Good for Brad Wall, that statement says it all.

Power can corrupt. Mr. Ignatieff is so hungry for power that he will do almost anything. To form this coalition if he is not elected only goes to show his true colors.

The bottom line is that Iggy has found a way to be PM, whether he “wins” the election or not. I think this has been his plan for a long time. The voice of the people, elections, must count.

I hope this letter seals the fate of Michael’s ‘Finance Minister’, Ralph!
Knowing the vile and contemptuous statements made by Gilles Duceppe about the West and Alberta in particular, it defies logic that there are Canadians that would support the notion of this offensive separatist supported troika, especially a western Canadian like Ralph Goodale. I hope he’s toast!

No one has discussed a coalition with the Provincial Premiers, would the work with a coalition. Would they allow the coalition to intrude on Provincial responsibilities. Could they refuse to follow them, perhaps stop equalization pymts to Quebec. And can iggy/layton speak for all their mps that will get elected, especially from the west.

Being from Alberta I have come to admire Premier Wall (and most of the time wished he was our premier) Iam sure he is worried, as are Albertians on this whole cap and trade thing for me it is no differant than the N.E.P. This might of happened in the 80′s but I will never forget it. My hat is off to Premier Wall and thank you for standing up for the west.

The problem that a Ignatieff seems to overlook, either out of ignorance or willful negligence, is that we know from the 2008 agreement what the Bloc will use as the baseline to lend their support to the liberals, that being the ability to vet legislation. This would effectively give the separtists the special status without the bother of getting the ROC (by hook or by crook) to agree to constitutional amendment. That would be where it starts, and once agreed to the liberals would be so petrified of the political consequences, would continue to agree to further concessions to avoid the wraith of the electorate.

Thank you for your clear comment on the Coalition Sir.
I would not accept our election being suborned by any combination that includes Gilles Duceppe and his separatists. If the unelected leader of the Liberals thinks Canadians would accept that as a result of his back room dealing. He is very wrong.
I watched the Mandsbridge interview and was also very troubled by the admission that the coalition was still in play, after many denials, both before and after the interview.
Mr Ignatieff, apparently has very, very flexible principles. I think he has shown a great deal of contempt to the Canadian people.
He has forced an election on trumped up contempt charges, and shown himself to have no principals whatsoever.
Cheers Bubba Brown

Don’t surprise me at all… You gotta admit his reasoning is definitely “LIBERAL THINKING”! LOL!

Thank you Brad Wall for having the courage to stand up and say this.

Brad Wall, you’re my hero

Bravo, Mr. Wall! Exactly my sentiments.

As one commenter at SunTV put it, this election and talk of a coalition of losers is contempt of democracy.

What really annoyed me yesterday when Rae was asked by David Akin about a coalition of the LPC, NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois, was his nonchalant shrug and his saying “I don’t know what all the fuss is about.”

He’s contemptuous of anyone/any party that doesn’t fall into lockstep with his left-lib ideas. His dream is “to unite the Left” and if that means bashing the Conservatives and giving the finger to CPC supporters across Canada, he’s OK with that. Canada’s nightmare.

Bob Rae is contemptuous of democracy, not exactly a foreign concept to Leftists the world over.

The fuss, BTW, is about the Bloc. The chances are very slim that between them the LPC and NDP can form a coalition government; in order to challenge either a minority or slim majority for the CPC, the LPC and the NDP would have to rely on the Bloc members.

The problem with this equation is that the Bloc has candidates, who will sit in our national HOC and vote on legislation for all Canadians, only in Quebec and in a party whose raison d’etre is to break up our country.

No thanks, Mr. Rae. Not so fast.

Yeah. What he said.

Mr. Wall you have so misunderstood the statement mr. Ignatieff made. He stated he would not for a colation the othe rparties and that he would accept the will of the people and if Harper won the most seats then he would be the first one to meet parliament and try and win the confidence of the house, however, if the Tories were unable to meet the confidence fo the house and he was invited by the GG to try and forma a government and meet the hosue to gain its confidence then he would so do. He is not threating to ignore the will of the people but simply stated that he would do what he can to make this parliament work even if it means Harper will have to step aside if he cannot win the confidence of the house.

How come a Premiers statement has not shown up in any media reports

I like how you think! This is as basic as it gets, I’d say.

The 2 Federalist parties are wandering the countryside (mostly Quebec and East) trying to sell THEIR wares to Canadians and in reality the ‘Coalition’ budget will look nothing like their current Red and Orange books.

Mr Wall misunderstood nothing, Id say you have though.

THE. CPC. NEEDS. A. MAJORITY.

CANADA. NEEDS. A. CPC. MAJORITY.

Wall has hit the nail on the head. He is one fine Premier with lots of abilities and could move to the federal scene at some point. Now we need Stelmach to issue a similar letter to let Ignatieff and the rest of the opposition parties know where he stands on the attempt by Ignatieff to steal the election. If Ignatieff is successful then there really is no point in having an election when there is a minority government. The GG should simply call the leader of the official opposition and ask him to form a government. Obviously it costs a lot less and certainly is less messy.

That was the intent all along no matter how much Ignatieff protests. Why else does a leader drag his party into an election when the polls say he is the most unpopular leader in Canada and is running 10-15 pts behind the government.

Oh yes, our poor economy, rattled by the rich to frighten the middle class. You people are so corrupt you’ve lost touch with reality, but don’t worry that will change on May 2

The only thing Harper is not doing that he needs to do is to say on his Mansbridge interview that a coalition is legal, it is fine to form a coalition according to the law. No one is claiming it’s illegal. The question for Canadians is “Do you want a coalition of the Bloc/NDP/Liberals?” If yes vote for a coalition candidate of your choice if not then vote conservative. End of story.

I would magine one of Duceppes first demands would be to kill the loan guarantee to Newfoundland for the lower Churchhill projrct .

Might be very interesting on May 2nd to see who really is toast. It really doesn’t look good for Harper. Canadians are waking up to the dictator, bully and blatant liar. One who twists every word to suit his purpose. Facts are that Cnadians are seeing the true Harper and they are not as impressed as you and Harpergang of thugs.

“simply stated that he would do what he can to make this parliament work” Here is where it all falls apart. The Opposition have not tried to make parliament work for the last five years!! What would change?

Right on!!!

Statistically speaking, if the Conservatives have 143 seats, like they do now, it leaves 165 seats in the hands of other parties. So from a “fair” point of view, that means that 53.6% of seats are representative of people who didn’t vote Conservative. Why is it then “unfair” to have the majority of the seats in power. Voters didn’t choose Conservative so why is it wrong to have something else? If you consider the popular vote, which truely represents the choice of Canadians as every vote would count, in 2008 only 37.7% of people voted Conservative. That means that 62.3% of people didn’t get what they wanted. How is that “fair”? Sadly the term “fair” seems to be taking a beating here. Is it more fair or democratic to please the most of the poeple the most of the time? Yes.

James:

Your statement is right on the mark, and Canadian voters should know the choice they have.

The only problem is that the PM doesn’t want to state what you wrote, and do not expect help from the Con War Room … they have been silent on this, and they cretainly do not appear to be reading the blogs for suggestions.

At least the con grass-roots are active and trying to get message out.

Contempt for voters.

Small point – Harper has never tried to overturn the will of the Canadian electorate – so who is the thug who believes he is entittled to power now? Why the occasional Canadian Iggy. If Iggy seizes power, the West should split.

Becuase we have a Westminster system of Parliament, i.e. a Party system and the winning party wins the election. If the other parties want to run as a single entity, and win, not a problem. Other than that, they don’t play with the rules to overturn the will of Canadians. If they want a different system, then they can propose that when they win a majority. Like they had for many years. The Liberal concept of being entitled to form a government even when they lose the election should have them hunted down in the streets.

“If you consider the popular vote, which truely represents the choice of Canadians as every vote would count, in 2008 only 37.7% of people voted Conservative. That means that 62.3% of people didn’t get what they wanted.”

Jason Thomas, sometimes life’s a b*tch, ain’t it?

Maybe this information will make you feel better [info. from Wiki & Elections Canada]
• In the 40 elections Canada has had since 1867, there have been 13 minority governments, which means those governments, 6 of them Conservative and 7 Liberal, were able to govern legitimately albeit for limited periods of time without an absolute majority, i.e. with less that 50% of the popular vote.
• In 1997, Chretien got a majority with a mere 38.46% of the vote. That means 61.54% did not vote Liberal.
• In 2000, Chretien got another majority with only 40.85%. That means 59.15% did not vote Liberal.
• In 2006, Harper got a minority with 36.27% of the vote, with 63.73% not voting Conservative
• In 2008, Harper got a stronger minority with 37.65% of the vote, with 62.35% not voting Conservative.
• The difference between Chretien’s 1997 share of the vote and Harper’s 2008 share of the vote is a mere 0.81% yet Chretien was credited with a majority in 1997 whereas Harper was limited to a minority even though he received 214,519 more votes than Chretien.
But you didn’t hear Conservatives whining “that’s not fair!”

With the exception of 6 elections, most of our governments have traditionally been able to govern with less than an absolute majority — less that 50% of the vote — and their legitimacy has not been questioned until now, with specious arguments such as the one you’ve advanced.

As a matter of fact, if one were to follow your line of thinking, Michael Ignatieff should not represent the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, because 53. 9% did NOT vote for him.

So, dear unfulfilled friend, listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQlUki6CLtw&feature=fvwrel

“You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes
You get what you need.”

And Canada needs a Conservative majority.

Yeah, hollinm, my take on this election, exactly.

Who’s paying the Liberal$’ bills? They’re broke, and yet their anti-Harper ads are running every few minutes, not just on SNN but all over our media. Some say the Tides Foundation, others, that the Liberal$ are tapping those untouchable “trust funds” in which they stashed away millions under Chretien and Martin — those funds the Auditor General is unable to audit. Will Elections Canada note the irregularities? (That, sadly, was a rhetorical question. Democratic procedures and principles are taking a real hit in this election.)

Why the election now? The Kyoto Accord runs out in a few months, as does the signed Coalition agreement of 2008. The hourglass is running low, and the Left are in a real hurry.

There’s a typo in your comment.

It’s Ignatieff, Rae, Layton, and Duceppe who are the would-be dictators, bullies, and blatant liars. Rae’s come out of hiding for a few very revealing interviews on SNN. He, his party, and the Bloc and NDP will usurp democracy the minute the election’s over. Already the Leftards have voted no confidence in the “government” if its led by PM Harper and his CPC party. The ROC be damned. They know what’s best for us, even if we vote the CPC into government.

The GG had better take into account, if there is ever a coalition of the willing, duplicitous Left, that the deciding votes will be cast by the Bloc Quebecois whose only raison d’etre is the breakup of Canada. That’s treason.

History in the making. Whoever thought Canada would become a Banana Republic? We’re on the brink.

Right. Now to get that through to the Coalitionist’s thick heads.

Superb post Gabby.

Spread it around!

I have written the Governor General this morning indicating my concerns about the coup that is about to take place if Harper receives another minority mandate. To say Ignatieff is audacious would be an understatement. However, he and the Libs are desperate.

I am currently out of the country and so I am only keeping up to date via the internet. I did not know the ads were receiving a lot of play. Like you I thought they were broke. However, I think they are wasting their money. Most people have made up their minds and while there may be a few swing voters I think the undecideds at this point in the game are low.

It will all be about the ground war. I think the Conservatives are better organized than the Libs but time will tell I guess.

Bravo Brad!!!

Another rookie politician that shoots his mouth off and chooses the facts that fit his ‘truth’. More partisan claptrap – the same crap he ‘complains’ about on the federal stage. Only stooges cheer for people that pull this crap. I’m not voting for either Ignatieff or Harper – neither one of them (or Brad Wall) give a tinker’s &%$# about Canada or Canadians – they’re just trying to consolidate a powerbase and build a corporate party. If Stephen Harper wins a majority government – which he won’t – we’ll have a $100 billion deficit within 5 years. We’re already more than half-way there, from a stimulus package that was spent largely in Conservative-held ridings. But you stooges think that’s just the way politics is done.
The real irony, is you dumb %&$#$#s think you’re the beneficiaries of this tribal crap.

Unless you consider the 2004 coalition offer to the separatists and socialists. Stephen Harper – National Citizens COALITION. A coalition, regardless of its makeup, is more representative of Canadians than a Conservative or Liberal (or even NDP) minority government.

Um, actually no. Whoever has the confidence of parliament has the right to govern, it does not even need to be a party leader that becomes the PM, it just typically is.

You may want to actually understand how our system works before voting.

Didn’t Stephen Harper want to do the same thing 6 odd years ago.

If memory serves he along with the opposition wrote to the Governor General to consider other options than dissolving parliament in the event of a non-confidence vote.

Please if you wish to be disgusted with the options as presented under Canadian law then then Mr. Harper should also have been condemned for the same reasons.

“I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than the spectre of a party leader refusing to recognize the democratic outcome of the election.”

I love it when someone speaks with authority on something they clearly know so little about.

The Westminster system of Parliament *does not* mean “the winning party wins the election”. It means that the electorate sends members of parliament to collectively manage the business of the country. The “government” is then composed of which part(ies) have the “confidence of the house”, a concept derived from a majority of the house supporting the policies of the governing part(ies).

If one party more seats than any other party, but hold less than 50% of the House, they do *not* automatically form government as their voice alone does not represent confidence in their governance. They have to instead form alliances, agreements, or a coalition with other parties in the House to form government. This process of finding a means to represent the greatest number of citizens is at the root of the Westminster system.

That’s how our system of government works. Look it up.

facepalm… read the constitution please

Hell, no.

Yeah. Lets shoot protesters AND Liberals.

newsflash – longtime Harper crony warns that Ignatieff might follow the rules.

(The real news is that you folks think this is your most potent argument)

Do people not understand that what Ignatieff said is correct, and exactly how our constitution works? It is the House of Commons that ultimately decides who is in power. Without the confidence of the H of C, no party can rule. That’s how the Westminster system works.

This statement is ignorant, particularly the final sentence, which is utterly absurd. Ignatieff (or Layton) would not be refusing to recognize the democratic outcome of the election if he were to attempt to form a government, in the event of a non-confidence motion. In fact, he would be expressing the democratic will of the majority, as represented by seats in the House of Commons.

As others have mentioned, to govern the country, a party must have the confidence of the country (via the HoC). If a party cannot win that confidence via cooperation, then it is only reasonable that another party or “coalition” of parties or MPs have an opportunity to govern.

Would you prefer another election in two months?

YES, YES, YES, another election in 2 months, with only 2 parties to choose, coalition or conservative. Any bets on the winner, with a huge majority.
Remember that the PM only has to meet the HofC once a year. PMSH could delay the recall for a few months, till after the Royal Visit, then after the summer break that is taken. Recall in about Oct, SFTT, delay vote on that, present a budget, and possibly be defeated,. That would give the GG the right to call another election.
And also remember, the final official results of said election on May 2nd will take 2-3 months to be verifies. So your threat of another election in 2 months is a non starter. But, and election next fall, possible.

The Opposition have not tried to make parliament work for the last five years!!

That’s BS. Parliament would not have worked at all if the opposition parties were not reaching agreement with Harper on the issues that have been passed.

I firmly believe that Harper would have driven Canada off the safe road and into the same pro-corporation ditch the US is in, if it wasn’t for having to compromise with the other parties.

The best outcome for Canada this election is another minority government. It won’t matter a whole lot whether it’s a CPC or Liberal minority, since whoever governs will have to reach accord with at least one other party.

Again you point out your ignorance of the party you so vehemently champion. Harper did in fact do just that after Paul Martin’s Liberals won a minority in 2004.

By all means, vote Conservative if you must, but at least get your facts straight! You might just realise that Harper’s conservatives aren’t your best option.

You call hiding budgetary information from the House “trumped up”? What about altering official documents and blaming the staff? How exactly would you define contempt if that isn’t it?

Ignatieff can’t defeat a budget all on his own. He’s only one voice in a House of Commons. However, if the *majority* of the House rejects a budget proposed by a *minority* government, then this shows that a *majority* of Canadians reject the Conservative budget.

You should probably read up on how our government works.

Actually, that’s more-or-less the point. The NDP proposes their ideas, the Liberals theirs, the Greens, and so on. The electorate vote and then those ideas meet in the House where they’re distilled into a budget comprised of ideas from the House.

A “coalition budget” wouldn’t look like an NDP budget, or a Green one, or even a Liberal one. It would take ideas from all of them. It’s how our system works.

Possibly because this Premiere doesn’t understand our system of governance?

How is a minority a mandate?

Yes. This is exactly why this trumpeted ‘threat’ of a coalition should Harper not get a dictatorship majority is nothing more than a fabrication of the CPC election team, because they think they can score some love like they did in late 2008.

You’ll know soon enough how Harper really feels about coalitions if Ignatieff pulls off a tie or a minority gov’t.

You can’t boil our system of government down to a two-party race. This isn’t the United States.

We have a many choices for representatives in each riding, and to assume Harper’s position of “us vs. them” is just plain misguided. We have many points of view in Canada and they should be heard in our parliament. The NDP are not just another name for the Liberals, no more than the Liberals are just “Conservatives in red”. You can’t break this up into a two-way race because it just isn’t.

I wish the conservative “grass roots” would take a few minutes to learn how our government actually works. It would save us all a big headache.

Here, I’ll get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada

Thank you for this.

Apparently they don’t teach civics or anything about our parliamentary democracy in Saskatchewan schools, or didn’t when Brad Wall went to school. Talk of “overturning” democracy shows complete ignorance of our system of government. Pretty surprising for a Premier.

Maybe the people of Newfoundland should think about this possibility when they cast their ballots for Liberals and NDP which they did last time, it’s called brain free voting.

“How is a minority a mandate?”

It isn’t?
So that means that the 7 minority “non-mandates” the Liberals received since 1867 were not legitimate governments, and everything they implemented has to be rescinded, right?

You and others who keep insisting Harper tried to form a coalition in 2004 should view a couple of videos from back then.

The 2004 agreement Harper, Duceppe, and Layton arrived at is NOT the same as the deal signed by the opposition leaders in 2008, because the terms established were NOT the same. A true coalition is a government in which two or more parties sit at the cabinet table. That is what the 2008 opposition leaders agreed to and signed. That was NOT proposed in 2004.

Watch the 2004 leaders’ press conference, available on CPAC here:
http://tinyurl.com/4oulfm8 (about 45 minutes long).

There’s a much shorter snippet here, if you prefer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkdXycwDUxA&feature=player_embedded

There one can hear the three leaders clearly say they’re NOT forming a coalition. Harper calls it a cooperative effort. Layton says it would be unthinkable for three such diverse parties with such different platforms would form a true coalition. And Duceppe, who called Stephen Harper a liar during the campaign, apparently forgot he said: “But in no way are we a coalition and we won’t be a coalition.”

Whether he pronounces it koh-uh-lish-uhn or ko-AH-lish-uhn Duceppe himself said it: 2004 was NOT a coalition, 2008 WAS a signed formalized coalition.

So that means that the 7 minority “non-mandates” the Liberals received since 1867 were not legitimate governments, and everything they implemented has to be rescinded, right?

… duh.

If a piece of legislation was passed in Parliament, it was passed in Parliament. Yes or no?

Don’t let this CPC ‘coalition’ straw-man BS twist you into knots.

1) I endorse Brad wall’s statement.
2) The Westminister system did not envisage a separatist party, intent on the destruction of the country as a necessary part of the confidence grouping. All issues to be approved, must pass/pay Quebec extortion !

Heavens, yes!

Didn’t Stephen Harper want to do the same thing 6 odd years ago.

No, he didn’t.

Check out the links on Gabby in Quebec’s comments here if you’re genuinely interested in the truth, where there’s clear proof that there’s no way it was a coalition, a fact the MSM is keeping from the public.

Haven’t you figured out, yet, that the Canadian media is the unelected Opposition which acts as cheerleader and unpaid public relations firm for the Disloyal Opposition?

Kenny, I’m surprised. I thought you might be able to discern irony. I guess I’ve overestimated you.

I love it when someboyd proves themselves clueless. Do you really think you know more about how the Canadian government and Parliament works than a Premier???? Its nice to see the tin foil hat brigade is still getting the voices in their heads beamed in from Mars. If the other parties wanted to run as a single entity, they were more than welcome to do so – they didn’t. So how do you suddenly claim, after they have spent so much time telling us how different they are, that they magically all represent a uniform concept?? We have a party system – the party which wins the most seats i.e. more than any other, forms the Government. That means they have earned the right to govern because no other party won more seats. Essentially, when you overthrow the party with more seats, with the parties who lost the election, you’ve made democracy into a farce. Maybe what Harper should have done is what the tinfoil hat brigade accuses him of – act like a dictator – cause in any place where a dictator governs, the Lib and NDP as well as the BLOC who’s sole reason for existance is to extort what they can from the rest of us, would be dead or in jail.

Oh Hell, no.

Yeah right, Every government we have had has just gone right out there and built their budget, not on their own platform which got them elected, but on the losing parties platforms. Riiiiiight. “Tis far better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Confucious

Ignatieff added: “I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I’ll follow them to the letter … what I’m not going to do is form a coalition.”

Uh, so that’s not a coalition, either.

So, what was your point again?

So the Genius who just tried to make a point that only MPs count and not Parties, now acknowledges Parties form the basis of our Political system. How droll. Add that to the temerity of telling other people they dont’ know how the system works and you get the typical Left wing geek who believes the left has some hold on the truth even though they change it daily. “If we lose, we should still win, becuase winning is an entitlement issue and we are entitled to it? The fact is that the left rarely wins on elections and almost always uses Armed force or subterfuge to gain control. The coalition of the 3 stooges is no different. They will attempt to seize power as they can’t win an election legitimately. No different from Hugo Chavez or Putin really.

I can sense that you’re very angry and arguing from an emotional standpoint, rather than using facts so I’m going to stop now. I suggest that when you calm down you do some reading on how our parliamentary system works, since you’re clearly short on factual arguments at the moment.

‘Far too many posts for someone so clueless.

I don’t sense that DougM is “very angry” and if he’s arguing from “an emotional standpoint,” so what? Ignoramuses have the same effect on me, especially when it comes to politics.

You’ve actually conceded defeat by your condescending “there, there, Doug, calm down” attitude. Those weasel words are supposed to rebut his argument? It’s you who need to get your facts straight, only you’d better go back to some of the older textbooks, seeing as the new, revisionist ones, from which you’ve obviously gained your “knowledge,” won’t be much help.

You’re long on entitlement, Dan, and more than a few cards short of a pack on your political facts and figures. It’s pathetic, actually, what they don’t teach kids in schools these days.

Now, please tell us how what the Three Stooges are planning to do to usurp Parliament — by overthrowing the party that wins the most seats, should it be Stephen Harper and his CPC — is not undemocratic in the extreme?

Plan A of the coalition was for one of them to achieve a minority. Hopefully liberal. That’s dead.

Plan B was to hijack Canada’s voting choice and, as a coalition, throw out Harper and sink back into their Liberal entitlements. That’s almost dead, I hope, although we are still scurrying around looking for the elusive silver stake to complete the job.

Plan C was to transfer the heavy hauling to Jack. That’s underway now. Gush, Gush. I hope they don’t have a Plan D (Duceppe). BTW, Jack will sink after his interview/questioning on Sat at Quebec’s favourite TV show, viewership ~ 2 million. He won’t get puff-ball questions (Bloc will see to that), and his contortions due to different Eng/Fr Canada positions on issues should be highly entertaining. Jack has reached his nadir, and will settle back to a little above his norm, quickly.

I believe that the Liberals and NDP (and others) started plotting, a very long time ago, the overthrow of voters choices by hijacking democracy (ironically, in the “name of democracy”). Of course, the only way this will work is with the cooperation of the infamous traitor, Duceppe.

“Anatomy of the Coup”. It’s a short read, backgrounder, and not dull at all. The only one on the net:
http://burpnrun.blogspot.com/2011/04/anatomy-of-coup.html

Have someone explain irony to you. It’s not what you think.

A minority is a minority and not a majority. Harper continues to treat a minority like a majority and that is why we continue to have elections. He is single handedly trying to change the political system. Why does he not find some friends and form his won coalition if he wins another minority? That is the solution, but can Harper work with anyone else?

All parties strut and preen and shout and promise during an election. When actually governing, Canadian federal budgets generally have some ideological whiff, but are mostly sober, moderate things, based on sound advice, that don’t rock the ship of state too badly. This is especially true for minority governments, as we’ve witnessed. I’ve seen Liberals tighten the purse-strings and reduce deficits, and I’ve seen Conservative governments spend like Roosevelt, all depending on what the circumstances required. That’s what good government looks like.

And, Doug, thank you for removing all doubt.

“Harper continues to treat a minority like a majority and that is why we continue to have elections.”

You’re wrong. The Disloyal Opposition continues to treat the duly elected government of Canada (and, therefore, the Canadians who voted for them) with utter contempt and that’s why we continue to have elections.

With four official parties in the ring (let’s set aside the Green Party for now, seeing as they have no MP sitting in the HOC), it’s become almost impossible for any party to get a full majority. Our parliamentary system hands the reins of government to the party which gets the most votes in an election, not requiring a majority of votes.

Our system also assumes good will towards the people of Canada on the part of the Opposition parties, which has not been the case since the CPC has been in government. Since 2006, all the NDP, Bloc, and LPC have done is oppose the policies of the CPC, not on principle, in most cases or not because they haven’t been beneficial to most Canadians, but because it’s not the “progressives” (sic) in power, a situation the progressives refuse to countenance — because they regard it their God-given (whoops) Gaia-given right to rule.

Steve Harris: “[Prime Minister Harper] is single handedly trying to change the political system. ”

Such an inflammatory statement needs to be backed up with facts because, on its own, it’s a preposterous thing to say. A visceral hatred of Prime Minister Harper, a disease of the Left, isn’t sufficient justification for such a fiction.

James’ position is too nuanced for this crowd, as Doug has amply demonstrated. Harper and team have learned that by being deliberately divisive, creating oversimplified bipolar frameworks, spreading misinformation, ad hominem campaigns, actively shunning the media and generally avoiding real discussion, they can often drag the conversation down to their current level where they think they can win by out-shouting the opposition.

Notice how the CPC is campaigning using a robo-Harper, tightly programmed, who they won’t expose to questioning. This is all intended to draw attention from Harper’s atrocious record with accountability and openness, and the clear problems with some past decisions like the fighter jets, G8/G20 and other issues.

I could wish for more thoughtful conservatives like James. It would make a nice change from the braying jackasses currently holding the floor.

If anyone is trying to change the political system it’s Gilles Duceppe and his separatist Bloc Quebecois.

The Bloc’s 50 seats in Canada’s HOC are the game-changers — and will be the game changers should Iggy and Jacko decide to usurp the will of the electorate to form a coalition “government” after the election. For the Bloc to be able to call the shots for all Canadians, with policies only for Quebec and Quebecers, in addition to wanting to discontinue being Canadians, is ironic in the extreme and a travesty of democracy.

Notice how Doug heads for the metaphorical gun cabinet when he’s at the end of his rope?

Waiting for the “facts” to back up your argument, batb. Waiting in vain, I know…

Gabby:

Thanks for the well documented reply.

I don’t think that my argument is specious. I would suggest that the definition of “fair” is specious in the way Bad Wall uses it in his original letter. I think it would be far more logical that “fair-minded” Canadians, as Wall suggests we all are, would want the popular vote to count for more. That would be a broader and more powerful meaning of “fair”. Alas, as so many point out, that is not how our system works.

The definition of a coalition appears to be specious also. In a minority government, every party becomes a part of a coalition, ad hoc, as suits their needs to pass legislation. Any party can control what happens because they might hold the swing vote. In this form of government everyone in the house has to work together and typically moderation in policy and policy which pleases the most people most of the time comes forward. This is nothing to be afraid of. It fact it should be embraced as the majority of Canadians will have their opinion heard and accounted for as each party has a greater say in the legislation being passed.

There are no minority bogey men to come out of the closet here. Even if Harper isn’t able to form government and Michael Ignatieff, with the help of others is, it may allow the Conservatives to have more, or as much power, to pass appealing legislation to the Conservative base as before. They will also have the power to vote down, or change, other party’s proposed legislation.

Gabby, you make the assumption that I am a Liberal supporter, in fact, I am a Conservative supporter. I do not believe that Harper is the man for the job. He doesn’t appear to be able to win a majority and he always seems to be hiding something. Avoiding questions, little scandals here and there, and all his high talk about accountability when there doesn’t appear to be any on his part (taxing income trusts when he said he wouldn’t, fixed election dates, and supporting an elected senate among others) make me think we need a new leader. I would choose a Conservative government without Harper. To get it we might need another minority Conservative government, if that happens Harper will be voted out as leader, and then there can be real change.

Are you so lonely that you have to keep replying to yourself? Paranoia can do that, y’know.

Ignatieff added: “I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I’ll follow them to the letter … what I’m not going to do is form a coalition.”

… or has your plot already taken this into account? Can’t wait for the movie.

However, when the rules were put in place, it was assumed that there would be good will towards the government and the people of Canada on the part of the Opposition parties, which isn’t the case with the Three Stooges, who’ve already decided that no matter what the CPC puts forward, they’re agin’ it. In addition, when the system was put in place, it was assumed that all the parties were national parties, electing MPs in all regions of the country; the rules never anticipated a one-province-only party whose sole raison d’etre would be to break up the country.

As I said in another post, the Bloc Quebecois puts a completely different perspective on “playing by the rules,” because the Westminister system never anticipated the present situation in Canada.

It’s preposterous to expect that Canadians will accept a coalition of losing parties with a Quebec-only party calling the shots for the whole country simply because the Three Thugs “are playing by the rules.” Playing by the rules works when all the assumed pre-conditions exist. That’s all changed with the Bloc.

My Canada does not include PM Gilles Duceppe by default.

However, when the rules were put in place, it was assumed that there would be good will towards the government and the people of Canada on the part of the Opposition parties, which isn’t the case with the Three Stooges, who’ve already decided that no matter what the CPC puts forward, they’re agin’ it. In addition, when the system was put in place, it was assumed that all the parties were national parties, electing MPs in all regions of the country; the rules never anticipated a one-province-only party whose sole raison d’etre would be to break up the country.

As I said in another post, the Bloc Quebecois puts a completely different perspective on “playing by the rules,” because the Westminister system never anticipated the present situation in Canada.

It’s preposterous to expect that Canadians will accept a coalition of losing parties with a Quebec-only party calling the shots for the whole country simply because the Three Thugs “are playing by the rules.” Playing by the rules works when all the assumed pre-conditions exist. That’s all changed with the Bloc.

My Canada does not include PM Gilles Duceppe by default.

Au contraire, you may be the one who requires the lesson, Kenn2.

From dictionary.com
i·ro·ny   [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature .
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony: pretended ignorance in discussion.
4. dramatic irony: irony that is inherent in speeches or a situation of a drama and is understood by the audience but not grasped by the characters in the play.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

Au contraire, you may be the one who requires the lesson, Kenn2.

From dictionary.com
i·ro·ny   [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature .
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony: pretended ignorance in discussion.
4. dramatic irony: irony that is inherent in speeches or a situation of a drama and is understood by the audience but not grasped by the characters in the play.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

My husband has reminded me that the Opposition parties in the Westminster system are referred to as “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition,” a far cry from the LPC, NDP, and Bloc which represent the Disloyal Opposition, aided and abetted by the unelected Opposition in the media.

Oh! It’s only you.

Jason Thomas, as I stated in my previous comment, it is only since Stephen Harper has been in power that his opponents — political parties, constitutional ”experts” and inimical media — have questioned the “fairness” of the FPTP system, with its conventional guarantee that the party attaining the largest plurality of seats gets to form government. The reasons for this sudden onset of “fairness” are the opposition’s attempts to delegitimize Harper and his government by whatever means possible, even if it means distorting our constitutional conventions.

It is untrue that “In a minority government, every party becomes a part of a coalition, ad hoc, as suits their needs to pass legislation.” That is the use of the term “coalition” in its loosest sense. Call it co-operation, alliance, agreement — even arm twisting if you will — but those terms do not describe what happened in late Nov.- early Dec. 2008. Those terms can, however, apply to how Stephen Harper has been able to govern during both minority governments he has led.

Regardless of what Harper’s opponents are now trying to push as “legitimate” and “constitutional” these facts are part of our history:
• A true coalition government means two or more parties sit at the cabinet table, which is what was attempted in 2008, NOT in 2004, nor in any other minority government prior to 2008, with the exception of Borden’s 1917 Union Government.
• There has been only ONE true coalition (federal) government in Canadian history, Borden’s Union Government during WWI, so the claim coalitions are a “normal” part of Canadian government is inaccurate. That coalition was formed because of the conscription issue, and the electorate was well aware of the formation of that coalition, unlike the 2008 attempt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_of_Canada
Borden proposed a coalition in May 1917, Laurier rejected it, a coalition was nevertheless formed, and an election ensued in Dec. 1917 to have the electorate accept it.
• Canadians elect individual MPs, but regardless of what some “experts” try to advance, those MPs do not then decide who will be PM. The leader of the party with a plurality of seats becomes PM.
• Bob Rae agrees that whoever gets the most seats gets to form government.
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics_page/2011/04/even-prime-ministers-cant-wish-away-the-constitution-bob-rae.html
“… You form a government because you have the most seats and if you can win the confidence of the House of Commons …. you continue in government, and when you lose confidence, you lose.”
However, in pushing for the 2008 coalition, Rae lost sight of that. He thought it was “normal” that the party with almost HALF the number of seats as the Conservatives held should form a coalition government, despite the fact the Liberals, by not opposing the Throne Speech, had expressed confidence in that government.
That is why the Conservatives and their supporters keep repeating “if they’ve done it once, they’ll do it again” i.e. disregard the will of the electorate. That is why Premier Wall is absolutely correct in saying the following:
“However, if the Conservatives win the most seats but come up short of a majority, I would expect Mr. Ignatieff and his party to accept that result. …
I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than the spectre of a party leader refusing to recognize the democratic outcome of the election.”

Finally, your impression of Stephen Harper differs from mine. I may not agree with every single policy he has stated or implemented, but to me, being a small-c conservative doesn’t mean rejecting that political formation on the basis of one or two issues.

Income trusts? If your portfolio hasn’t recouped by now, I’d say change tactics or financial advisor. But I can’t repress my penchant for providing links. Here’s an interesting one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/personalfinance/incometrust-probe-faqs.html
“… Why did Ralph Goodale decide to wade into the income trust issue in the first place?
Ralph Goodale announces new tax rules for income trusts, in Ottawa, Nov. 23, 2005.
… The Department of Finance calculated that the federal treasury lost $300 million in tax revenue in 2004 because so many companies had converted to income trusts, and their growing popularity meant more “tax leakage” was to come. In September 2005, Goodale announced his department would carry out a four-month review of the income trust field. Word of that review quickly cast a cloud over the whole trust sector. Would Goodale start taxing trusts? Would future conversions be blocked? Income trusts lost billions in total market value.”

Notice the last sentence. That happened while Goodale was finance minister, trying to decide one way or another — to tax or not to tax? With the fall of the Liberal government looming, Goodale decided to introduce richer dividends for taxpayers who owned income trusts despite the opinion expressed by some progressive think-tanks who called income trusts “a social programs cash-suck.” And the rest is history.
Time to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0714IbwC3HA

Happy Passover, Happy Easter all!

Alas I can’t take the credit – he removed all doubt by himself – I simply pointed it out. And if budgets have merely some “ideological whiff, but are mostly sober, moderate things, based on sound advice”, (which I tend to agree with) then one would be hard pressed to understand how the Opposition knew they were going to vote against it unless the government gave in to their various extortions for them to do so unless their decisions were based on a fanatical need to bring down the government – which we all know is the case. Making the “loss of confidence” in the Government particularly self serving and ironic given their cry of “democracy” being damaged.

Not sure what you mean by the “metaphorical gun cabinet” and unless and until I ever come to the end of my rope, I suppose I’ll never know. It certainly hasn’t happened on this board and if you ever think you’ve driven me there I suggest you not believe the voices which are clearly speaking to you through your tin foil hat. I do confess I enjoy smacking you and your monstrous ego down and watching ou twist and turn in the wind and change your story when someone points out that you never support your opinions with anything but the fanatisicm of the true believer. And the reason I don’t suffer fools gladly is because I’ve been to a lot of places where democracy was let go – and so I know it’s too important to let a few young, angry, know it alls, with a feeling of entitlement to try to re-write the books and steal power because they are arrogant enough to think they have the right. I’m not perturbed at all as either way I win. If people are dumb enough the again vote Lieberal, and they usurp power, the West will be gone within five years. If the PM gets his majority, the country continues on as a viable member of the world community with some financial stability. There is no down side to this election.

First intelligent thing you’ve even said on this board. Though to be fair, Protesters should only be shot in accordance with the Criminal code when cops catch them in the act of commiting a crime. And to be sure, I’m not sure we should really be gunning Liberals down in the street regardless of their record of corruption. Really, they belong in jail vice being shot on sight. After all, we have to have some rules in a civilized society. Simply having them shot is in bad taste – its what a dictator might do…

Ah, mem0ries.

…About twenty snipers on the tops of buildings, each with about fifty dollars worth of ammunition and the “Black Block” would have evaporated like a drop of acetone on a hot day.

….About twenty snipers on the tops of buildings, each with about fifty dollars worth of ammunition and the “Black Block” would have evaporated like a drop of acetone on a hot day.

“Precisely – “Protesters should only be shot in accordance with the Criminal code when cops catch them in the act of commiting a crime” You spend too much of your time at work wearing a black mask? Hell you even agreed with how much you trusted the Cops to do the right thing.

Well then, tell your Taliban Jack “ass” to stop braying. Seems simple enough.

Well then, tell your Taliban Jack “ass” to stop braying. Seems simple enough.

Well then, tell your Taliban Jack “ass” to stop braying. Seems simple enough.

Try not to be obtuse – show us all the times in Canadian History when a party which lost the election assumed power – and remembering the Byng-King affair is great – one got chucked out and the other sent back to England in disgrace – but I’m good for it to happen again.

Try not to be obtuse – show us all the times in Canadian History when a party which lost the election assumed power – and remembering the Byng-King affair is great – one got chucked out and the other sent back to England in disgrace – but I’m good for it to happen again.