Canadian Politics

[Michael]

Well, the Canadian Federal election went down on Tuesday October 14th.

As I predicted, the returns are essentially the same as before - Stephen Harper and the Conservative party retain their minority government.

The Conservatives managed to increase their popular vote by 1% over 2006 (Liberals down 1%) but this translated into a dozen seats shifting from Liberal to Conservative.

Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal party presided over one of the worst Liberal election defeats in Canadian history, dropping some 20 seats overall. The knives came out immediately and Dion is expected to resign as leader very, very soon (if he hasn't already). Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff are the presumed 'frontrunners' for Liberal Party leader.

The NDP ran a strong campaign under leader Jack Layton, gaining 8 seats - mostly wrestled away from the Liberals.

The BQ which had been languishing in the polls managed to finish very strong taking 50 of 75 seats in Quebec as the Conservative hopes of a breakthrough in Quebec evaporated throughout the campaign.

The Green party, led by Elizabeth May failed to win any seats at all, despite gaining a substantial number of votes across the country. Ms. May's leadership must be called into question by her choice of an impossibly difficult seat to run in - given that there were a half-dozen possible choices that could have put the Green party into Parliament. Ms. May apparently put her own personal animosities first in choosing to run in Central Nova Scotia against her personal enemy rather than a more easily winnable urban riding.

Overall, this election was a huge loss for Dion and the Liberals. They ran a poor campaign under a weak leader and got slaughtered. No one is particularly surprised by this.

That being said, this was also a significant loss for the Conservatives. As many commentators have pointed out, Mr. Harper had almost a 'perfect storm' of weak opposition leadership, massive government surplus fiscal position, the discretion on timing to call the election and a falling economy that normally helps the incumbent party (safe and steady in a storm). Yet despite this, Mr. Harper has failed for a second time in a row to win a majority and is completely locked out of the three biggest cities in the country.

As the world economy enters a long recessionary period, that will wreak havoc on sitting governments and likely as not, the next election will see a renewed Liberal party under a new leader sweep back into office as the Harper Conservatives take the blame for the prolonged economic downturn.

In other words, nothing to see here folks. Same game of musical chairs that was entirely expected - no surprises at all.

That being said, the one number to watch is the fiscal deficit. Mr. Harper inherited a $13.7 billion fiscal surplus when he became PM in 2006. With typical 'conservative' government values, that fiscal surplus was down to half and there are indications that it is gone entirely right now. If that is in fact true, Harper's government is likely to go into deficit as the recession progresses and that will be the end of Harper's conservative government. Indeed, some cynics have suggested that the timing of this election was meant to beat the news of the deficit situation coming out.

As a final note on the Canadian election, I must say that this was the most overtly American style election anyone up here as ever seen. The Conservatives launched a non-stop attack ad campaign targeting Stephane Dion some two years ago and kept it up right through the election. Many Conservative ads didn't mention either the Conseravative party, Mr. Harper or even the Liberal party. They just attacked Mr. Dion personally.

Similarly, the entire Conservative campaign was run entirely on the basis of a 'Presidential' campaign - run from a war-room in Ottawa, totally focused upon the leader himself, stage-managed appearances in front of hand-picked audiences, careful media control and avoiding all unscripted public appearances. Indeed, Canada's Conservative party continues its trend of slowly morphing into a clone of the US Republican party.

[Greendruid]

Indeed - it was the same old show with a few actors changes seats. Too bad about the Greens given their representation in the popular vote that almost matched the Bloc and yet, no seats due to our ridiculous first-past-the-post system.

In defence of Elizabeth May's choice, she at least ran in a riding close to where she is from this time - Cape Bretoner if I'm not mistaken. Her brother has a charming scone and biscuit stand with his wife at the Cape Breton Farmers' Market we sell at. He breaks out the tartan kilt and whole 18th century stereotyped Scottish uniform for the tourists. :offtopic:
Anyway, I think that you're going to be wrong about Mr. Harper's performance in the next election if it is called too late. That is going to depend entirely on whether the liberals can get someone else to work with them on a confidence vote too mind you. If an election happens during a budget deficit AND the world economic situation is also bleak, I don't think Harper's spendthrift measures are going to be noticed by our countrymen. He'll be able to deflect responsibility to the state of the global economy and have no problems masking his incompetency. Then again, he could lose entirely on Canadians' fickle voting practices. "Enough of one guy, give us the next liar, please."

On a different matter, I didn't expect to see Layton's people pull that many more seats off. Part of St. John's, NF voted in an NDP seat for gods' sakes! That's NEVER happened before!

[Donkey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7680991.stm

Nobody can say you didn't call it!

[Michael]

Indeed - it was the same old show with a few actors changes seats. Too bad about the Greens given their representation in the popular vote that almost matched the Bloc and yet, no seats due to our ridiculous first-past-the-post system.
I wouldn't call it "ridiculous" - it does have many admirable features, though in this particular example, a notable weakness.

Anyway, I think that you're going to be wrong about Mr. Harper's performance in the next election if it is called too late. That is going to depend entirely on whether the liberals can get someone else to work with them on a confidence vote too mind you. If an election happens during a budget deficit AND the world economic situation is also bleak, I don't think Harper's spendthrift measures are going to be noticed by our countrymen. He'll be able to deflect responsibility to the state of the global economy and have no problems masking his incompetency. Then again, he could lose entirely on Canadians' fickle voting practices. "Enough of one guy, give us the next liar, please."
By tradition, as long as Harper plays it safe and moderate as he did 2006 to now, he has a mandate for two years now. Liberals will have a new leader within the year. One year honeymoon for new leader, then battle. Two years on the clock, starting now. Any point after that is open season.

On a different matter, I didn't expect to see Layton's people pull that many more seats off. Part of St. John's, NF voted in an NDP seat for gods' sakes! That's NEVER happened before!
Jack's pretty damn good. ;)

He really is. He's a Toronto boy, started off sitting on the School Board, then city councillor, then ran for Mayor of Toronto (his only loss) then elected MP then leader of the NDP. He's smooth, polished, intelligent, hardworking and well educated guy who just happens to have a really 'working class' look about him. But he's the first leader in NDP history who does not have a 'labor-union' background. He's also extremely likeable in person and a very good door-to-door campaigner. No surprises that Layton has been able to improve the NDP's recent poor performance. Ed Broadbent used to have 40-45 seats, so that's probably the NDP high-water mark Layton will be aiming for.

[Michael]

Right on schedule... (the real reason Harper was in a hurry for an election)

TD Bank Chief Economist Don Drummond wrote in a recent research report that if the government proceeds next year with the combination of tax cuts and spending increases that it announced in the 2008 Budget, Ottawa will run a deficit next year of at least $10 billion and will continue to run deficits, albeit increasingly smaller ones, for the next four years.

Economists and government sources say it is unlikely Flaherty can find spending cuts of $10 billion in one year in order to balance the books. For one thing, there may be too much political damage associated with massive spending cuts. Many Conservatives, after all, believe they lost their chance at a majority government partly because of anger in Quebec over just $50 million in cuts to arts programs.

The federal government will spend $201.2 billion this year, not including debt charges.

And recent polling shows that Canadians have become rather fiscally hawkish - obviously Canadians have learned the perils of irresponsible government spending and have come to appreciate the strong fiscal position that the previous Liberal government restored.

Harper has no room to move here. He can't raise taxes, he can't cut taxes and he can't cut spending (he's spent the last two years raising spending and cutting taxes just like a good Republican).

In an online survey conducted from Oct. 22 to Oct. 25, Ipsos Reid asked 1,012 Canadians "how supportive" they would be raising taxes, cutting spending or running a deficit.

Just two per cent said they were "very supportive" of raising taxes while 15 per cent were somewhat supportive of the idea. Everyone else polled was not supportive.

On the issue of running a deficit, 43 per cent were in favour of it to some degree while 57 per cent were opposed.

An overwhelming 82 per cent were either very or somewhat supportive of cutting government spending.

Support for a deficit was lowest in Alberta. In that province just 20 per cent support running a deficit; 14 per cent support a tax hike and 68 per cent say Flaherty should cut taxes.

Source (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fb00dc5f-233d-42c4-bd0c-e78e5afc56e8)

I repeat, if Harper runs any deficit at all after inheriting a $13.7 billion dollar surplus in 2006, I predict this will doom the Conservatives in the next election. There is really strong political support for balanced budgets in Canada over the last 10-15 years. Recent polls show that it is stronger than ever - while Harper has been cutting taxes and increasing spending like a drunken sailor (or a Republican, same difference).

I predict the term "Republicanomics" will enter the Canadian lexicon very soon...

[Greendruid]

How about "Regressive Conservatives"?

I can't understand how this is possible. Culture, in this case the Conservative Party sub-culture, always amazes me at how powerful it is. They entered office and looked at the books for the last 13 years of turn-around and budget surplus and decided that the ways in which Liberals had been running the books wasn't Conservative enough. So, they trimmed here and there and came up with a budget that matches their sub-cultural/ideological approaches but produces a deficit. WHAT THE FUCK!

Anyone know what happens if you don't pay taxes in Canada? I know that there seems to be some constitutional wiggle room in the US for this but I haven't seen anyone with a leg to stand on in court cases (Willie Nelson comes to mind).

[Michael]

Anyone know what happens if you don't pay taxes in Canada? I know that there seems to be some constitutional wiggle room in the US for this but I haven't seen anyone with a leg to stand on in court cases (Willie Nelson comes to mind).
I wouldn't even think about it. RevCan is known for "zero tolerance" of anything.

Btw, did you know that RevCan is the number one 'creditor' for forcing companies into bankruptcy. Other creditors may negotiate - RevCan doesn't.

Many business lawyers and accountants often advise that if you own a company, that no matter what you do, don't EVER short or delay payment of taxes to Ottawa - especially payroll taxes. RevCan is merciless and will shut you down very fast. As for individuals, RevCan will push for jail sentences.

[Greendruid]

Hehehe, I wasn't promoting the idea for me personal strategy. I was just wondering because I could totally see some of my countrymen taking this route once this all becomes public knowledge. Can't you just see some senior-citizen in Northern Ontario emerging from his cottage after an armed standoff with police over an arrest for failing to pay his taxes?

[Michael]

I was channel hopping yesterday - flipping between CBC and CTV news at 6 o'clock (as I often do).

And on CTV (notorious rightwing station owned by Baton) the Puffster (aka Mike Duffy) was commenting on Remembrance Day.

Duffy's comments were positively sickening. He was actually using Remembrance Day as an excuse to expound upon the need for Canada to increase its military spending budget.

That's pathetic and insulting to the millions who died in WW1. World War 1 was the most useless war, essentially caused by energetic arms races and big political egos. And there we have the Puffster saying that Canada needs to engage in arms racing to satisfy the Puffster's ego and prove to the world that Canada is 'strong'. That is PRECISELY the kind of thinking that caused WW1, millions of dead soldiers and the inevitable backlash of WW2.

This Mike Duffy is just a jackass moron you'd think he was an escapee from Fox News Network - but no, he's Canada's foremost tv-pundit (chief jackass in my book).

Americans who think Canada's political spectrum runs from 'liberal-left all the way to socialist' really ought to watch some political panels on any media product owned by Baton (owned by the Eatons & Bassetts) or Canwest (Izzy Asper's empire). Pure American Republicanism all the time from these sources. Thankfully, Canada has our beloved CBC that despite an inherent liberal bias, gives a remarkably balanced coverage to all political issues and parties.

[Greendruid]

WOW! Seems he has a skewed agenda here. Any vet I ever talked to that had any brains left after the experience never spoke this way. My uncle who just died last year was at the Omaha beachhead (American front) on a minesweeper and saw the senselessness of the situation as young kids his age (17 to 21) were being stacked on the decks of any available non-engaged ship that bloody June day. Sadly, this rhetoric will ring true in any sports arena around the country on any given day. Our team won, aren't we strong!?!?

[Michael]

WOW! Seems he has a skewed agenda here. Any vet I ever talked to that had any brains left after the experience never spoke this way. My uncle who just died last year was at the Omaha beachhead (American front) on a minesweeper and saw the senselessness of the situation as young kids his age (17 to 21) were being stacked on the decks of any available non-engaged ship that bloody June day. Sadly, this rhetoric will ring true in any sports arena around the country on any given day. Our team won, aren't we strong!?!?
Yes, it was the 'incongruity' of the whole thing. Your 'sports team' cheering for 'our side' analogy is a good one. It was like Mike Duffy was saying that we (Canada) needs to make some new trades so we can contend for the war-sport championship and be proud again. A sickening political message to deliver on Remembrance Day.

I'm rather proud of the sacrifices of my countrymen (and women) in WW1. It was not in vain. We will not forget. War can be very stupid and wasteful and causes huge amounts of human misery for virtually no gain at all. That is the ultimate lesson taught by WW1 and it is one I like to think that some of us have learned.

If there ever was a more stupid and idiotic war, fought at greater expense for less reason or purpose, I'd like to know about it.

[Michael]

Canada is officially in a recession now. This is essentially due to the fact that 40% of the Canadian economy is dependent upon exporting to the USA. US is in a recession, therefore Canada is too.

But Ottawa under Stephen Harper is a surreal kind of place.

Canada will slash spending by cabinet ministers and other politicians in the wake of media revelations about lavish foreign trips, a top official said on Tuesday.

Kory Teneycke, the chief spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the Conservative government must show Canadians it can manage the nation's finances in times of economic crisis.

"We will be talking about the need to restrain discretionary spending and that will start at the top," he told reporters, predicting "lots of complaints" from politicians.

"This will be much more deep and much more significant than anyone has speculated to date."

What kind of cuts can one expect here?


1. Cancellation of a planned three per cent or $4,600 pay hike for MPs who already earn $155,400
2. Restricting the use of government challenger jets
3. Ending all unnecessary travel and entertainment
4. Cutting all business-class travel for cabinet ministers and top civil servants

That's it. I figure there's about a $5 to $10 million savings cutback here.

No word about how Stephen Harper has pissed away a $13 billion dollar surplus since 2006 and is likely to run a $5 to $10 billion deficit next year.

Canadian-style Conservatives seem to act a lot like US-style Republicans - masters of massive spending increases and record deficits.

One can only hope that the Liberal party gets back on its feet soon - these Conservatives are going to bankrupt the nation.

Btw, smart money says Harper will be approaching GW Bush popularity numbers by the end of December. Republican-style government philosophy has a way of doing that.

[Michael]

Interesting 'crisis' in Canadian politics going on right now... the ruling (minority) Conservatives have introduced a 'financial statement' to Parliament ordering some tiny minor spending cuts - and most signficantly, wiping out the system whereby elections are publically financed by the taxpayer. This is understood to be a blatant partisan Conservative attempt to 'screw the opposition' under the guise of making some symbollic 'belt-tighting' gestures.

The opposition parties have met and agreed to stand united and vote down this measure. That would cause the Conservative government to fall in Parliament. The opposition parties are also discussing the possibility of forming a coalition government in order to forestall the inevitable election.

Given that public financing of elections is strongly supported by a majority of Canadians, the Conservatives are playing 'Russian roulette' here.

It is getting really freaky watching Harper's Conservatives playing pure Bush-Republican style politics up here - all partisan, all the time and screw you if you don't like it.

In my opinion, this is just a plain stupid move that has backfired badly on the Conservatives and thus, they are very likely to back down on the issue in order to avoid losing a vote of confidence. The Conservatives would likely get 'punished' if there is an election right now - they are the government and will be blamed for the election call being forced so soon after the last one (which was also a Conservative call). The fact that the Liberal Party is in the middle of a leadership race makes the Conservative partisan hardball game look doubly nasty. Canadians traditionally react strongly negative to government arrogance.

Edited to add: Harper has just made a public statement and its a doozy! Looks like Harper is going to play roulette here - he's actually saying that the opposition parties have no right to form a government without an election (even if they have a majority). This is pure arrogance from Harper since it is 100% legal and proper under Canadian parliamentary law with several historical precedents. Harper's official statement was couched entirely in 'partisan' terms. This is like watching GW Bush throw gasoline on a burning fire.

The issue is exploding here - the CBC is running the issue non-stop right now and reading 'emails' from viewers (criticizing Harper and the Conservative position).

[The Sister]

The issue is exploding here - the CBC is running the issue non-stop right now and reading 'emails' from viewers (criticizing Harper and the Conservative position).

I've just heard that the NDP (socialists) have backed off their demand for Finance Minister and will settle for Minister for Industry and Commerce as their price for being in the coalition.

The Bloc Quebecois (dedicated to succession from Canada) are supporting the coalition just for fun.

And the two frontrunners for the leadership of the Liberal party are aghast by Stephan Dion declaring he will stay to lead the new government :confused:

Wow - exciting Canadian politics - practically an oxymoron!

[Michael]

Conservatives delay vote on fiscal update

Conservatives back down over party funding changes after Liberals, NDP threaten to form coalition.

OTTAWA– Federal Conservatives, facing the possibility of defeat on Monday, are moving to delay any votes that could topple the government for at least a week.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the measure this afternoon as opposition forces moved to defeat his minority government next week.

Harper accused the opposition of trying to overturn the results of the Oct. 14 through "backroom deals."
"They want to take power, not earn it," Harper said.

He said Canadians did not elect "Prime Minister Stephane Dion," a reference to possibly leader of the coalition.

Instead, any motions will be delayed until Dec. 8, at the earliest, he announced.
Source (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/545220#)

The arrogance of Harper asserting that Canadians didn't elect Dion is priceless. With a minority, Canadians didn't elect Harper either!

Rumor has it that this change in electoral funding is Harper's own baby and the move was opposed by most of the Conservative party bigwigs. Harper is looking like a partisan hack and very weak (and arrogant) leader right now. That's not a good combination. Rather embarrassing actually.

Judging by Harper's own words, he really has only one argument for himself as leader - that he's not Dion. That argument is getting lame and boring - especially since Dion has already resigned as Liberal Leader. Harper has no other argument to make to justify his leadership.

The arrogance of the Conservatives is mind-boggling here. The financial statement they used as a 'vehicle' for making this serious change is supposed to be an 'economic stimulus' package - even though that 'stimulus package' has virtually nothing in it. Conservatives are being attacked on two fronts here - that the 'stimulus package' doesn't address the economic recession at all (and it should), and that it is being used for a blatant partisan attack on public funding of elections. If an election were called, Conservatives would be accused of putting partisan politics ahead of addressing the economic situation facing Canadians. That's bad political optics to say the least.

[Michael]

The Conservatives spent the weekend alternating between 'caving' on the opposition demands and 'blustering' with a PR attack strategy.

Neither strategy worked. The Opposition parties are united and apparently planning to bring down the Conservative government anyways.

Harper is looking very week - he has that 'deer in the headlights' look about him these days. He just didn't see this coming and doesn't know what to do now that its here.

In related developments, there has been a sudden rash of political website registrations - "Draft John Baird" group appeared last night - "Draft John Prentice" is already out there. These are two high profile Conservative Party leadership challengers to Stephen Harper. The knives are out and Harper now has to watch his own back.

Harper has apparently enraged his own party as much as the opposition parties with his ham-handed partisan attack on election financing laws under the guise of addressing the 'economic crisis'.

Harper has put off the vote till next Monday - and removed the election financing provisions already. Should be an interesting week in parliament. :)

[Donkey]

What does this mean for Dion's future?

[Michael]

What does this mean for Dion's future?
50% chance he will be sworn in as PM next week.

If so, then he will serve only as "interim-PM" until May when the Liberal Party leadership vote occurs. Dion officially 'resigned' as leader of the Liberal Party two months ago and is serving now only as an 'interim' leader of the party.

Apparently the two principal frontrunners to the Liberal party leadership were consulted and were part of the negotiated agreement.

Today's CBC news reports that the Liberals and the NDP have signed a formal accord (copy to the Governor General) and the BQ has sent a letter to the Governor General stating that they will support the terms of the accord.

Thus, if/when the Conservatives lose the next 'confidence vote' in Parliament, the GG will be obligated to hand the government over to the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Overall, I have to hand it to the opposition parties here. They have acted with impressive solidarity and purpose (and PR). The Conservatives are acting like they haven't a clue what's happening or what to do about it (and their PR is looking desperate).

What little polling is available suggests that this 'coalition' defeat of Harper isn't going to piss anyone off except a bunch of Conservative party supporters (who will be screaming for Harper's head on a platter if he loses power next week!). CBC news keeps reading 'positive' reader email feedback on the issue on the 6 o'clock news each night.

What is interesting to note here is that there are three political issues here that Harper has screwed up badly.

1) the plan to eliminate public funding of elections - this is the real reason the opposition parties are going to the wall on this issue and Harper was a fool to go here. Public financing of elections is cheap and efficient and keeps democracy free of billionaires and corporations buying their way. This policy has had solid public support since it was adopted many years ago. It is to be noted that this same election financing law has caused huge problems for the Conservatives (who've been under police investigations for their financing games in each of the last three elections).

2) the same plan includes provision to remove the 'right to strike' from a large class of federal civil servants. This is just gratuitous 'union-bashing'. I'm not fan of unionism at all, but this kind of ideological attack is just foolish. Canadian federal public sector unions haven't had a strike in many years so there is no public anger out there against them. This is just party ideology to attack unions at every opportunity.

3) the supposed fiscal plan to address the recession is essentially 'neo-Hooverite' in cutting government spending and zero stimulus.

The Conservatives are on the wrong side of public polling on all three issues. They have already dropped #1 and #2 from the bill (and moved voting on the bill till next week). Conservatives have also promised some kind of stimulus package - maybe - in January.

The Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition is making their public PR plan all about #3 and have promised an immediate $30 billion economic stimulus package.

Its looking like "goodbye Harper" time.

[Greendruid]

I'm surprised by the suggestion by Harper to prorogue parliament. This seems like assured political suicide to me because it's the political equivalent to lodging your head in the sand so that the "baddies" go away. I don't think his own people nor the opposition, nor the Canadian people, would be very pleased with this approach and the man would most certainly be endangering his career. I've never trusted him - I think this is bearing through in these recent moves.

[Michael]

In so doing, he [Harper] sent the message that even if he backs down in this instance, he has no interest in making the current Parliament work. His conduct since then – epitomized by his blustery and provocative statement last Friday, and his party's disturbing act in eavesdropping on a private NDP conference call this past weekend – has only reinforced for the opposition the necessity of defeating him while it has the opportunity.

If Mr. Harper wishes to act in the best interests of the country, it may be time for him to consider removing that imperative from the table. With a different Conservative leader in place, the coalition could lose some of its lustre – or at least its urgency – for the opposition parties. For Mr. Harper, who has built his government's image almost entirely around his own and controls nearly every aspect of its operations, relinquishing power would be a terribly bitter pill to swallow. He is the type who would rather fight than switch.

That is his prerogative. But switching to another Conservative leader may at this point be preferable to a legacy as the man who gave Canada Prime Minister Stéphane Dion.

Source (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.weCoalition02/BNStory/Front)

The Globe & Mail is Canada's highest profile newspaper and a bastion of the corporate elites in Canada. They endorsed Harper in the October 14th election. They are now openly calling for Harper to resign in the interests of his party and Canadian democracy.

When your allies are bailing out, its time to go.

Harper is toast.

[Michael]

The Governor-General has chosen to grant PM Harper's request to prorogue Parliament until January 27th, 2009.

A prime minister's request to temporarily suspend parliament had never been turned down, but nor had such a request been made when the government was certain to lose a confidence vote.

"There is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth," constitutional expert Ned Franks told AP news agency. "We are in uncharted territory."
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7765206.stm)

I can't believe that she did that.

This decision of the GG has all the constitutional respectablity of the SCOTUS Bush vs Gore 2000 decision.

Essentially, the GG has established a new precedent in Canadian constitutional law - that any time any PM faces the prospect of losing the confidence of the House, that PM may prorogue Parliament until a more convenient time.

This is INSANE precedent. The power to prorogue Parliament is not meant for this purpose. It is an administrative rule to allow the Government to function when Parliament is not in session. Harper is using for pure partisan purposes here (to avoid losing a vote in Parliament).

This is a really ugly day for Canadian democracy.

I will admit that I absolutely HATE the present G-G from the minute she was appointed for a variety of reasons. I now consider her to be the worst monster in Canadian constitutional history. This decision is horrific.

There are several other ways to deal with Harper's parliamentary problem. The fact is, it is Harper's parliamentary problem, plain and simple. He doesn't have enough votes in the House to be Prime Minister and run the Government. According to 1000 years of Parliamentary history, he must either resign or ask for the House to be disolved. Proroguing of Parliament is the worst possible resolution here. It does nothing except reward the PM who is now 'defacto' ruling the country by using an administrative ruse to prevent Parliament the opportunity to formally dismiss him.

[The Sister]

who do you think is advising the govenor-general?

[Michael]

who do you think is advising the govenor-general?
I haven't a clue. This is just so unexpected that I haven't researched that angle. I'm sure we'll soon find out as the reality of this awful decision soaks in.

If any prorogue was issued, it should have only been for a week or two at best, with strict limits on Harper's use of 'Orders in Cabinet', given that potentially, Harper might not really be the proper Prime Minister at this moment and his reign may be ended at the very first opportunity Parliament is legally permitted to vote on the matter.

In effect, the GG has actually issued a 'do-over' to the PM for this session of Parliament, essentially wiping the whole affair of the botched 'economic statement' and Harper's forcing a confidence vote on it, right off the books. Clean slate in January for Harper to introduce a full budget to correct his parliamentary error and 'dodge' the vote on the bill he introduced last week (he'll withdraw it and replace it with a full budget statement).

This is insane.

[Donkey]

Will the opposition parties be pissed enough about this that they'll take him down anyway in January?

And does, technically speaking, the Queen have any override of the GG?

[Michael]

Will the opposition parties be pissed enough about this that they'll take him down anyway in January?
Possibly. Anything can happen between now and then.

Harper will certainly try to use the budget to 'bribe' the BQ and/or the NDP to split from the coalition, though I understand that it was Layton-Duiceppe who originated the deal and Dion joined it, so the NDP-BQ are the ones who have pushed for the coalition move.

The key issue here has to be the electoral financing issue. That issue is huge to the political parties, but a very low profile issue to the voters. Harper was trying to 'sneak' in a huge change here and the opposition parties are all going to be wary of Harper forever now after this slimy episode. As long as Harper drops that issue and engages in some 'stimulus' spending in January, they opposition will probably back off and wait for May since Dion is the big weakspot in this whole affair.


And does, technically speaking, the Queen have any override of the GG?
Zero. The GG may represent the Queen, but she is sovereign in her own right, appointed by Parliament according to a term of office. Normally a total figure-head nominal office.

I'd much prefer to have old law professors or retired federal judges in the job after this episode. :(

[Greendruid]

Is there any way that we, the Canadian people, can petition the Queen to revoke the office of the GG here. I would think that her role as sovereign and head of state would at least be partial to the will of the people if they spoke loudly enough on this issue. I'm so pissed about the way all of this happened and feel like our system is so inferior at the moment that I can't wrap my head around what has just happened. Shame on the GG for her decision to essentially nod her head in Robo-Harper's direction. After affects of vodka during her Eastern Europe trip? I just can't explain this. The coalition is going to be so weak come January that I don't think anything is going to change now. The dollar AND stocks will nose-dive now.

[Dominick]

I don't know any of the involved people but I know my precious European monarchies. It's very possible your GG is acting on the orders of the British tyrant monarch. See also Luxembourg.
You can't have liberty, freedom, democracy, ... unless there are no mono-archès (lit. : sole ruler) in the field.

[Michael]

I don't know any of the involved people but I know my precious European monarchies. It's very possible your GG is acting on the orders of the British tyrant monarch. See also Luxembourg.
You can't have liberty, freedom, democracy, ... unless there are no mono-archès (lit. : sole ruler) in the field.
Legally and constitutionally speaking, any political act by the Queen of England in Canada would be unconstitutional and 'foreign interference' in Canadian affairs. We have a very quirky system here.

The Queen is the sovereign head of state, but all her powers are specifically and constitutionally vested in the GG in Canada. The Queen has zero authority over the GG (oddly enough) - not even nominal authority. The GG is an officer of parliament.

Rumor has it that Harper 'ordered' the prorogue of parliament and the GG acknowledged that order without engaging in any serious consultations with anyone save her own office staff.

The decision is being heavily criticized even by some Conservative supporters as being extremely 'undemocratic'.

[Michael]

A picture is worth a 1000 words...

[Greendruid]

Sad, really. Who is the GG accountable to? I should think the Canadian people directly but it seems that this is not the case. She is appointed by the Queen but this is directed by the "advice" (read command) of the PM. We need to fix this. There needs to be someone accountable to the people when parliament isn't working. There is no check on the PMs power to essentially suspend the governance of our nation. Now, Canada is unlikely to engage in a civil war over such a thing but you have to wonder how weak the nation appears to those who would like to bring harm. Imagine the chaos that would be created if a sudden terrorist attack were to happen, or a major food crisis, or an immense electricity outage like in 2003? We have a very good infrastructure as most nations are concerned but there are definitely parts of this country that are largely ignored until something really bad happens. Even then, not much gets done until people start dying.

We had a highway here in Nova Scotia jammed for 14 hours just a couple of weeks ago due to a very bad accident that spanned both directions. Bad weather caused the accident and then prevented emergency vehicles from getting to the scene. Some 1,500 cars had to spend the night on the highway in the middle of a VERY rural part of this province. I mean, no gas stations, no diners, nothing. The RCMP (federal police) did nothing to help people. Didn't even take some of their ATV equipment to check on folks to see if they were alright. We can be an extremely vulnerable nation at times and it's quite disconcerting when there is no one steering the ship.

[Michael]

Sad, really. Who is the GG accountable to? I should think the Canadian people directly but it seems that this is not the case. She is appointed by the Queen but this is directed by the "advice" (read command) of the PM. We need to fix this. There needs to be someone accountable to the people when parliament isn't working. There is no check on the PMs power to essentially suspend the governance of our nation. Now, Canada is unlikely to engage in a civil war over such a thing but you have to wonder how weak the nation appears to those who would like to bring harm.

GG is answerable to Parliament alone.

Imagine the chaos that would be created if a sudden terrorist attack were to happen, or a major food crisis, or an immense electricity outage like in 2003? We have a very good infrastructure as most nations are concerned but there are definitely parts of this country that are largely ignored until something really bad happens. Even then, not much gets done until people start dying.

We had a highway here in Nova Scotia jammed for 14 hours just a couple of weeks ago due to a very bad accident that spanned both directions. Bad weather caused the accident and then prevented emergency vehicles from getting to the scene. Some 1,500 cars had to spend the night on the highway in the middle of a VERY rural part of this province. I mean, no gas stations, no diners, nothing. The RCMP (federal police) did nothing to help people. Didn't even take some of their ATV equipment to check on folks to see if they were alright. We can be an extremely vulnerable nation at times and it's quite disconcerting when there is no one steering the ship.
That's the evil of the prorogue of Parliament. Parliament is shut down but the Government has full legal authority to rule without the assistance of Parliament.

That's why I'm so annoyed with the prorogue shit - Harper loses control over the government so Parliament is taken out of the picture to enable Harper to rule directly without it (until he's ready).

[Michael]

What is REALLY scary here is the way the Liberal party insiders are trying to fix an insider win for Ignatieff as the Liberal leader.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The only reason Harper is PM right now is because Dion is the leader of the Liberals. Replacing Dion with Ignatieff will not change that fact. Ignatieff is the only politician in Ottawa with even less charisma than Harper or Dion. He make's Britain's Gordon Brown seem like the life of the party.

It is to be noted that it was Rae who was doing the cross-country campaigning for the Liberals in the election and its Rae who is doing the media circuit for the coalition.

Rae is the one the media wants to talk to - why? Because Rae handles himself well on tv and in interviews - he speaks clearly and speaks well on tv.

If Ignatieff is supposed to be leadership material, why have I never seen him exercise any leadership at all?

Ignatieff has virtually no experience as a parliamentarian, he has virtually no experience as an executive leader of anything and he's shown absolutely no ability to make speeches and no ability to handle media scrums. Making him Leader of the Liberal party will be as useless as Dion. He may not be outright hated, but he won't do any better than Dion in an election campaign.

Rae on the other hand has decades of experience as a parliamentarian, he has executive experience as Premier of Canada's largest province, he is a masterful speechmaker and is already the principal media-pointman for the Liberal party (for lack of anyone else suitable). Most importantly, Rae has a bit of charisma and looks comfortable on tv and in a media scrum. Rae speaks well, even off the cuff or when given one of those 'loaded questions' he handles it beautifully - just like a very experience and highly polished politician is expected to do. Ignatieff doesn't have this ability. He's like John Kerry - he doesn't know when to shut up or when to 'pitch' your answer to a low-brow audience.

No question which is the real leader and which is the lame duck.

I repeat, if Ignatieff becomes Liberal Leader, that's the best news Harper could get. Ignatieff is almost as weak an opposition leader as Dion. Ignatieff will never win an election.

You'd think the Liberal party would have learned from the Dion episode, but apparently they are trying hard to install Ignatieff using back-room machinations (apparently to prevent a full party vote which will not support Ignatieff).

[Greendruid]

They have to have a full-party vote in May regardless. I think that Ignatieff would kill his career by accepting the leadership at this point because he'd be leader of the coalition for four months and then lose to Rae. He'd rarely be seen again after this. From reports that I've heard, he's not even sure that the coalition is a good idea! Do they really want to install this guy for some reason I'm not aware of.

And it seems as though Bob Rae is suffering that most horrible disease of the common public - distorted perception of past events. Just as this board's discussion of the outcome of WWI has shown, the common person believes what the media tells them happened, even if they themselves lived through it! Now, I was a young man just getting my head around politics when Bob Rae was elected to the office of the Premier of my home province. This was the dirty early 90s and recession was imminent after eight years of Reaganomics and his Irish-Canadian bedfellow Mulroney followed suit with free-trade. Ontario's economy was going down the shitter with the Liberal government of David Petersen. Despite what many people seem to remember, Rae inherited a train wreck waiting to happen and actually greased us through relatively unscathed. The common public just remembers that Rae was Premier during the recession. They never remember that he was the one that managed to slow the slide and bring Ontario into the black.

The man is also an embodiment of the very coalition the Liberals and NDP are proposing here. He was leader of the New Democratic Party at the provincial level and switched to become a Liberal at the federal level. Who else is better equipped to understand both sides? I fear this bold dream shall not be realised Michael.

[Michael]

Looks like the fix is in. The Liberal Party is working overtime to shoot themselves in the foot. Swapping Dion for Ignatieff is like jumping from the pan into the fire. It improves their position not one whit.

Ignatieff has zero charisma and bores the media. Ignatieff's only resume is 25 years as a Harvard professor (in a foreign country) and writing foreign policy papers from the perspective of a good New England Republican perspective - notably a justification of the US invasion of Iraq as well as justifications of 'rendition-policy' as well as 'torture'. Rumor has it he's anti-gay marriage as well. All of his political viewpoints are American predicated. This guy is so American in his political views, political perspective and political experience that I just can't fathom who actually likes this guy - or thinks he could be PM.

Ignatieff will never be PM. Boring guys with no charisma do not defeat sitting governments. No one pays attention to boring old academics who write obscure position papers on foreign government issues.

Harper looks like he's going to get a big lucky break for Christmas.

[Michael]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has graciously allowed Parliament to sit for a "do-over" on his disasterous failure of introducing a 'budget statement' into the House back in early December. Now Harper has introduced a full budget into the House for a second attempt to win a showdown with the majority opposition parties. Lets just say this budget isn't pretty and the Conservatives are pushing a full media-blitz PR campaign (and weeks of 'budget leaks' to defend it - mostly by attacking the opposition of course).

First of all, the budget announces a $34 billion fiscal deficit this year and a $30 billion deficit next year and predictions of continuing deficits for at least five years to come. This from a government that inherited a $13.7 billion surplus from the outgoing Liberal government in 2006.

Harper's Conservative government has announced a $40 billion 'stimulus' package that consists mostly of a $20 billion income tax cut (over 5 years) which is completely irresponsible. This is pure Bushonomics - borrowing money from one's grandchildren in order to give out an income tax cut when the government is running a deficit? That's irresponsible for several reasons: 1) income tax cuts spread over five years provide only the most modest 'stimulus' benefit - probably the least efficient possible form of 'stimulus' spending by the government, and 2) the 'majority' opposition parties notified the government six weeks ago that they could not support across the board income tax cuts when the government is projecting a deficit. The opposition parties are looking for stimulus spending increases given the recession, not Bush-style income tax cuts for rich people.

Preliminary numbers suggest that I'd get about $100 (maximum) per year tax cut here. I doubt if I'd even notice that kind of tax-cut even if it passes ($2 per week). I've not seen a full analysis of the $20 billion tax cut yet - I don't know who gets the lion's share yet, but I'm guessing it is going to be high-end loaded (it is the Conservative party here).

As for the rest of the budget, it is a dog's breakfast of finacial givaways to every special interest group in the country. The money set aside to 'stimulate' the house-building industry is particularly ugly, given the market conditions that have caused the problem.

It sure looks like Prime Minister Harper has decided to play pure partisan hardball here and daring the opposition to force an election. The NDP and BQ have immediately denounced the budget as the political joke that it is. The unknown here is brand new Liberal leader Ignatieff. He's been a grey gnome for many years and now he's in the spotlight. He's the one that has to make the hot decision. Harper has played his hand. If the budget fails, Harper is going to push for an election (since his party has more cash on hand than the opposition). That's Harper's whole strategy here. He figures the opposition is afraid of an election and so he pumped the budget full of tax-cuts the opposition is totally opposed to. If Ignatieff brings down the government, it goes back to the Governor General. Ignatieff would like the government to be just handed to him by the G-G, but it could easily be an election.

Personally, I'm in favor of voting down the budget and having an election. Harper is entirely disfunctional as Prime Minister. All he knows how to do is play partisan attack against the opposition. I figure both Harper and Ignatieff are weak/lousy leaders and I want both of them gone. Electoral losses are the only way to kick these guys out of their leadership positions. If Harper loses a few seats in the house, that's a major loss for Harper. If Ignatieff fails to win the election, that's a loss for Ignatieff. That looks good on both of them. Ignatieff has never won a real election in his life (Liberal party had to avoid having a party vote in order to make Ignatieff the leader). This is going to be ugly.

Btw, I'd say that Ignatieff reminds me of John Kerry for his political charisma and speaking style.

[Americano]

Welcome to the world of developed countries finding it difficult to maintain their preferred standards of living.

[Michael]

Well, no surprises here. The NDP and BQ refuse to support the budget. The budget violates every 'demand' the Liberals made. And of course, spineless Ignatieff is going to support the budget.

Apparently Ignatieff is as afraid of the electorate as he is of Harper. Good reasons I suppose since Iggy has never fought an election before and was afraid of an internal Liberal party vote. Iggy wants the government served to him on a silver platter because he thinks he's the best man for the job and he 'deserves' the chance to govern. I think the guy is an idiot who thinks too highly of himself and is going to get slaughtered at the polls. Caving into a hated Conservative PM is not going to boost his future electoral prospects.

So now we have a Conservative government that takes Bush-Republicanism as his guiding model and we have an opposition leader that is as spineless as the Congressional Democrats.

This is pathetic. Can we have some real Canadian politicians please? I'm tired of these lameass American wannabes.

Question is, who's 'stimulus' plan is worse? Canada or USA?

Bonus question: why do US Democrats and Canadian Liberals think they can 'win' by comprimising with rightwingers who ONLY play partisan games and never really care about good government policy? The political track record is clear - opposition parties that 'help' the ruling government always lose at the polls. Parties can only achieve power by OPPOSING the ruling government policy.

No one really gives a shit about 'bipartisanship' or 'civility and decorum' in the capital. The people just want government that works and don't usually care how that is achieved.

[Michael]

Well, Prime Minister Harper is in trouble (suprise, surprise).

Ever since he was elected with a minority government, Harper and his minority Conservatives have been full of bluster threatening the opposition on a daily basis with the prospect of an election over every parliamentary issue.

That of course changed in November when Harper, who had managed to blow his poll lead completely, totally ignored the recession and was planning on launching a new round of spending cuts and tax cuts. Harper ended up proroguing parliament in order to dodge a non-confidence vote that he was likely to lose.

Since that time, Conservative poll numbers have been in a veritable nosedive and the Conservatives now trail the Liberals by about 10 points.

So now apparently Harper and his Conservative government have been pounding the airwaves with political ads arguing that premature elections are entirely wasteful and introduce an element 'instability'.

This kind of crass partisan bullshit flip-flopping is what one expects in US politics. It is not something that people in Canada are used to at all. We prefer our partisanship to be a bit more lowkey than this.

Bush-Republican-style fanatical partisanship non-stop on every issue isn't something that Canadians are likely to be fond of, but this is apparently the ONLY way Harper knows how to play - it is all just partisan attack 7/24 even though Harper is the one holding the government reins and its his government that is making all the dumb mistakes that are on the front pages of the newspapers every day. If one asks the PM what he's going to do about the Rait scandal or the isotope scandal, Harper just makes attacks on Ignatieff teaching at Harvard (outside the country).

So Harper's days are definitely numbered now. No politician can recover from the kind of poll numbers he's geting now. Any election call will send Harper to the backbenches and his head for the chopping block. The only question is when?

Ignatieff is a lame ass Liberal leader, but he's apparently more popular than Harper and that's not likely to change any time soon. Ignatieff may be lame, but he's not stupid - he knows that all he has to do just shut up and Harper will sink himself with the weight of his own partisan fanaticism.

50% chance of a Canadian federal election this summer. However, both Harper and Ignatieff are cowards, so I'd bet against it - figuring the fall is much more likely.

[Michael]

50% chance of a Canadian federal election this summer. However, both Harper and Ignatieff are cowards, so I'd bet against it - figuring the fall is much more likely.

No change in status. Now a 50% chance of a Canadian federal election this fall.

Harper and Ignatieff are both weak candidates and both are afraid of facing the electorate, knowing that such an election will end the careers of one or both of them.

I just want to get this election over with. Canada can't move forward with Harper as PM, Liberals can't move forward with a New-England Republican as leader and Canada's much vaunted fiscal discipline has been thrown out the window by Harper's Conservatives.

I don't see any difference between Ignatieff and Dion. Both are amateurs who have no business leading a party in a Parliament they are entirely unsuited for.

Elections serve the purpose of killing such careers and puncturing inflated egos.

Btw, I hold Chretien responsible for this whole state of affairs. Political leaders ought to be judged only by the state of their party when they leave office. By this standard, Chretien was the second worst PM in Canadian history (Mulroney was the absolute worst).

We just want some "peace, order and good government". It is painfully obvious that we need to get rid of most of the present party leadership in order to get some.

[Greendruid]

I shake my head in shame:

Canadian Senate Likely Appointments (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hockey-coach-demers-among-pms-senate-appointees/article1266017/)

This country is so fucking complacent about this issue, most people don't even know what the Senate does or how to become a senator. Heck, I'd bet that at least 50% of Canadians didn't even know we had a Senate, and I think my estimate is gracious. Now we have a "news caster" and a hockey coach riding the taxpayers' train to comfortable retirement!!! This has got to stop. These people are useless, the body they have become part of is defunct and archaic - this is the one point I agree with the Prime Minister on - and we need to either have representative, elected senators or some other elected body of the people. It needs to be done right, with caps on campaigns (temporal and monetary) just like the Commons has and they have to be people that have some fucking experience and interest in actually changing and affecting laws.

[Michael]

I shake my head in shame:

Canadian Senate Likely Appointments (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hockey-coach-demers-among-pms-senate-appointees/article1266017/)

This country is so fucking complacent about this issue, most people don't even know what the Senate does or how to become a senator. Heck, I'd bet that at least 50% of Canadians didn't even know we had a Senate, and I think my estimate is gracious. Now we have a "news caster" and a hockey coach riding the taxpayers' train to comfortable retirement!!! This has got to stop. These people are useless, the body they have become part of is defunct and archaic - this is the one point I agree with the Prime Minister on - and we need to either have representative, elected senators or some other elected body of the people. It needs to be done right, with caps on campaigns (temporal and monetary) just like the Commons has and they have to be people that have some fucking experience and interest in actually changing and affecting laws.
Keep the Senate as it is, or eliminate it. I couldn't care less.

As a pig-trough, it is a relatively cheap one and comparatively harmless. Would you prefer the government to stuff their toadies into important jobs instead?

Try turing it into an elected body and I'll fight tooth and nail. That's insane.

Line in the sand here - either keep it as it, or eliminate it. Anything else is just a Conservative party game to rig the system in their favor (giving Alberta equal vote power to Ontario and Quebec). Just throw that at any Conservative spouting off about "reforming" the Senate. As soon as you say eliminate it, they balk. That's the 'tell' that shows they are playing a power grab there.

Fact is, Canadian Conservatives have long been drooling over the ability of small rural states in the US to control the political agenda of the nation through their Senatorial dominance and seek to duplicate that up here. I say NO FUCKING WAY.

The US Senate is the most corrupt and anti-democratic institution in the US government. I see no reason to copy that.

Indeed, democracy doesn't need anything more than a single legislative chamber.

[Greendruid]

This is why I think representativeness is a key issue. I wouldn't want to copy the American model for this exact reason. Representation has to reflect the population and the economies and geographies they come from. The fact that our current House is out of whack in this regard is already a problem. Having four ridings in PEI as opposed to the 28 in Alberta when the population of Alberta is 25x that of PEI and the land is 100x that of PEI is ridiculous. The American model is worse though.

I think Canadians need a lot more elected officials. I could see the reasoning of a single body model but would you want to leave the 308 seats intact or expanded?

[Michael]

This is why I think representativeness is a key issue. I wouldn't want to copy the American model for this exact reason. Representation has to reflect the population and the economies and geographies they come from. The fact that our current House is out of whack in this regard is already a problem. Having four ridings in PEI as opposed to the 28 in Alberta when the population of Alberta is 25x that of PEI and the land is 100x that of PEI is ridiculous. The American model is worse though.

I think Canadians need a lot more elected officials. I could see the reasoning of a single body model but would you want to leave the 308 seats intact or expanded?

Yes, I'd support increasing the House if necessary to achieve proper proportionality of representation. I've always been annoyed that the Province of PEI gets 4 MPs plus 4 Senators - to represent a population equal to one riding in Toronto (1 MP, no Senator).

Btw, Alberta has been a longtime beneficiary of this kind of policy and has only joined the Ontario camp recently with their sudden rise in population. Ontario has always been the place that is most under-represented in Parliament (even though it has the most MPs). Ontario has some 40% of the national population, but only 32% of the seats in Parliament.

[Greendruid]

I think it's important to address this issue of representativeness but it can't be done with only population in mind. There are ridings in Ontario internally that are inconsistent with one another when weighed in this manner. As a whole Ontario squarely sits at just over 1/3 of the national population and the provinces 106 seats matches this out of a total of 308 quite nicely. The inconsistency exists where other factors are considered like land management and economies. The physical size of the northern Ontario ridings is massive compared to the Toronto neighbourhoods that are represented. Then we can add into the mix the very complex issues of language and history. Québec has slightly more seats than its population would proportionally warrant but it has an important, constitutionally recognised cultural/linguistic distinctiveness.

BTW, I don't know how these seats are assigned, who drew/draws them up, how often they are changed, nor how difficult it would be to actually remove seats. I think that PEI would be fine with two seats given the population. The land management would probably suffice with one representative. But then there's that whole nagging history of the Charlottetown Conference, Anne of Green Gables :rolleyes:, potatoes, etc. People get very empassioned about these sorts of things. Ultimately, I think that the seats could be reasonably reduced there and no one would be affected. The imbalances in the bigger provinces are a much bigger thorn in our sides. How can you possibly compare the size of the economy that is generated in Southern Ontario versus the one generated on Cape Breton Island for instance? There are too many variables to consider in both places. Non-commodity natural resources such as geography and beauty are tough things to assess here. How many MPs do we need to take care of the legacies of such things as that? I'm guessing the complexity of these questions is what drove the Americans to a two-person law for every state regardless of size, population or economy. Maybe if they operated more as a Union of States than a federal body this would work?

[Michael]

Looks like a Canadian election this fall is becoming more probable - this time it is the Liberals threatening to pull the plug. The Conservatives are fighting a major PR campaign to prevent an election this fall, which means they expect they will lose it.

That being said, I can't imagine Igatieff 'winning' anything, so I'm thinking this election has the possiblity of producing TWO losers - which would suit me just fine.

As far as I'm concerned, Canada's two major leaders right now are a Bush-style Republican (Stephen Harper) and a old-school New England Republican (Michael Ignatieff). I don't think US Republicans have any place in Canadian politics and thus, I would like see both of these idiots shown the door. Neither one of them has any career in Parliament to speak of, neither are witty, neither have any charisma, both are wooden and have no personality, both are reflexive supporters of US militarism and neither of them seem to be representative or comfortable with anything that is truly Canadian. Neither one of these fellows belongs here - they both seem quite 'foreign' (i.e. American) - neither fellow fits any Canadian stereotype - they both fit American stereotypes.

Either way, if an election is held and the Conservatives hold on (just barely), that would be a major 'defeat' for Harper and a major 'defeat' for Ignatieff.

And that would be the ideal scenario from my perspective. According to Canadian Liberal party tradition, if you loose, you must resign. And the sooner we get rid of Harper and Ignatieff, the better.

I will NEVER forgive Ignatieff for substantive support of the US invasion of Iraq, nor his substantive support for US rendition. Ignatieff used his position at Harvard to pen several papers in support of these horrific policy positions. He has of course 'retracted' both positions since returning to Canada, but as far as I'm concerned, he's tainted by making those decisions in the first place - that's a sign of very bad judgement and thus entirely unsuited to be PM of this country.

I'd rather suffer another year or two of a lameass Conservative minority than give the Liberal mantle to Ignatieff. He's an embarrassment. I think Harper will eat him for breakfest in an election (Harper has been hinting that all of Ignatieff's pro-Bush policy positions will feature prominently in the campaign - this will hurt Ignatieff without benefiting Harper - perfect in my book).

[Michael]

Canadian Federal Election Alert Level - reduced to Green (low) from Orange (high).

Apparently the NDP have decided to support Harper's government in a proposed confidence motion. Seems like an odd political calculation, knowing that an election is inevitable in the next year or two... :shrug:

[Greendruid]

Canadian Federal Election Alert Level - reduced to Green (low) from Orange (high).

Apparently the NDP have decided to support Harper's government in a proposed confidence motion. Seems like an odd political calculation, knowing that an election is inevitable in the next year or two... :shrug:

WHAT!!! Jack Layton is a crazy man. Gods help us now. The only good thing about this is it brings about the possibility that Ignatieff will be replaced. Then again, an election loss would do a swifter job of sealing that fate.

[Michael]

WHAT!!! Jack Layton is a crazy man. Gods help us now. The only good thing about this is it brings about the possibility that Ignatieff will be replaced. Then again, an election loss would do a swifter job of sealing that fate.

If Ignatieff doesn't win the next election, his job is toast. Nothing else will do it.

The party elites 'appointed' him without any party vote at all (because they knew Ignatieff couldn't win an open vote in the party).

As I said before, I'm hoping for a fall election and to see Harper's Conservative minority reduced to very tiny margin. That result would have to be scored as a major political career-ending defeat for both Harper and Ignatieff (win-win scenario!).