The Election (no, the Other One)

Remove all ads!

They probably do. But that doesn't change my feeling that parties should finance their own election campaigns. But I guess even my own team was forced to roll on that one. How depressing.

 

Well, it's one step closer - the coalition is done. Now it's up to the Conservatives to decide whether they will prorogue Parliament to avoid Monday's non-confidence vote, or let the vote occur. Neither one is good for the Tories - talk about a rock and a hard place.

I must say, I'm not comfortable with the notion of the country being run by an unelected coalition, particularly one backed by separatists. But by the same token, Harper scares the hell out of me, and the incredibly poor judgment he has shown which resulted in the current mess makes me wonder if he is truly capable of governing a nation. I certainly don't want another election, though (and spend another $300 million in the process).

I would like to see the coalition back off on bringing down the government, but still have the threat there so as to keep Harper in line. It's not ideal, but IMO it's the best of a lot of crappy options.

 

The Conservatives have more of a mandate to govern than any of the three parties jockeying for power -- especially the thrice damned Bloc. Layton, Dion and Duceppe ought to be ashamed of themselves. I am deeply, deeply unhappy with this turn of events. Dion and his Liberals were told in no uncertain terms by the Canadian public that they were not wanted, but they clearly didn't listen, which shows the lack of respect they have for the opinions of Canadians.

Harper may have shown some poor judgement, but I think that many Canadians will see his actions as an attempt to cut spending. I know that's how I see it.

 

It takes more than just spending, but responsible spending. $30 million just sitting in an account until the next election is not going to help--even if the next election is in February 2009. I think that Harper wants to start with cutting spending that's not helping (like funding political parties, MP salaries) before he starts dishing out any stimulus plans. It helps to know how much you have to spend before you start spending. If Dion, Layton and Duceppe can't figure that out, then our country is doomed in the event of a coalition.

Make them work for their funding. Make them go out to have fund raising events, get them to call on their supporters and ask them to pony up for the good of the party. I think the Liberals are just afraid of being on the same footing as the Marijuana party. Are they afraid that someone will ask what you have to be smoking to vote Liberal?

I'm not so sure about that. I think the Conservatives are, with this first step, trying to cut government spending that doesn't help the economy. That should free up more money to fund something that will help the economy.

I don't hold either of those as likely.

Yay, they paralysed the government with their poop flinging! Depression, here we come!

What's worst is that that money would just sit there when we need that money to circulate throughout the economy. We need government money going to where it will be spent again, not where it will sit there and do nothing.

But where is that standard of living? That's going to come up for debate...

Actually, it's the Governor General that makes the final call on that. She says no, then the vote goes through. But she also has to sign off on the coalition or dissolve Parliament and call another election if they gang up on the Conservatives. I'd rather see another election than a Coalition.

The way I see it, the Conservatives did what they thought best, and the other three parties started the poop flinging immediately. I say send us back to the polls, hold the politicians accountable and see what the people have to say. I think the Coalition is an acknowledgement that tghe people will recognize this as a power play and there will be a backlash against the Liberals, NDP and Bloc tho give Harper a majority, liklely around 175 to 180 seats.

All that will accomplish is paralysing the government. Unless you are seriously advocating extreme laissez-faire (sp?) economics, how is that any better?

I agree with that, and that's why this coalition scares the hell out of me.

 

I'm not going to address Gnarff's points, because I've already done so in previous posts, and I don't feel like repeating myself. Sufice it to say that I disagree with most of what he says. See my aforementioned posts as to why.

---------- Added 17 hours, 6 minutes and 26 seconds later... ----------

I changed my mind – there are a few things in Gnarff’s post that I should respond to.

and

First off, the money isn’t “just sitting in an account”. It’s a budget allocation, just like any other allocation that has been made but not spent yet, whether for infrastructure, social programs, or whatever. Secondly, cutting $30 million doesn’t do anything towards “help(ing) to know how much you have to spend before you start spending”. All it does is tell you that you have $30 million more than you had before. That doesn’t mean that that you didn’t know how much you had to begin with.

It's naïve not to think that one of their main intents was to bankrupt the opposition.

I actually said it is “the best of a lot of crappy options”. As I said before, I'm not happy with anything about this situation. If Harper had an ounce of common sense, he wouldn't have proposed cutting off party funding in the first place, and we propbably wouldn't be in this mess.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I heard this morning that, in a poll, 52% of the respondents opposed a coalition, and if you listen to public reaction, opinions seem to be fairly evenly split. You were also predicting a strong majority in the last election; I think your assessment of the realities of the situation is being tainted by your bias.

 

Halasz:

I'm not sure this wouldn't be a good idea, but it'll never happen. A coalition of three parties, each of whom has its own distinct agenda, is not going to do any favours for another party, especially one that didn't get any seats in Parliament. They're going to have to really work to sell their coalition to Canadians, as many think it is highly undemocratic at best and divisive at worst (it's one thing to work with the separatists, it's another thing to give them some executive authority.) They'll also have to manage to keep from infighting with each other -- I imagine Duceppe is going to really, really see himself as the balance of power holder, and he's gonna rape, (yeah, I said it, RAPE) the rest of Canada, using the pathetic threat of separation as a club. It shouldn't be tolerated, it really shouldn't.

We should take a page from the Americans' book -- when some of their states threatened to secede, the other ones marched in and smashed them, reminding them that a promise is a promise, a commitment is a commitment, and if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound (or an American dollar, in the historical case.) The Bloc is a zit on Canada's face and we should smash them to smithereens.

This does not mean I am anti-Quebec -- far from it! I am anti-separation, and that makes me the same as 51% of the population of Quebec (judging from the last referendum). I am ALSO firmly opposed to this Hutton idiot in Alberta who is yapping about Albertan separation. He's a disgrace to our province.

 

LKD's hyperbole aside, I agree with him that it's not going to happen. The Green Party has no seats, isn't part of the coalition, and isn't needed in the coalition.

As far as LKD's concerns over the power that the Bloc would have in a coalition, I share those concerns to a certain extent, but I'm not sure what the details of the agreement are. I seem to recall hearing the the Bloc will vote with the Liberals and NDP in any confidence vote, but not necessarily in a vote that would defeat the government. I haven't been able to verify this, though, so I could be wrong.

 

Hyperbole? What hyperbole? I'm not exaggerating one little bit -- Quebec separatists suck tons of resources out of the rest of the country (ESPECIALLY Alberta) and give us back nothing monetary. Any time there's something good to be got, Quebec whines and complains and threatens separation, and the rest of the country buckles under. They're like the spoiled rotten youngest child (yes, I know they were among the first provinces in Confederation) who has Mom and Dad wrapped around her little finger -- while the other kids get crap gifts for Christmas the little whiny princess gets a $2000 gift -- one that she'll refuse to share with the other kids.

 

Ms. May herself spoke in a press conference stating that she has had discussions with Dion about having a role in the coalition.

 

"A role in the coalition" could mean anything; it's a far cry from a Senate seat.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081202/dion_may_081202/20081202?hub=Politics

Well, I'm sure she would be open to a cabinet or senate seat. That doesn't mean that Dion even hinted that it was a possibility. Why she would even mention a cabinet seat is beyond me - there's no way that's going to happen. And I still doubt she'd get a senate seat. What does the Green Party have to offer the Coalition in exchange? They don't hold any seats in the House, so about the only thing they can offer is moral support. Given that there are three parties in the Coalition that actually have power and will be jockeying for position, I think it's unlikely that they would want to add a fourth party to the mix. But these are whacky times, so who knows..

 

It has always been my understanding that in order to have a cabinet seat you must either be a Member of the House of Commons (MP) or a Senator. Correct me if I'm wrong, Splunge. So, if the Liberal leader at the time of switchover (Dion? That'd be weird) gives her a Senate seat (is there even one open?) then he could give her a seat in the Cabinet. That would be one less seat to give to the NDP or the Bloc, though, which would be . . . unwise to say the least.

 

But the point is that it's not being spent. That's not helping the economy now, and if they spend it now, they don't have it for the election later. The only way that money helps is if the election is in February...

But it does help you know how much you can spend because the money has to come from somewhere. This move is designed to free up 30 million for economic stimulus.

It's Paranoid to think that it was an attempt to bankrupt the opposition. Besides, if the NDP folds, where do their supporters turn? The Liberals. If the Liberals go under, who gets their supporters? The NDP. Either way, Harper loses, as the opposition is forced to unify under one banner. Harper is not an idiot, and knows this. That was about $30 million dollars, not a power play.

I saw one where 42% blame Harper, 52% don't. Also in the article, 56% want another election if the government falls, 37% favour the Coalition, 8% mixed feelings. Most telling was that 77% of responses had NO confidence in Dion whatsoever. I think that if the Governor General refuses the coalition, then the Liberals will go back to abstaining on confidence motions until May.

Why they aren't hauled before the courts on treason charges is beyond me.

She should have a seat in Parliament, but the decision to run her in Peter MacKay's home riding was a huge mistake. She could have easily been elected in a riding with no strong candidate for any of the other parties.

 

[sarcasm]

Well, I feel so much better after hearing the speeches last night.

Harper gave wonderful new insight as to why he should stay in power.

And Dion, well, what can I say? A stunningly eloquent visual and vocal presentation. This man inspires confidence.

[/sarcasm]

Good grief. We’re doomed no matter what happens. I go back to my earlier hope – the Governor General allows Harper to prorogue, Flaherty gives a budget speech in January that the Opposition can’t vote against, and we carry on with the threat of a coalition hanging over the Conservatives in order to protect Canada from Harper.

Well, according to Wiki, you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Canada

Um, no. Maybe it's because you're not an accountant (although I don't think it requires an accounting degree), but I'll cut you some slack here, and I'll give you a basic lesson in economics and fiscally-responsible budgeting. A budget is set, with short-, medium-, and long-range spending plans, as well as allocating resources for contingencies which may or may not need to be spent. You do not then go and spend every single dollar of that budget right now. Instead, you spend it in accordance with the schedule and criteria set out in the budget, which depends in large part on the timing of the receipt of revenues.

No, it helps you know how much more you can spend. But you aren't starting out with nothing.

Well, it would be if I thought he wanted to do this all along, and I was just looking for anything to point to that I could use to say "ah ha!". But until now, I never thought he would stoop this low; this caught me completely by surprise.

Actually, in the event the vote occurs on Monday and is defeated, and the Governor General refuses the coalition, I believe we have another election, which would be a disaster for the Liberals, because they wouldn't really have a leader (unless they rushed someone in). I that event, I think I agree with your earlier comment that there would be a Conservative majority.

---------- Added 3 hours, 4 minutes and 20 seconds later... ----------

Well, the GG granted prorogue. Thank goodness. Of course, the opposition will accuse Harper of refusing to face the music (which is true), but at least the horrible prospect of Dion as PM is off the table for now. Let's hope the January budget is good enough that it can't be reasonably defeated. That way, the Conservatives stay in power, but the opposition have a hammer in case Harper does something stupid again (which I wouldn't be surprised if he did).

 

I said, and I quote:

Emphasis added this time - -that's just what wiki said, which means I was right! My contention was, though, that the PM cannot just pick any Joe Blow (Joe the Plumber, anyone? ) and put him in the Cabinet -- the fellow must be a member of the Legislative Branch of Government, which means an elected MP or an appointed Senator.

In an election, we'll just get another minority government -- the Liberals have been too successful painting the Conservatives as evil, anti-social policy bugaboos but not successful enough painting themselves as a viable alternative. As for the NDP, part of me believes they've shot their bolt and captured as many seats as they are likely to capture at 37, but I could very well be wrong.

And I needn't say any more about Quebec.

 

One of us is misreading something. Wiki said:

So you're right about Senators being eligible (I forgot to acknowledge that in my previous post), but I don't think you're right that you have to be an MP.

I'm not sure about a minority government (vs. majority) if an election happens before a new Liberal leader is selected, because I can't see Dion having much public support. OTOH, I think Harper is trusted even less than before, so who knows? Anyway, it's all basicallly moot until January now.

 

What this has done was to paralyze the government. Harper can cut useless spending, which means that he will have to run a deficit to keep from getting turfed.

But the question is when with that 30 million be spent? If it is a longer range expense, could that money be delayed until the election is called in an emergency situation? I still think that that 30 Million would better serve the Canadian economy if it was being spent now.

 

What it's done is to force Harper to behave himself.

If he can cut useless spending, why does he have to run a deficit? Unless you meant "can't", in which case the only thing he has to drop (and already has) is the $30 million in party funding, which is not very much in the large scheme of things, particulary when the alternative is an election that would cost in excess of $300 million. Anyway, before this whole mess even happened, he already stated he would be running a deficit.

And just to be clear - I would prefer if all parties were self-sufficient, but if it takes some federal money to ensure we have a choice, I'm not going to object too strongly.

It seems I was wrong. Apparently it does require an accounting degree to understand how budgets are supposed to work. Although I should point out that the $30 million is an annual subsidy, and doesn't just kick in when there's an election. (I know, this makes it even worse from your perspective, since it appears you were not aware it is annual, but my previous comments on the appropriateness of subsidies still stands.)

 

I still stick with the idea that if a party cannot get the support of sufficient Canadians to ante up $10 each or more to fund their activities, then the choice that party is proffering is a crap choice that we don't need anyway. Every time we try to force these leftists to severe their dependency on taxpayer money to proffer us a choice that we have already, time and again, refused as a majority, they trot out the old "you're undermining democracy!" argument. It's B.S. As long as they have the same right to campaign as every other party, then they are being treated fairly and should shut the bleep up.

As for the deficit, yeah, I think old Gnarff made a typo, it happens to the best of us. But I wanted to add that even if Harper made several deep cuts, he might still have to run a deficit, albeit a smaller one than the one he would have to run were the cuts not made.

The more I thought about it, though, the more I was thinking that the coalition isn't really the end of the world -- it still stings, but numbers are numbers and democracy is democracy. Harper should have been a helluva lot more conciliatory to his opponents and forged some sort of a coalition or gentleman's agreement with his opposition. Instead he tried to railroad them, using "belt tightening" as an excuse to cut the legs out from under his enemies. It was a transparent ploy, and it has backfired brutally.

But really, if Dion had wanted a coalition government, he should have approached Layton and Duceppe a lot earlier. Now, many Canadians will view him as an opportunistic little prick who only cares about his own party's funding. Here's a column by Canada's version of Rush Limbaugh but I still think old Lorne has a few good points:

This line especially describes my feelings. I added the emphasis above, but I wanna say it again:

In short, there has been no single principle the Liberals believed in strongly enough -- not the environment, not peace, not open immigration -- that they were willing to force an election.

Ohhhh, yeah!

Here's the link

 

Well, that's hardly surprising, since the Liberals really wanted to avoid an election. But if you're pulling the rug out from under their feet, they don't really have much choice.

I think a little perspective is needed here on the funding issue. Prior to 2003, there was no public funding; most funding came from businesses and unions. Bill C-24 amended the Elections Act to basically prohibit anyone but individual citizens from making political contributions, and set contribution limits. To make up the shortfall, introduced a $1.75 per vote public funding (indexed for inflation, it is now $1.95).

Bill C-24

So the idea was to level the playing field somewhat by prohibiting special interest groups from giving too much power to a particular party. That's the theory, at least. Whether it actually worked I don't know, since individual members of special interest groups can make the contributiuon directly.

 

Well to be honest conservative parties often are more successful in gathering private funds than leftist or centrist parties. This is probably because the wealthy tend to lean conservative and therefore often donate to the more conservative option, while the middle class and the poor who traditionally lean left often have better things to do with their money than funding political parties.