Crisis in Canada

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, perhaps it isn't quite that bad. But nonetheless:

The Globe and Mail
National Post (semi-editorial)

This sort of thing is almost unprecedented in Canadian history. Stephane Dion is certainly not Prime Ministerial material, and a coalition of liberals, socialists, and seperatists may not last as long as he seems to be hoping. Fortunately, allying with the Bloc will probably produce a fairly substantial voter backlash across Canada. Are we seeing the Liberal Party's death throes?

The second article is not neutral, but it is certainly not terribly far from the truth.

[CountArach]

This sort of thing is almost unprecedented in Canadian history. Stephane Dion is certainly not Prime Ministerial material, and a coalition of liberals, socialists, and seperatists may not last as long as he seems to be hoping.

And a coalition of Conservatives and Social Democrats would last how long exactly?

[lars573]

Well if things had gone differently in 2006 we might have found out. Still if this gets Harper out of the PM's office I'll be happy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well if things had gone differently in 2006 we might have found out. Still if this gets Harper out of the PM's office I'll be happy.

In favour of Dion with Duceppe and Layton hanging on his heels? Maybe Harper needs to be thrown out, maybe not - but now isn't the time.

And a coalition of Conservatives and Social Democrats would last how long exactly?

Well, we don't know, do we? The Conservatives have governed without a coalition in a minority government since 2006. Canada needs another election, not a coalition.

[Vladimir]

Thanks. I've been looking for an excuse to post this.

[lars573]

Thanks. I've been looking for an excuse to post this.

What. A. Croc.

[Vladimir]

Yes, but a highly entertaining one.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/glo...?video=3240893

[Hosakawa Tito]

Not being familiar with how Canadian politics works; I was under the impression that losing a confidence vote automatically triggers another election. This seems to put quite a lot of power in the Governor General's hands essentially making that person king-maker.

[lars573]

I had to read up on it too. It's one of those things that doesn't come up often. I believe that the coalition will try and pass a motion ordering the government to resign. This doesn't nessiarily trigger and election. That would be up to the Governor General. She could dissolve parliment, or she could ask the coalition to form a new government.

[Meneldil]

I don't see how such a coalition would be so crazy. All four parties involved basically have the same stance on almost all social and economical issues, bar a few exceptions (Quebec's independence being the main one).

I mean, France had been governed by large leftist coalitions (from center left to socialists, communists and greens) quite a few times, and it wasn't worse than your average right winged government. Now, Canada isn't France, but well, I wish them good luck for kicking Harper's ass. He deserves it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not being familiar with how Canadian politics works; I was under the impression that losing a confidence vote automatically triggers another election. This seems to put quite a lot of power in the Governor General's hands essentially making that person king-maker.

Losing a confidence vote in the House generally forces the Governor General to call an election. If a no-confidence motion passes or if a supply bill proposed by the government is defeated, then the government must resign or petition the Governor General for an election. The Governor General can decline the Prime Minister if the PM asks for an election, such as in the King-Byng affair. Considering there was a Canadian federal election relatively recently, the Governor General will probably decline a request for an election by Mr. Harper, even though an election could potentially propel him to a majority in the House of Commons and therefore a stable government.

On the other hand, I give the coalition eighteen months. Maybe thirty. An issue that many Canadians have with the coalition is that Canada will probably have not just one, but two unelected Prime Ministers in the same government, because Mr. Dion has already announced his resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, and his successor would be chosen in convention by the Liberals. His successor will probably be Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff, though it is wise to remember that Mr. Dion was essentially a dark horse candidate when he won the leadership after he won Gerrard Kennedy's surprise backing.

I don't see how such a coalition would be so crazy. All four parties involved basically have the same stance on almost all social and economical issues, bar a few exceptions (Quebec's independence being the main one).

Canadians don't generally vote with the expectation of a coalition. Many anti-coalition advocates - and make no mistake, many of them voted Liberal or NDP in the last election - may not like the idea of two unelected Prime Ministers in a row, the idea of a coalition with the seperatist Bloc (a huge issue in English Canada, especially the West and Ontario), or the hypocrisy of Dion (who said he would never form a coalition with the NDP because of their "terrible economic policies," and is now forming a coalition with them because of the "difficult economic times...").

This is essentially a power grab by the Liberals and Stephane Dion, and many don't like it, especially not at this time.

He deserves it.

Why? Because you are a leftist, or would you care to point out some actual policy?

[CountArach]

Why? Because you are a leftist, or would you care to point out some actual policy?

Actually there are many policy areas where he has been awful, but pointing them out is going to be futile because you won't listen to them anyway - you will merely agree with them...

Yet here some of them are:

• Rejected the idea of equal pay for equal work from the Pay Equity Taskforce.
• Banning strikes from public unions until 2011 and cancelling collective agreements.
• Selling $2 Billion in assets.
• Cancelling public financing for votes (But retain the subsidy for political donations... which his party gets plenty of...)

Further the idea that you do not have an elected Prime Minister is ridiculous - people vote for members of parliament from a party and then the party chooses who to elevate to Prime Minister. As such Canada has never had an elected Prime Minister. By definition there can't be.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Actually there are many policy areas where he has been awful, but pointing them out is going to be futile because you won't listen to them anyway - you will merely agree with them...

In that case, there have been many policy areas where he is awful in your opinion...there are also many beneficial items of legislation that the Conservatives have put through. I also never said that I supported every single piece of legislation that Harper has put through or tried to put through, and I hope that most people disagree with at least one piece of legislation that even their favourite politician has tried to push through.

Rejected the idea of equal pay for equal work from the Pay Equity Taskforce.

Due to my understanding of Canadian law, a woman not receiving equal pay for equal work has the right to lodge an equality case under the Canadian constitution.

Banning strikes from public unions until 2011 and cancelling collective agreements.

Which the Tories didn't actually force through and instead decided not to put on the table, if you're talking about what I think you are...

In addition, the strike ban was for civil servants.

Selling $2 Billion in assets.

You need to be more specific - this can be a positive thing.

Cancelling public financing for votes (But retain the subsidy for political donations... which his party gets plenty of...)

Whether that is a terrible idea or not is debateable. Remember, it was the Conservatives who put through legislation to prevent parties from getting corporate donations, union donations, and large donations from citizens.

Further the idea that you do not have an elected Prime Minister is ridiculous - people vote for members of parliament from a party and then the party chooses who to elevate to Prime Minister. As such Canada has never had an elected Prime Minister. By definition there can't be.

Sure - the Prime Ministerial candidate is chosen before the election. Believe it or not, some people didn't vote for the Liberals because of who their candidate was.

[lars573]

[*]Cancelling public financing for votes (But retain the subsidy for political donations... which his party gets plenty of...)[/LIST]

This is bright idea was never even drafted into a bill. It was however the last straw for the other three parties. It was what drove them into forming a coalition.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This is bright idea was never even drafted into a bill. It was however the last straw for the other three parties. It was what drove them into forming a coalition.

It was an excuse to form a coalition - according to various sources they had been planning it for a while. Public funding was first implemented by the Chretien government for the exact purpose of helping them gain funds. There are good arguments for cancelling the funding, regardless of why Harper wanted to do it.

[CountArach]

It was an excuse to form a coalition - according to various sources they had been planning it for a while. Public funding was first implemented by the Chretien government for the exact purpose of helping them gain funds. There are good arguments for cancelling the funding, regardless of why Harper wanted to do it.

Public Funding for campaigns is what ensures that those who vote for a third party can have their voice heard - without this public financing there would be no way for these minor parties to get their message out.

[Strike For The South]

Public Funding for campaigns is what ensures that those who vote for a third party can have their voice heard - without this public financing there would be no way for these minor parties to get their message out.

I plan to marry rich

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Public Funding for campaigns is what ensures that those who vote for a third party can have their voice heard - without this public financing there would be no way for these minor parties to get their message out.

With per vote funding they get, by definition, a lot less money than the larger parties, making it easier for large parties to get their message out and overwhelm the little ones. Public funding heavily favours the party in power, and has since Chretien implemented it. But per vote funding is an ideologically debateable idea, and cancelling can be a good idea or a bad idea, depending on which side you choose to view.

By the way, the Conservatives would also lose the most per vote money through this proposal.

[CountArach]

With per vote funding they get, by definition, a lot less money than the larger parties, making it easier for large parties to get their message out and overwhelm the little ones. Public funding heavily favours the party in power, and has since Chretien implemented it. But per vote funding is an ideologically debateable idea, and cancelling can be a good idea or a bad idea, depending on which side you choose to view.

By the way, the Conservatives would also lose the most per vote money through this proposal.

If it is anything like the system we have down here (Which it is by the sounds of it) then the left-wing minor parties, which have no major source of fund raising (Except Unions which are usually attached to one of the larger parties), are reliant entirely upon public funds.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Public Funding for campaigns is what ensures that those who vote for a third party can have their voice heard - without this public financing there would be no way for these minor parties to get their message out.

There's plenty of ways for groups to get their message out - the taxpayers shouldn't have to finance the aspirations of politicians. It is only a way for parties that can't find support among people to get money.

And this whole thing is just a power grab - the coalition groups' excuse that they think the budget doesn't deal with the economic situation enough is a load of lies. They saw an opportunity and filled the air with hysterics about the budget.

CR

[CountArach]

There's plenty of ways for groups to get their message out - the taxpayers shouldn't have to finance the aspirations of politicians. It is only a way for parties that can't find support among people to get money.

That's why they require 3% of the vote.

Elections are in the public interest, so people should pay for them. If you combine it with bans on various political donations you also curb the influence of business, unions and other special interest groups.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There's plenty of ways for groups to get their message out - the taxpayers shouldn't have to finance the aspirations of politicians. It is only a way for parties that can't find support among people to get money.

And this whole thing is just a power grab - the coalition groups' excuse that they think the budget doesn't deal with the economic situation enough is a load of lies. They saw an opportunity and filled the air with hysterics about the budget.

QFT. Even some backbenchers in the coalition parties have been grumbling about it. The Liberals stated during the election that they would never form a coalition with the NDP because of economic policy. The whole seperatist angle is almost unthinkable. How you could paint it as anything but a power bid without regurgitating coalition rhethoric is beyond me.

There are quite a few former Liberal voters who would vote Conservative in another election because of this. According to Canada.com in an article posted today, the Conservatives would have 46% of the vote if an election were held today, and that's probably a solid majority in seats. Almost 70% approved the prorogation, and about 60% believe that the Tories would be the best managers of the economy. Only 37% of Canadians favour the idea of a coalition, and the highest portion of that (50% support) comes from Quebec, mostly people who would vote Bloc.

Elections are in the public interest, so people should pay for them.

Paying for the elections and paying for the politicians to win them are two entirely different things. You should be forced to do the first, but not the second.

If you combine it with bans on various political donations you also curb the influence of business, unions and other special interest groups.

Harper did curb the influence of business, unions, and other special interest groups - I've been saying that for how many posts?

If it is anything like the system we have down here (Which it is by the sounds of it) then the left-wing minor parties, which have no major source of fund raising (Except Unions which are usually attached to one of the larger parties), are reliant entirely upon public funds.

Then perhaps the left wing parties should appeal to their voter base for funds? I mean, you have voters who want to redistribute wealth, so ask for them to redistribute a little more your way.

[CountArach]

Paying for the elections and paying for the politicians to win them are two entirely different things. You should be forced to do the first, but not the second.

The parties are running to give the people a choice beyond two polarising options - they need these funds.

Harper did curb the influence of business, unions, and other special interest groups - I've been saying that for how many posts?

Did I ever disagree with you...? I'm simply stating this is the best way to do it.

Then perhaps the left wing parties should appeal to their voter base for funds? I mean, you have voters who want to redistribute wealth, so ask for them to redistribute a little more your way.

You know damn well that isn't possible.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The parties are running to give the people a choice beyond two polarising options - they need these funds.

The two polarising options are getting the most money out of this deal.

You know damn well that isn't possible.

Why? Because their voters aren't sold enough on their policy? Because they're not willing enough to give? If the Conservatives can get private donations from such a wide support base, maybe the NDP should give it a try as well. Surely they could raise quite a few dollars in Toronto.

[CountArach]

Why? Because their voters aren't sold enough on their policy? Because they're not willing enough to give? If the Conservatives can get private donations from such a wide support base, maybe the NDP should give it a try as well. Surely they could raise quite a few dollars in Toronto.

I don't know the specific circumstances but the fact is that the left-wing parties are more likely to rely ont eh working class, who haven't got the money to donate to political parties and campaigns.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I don't know the specific circumstances but the fact is that the left-wing parties are more likely to rely ont eh working class, who haven't got the money to donate to political parties and campaigns.

That doesn't explain why the Conservatives have a very wide donation base, including working class. Some of the poorest areas of rural Ontario vote overwhelmingly Conservative, as well as some of the richest areas of Alberta. That's what you call a large support base.

[CountArach]

That doesn't explain why the Conservatives have a very wide donation base, including working class. Some of the poorest areas of rural Ontario vote overwhelmingly Conservative, as well as some of the richest areas of Alberta. That's what you call a large support base.

Just because they vote for them does not mean they donate to them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's why they require 3% of the vote.

Elections are in the public interest, so people should pay for them. If you combine it with bans on various political donations you also curb the influence of business, unions and other special interest groups.

Oh my, that is rich.

Eventually I think you'll become more cynical of government actions.

So much of the laws written to 'curb the influence of money in politics' are nothing more than incumbent protection laws.

In the US, all these laws simply make it easier for incumbent politicians to retain their offices by making it much more difficult for opponents to raise money. The numerous regulations simply make it very difficult for anyone without a team of lawyers to run.

And does it keep that nasty money out? No, absolutely not. The people and money find a way, like '527' groups in the US - moveon.org, for example.

The only real effect is the exact opposite of what you claim to desire - new parties and people find it very difficult to get started. The established political parties find it easier to stay in power.

I don't know the specific circumstances but the fact is that the left-wing parties are more likely to rely ont eh working class, who haven't got the money to donate to political parties and campaigns.

This from someone who claimed to have paid attention to the US elections.

CR

[CountArach]

Oh my, that is rich.

Eventually I think you'll become more cynical of government actions.

So much of the laws written to 'curb the influence of money in politics' are nothing more than incumbent protection laws.

I know and I agree. This is one exception if it is done correctly.

In the US, all these laws simply make it easier for incumbent politicians to retain their offices by making it much more difficult for opponents to raise money. The numerous regulations simply make it very difficult for anyone without a team of lawyers to run.

And does it keep that nasty money out? No, absolutely not. The people and money find a way, like '527' groups in the US - moveon.org, for example.

It was not done correctly.

This from someone who claimed to have paid attention to the US elections.

CR

Excuse me while I get over the idea that you think Obama is left-wing...