Canadian Federal Conservatives may trigger another election

[Ma Deuce]

If the coalition remains committed to economic issues, putting constitutional and provincial matters on the back-burner, I can see the two parties cooperating long enough to make an effective government.

That's a very big "if". Too bad real life is usually much messier than such neat theories. All it takes is one critical vote on which they disagree to bring the whole thing crashing down.

The mere fact that Duceppe is willing to work [probably] under Dion, of all Liberals, is a pretty strong sign that the Bloc is willing to play dead on the separatist issues.

Oh, please. Duceppe helped prop up Harper's government early on: He'll work with his worst political enemies if it means a chance of wringing out more concessions for Quebec. Make no mistake, that will be his primary objective in entering a coalition: He's not going to be content with mere table scraps or the "occasional bone", especially since he'll be one holding the balance of power in the coalition.

The die-hard anti-Bloc Liberals, as far as I can gather, don't hold enough sway in internal Liberal politics at the moment to prevent the coalition, and I doubt they would risk out-right munity once the coalition is in government.

Uh, yeah...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... nGP0cTL6xg

Liberal leadership dissension threatens coalition government

14 hours ago

OTTAWA — Dissension in Liberal ranks over who would lead a coalition government is threatening to derail opposition party plans to replace the Harper regime.

As negotiations between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois were edging close to a deal late Sunday, frustration was mounting among Grits over Stephane Dion's lead role in conducting the talks and potentially installing himself as prime minister. Dion has announced his intention to resign as Liberal leader as soon as a successor is elected May 2 at a convention in Vancouver.

Some Liberals question Dion's moral authority to commit the party to a multi-year pact with the other opposition parties when he won't be the one who has to see it through. Others fear Dion will renege on his promise to resign should he make it into the prime minister's office.

"Getting a deal with the NDP and the Bloc is not the problem," said one Liberal insider.

"It's the internal stuff that's going to cause this to fall apart."

Strategists for the three contenders vying to succeed Dion - Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc - complain that they've been kept in the dark about the negotiations.

"This thing really is being run by Dion and his people. We're not being asked for our opinion," said a senior adviser to one contender.

Moreover, there is suspicion among all three camps that Dion may be angling to save his own job.

"Dion is making a power play. That's the absolute reality," griped another senior Liberal.

Rae organized a dinner meeting Sunday in Toronto with Ignatieff and LeBlanc in a bid to devise a common front among the contenders. According to insiders, Rae was trying to persuade his rivals to unite behind Dion's bid to forge a coalition and to head up any subsequent government until May, when the leadership convention to replace Dion would take place as scheduled.

It was not clear late Sunday whether Rae was successful in persuading his rivals to go along with his suggestion.

Going into the meeting, sources close to Ignatieff said the presumed frontrunner was "not wild" about the idea of forming a government propped up by the separatist Bloc. Moreover, they said he was inclined to accept the concessions wrung out of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Tories on its fiscal update and allow the government to survive.

"My gut is Michael will cause all this to fall apart. He doesn't like this," said the insider.

Ignatieff enjoys the lion's share of support within the Liberal caucus so he could easily ensure the government's survival by ensuring that a handful of his supporters fail to show up for the Dec. 8 vote on the government's fall fiscal update.

However, with many Liberals excited about the prospect of regaining power and pumped to give Harper the boot, the insider added that Ignatieff could pay a big price in the leadership race if he's seen to be the one to scuttle all chances of a coalition.

In public, Ignatieff has so far supported Dion's efforts to forge a coalition and has dismissed the Tories' concessions as insufficient to ward off defeat.

Some of his supporters in caucus, however, are touting the idea of someone other than Dion - like former finance minister Ralph Goodale or former economist John McCallum - to head up a coalition government until May.

Last week's update set off the political crisis that has left Harper's minority government teetering on the brink of defeat. The three opposition parties united in outrage over the government's failure to provide any immediate economic stimulus while proposing to scrap public subsidies for political parties, the lifeblood of opposition parties.

Over the weekend, the Harper government scrambled to stave off defeat, withdrawing the subsidy-scrapping proposal as well as plans to do away with the right to strike for public servants. It also moved up the date of the next budget, which is to contain stimulus measures, to Jan. 27.

All three opposition parties have said the concessions fall far short of what's needed. They were continuing to negotiate details of a possible coalition late Sunday.

Should Dion become prime minister, he could not unilaterally put an end to the process, already well under way, to choose his successor as Liberal leader. There is no provision in the Liberal party constitution for Dion to "unresign."

However, the party's national executive and council of riding presidents could theoretically approve an extraordinary motion to bypass the constitution and allow Dion to remain leader indefinitely.

Am I the only one who sees a mutiny in the making? The fact that Dion and his loyalists are attempting to negotiate the deal without consulting the leadership candidates will not sit well with a lot of Liberals, especially if Dion attempts to "unresign" (which according to the party's own rules he cannot do, except in an exemption is made under "extraordinary" circumstances by the board of riding presidents) I also think you're still underestimating the level of pent-up hatred the Liberal Party holds for the Bloc. It's been dormant as of late, but that doesn't mean it's gone, and if this deal goes through it would easily bring it right back to the surface.

Now the article does mention that Ignatieff could potentially hurt his nomination chances by scuppering a coalition if too many Liberals have become frenzied by the whiff of power the coalition offers, but if it looks like Dion will attempt to "unresign", he'll have nothing left to lose anyway and would most likely go for it, and in that event he'd probably be able to rally enough backbenchers to send it under.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bah, this coalition won't last. In a few more months we'll be right back to where we are now, or perhaps we'll have a Conservative majority if the coalition falls hard enough.

Beyond that, I'm largely indifferent. All the main parties in Canada suck balls, though for different reasons. Also, while Harper has a minority and a coalition government is perfectly legal, doesn't it sort of overturn the will of the voters? As a believer in democracy I'm not sure I can endorse that. And the power this will give the Bloc offends me. They should have no part in a coalition government. Why should seperatists be calling the shots in a government they wish to leave?

[Fiji_Fury]

Also, while Harper has a minority and a coalition government is perfectly legal, doesn't it sort of overturn the will of the voters?

In a word, no. Far more voters elected NDP, Liberal and Bloc MP's than Conservative MP's. If a coalition of those three parties forms, they have more voter legitimacy than a minority Conservative government (if all we're considering is % of popular vote or # of MPs). This isn't a hijacking of democracy, but an odd maneuver nonetheless.

[Graeme Dice]

Also, while Harper has a minority and a coalition government is perfectly legal, doesn't it sort of overturn the will of the voters?

This is what the conservatives would currently like you to believe. Of course, they only received 38% of the popular vote, and have less than half of the seats, so really, the will of the voters is that they shouldn't be in power at all.

[Ryan Thunder]

Also, while Harper has a minority and a coalition government is perfectly legal, doesn't it sort of overturn the will of the voters?

This is what the conservatives would currently like you to believe. Of course, they only received 38% of the popular vote, and have less than half of the seats, so really, the will of the voters is that they shouldn't be in power at all.

Or not. They still hold more seats than any individual party. The will of the voters is therefore weighted towards their rule, because they represent the largest chunk of the population.

By your logic, the will of the voters is presently that nobody should be in charge.

If the other three parties shared similar platforms, I could see this as being legitimate. But they don't. The Bloc might as well be on a different planet.

[Graeme Dice]

Or not. They still hold more seats than any individual party. The will of the voters is therefore weighted towards their rule, because they represent the largest chunk of the population.

That that's only the case because seats are distributed to the person with the plurality of the votes in a district. A comparison of how many seats the party currently controls compared to how many they would have if they represented what proportion of the population supported them is in the table below.

Code: Select all

Party         Plurality Popular
Conservatives 143        115
Liberals      77         81
NDP           37         56
Bloc          49         31

By your logic, the will of the voters is presently that nobody should be in charge.

No, the people who should be in charge is whatever group of elected representatives can agree to work together to be in charge. This is especially true when that group both control more seats and represents a larger part of the population than the group with the plurality of the seats.

If the other three parties shared similar platforms, I could see this as being legitimate. But they don't. The Bloc might as well be on a different planet.

The Liberals and NDP already represent more of the country than the Conservatives. Working with the Bloc on those issues where they share common ground allows them to actually represent the country instead of handing it over to a group that represents a minority of the population.

[Ryan Thunder]

Or not. They still hold more seats than any individual party. The will of the voters is therefore weighted towards their rule, because they represent the largest chunk of the population.

That that's only the case because seats are distributed to the person with the plurality of the votes in a district. A comparison of how many seats the party currently controls compared to how many they would have if they represented what proportion of the population supported them is in the table below.

Code: Select all

Party         Plurality Popular
Conservatives 143        115
Liberals      77         81
NDP           37         56
Bloc          49         31

According to that chart, and according to Elections Canada, they still represent the largest chunk of the population, and therefore the will of the voters is still weighted towards their rule.

No one group of representatives represents a majority of the population, but the CPC represent more than the other parties do, so they form the government.

Did you think I was trying to say something else?

By your logic, the will of the voters is presently that nobody should be in charge.

No, the people who should be in charge is whatever group of elected representatives can agree to work together to be in charge. This is especially true when that group both control more seats and represents a larger part of the population than the group with the plurality of the seats.

This is exactly the scenario under which the CPC was put in charge. You can continue to delude yourself that they somehow got there illegally, or don't represent the largest portion of both seats and population, if you like.

If the other three parties shared similar platforms, I could see this as being legitimate. But they don't. The Bloc might as well be on a different planet.

The Liberals and NDP already represent more of the country than the Conservatives. Working with the Bloc on those issues where they share common ground allows them to actually represent the country instead of handing it over to a group that represents a minority of the population.

Then the Liberals and the NDP can form a coalition. That, I can live with.

A coalition government that includes Bloc representatives would have access to federal-level responsibilities that they shouldn't be within ten miles of. That is unacceptable.

[SCRawl]

A coalition government that includes Bloc representatives would have access to federal-level responsibilities that they shouldn't be within ten miles of. That is unacceptable.

My understanding is that the Bloc have merely agreed to "support" the coalition, without having any actual role in the government, with the presumed understanding that they'll have some sort of input into the government's policies. I'm fine with this, as long as the possible output to that input can be paraphrased "go fuck yourself". On a fundamental, philosophical level I'm not happy with giving the Bloc the steam off my pee, but if all they've actually been promised is a "say", then their cooperation is tolerable to me.

[TheKwas]

If the coalition remains committed to economic issues, putting constitutional and provincial matters on the back-burner, I can see the two parties cooperating long enough to make an effective government.

That's a very big "if". Too bad real life is usually much messier than such neat theories. All it takes is one critical vote on which they disagree to bring the whole thing crashing down.

It's an 'if' that was widely discussed before the coalition, and is actually the agreement that the coalition made in it's accord. The existence of the coalition is built off that 'if', and all of the parties involved are going to look REALLY bad if they stray from that course. I would safely bet that all economic legislature is going to agreed upon by the coalition before it's brought before the house (as the accord actually spells out), and any surprise move by the Liberals or NDP try to bring forth (if any, and I'm still betting on none for at least the first year) will be certainly not be matters of confidence.

Oh, please. Duceppe helped prop up Harper's government early on: He'll work with his worst political enemies if it means a chance of wringing out more concessions for Quebec. Make no mistake, that will be his primary objective in entering a coalition: He's not going to be content with mere table scraps or the "occasional bone", especially since he'll be one holding the balance of power in the coalition.

You entirely ignored my point as to why Duceppe has very good reasons to support the Liberals simply for the Status Quo rather than risk a confident Harper that wants to get rid of 85% of the Bloc's funding. When you have the choice between remaining the biggest party in Quebec, and having your party's existence threatened by funding cuts, you'll gladly take the status quo.
In the current political environment Duceppe has to work with, Duceppe is doing exactly what you said he would, he is working with his worst political enemies (the Liberals) to wring out more concessions for Quebec (not losing more art funding) and Quebec's main party (not losing 85% of its funding).

It should also be noted that the Bloc made a conscious effort this last election to emphasis their opposition to Stephan Harper and the Bloc's ability to stop him from further harming Quebec. They really didn't run on positive ideals or getting new things for Quebec this time around, but rather they ran on stopping conservative trends.

Uh, yeah...

*snip*

Allow me to Quote the part of the article I find most realistic:

However, with many Liberals excited about the prospect of regaining power and pumped to give Harper the boot, the insider added that Ignatieff could pay a big price in the leadership race if he's seen to be the one to scuttle all chances of a coalition.

I don't think that Iggy, or Rae for that matter, has the sway or political capital to really bring this coalition down, especially after it forms government. Iggy may be the most popular Liberal Leadership candidate thus far, but he doesn't have godlike powers over his followers, and his election relies on a lot of people that are very supportive of the new coalition.

Furthermore, I don't really take the idea of Dion 'unresigning' as credible, and seems more like journalistic speculation rather than valid politics. This Coalition is probably going to be Dion's attempt at a legacy. Iggy isn't going to attempt to openly sabotage this coalition with Dion stepping down and his election on the line.

I guess if the conservatives don't find their own way out of this, we'll find out who has the better Ottawa insiders on Monday

If the other three parties shared similar platforms, I could see this as being legitimate. But they don't. The Bloc might as well be on a different planet.

I'm using this statement as a segway to this Macleans article:

The Bloc Quebecois has existed in some form or another since 1990—formed from a breakaway group of MPs from the Liberal and Conservative sides. In six federal elections, they have received an average of 1.5-million votes and claimed an average of 48 seats. Their popular vote has never represented less than 10% of the popular vote in Canada and 38% of the popular vote in Quebec.

Between 1993 and 1997, they sat in the House of Commons as Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. They participate in Parliamentary committees, the legislative process and Question Period. They have offices on the Hill. Their leaders have had a place in election debates. Their votes have toppled and propped-up Canadian governments.

The Bloc’s founding leader, Lucien Bouchard, is a member of the Queen’s Privy Council and a recipient of the Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee Medal. Their current leader, Gilles Duceppe, has won election seven times in his riding, dating back to Aug. 1990.

So, all things considered, what is the quibble with their support for a Liberal-NDP coalition?

By no means—if you believe in a Canada that includes Quebec—is there a defence for the Bloc’s stated goal of separation. But if they are free to participate in the democratic process, free to work within Parliament—and indeed have been doing so for 15 years—why should they not be permitted to participate, indirectly, in a coalition government? How would their support for a Liberal-NDP government be any different than their support for a Conservative government?

If the argument is that they shouldn’t exist at all within the framework of Parliament, then there should be a push for the Conservative government, if it survives, to both never again co-operate with the Bloc and, indeed, move to pass legislation that explicitly denies a separatist from participating fully in Parliament.

Would that be undemocratic and a profound infringement on the rights of all Canadians? Perhaps. But I’m not sure how we can have it both ways. Either they are allowed to participate fully in the business of Parliament, or they’re not.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/12/02/the- ... our-house/

The Bloc Quebecois are here to stay, and we can't ignore them within our democracy.

[Ma Deuce]

Wow, I'm...just speechless. the developments of the last 48 hours still have my head spinning. How much can happen during a day-long board blackout. Man, just when I thought I finally understood how things worked in Ottawa...

Stevie Harper is truly an amazing guy, accomplishing what I thought impossible: He not only united the Right, but the Left as well. Whatever designs he had with that economic update, it is now clear that one of his own curveballs has finally been hit back at him. Even on Friday I would have thought the current events impossibul (let's face it: Harper has suceeded in cowing the opposition in every confrontation before now), yet here we are. By all rights, he should resign for this blunder and let MacKay take over (which could diffuse the coalition and save the government), but of course he won't: He's a fighter, and he'll carry on to the bitter end: Though if the opposition actually succeeds in putting this coalition in place, his own caucus could make him. That said, Dion has no business being Prime Minister either, even for a short time: He failed utterly to be an effective opposition leader, and he failed utterly to lead an effective election campaign: he should have found his backbone during the last session of parliament. Since he's already agreed to step down in May as planned to ensure at least tacit support of his would-be successors (probably diffusing any possible mutiny, but we can't know for sure until the confidence vote, if it even happens), he's effectivly an interim leader anyway, so if the Liberals are serious about this coalition, an actual interim PM (maybe Ralph Goodale) may be the least controversial way to go.

On the other hand Harper is not quite finished yet, as this coalition government is not a done deal until it actually takes power, especially if Harper succeeds in convincing the GG to perogue parliament: the longer this coalition-in-waiting must wait, the more chance it has of being stillborn. Even though I've now given up trying to make even the vaguest prediction of how any of this will unfold, I still cannot see (no matter how hard I try to conjure every possible scenario) this coalition surviving very long without the common object of hatred that unites it now: Stephen Harper. This would especially be true if Harper is forced to resign as leader and they're no longer dealing with him in opposition. Regarless of anything they share, we cannot ignore the fundamental differences between the different parties. Once they're in power it's only a matter of time before these differences start to create cracks in their facade, and if the coalition fails (or is perceived to have failed), then it's members would be punished quite severely in the ensuing election, which could prove fatal for the cash-strapped Liberal party, right as I was looking forward to the possibility of them finally fielding a leader capable of knocking down Harper in a general election on their own. They're taking a huge gamble with their electorate (especially outside Quebec) will support a coalition with the Bloc just to get rid of Harper, and they could just as easily be hoisted by their own petard as Harper was by his.

I'm just going to sit on the sidelines and watch this unfold, but I'm not even attempting to predict anything anymore, as it's clear things are either not as I thought, or have changed dramatically in the last few days alone.

Anything could happen now. Anything. Frankly, I wont bat an eye if Zombie Pierre Trudeau comes back to lead to coalition to greatness.

[aerius]

Looking at the bigger picture, if the opposition parties manage to pull off a coalition government it'll be the biggest mistake they'll ever make, and guarantee an overwhelming PC majority in the next election. When the economy goes to shit, and it's already starting, the coalition will get shafted with the blame and you can bet the Conservatives will drill this point in hard with their campaign ads, and Canadians in general are dumb enough to buy it.

The best thing that can happen now is for the Conservatives to serve another year or two so they get socked with the blame for ruining the economy and the country, wait till the people are well and truly pissed at the PC, then topple them and call the election. Until then, try to keep them in check as best as they can without bringing them down.

[Solauren]

The problem is, the Conservatives probably realize this, and would start to try to make every vote in the House linked to a confidence vote.

[Academia Nut]

The problem is that Harper has been behaving like a bully and he's managed to seriously piss off Quebec by pretty much stating that since the Bloc is part of the coalition forming it thus shouldn't "count" which means that no matter what he does, he's probably ensured all Conservative gains in that province have been flushed down the tubes. He knows that he had the other parties over a barrel in that they were out of cash, their leadership was in disarray, and Canadians do not want to go back to the polls and waste hundreds of millions of dollars on another pointless election when there is a recession going on. Unfortunately, he pushed hard enough that the other parties decided to push back. Right now an election is about the last thing anyone wants as its likely to blow up in everyone's faces, which is why the other parties want to take control via a coalition instead of triggering another election.

Quite frankly, an uprising amongst the party ranks of all the parties to get rid of their current crop of leaders would be nice right about now. That or if the Governor General could some how constitutionally ask all of the parties to have a leadership review and refuse to reopen parliament until the current crop of dickheads is out on the streets holding signs that say "Will legislate for food" and we get a new bunch of devils in office. Never going to happen in a million years, but one can still dream...

[Graeme Dice]

According to that chart, and according to Elections Canada, they still represent the largest chunk of the population, and therefore the will of the voters is still weighted towards their rule.

That's only if you assume that voters for the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc would have voted for the CPC before they voted for one of the left wing parties. Such an assertion is extremely unlikely to be true. A voter for any of the minority parties is much more likely to support the policies of the other left-wing/centre parties than the right-wing party.

No one group of representatives represents a majority of the population, but the CPC represent more than the other parties do, so they form the government.

They only represent more if the other parties are unable to work together. This is a basic part of any parliamentary system with more than two political parties that can win seats. Coalition governments are common throughout the world.

This is exactly the scenario under which the CPC was put in charge. You can continue to delude yourself that they somehow got there illegally, or don't represent the largest portion of both seats and population, if you like.

I'd like to know why you are creating the strawman that I somehow think that the CPC have gained power illegally. (Besides their well-known campaign finance irregularities). The CPC does not represent the largest portion of either seats or population. It represents no more than 38% of the population. The other 62% of the population supports the Bloc, Liberals, and NDP. Giving power to the conservatives means that you are being extremely undemocratic.

A coalition government that includes Bloc representatives would have access to federal-level responsibilities that they shouldn't be within ten miles of. That is unacceptable.

Why not? They are currently little more than the regional party for Quebec.

[Ryan Thunder]

According to that chart, and according to Elections Canada, they still represent the largest chunk of the population, and therefore the will of the voters is still weighted towards their rule.

That's only if you assume that voters for the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc would have voted for the CPC before they voted for one of the left wing parties. Such an assertion is extremely unlikely to be true. A voter for any of the minority parties is much more likely to support the policies of the other left-wing/centre parties than the right-wing party.

That's not the way the system works.

The LPC != the NDP. What matters is that smaller percentages of the population voted for Liberal and NDP platforms separately. What side of the political spectrum they lie on is irrelevant. If they wanted to hold office they can merge parties and go through a voting cycle, like the Conservatives did.

No one group of representatives represents a majority of the population, but the CPC represent more than the other parties do, so they form the government.

They only represent more if the other parties are unable to work together.

Fair enough. The problem, of course, is that classically, they do not work together, and the only reason they are working together is because Harper scared the shit out of them. They're ideologically opposed. Somebody suggested a Liberal-NDP coalition earlier and the response, from both parties, IIRC, was 'Hell no.' Has anything changed in their platforms since then? No.

This is exactly the scenario under which the CPC was put in charge. You can continue to delude yourself that they somehow got there illegally, or don't represent the largest portion of both seats and population, if you like.

I'd like to know why you are creating the strawman that I somehow think that the CPC have gained power illegally.

Because I genuinely thought you were going to somehow try to claim that they didn't win the election because the combined total support for three separate parties added up to more than they got. Sorry.

The CPC does not represent the largest portion of either seats or population. It represents no more than 38% of the population. The other 62% of the population supports the Bloc, Liberals, and NDP. Giving power to the conservatives means that you are being extremely undemocratic.

The Bloc, Liberals, and NDP are three separate parties! What part of that do you not understand? Unless you're referring to the coalition, of course, which would, indeed deserve the job--provided they can hold their own in a federal election.

A coalition government that includes Bloc representatives would have access to federal-level responsibilities that they shouldn't be within ten miles of. That is unacceptable.

Why not? They are currently little more than the regional party for Quebec.

Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years or something? They're separatists. Go ahead and tell me you don't have a problem with self-declared political traitors having access to federal responsibilities and senate positions.

[Graeme Dice]

That's not the way the system works.

Actually, it's exactly how the system works. It might not be how you want it to work, but it is definitely how the system is designed to function. And how it has worked in the past in Canada with the Union government of 1917-1920/

The LPC != the NDP. What matters is that smaller percentages of the population voted for Liberal and NDP platforms separately. What side of the political spectrum they lie on is irrelevant. If they wanted to hold office they can merge parties and go through a voting cycle, like the Conservatives did.

Or, they can form a coalition, like what happens in nearly every parliamentary system in the world when there is no single party that can control the government by itself. The members have already been voted in. You are aware that coalition governments are extremely common in parliamentary systems, correct? The people of Canada did _not_ choose to let the conservatives govern. If they had, then the conservatives would currently control a majority of the house. If the conservatives weren't also ideologically opposed to every other politician in the house, then they would also be able to form a coalition government. Since they can't, then the group with the most seats forms one.

Fair enough. The problem, of course, is that classically, they do not work together, and the only reason they are working together is because Harper scared the shit out of them. They're ideologically opposed. Somebody suggested a Liberal-NDP coalition earlier and the response, from both parties, IIRC, was 'Hell no.' Has anything changed in their platforms since then? No.

So what? The MPs were voted into power as individuals, and remain in power until they either resign or another election is called. Their party affiliation has no bearing on whether they have a seat in the House. MPs can, and do, change their party affiliation without forcing a re-election. If the parties are willing to work together, then there is absolutely no reason, why they should not be allowed to do so. They do, after all, control the majority of the seats in the house.

The Bloc, Liberals, and NDP are three separate parties! What part of that do you not understand? Unless you're referring to the coalition, of course, which would, indeed deserve the job--provided they can hold their own in a federal election.

What part of them being three separate parties is relevant in any way? Coalitions routinely form between as many as six parties in some European countries.

Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years or something? They're separatists. Go ahead and tell me you don't have a problem with self-declared political traitors having access to federal responsibilities and senate positions.

I have to ask you the same question. Have you been living under a rock for the past five years? Separatism is essentially dead in Quebec, and the Bloc is little more than Quebec's regional version of the NDP. I don't have a real problem with anybody who wants to use the democratic process to achieve their political goals. How can a person be a traitor when they have the support of a large proportion of the population?

[SCRawl]

A coalition government that includes Bloc representatives would have access to federal-level responsibilities that they shouldn't be within ten miles of. That is unacceptable.

Why not? They are currently little more than the regional party for Quebec.

Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years or something? They're separatists. Go ahead and tell me you don't have a problem with self-declared political traitors having access to federal responsibilities and senate positions.

Hasn't this already been addressed? The Bloc will not be part of this proposed government, will not have any cabinet members, and will not have any responsibilities. There's almost certainly a wink-wink, nudge-nudge agreement that they'll have a voice, but I find it difficult to believe that the other two parties would guarantee things like senate seats.

You are correct in stating that the Bloc are a party with a separatist agenda, but Graeme is also effectively correct in the sense that the Bloc, at present, is little more than a regional party. This is bad enough, really, but to say that their sole platform is Quebec sovereignty is to misstate it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

[

Hasn't this already been addressed? The Bloc will not be part of this proposed government, will not have any cabinet members, and will not have any responsibilities. There's almost certainly a wink-wink, nudge-nudge agreement that they'll have a voice, but I find it difficult to believe that the other two parties would guarantee things like senate seats.

You are correct in stating that the Bloc are a party with a separatist agenda, but Graeme is also effectively correct in the sense that the Bloc, at present, is little more than a regional party. This is bad enough, really, but to say that their sole platform is Quebec sovereignty is to misstate it.

Arguably, wouldn't it be better to just let the Quebecois have a separate position while keeping them from being independent? Basically an autonomous Free State within Canada which has its own government but still has to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Customs and standards union sort of like the old Austro-Hungarian Empire? Because it seems to me the issues in Canada with Quebec are very similar to the whole Hungary question in the Habsburg monarchy.

Why would concessions like this hurt anyone, if it could decisively settle the issue? The only damage would be if they used the negotiations to get even more transfer payments out of the rest of the country, but they're already about to do that by agreeing to support the Liberal-NDP coalition, it seems, so what's the harm in something like that? The Union State of Canada and Quebec could be the name of the newly reorganized system, perhaps.

[SCRawl]

Arguably, wouldn't it be better to just let the Quebecois have a separate position while keeping them from being independent? Basically an autonomous Free State within Canada which has its own government but still has to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Customs and standards union sort of like the old Austro-Hungarian Empire? Because it seems to me the issues in Canada with Quebec are very similar to the whole Hungary question in the Habsburg monarchy.

Why would concessions like this hurt anyone, if it could decisively settle the issue? The only damage would be if they used the negotiations to get even more transfer payments out of the rest of the country, but they're already about to do that by agreeing to support the Liberal-NDP coalition, it seems, so what's the harm in something like that? The Union State of Canada and Quebec could be the name of the newly reorganized system, perhaps.

My ignorance of history prevents me from making a useful response to your suggestion. I would suggest, though, that that scenario still falls short of what the Quebec sovereigntists (sp?) want.

As for the notion that getting more transfer payments is in the mix for this agreement, you may well be right. I hope that you're not, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if more pork for Quebec (in one form or another) is a cornerstone of the deal.

[Aaron]

Arguably, wouldn't it be better to just let the Quebecois have a separate position while keeping them from being independent? Basically an autonomous Free State within Canada which has its own government but still has to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Customs and standards union sort of like the old Austro-Hungarian Empire? Because it seems to me the issues in Canada with Quebec are very similar to the whole Hungary question in the Habsburg monarchy.

Why would concessions like this hurt anyone, if it could decisively settle the issue? The only damage would be if they used the negotiations to get even more transfer payments out of the rest of the country, but they're already about to do that by agreeing to support the Liberal-NDP coalition, it seems, so what's the harm in something like that? The Union State of Canada and Quebec could be the name of the newly reorganized system, perhaps.

I would venture a guess that shortly afterwards you would see similar movements in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and some of the Western Provinces (there already is a Western separatist party). Harper recognising Quebec as a distinct society has already pissed off a large number of Canadians and this carries the very real risk of further alienating them. This would prove to us that if you bitch loud and long enough (and have something like 1/3 of the countries population) you can do and have whatever you want. And naturally the First Nations will have a fit over this. And they'll be justified IMO too, they have a far greater claim and right to what you describe than the French-Canadians.

[Darth Wong]

It's rather maddening how many ignorant fucktards seem to think that a coalition government is somehow a perversion of our system of government.

[Aaron]

It's rather maddening how many ignorant fucktards seem to think that a coalition government is somehow a perversion of our system of government.

I was always under the impression that coalitions in Parliament were perfectly legal if they can be made to work. Hell they are more than common in Europe and it seems the only reason they don't here is because the parties are all either to stubborn or to stupid to get along. I'm no fan of the Bloc but I'm even less of a fan of the Tories, so I say "why not?"

[TheKwas]

Arguably, wouldn't it be better to just let the Quebecois have a separate position while keeping them from being independent? Basically an autonomous Free State within Canada which has its own government but still has to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Customs and standards union sort of like the old Austro-Hungarian Empire? Because it seems to me the issues in Canada with Quebec are very similar to the whole Hungary question in the Habsburg monarchy.

Why would concessions like this hurt anyone, if it could decisively settle the issue? The only damage would be if they used the negotiations to get even more transfer payments out of the rest of the country, but they're already about to do that by agreeing to support the Liberal-NDP coalition, it seems, so what's the harm in something like that? The Union State of Canada and Quebec could be the name of the newly reorganized system, perhaps.

My ignorance of history prevents me from making a useful response to your suggestion. I would suggest, though, that that scenario still falls short of what the Quebec sovereigntists (sp?) want.

As for the notion that getting more transfer payments is in the mix for this agreement, you may well be right. I hope that you're not, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if more pork for Quebec (in one form or another) is a cornerstone of the deal.

Depends entirely on what sovereigntist you ask, actually. Many moderate separatists want little more than to be Canada's Scotland. Essentially, it's a language and pride issue for many Quebecers. They want all the economic benefits that come with being part of Canada, but they want to be sure that their culture and language don't get assimilated by English Canada like the dying Francophone populations of Ontario or New Brunswick, or the mostly dead fransaskois (french communities in Saskatchewan, who's death by the Grant Devine government greatly influenced Lucien Bouchard).

A very illustrative allegory a Francophone used with me once is as follows: Imagine the absurd situation where a crisis results in the Canadian and American governments uniting as one. After 5 years, the crisis is over, would you expect most Canadians to prefer to separate from America afterwards?
Surely there would economic benefits in keeping the government united, but I would venture to say that many, if not most, Canadians would want their own separate country back simply for cultural reasons. They like their culture (view it as superior even), and don't want to see it assimilated by the rest of American culture. Even if there were really good, non-cultural reasons for having an independent Canada, the most important aspect for the average Canadian would probably be cultural pride. The same is true for Quebec.

Of course, there are more dedicated separatists that see independence and constitutional reform as a necessary move to further the Quiet Revolution and bring about certain political or economical change, but I don't think the average Quebecer cares too much about such things.

I would venture a guess that shortly afterwards you would see similar movements in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and some of the Western Provinces (there already is a Western separatist party). Harper recognising Quebec as a distinct society has already pissed off a large number of Canadians and this carries the very real risk of further alienating them. This would prove to us that if you bitch loud and long enough (and have something like 1/3 of the countries population) you can do and have whatever you want. And naturally the First Nations will have a fit over this. And they'll be justified IMO too, they have a far greater claim and right to what you describe than the French-Canadians.

Arguably, wouldn't it be better to just let the Quebecois have a separate position while keeping them from being independent? Basically an autonomous Free State within Canada which has its own government but still has to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Customs and standards union sort of like the old Austro-Hungarian Empire? Because it seems to me the issues in Canada with Quebec are very similar to the whole Hungary question in the Habsburg monarchy.

Why would concessions like this hurt anyone, if it could decisively settle the issue? The only damage would be if they used the negotiations to get even more transfer payments out of the rest of the country, but they're already about to do that by agreeing to support the Liberal-NDP coalition, it seems, so what's the harm in something like that? The Union State of Canada and Quebec could be the name of the newly reorganized system, perhaps.

I would venture a guess that shortly afterwards you would see similar movements in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and some of the Western Provinces (there already is a Western separatist party). Harper recognising Quebec as a distinct society has already pissed off a large number of Canadians and this carries the very real risk of further alienating them. This would prove to us that if you bitch loud and long enough (and have something like 1/3 of the countries population) you can do and have whatever you want.

You would venture wrong. Comparing New Brunswick, western and even Newfoundland separatism to Quebec separatism is extremely naive. I'm not even sure where to begin.

Newfoundland is probably the most realistic case considering its history, but still the population wouldn't take such a propose seriously considering how much the government relies on the Federal government to prop up it's economy, and how half of it's population currently works and makes their money in Alberta.

New Brunswick simply has nothing to gain from independence. At all. They don't possess a culture that is as unique as Quebec's and they, like all of the Maritimes, rely on the Feds to provide the provincial government the revenue they need to provide social services. There is no popular support for independence in the slightest. New Brunswick, in many ways, is the province closest to the federal government in regards to ideology and political institutions.

Western separatism is simply a delusion that only some Albertans take seriously. The actual logistics of uniting provinces as unique as BC, Alberta, Saskatchwan and Manitoba makes the idea impossible. It was only a year and a half ago that two of the provinces in the west (Saskatchewan and Manitoba) were ran by the NDP.

It's rather maddening how many ignorant fucktards seem to think that a coalition government is somehow a perversion of our system of government.

No bloody kidding. The Sun Newspaper here in Ottawa had a picture of the three opposition leaders on the cover with the words "NO" under each head (apparently, NO NO NO is some new sort of rally cry). The Sun is known for it's terrible journalism, but this seems like a new low for even them. A friend of mine commented that he's actually surprised that Canada is as progressive as it is considering how right-wing our media can be.

[Sephirius]

It's rather maddening how many ignorant fucktards seem to think that a coalition government is somehow a perversion of our system of government.

It's in no way a perversion of government, I mean, this sort of thing has happened before; I just don't believe in someone who ostensibly represents myself/my interests as an MP should be aligned with a party that has diametrically opposed interests. It's like the fucking green party getting in bed with the BNP in the UK.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Would anyone have an objection to Quebec becoming Canada's Scotland, really? That is what I'm wondering. I mean, it would pretty much reduce separatism down to a lunatic fringe, I'd think.