being progued they still thought most of the Canadians lost there voice. That we were betrayed. Even I saw the on line petitions. Over 60% are against the coalition. But they continue to keep this farce going.

Normally Canadians are like well I am mad but that is life. This time people got pushed to far and they have waked a sleeping giant. Many of my conservative friends do not vote where they live in Ontario. because the liberals always win. Next election they are determined to vote!!! Since they have learned from this.

I guess it would be the same for the NDP'ers that do not vote to same reason.

My opinion is that no matter what Harper said or did the coalition was formed right after the election and they were out for Harper no matter what he did or said.

My frustration is in the media. They tend to favour the liberals and NDP in Ontario. So to me most of what I read has a liberal bias to it.

The only way reason we are getting a more centre view is that with Dion mis steps they can not support the liberals like they do.

I do think they all need a new leaders, that motivates and inspires. But where to find someone like that is not easy.
 
I'd like to post this essay regarding the whole mess - and I think most of us will agree with almost everything printed. You gotta love Rick Mercer.

It's not the economy, stupid

RICK MERCER
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
December 6, 2008 at 12:56 AM EST

Forgive them Canada; they know not what they do.
Not long after Stephen Harper took office as Canada's 22nd prime minister, a polar bear was born at the Berlin Zoo. Known as Knut, the cub was summarily rejected by his mother and so was nursed by human beings. Now, two years later, animal psychologists admit that he has become so addicted to human laughter and applause that, the instant those things disappear, he becomes desolate and cries for attention. This has led to irrational behaviour never before seen in a polar bear. Experts fear that, without constant applause, Knut could lose the will to live.
Enter Stephen Harper.
During the past week, while the nation wondered if the government would fall, junior Conservative staffers were ordered to be outside 24 Sussex Dr. by 6:15 in the morning. Their job was to stand there in the dark with the temperature well below zero and wait for the PM to appear. Their instructions were to applaud, wave and sing O Canada loudly as the motorcade pulled out of the gates and drove Stephen Harper to work.
Mr. Harper, by all accounts, actually believed that the young people were there of their own accord and represented a groundswell of love and support for his actions. Staffers in the Prime Minister's Office know that he is easier to handle when being applauded and not questioned. This way, nobody has to suffer at the hands of the inconsolable bear.
Enter Stéphane Dion.
Mr. Dion is a humiliated and beaten man. Nothing prepared him for the thrashing he took in the last election, and the subsequent rejection by his own party just made matters worse. For him, the applause and cheering stopped a long time ago. Given the chance to exact revenge, he seized it.
And so is it any surprise that these damaged, needy men are the architects of a parliamentary crisis the likes of which we have never seen? With leaders like this, we shouldn't be blamed for asking, "Why bother"
If this Parliament were a dog, it would be brought out behind the shed and shot. Rabid dogs aren't prorogued, reformed or trusted.
One game of hardball he couldn't lose
At first, this little crisis in Ottawa was good, old-fashioned fun — blood sport for political junkies that made for great entertainment.
It began, of course, with the government's economic statement, a colossal misstep for Mr. Harper. The nastiness and partisanship caught everyone off guard. Sane cabinet ministers had to grin and bear it as the leader revealed a strategy that not only highlighted the very worst elements of his personality, but reinforced the nagging cliché; that this Conservative Party cares more about inflicting pain on those they dislike than offering support for anyone in need.
Mr. Harper, the self-professed master strategist, figured this was one game of hardball he could not lose, but then a funny thing happened on the way to the vote in the House of Commons.
Mr. Dion may lack the basic skills needed by all political leaders, but he has a grasp of basic math, something the PM, an economist, seems to have lost. He crunched the numbers and realized that not only could the government fall, he could even become prime minister. Revenge like that comes once in five lifetimes.
In theory, a coalition could work. If aliens from outer space were running roughshod over the country, perhaps a Liberal, a socialist and a separatist could put their differences aside and work together to defeat the alien overlords. A global economic crisis, however, is probably not enough for these three wildly divergent visions of Canada to gel.
But whether the coalition can or will survive is irrelevant; what matters is that it can oust the PM.
Stephen Harper loves being the Prime Minister of Canada. Since he came to power, the motorcades have got longer, the office more presidential, the trappings more grand. The idea that he could suddenly find himself standing in line at the airport with regular Canadians, photo ID at the ready, attempting to board a Jazz flight to Moncton so he can explain to party faithful why he now travels in a Jiffy Taxi gnaws at his very being.
Knut the Polar Bear could not survive such a humiliation and neither could Mr. Harper. So he slapped his Finance Minister and tore up the economic update; he blinked and backtracked — behaviour not before seen in this political animal.
And this is where it should have ended; a substantial and unexpected victory for a lame-duck Liberal leader and a humiliating lesson to the Prime Minister. A nice little reminder to all involved that nobody was granted a majority in this Parliament, and we expect everyone to get along.
Tragically, Mr. Dion wasn't strong enough to put on the brakes. Or more likely, he was unwilling.
Enter the Governor-General of Canada.
Try explaining this one to those alien overlords: 35 million people in one of the greatest democracies on Earth stare at their television sets, waiting to see whether an unelected former TV broadcaster will choose to shut down our government for over a month or let it live just long enough to be killed by the opposition.
The drama that played out this week was many things: unimaginable, embarrassing and, yes, it made our parliamentary system look like a laughingstock. However, this situation was not, as Mr. Harper insisted, undemocratic, illegal or un-Canadian.
The facts are clear. He has a minority in the Commons — something he has never accepted. So he loves daring the opposition to defeat him, and prides himself on shaming them at every opportunity.
Them's the rules and he knows it. And yet, when faced with actually losing a confidence vote, he chooses to launch a full-fledged attack on the very institution he is sworn to protect.
He took to the airwaves saying that having him lose a vote would amount to a coup d'état. He knows this isn't true, but he said it anyway. Then his ministers fanned out and told everyone who would listen that an election was being stolen. They shouted from the rooftops that, as a nation, we elected Stephen Harper to lead us, that the 308 members of Parliament actually had no say in the matter.
Separatists: from wooed to whipping boys
Mr. Harper zeroed in on Quebec. The master strategist who has wooed that province for the past two years turned anything and anyone with a French name into a whipping boy. Memo to Quebec: Call Danny Williams; a world of hurt is coming your way.
And our Prime Minister suggested that, in a constitutional crisis, the Governor-General must not listen to constitutional advisers but to him and him alone. The PMO organized a protest at the Governor-General's residence. Staffers all over Ottawa were given the day off to stand there waving signs reading, "The Bloc Sucks" and "Stop the Coup." Surely the Queen was not amused.
Back on Parliament Hill, Minister of Bluster John Baird proudly announced that Conservatives would go over the head of Parliament and of the Governor-General. He planted the seed for what sounds like the Republic of Canada, in which Mr. Harper and not the monarch is the head of state.
One assumes that a Harper republic will differ from others in the world as he ostensibly will have majority powers without having that old-fashioned 50-per-cent support in either the country or the Commons.
All this made for a perfect storm. Our system works on the assumption that, regardless of whether we have a minority government, we will always be guaranteed of having a clear and decisive majority of rational men and women who will in times of crisis put nation over personal or party interests. It operates on the assumption that our leaders will put country before party.
Seems we are out of luck on that front — our bad.
The crisis has not ended but simply has been postponed.
In the new year, Mr. Harper will return with the biggest-spending budget in Canadian history. People who voted Conservative will be outraged — but their cries will be drowned out by the applause of the paid staffers again lining the sidewalk outside 24 Sussex. Knut the Polar Bear will bask in the adoration.
And, yes, the coalition may survive long enough to defeat them anyway — revenge being a dish best served at the first possible opportunity.
Meanwhile, this great democracy of ours has ceased to function. We have no government because they just can't get along. It is a mess that defies comprehension but has one simple solution.
We need one more strange-bedfellows event: a historic press conference at which Stephen Harper and Stéphane Dion apologize to their country and then to their parties. And then they resign — no questions please.
Because, quite frankly, they deserve one another — and Canada deserves better.

Okay, I went back to edit this thing because the last line REALLY needed to be bolded.
 
The Globe has some interesting stuff today - an article on the meeting between the GG and PM could provide some insights - the following are some exerpts:

Ms. Jean made clear to the Prime Minister that she was not a rubber stamp for his request to shut down Parliament until late January; that it was within her constitutional discretionary power to turn him down.

When Ms. Jean returned, there was more discussion, and then she granted the Prime Minister's request to prorogue, or suspend, Parliament, thus allowing him to escape Monday's scheduled vote of no-confidence that almost certainly would have torpedoed his minority Conservative government.

If Ms. Jean had refused the request, Mr. Harper, according to convention – the non-legal rules of the Constitution – would have had to resign.

Prof. Russell said Ms. Jean most likely would have wanted to know what happened in Parliament the past week that had changed the mood from co-operation to sudden virulent confrontation between the government and opposition parties. (Toronto Liberal MP Bob Rae told a symposium at the University of Toronto's law school Friday that the mood did a U-turn in days from coziness to hostility.)

Prof. Russell surmised that Ms. Jean discussed with Mr. Harper how he intended to work with the opposition parties as a minority government leader. Apparently, the state of the proposed Liberal-New Democratic Party coalition was raised. And she did discuss the worsening economic situation.

Prof. Russell told the law school symposium: “She has to have ministers who can govern with the confidence of Parliament. It [prorogation] was a very tough judgment call and, God bless her, she has the best interests of Parliament and the country at heart.”

Okay, reading between the lines this is what I get:
  1. The GG knows that the PM asked for the Prorogue because it was the ONLY way he could remain PM
  2. She granted the request - albeit not immediately: the meeting was not quick
  3. The GG wants Parliament to work - the PM was given another chance to achieve that goal - and the impression is that the GG has let the PM know that cooperation with the Opposition will be required for that to happen
  4. I think this is the PM's last shot with the GG - she will not save his political hide in this manner again - at least not if the mess is precipitated by the PM's unwillingness to govern in the manner expected of a minority PM
 
I get depressed when I see people angry over this. I think the coalition's a bad idea politically for the parties instituting it, and an overreaction, and I voted "don't care. It's clear a lot of people don't quite understand parliametary politics and are clearly blaming one side or the other when there's enough blame for bad faith politics to go around on all sides of the issue. As soon as someone declares themself all or nothing on one side of this debate, I feel their opinion can safely be ignored as emotion-based thinking and not fit for consideration. That said, I got all my feelings out on my blog last night, and feel no need to go into it further. Especially when people start acting like BS media pundits.

I just hope this crap doesn't ruin my Christmas. Some of family are just a little succeptible to "talking points."

I'm completely in agreement with you and I too have become depressed not on this issue particularly but the bigger issue of humanity creating us or them mentalities. All war and strife is due to this unfound anger. There are smart people that belong to each and every party. This suggests, at least to me, that there are good points belonging to all sides of all issues. We need to start treating each and every citizen of the human race as our brothers. We need to start listening and stop being so angry.

In the case of our current nations political situation we need to stop making comments such as these:
Just the thought of that useless piece of space (Stephane Dion) running the country ,gives me nightmares !
On the other hand,Harper is a spineless twit !:confused3

As for my opinion. I believe that both candidates are really smart and I personally love what Stephen Dion stands for. Harper on the other hand sounds and acts more like a leader. I wish I could combine both Stephens and vote for him.

As for the idea of this coalition. I'm currently in support of it but am very glad that Mr. Harper was able to postpone it. I believe we as Canadians need more time to assess the situation and gather as much facts on this issue as we can so that we can properly form our opinions. As such my opinion may change in time to come. What is key is that I do not believe that I am 100 percent right and that everyone who disagrees with me is 100 percent wrong. I'm open to diologue on this issue so that I can come to a better understanding.
 
How about we all insist all parties get a new leader that can lead, be personable and "play nice"! Maybe that should be a political party present this holiday season. HaH!
 
My frustration is in the media. They tend to favour the liberals and NDP in Ontario. So to me most of what I read has a liberal bias to it.

.

I guess it depends on which form of media, or which station you watch. The bulk of our written media is owned by Sun Media which is a division of Quebecor, one of the largest supporters of the Conservative Party. The Toronto Sun is extremely Conservative biased, Christine Blizzard in particular. CHCH had a point-counterpoint show on last night that was very anti-coalition biased, with the host continuously interupting the NDP rep, and questioning the Liberal rep. CBC though is Liberal.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top