Canadian Federal Conservatives may trigger another election

[Solauren]

Who thinks this isn' deliberate?

Possibility of snap Canadian election looms
By Randall Palmer

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Canadian government is set to propose an end to public subsidies of federal political parties, a Conservative source signaled on Thursday, an explosive move with the potential to trigger an election.

The minority Conservative government, just re-elected last month, needs the support of at least one of the three opposition parties to survive, but is moving ahead with big cuts to funding for all political parties, the source said.

"This has nowhere been an easy decision," said the Conservative source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Conservative cabinet minister Peter MacKay told reporters: "Our party is obviously taking the biggest hit ... we recognize that there are tough economic times ahead, so as a result we all have to make sacrifices."

However, the move would hit the opposition parties much harder as a proportion of their financing since they have a much smaller base of donors and rely more on the subsidies.

It would be advanced as part of a package with Thursday's fall fiscal and economic update. If financial measures are voted down in Canada's parliamentary system, that would normally force a new election.

The annual subsidies to the political parties are based on the number of votes they received in the last general election.

The left-leaning New Democratic Party, the smallest of the three opposition groups, promised to oppose the move and said the Bloc Quebecois, the next-largest party, would also do so.

"They're going to hit a brick wall with us in the House (of Commons). We'll never put up with it. I know the Bloc will never put up with it," Thomas Mulcair, deputy leader of the New Democrats, told CBC television.

"It remains to be seen whether the Liberals are going to take a principled stand here or whether they're going to be bought off."

The Liberals, the biggest opposition party, called an emergency meeting early Thursday to discuss how to react to the Conservative move, which one legislator called "tactics" and "playing games."

"This is not the most important subject for today ... right now we have a job to do and we'll do our job, and nothing the government does is going to intimidate us away from that," said Liberal Gerard Kennedy.

Kennedy said the focus of the day should be the looming federal deficit likely to be revealed in the fiscal and economic update, and the troubled economy.

The Liberals have very little money left after the October 14 election and would be unable to come close to Conservative levels of spending in any snap election. The party is also in the midst of a leadership change, with current leader Stephane Dion planning to step down in May.

Still, the Liberals must also deal with the fact that if they do not block the subsidy cuts they could be handicapped for elections to come.

(Reporting by Randall Palmer and David Ljunggren; editing by Rob Wilson)

This is suspicious to me to say the least.

In many ridings, the Conservatives only lost by a small margin.

The other parties don't have money for a election, the Conservatives do.

Quite frankly, this seems like an opprotunistic political move by the Conservatives.

If they get this passed, they are heroes for reducing spending during a time of economic criss.
If it fails, then they look like Heroes for trying to get it passed, and the parties that moved to block it look like the villians. Worse yet, villians that can't defend themselves.

This could result in a Conservative Majority. The liberals are not in any condition to fight them right now, the NDP would really, really have to pull something off, and Quebec is begining to wake up to the PQ.

[Ekiqa]

This is suspicious to me to say the least.

In many ridings, the Conservatives only lost by a small margin.

The other parties don't have money for a election, the Conservatives do.

Quite frankly, this seems like an opprotunistic political move by the Conservatives.

If they get this passed, they are heroes for reducing spending during a time of economic criss.
If it fails, then they look like Heroes for trying to get it passed, and the parties that moved to block it look like the villians. Worse yet, villians that can't defend themselves.

This could result in a Conservative Majority. The liberals are not in any condition to fight them right now, the NDP would really, really have to pull something off, and Quebec is begining to wake up to the PQ.

The other thing is, the public funding was put in place at the same time as corporations and unions were limited in what they could donate.

If the Tories call an election now, I doubt they will win. We just HAD an election in October, which almost everyone in the country agrees was a complete waste of time and money. If Harper calls one now, he'll be laughed out of office.

[Ma Deuce]

If the Tories call an election now, I doubt they will win. We just HAD an election in October, which almost everyone in the country agrees was a complete waste of time and money. If Harper calls one now, he'll be laughed out of office.

Are you kidding? If an election is forced now, the Conservatives will quite easily be able to divert the blame for it on the opposition: Nobody believed Harper's reasons for calling the October election, yet voted him back in anyway. This time is different: if this goes to the polls, it will be directly because the opposition voted down a confidence motion, and the Conservatives have far more money than anyone else to spend on campaign propaganda, with or without subsidies.

Frankly, I think this what the Tories were trying to do with all those measures they turned into confidence motions toward the end of the last parliament: They wanted the opposition to stand their ground on at least one one of them and force an election, to make it look like their fault. But of course, that didn't happen, and Harper was forced to simply call the election he wanted himself, which obviously didn't turn out quite the way he wanted. This presents a far better opportunity than any of those, because it (along with the proposed parliamentary pay cuts) can make them look like heroes for ostensibly trying to reign in unnecessary spending in tough times, and the opposition like petty fools for opposing it, even though allowing it to pass would cripple them politically, and voting it down will force an election that they will be blamed for, which of course is the whole point. Pure Machiavellian genius.

Solauren is right: This is a calculated political move and it's a win-win for the Tories no matter which way it goes.

[Xess]

Harper is an evil genius. If there is an election I hope Canadians are smart enough to see through the charade, although that is quite unlikely. Damn Harper is good and this stuff.

[Fiji_Fury]

Yes, political manipulation is something Harper seems quite capable of. He's a bastard. And while I won't vote for him or his party in a snap election, the sea of blue retard voters here in Alberta will definitely back the party that twice in the span of a single season is taking us into elections (each election carrying significant financial cost for the Canadian government and therefore the taxpayer).

It's a great time (politically speaking) for the Conservatives to trigger such a gambit too, since Stephan Dione of the Liberal party is a lame duck party leader on his way out in the leadership review next March. He can't possibly stand up as a viable candidate for Prime Minister after the thrashing he led the Liberal party to last election, and that's only going to hurt the voting optics for the Liberal party.

This is cold, calculated and intentional by the Harper governemnt to provoke an election and Conservative majority at the cost of Canadian taxpayers and in COMPLETE contradiction to his bullshit claims at working with opposition parties in the near future and during the fiscal crisis. The man is a snake-oil-selling fuck who should not be trusted to run the current government, let alone a majority one. He lacks integrity. He won't back up with action the pithy crap he says - little of which seems to matter to the majority of Albertan voters.

I can only hope that voters across other regions of the country aren't so blatantly self-destructive.

[Enigma]

There won't be an election. The Liberals are talking tough now but come Monday, enough of them will chicken out and not show up to bring down the government, enabling the Tories to pass the budget.

[SCRawl]

Maybe I'm just a cock-eyed optimist, but I can't see Harper going through with his plans if it looks as though he'll lose a confidence vote. I doubt that he'll gain enough seats to make it to a majority over it -- most people who voted Liberal last election won't vote any other way now, Dion or no Dion -- and it'll just make his party look bad.

[aerius]

Go ahead, let him call an election. He'll either get a majority or we'll end up exactly where we are now. In anycase the declining economy will take him out with it and he'll almost certainly be toast in the next election. As much as I hate to see Canada get ruined, I think some people need to suffer a bit so they can see how goddamn stupid they are for voting for Harper.

[Ma Deuce]

There won't be an election. The Liberals are talking tough now but come Monday, enough of them will chicken out and not show up to bring down the government, enabling the Tories to pass the budget.

That's what I think as well. Even ignoring their lame duck leader, the Liberals literally can't afford another election now, as in, the party is almost out of money. If I were in their shoes, that's what I'd do as well.

Go ahead, let him call an election. He'll either get a majority or we'll end up exactly where we are now. In anycase the declining economy will take him out with it and he'll almost certainly be toast in the next election.

That's assuming of course, the Liberals aren't stupid enough to make Bob Rae their next leader .

[aerius]

That's assuming of course, the Liberals aren't stupid enough to make Bob Rae their next leader .

They'd probably lose 90% of the voters in Ontario if they did that.

[Solauren]

The Opposite prepares for battle...

Chretien, Broadbent brokering possible coalition
By The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - NDP Leader Jack Layton has enlisted one of his predecessors to sound out former prime minister Jean Chretien on the possibility of a Liberal-New Democrat coalition government.

A senior NDP official told The Canadian Press that Ed Broadbent spoke to Chretien at least four times after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered an economic update that threatened to bankrupt the opposition parties.

"The idea is to have elder statesmen smoothing things out," the official said.

"It's going to be a long day."

A Liberal MP confirmed that the talks were going on and the NDP said Broadbent was having a morning meeting with Layton.

Chretien was seen on his way to his downtown Ottawa office, but when asked about the coalition talks he feigned an inability to understand English.

"Je ne comprends pas anglais," he said.

The two former leaders, who sat opposite each other in the Commons for years, were asked to try to finesse a deal to defeat the minority Conservative government and form a coalition with support from the Bloc Quebecois.

The NDP and the Liberals together don't command a majority of the Commons seats.

The government has been silent on the matter, although Conservative officials met late into the night in the Prime Minister's Office in the Langevin Block, across from Parliament Hill.

Tory MPs seemed thunderstruck late Thursday by the possibility that their second term might come to a sudden end. As some of them piled onto a parliamentary shuttle bus, they were heard incredulously asking opposition MPs if they're serious about a coalition.

The opposition parties all say Flaherty's mini-budget, which strictly limits federal spending, bans public-sector strikes through 2011, and denies federal parties $30 million in annual funding, is ideologically driven and offers no stimulus package to deal with the economic crisis.

The annual funding issue is a potentially lethal poison pill that would financially cripple every party except the Tories.

Flaherty insisted the party financing changes are part of the fiscal framework and will be considered a matter of confidence in the Commons. He said an accompanying bill will be put to a vote Monday.

The government's hard line set off another round of political chicken just five weeks after the Oct. 14 election returned Prime Minister Stephen Harper to power with a strengthened minority

Historian Michael Behiels said Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean wouldn't have much choice but to give a coalition a chance given that the last election was just over a month ago.

However, he predicted that a coalition would be short-lived and would lead right into another election.

The Liberals are taking the prospect of a coalition so seriously that some MPs are privately discussing ways to dump Stephane Dion as leader without waiting for their party's scheduled May 2 leadership vote.

But party insiders say that with Dion as a lame duck, supporters of leadership front-runners Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae say the question of who would be prime minister in a coalition has become the hot issue.

It could be a deal-breaker, some said.

Harper's political trickery might backfire right into his face.

Unless, of course, he wants them to form a Coalition government, so when it breaks down, it's completely there fault an election is called, and he can use that.

Wow, Harper might be way-smarter then we were giving him credit for. Tricking the Opposition to form an unstable coalition government. Either they force an election, pissing people off, or form a coalition government, cause an election, and still piss people off. Then the Conservatives run the spending bill through, and finish the job of crippling the Opposition.

That's Brilliant. Like, Darth Sidious brilliant.

[SCRawl]

The Conservatives have dropped the contentious part of their economic statement. I don't have a link yet, but there won't likely be a challenge to the confidence of the government over it now.

[Ma Deuce]

They aren't abandoning it entirely, however the party subsidy cut will not be part of Monday's vote, which means it will most likely pass.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/s ... id=1005475

Tories 'moving forward' with fiscal update
Talk of bringing down the Conservative government continues
Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, November 28, 2008

OTTAWA - The Conservatives don't plan on backing down from a controversial proposal to eliminate subsidies for federal political parties, but the government says the measure will not be part of a confidence vote on Monday.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's director of communications, Kory Teneycke, said Friday the government does not intend to back away from the idea of scrapping a $30-million taxpayer subsidy paid to the political parties. The proposal was made Thursday during Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's economic update and prompted furious reactions from the opposition, who rely heavily on the subsidies for their revenue.

Parties can receive a subsidy of $1.95 per year for each vote they receive in a general election.

"We are moving forward with the economic update," said Teneycke during and interview on CTV Friday morning.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois all said they could not support the economic statement and the measures contained in it, which set off talk and speculation about bringing down Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government that was elected only six weeks ago. There is also speculation about a possible coalition government between the NDP and Liberals. The statement contained no new spending initiatives to help boost Canada's sagging economy and that, opposition politicians say, is the real reason they are ready to vote against the plan when it is presented to Parliament.

The first confidence matters stemming from the economic update are slated for Monday but Teneycke said MPs will not be voting on the political party funding measure. It will be contained in legislation that will be introduced at a later time.

He described the opposition reaction to the economic statement and talk of a coalition government as "anti-democratic" and suggested their outrage over the political subsidy is to protect their own pocketbooks and is not in the interests of the country.

"I think that they are looking to change the government for their own self-interested reasons around entitlements and not in the interests of the economy," said Teneycke.

Given the Tories refusal to back down on the proposal, the opposition parties will spend Friday and the weekend mulling over their options and plotting their strategies.

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent is being consulted by his party amid talk of a potential coalition government with the Liberals and former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien is also rumoured to be involved in behind-the-scenes talks, but his role is less clear.

Chretien and Broadbent did speak by telephone Thursday mostly to trade perspectives and their experiences. Broadbent called Chretien at NDP Leader Jack Layton's request - an attempt by Layton to seek counsel from as many sources as possible.

Layton was not in Question Period Friday morning, instead meeting in his Parliament Hill office with Broadbent.

Layton was scheduled to give a major speech to a union group in Vancouver Friday but Canwest News Service has learned he will send his House leader, Libby Davies, in his place so he can stay in Ottawa to confer with his own advisers and, if need be, the leaders of the other two opposition parties.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was at his official residence, Stornoway. His staff would not say who, if anyone, Dion is meeting with on Friday.

Broadbent said the Conservatives have created a scenario where the opposition parties had to begin discussions about bringing down the minority government. "There's no question that serious discussions are going on," Broadbent told CTV on Friday morning.

He said Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean would have to consider allowing the opposition parties to form a government before forcing a new election. "I think it's an option in constitutional history that she has to very seriously consider," Broadbent said.

Toronto MP Bob Rae meanwhile, a Liberal leadership candidate, has asked for a meeting with Dion and two leadership rivals, Michael Ignatieff and Dominic LeBlanc, to form a united response to the government.

A Liberal source says there will be no coalition government with Dion as leader and there may be pressure on Rae to back out of the leadership race, making way for Ignatieff who reportedly has more caucus support than Rae.

While Rae took the initiative to reach out to Dion and the other candidates Friday morning, he was on a flight to Vancouver to attend a leadership debate, which LeBlanc was also scheduled to attend. If a Liberal leadership summit were to be held, it would have to take place on the weekend.

To avoid putting Canadians on the brink of another election, the Conservatives will have to backtrack on the proposal or come up with a way to avoid it being part of a confidence vote.

Should Harper lose a confidence vote, he would be obliged to inform the Governor General he has lost the support of the House of Commons. Usually, the Governor General's response in such a situation is to dissolve Parliament and call a general election.

But she also has the option of inviting the leader of another party to form a government.

Jean is traveling in Europe and may have to cut her trip short to deal with the developing crisis.

[SCRawl]

They aren't abandoning it entirely, however the party subsidy cut will not be part of Monday's vote, which means it will most likely pass.

That's spin. They dropped it because they don't want to force an election, since the opposition parties decided to grow some balls for once. Funny how it took taking away their funding to do that.

[Ma Deuce]

That's spin. They dropped it because they don't want to force an election, since the opposition parties decided to grow some balls for once.

No, I'm quite certain they'll try again at some point in the future when they feel it's more politically advantageous (as in, not so close to the last election, and in a manner where the opposition can't pretend they're not opposing the subsidy cut specifically). Let's face it: the talk of a coalition is just that: A Liberal/NDP coalition is certainly believable, but a grand Liberal/NDP/BQ coalition? That just ain't gonna happen.

[SCRawl]

That's spin. They dropped it because they don't want to force an election, since the opposition parties decided to grow some balls for once.

No, I'm quite certain they'll try again at some point in the future when they feel it's more politically advantageous (as in, not so close to the last election, and in a manner where the opposition can't pretend they're not opposing the subsidy cut specifically).

Well, sure, that's the point, isn't it? I'm not saying that we'll never see this tactic again, but the reason they've let it slide now is because the opposition has called their bluff. To answer your second statement, though: is there really any misunderstanding that the subsidy cut is the reason for the opposition parties' threats to vote against it?

Let's face it: the talk of a coalition is just that: A Liberal/NDP coalition is certainly believable, but a grand Liberal/NDP/BQ coalition? That just ain't gonna happen.

That's kind of funny, the idea of that three-headed monster of a coalition. I can't see it happening either, except out of a very temporary convenience.

What I wouldn't mind, insofar as political subsidies are concerned, is one which would effectively kill the idea of regional parties. For example: make it mandatory (or at least, prohibitively preferential) that a party run at least one candidate in each province and territory in order to get their funding, and furthermore that that funding has to be (roughly) split amongst those provinces, by population. In other words, while the BQ could maintain the $2.6 million they currently receive from the taxpayers by having a token loser in each province, they'd still have to sink about 65% of that budget in markets where they'd be certain to lose. The only drawback I can think of would be the fact that doing so would create a hell of a drum for the BQ to beat when it came time for re-election, since it would be plainly obvious that such a move would be aimed right at them.

[Ma Deuce]

Well, sure, that's the point, isn't it? I'm not saying that we'll never see this tactic again, but the reason they've let it slide now is because the opposition has called their bluff.

No argument there.

To answer your second statement, though: is there really any misunderstanding that the subsidy cut is the reason for the opposition parties' threats to vote against it?

They're still claiming that although they're upset with the proposed subsidy cut, the main reason they oppose the update is because it includes no immediate economic stimulus package, which is why they'll still vote against it (only now, they'll probably keep enough of their MPs absent to let it pass). I'm not sure how many people believe that, but politically they CANNOT openly claim to oppose it over the subsidy alone, then remove their objection after it's withdrawn, as the electorate will see that as shameless self-interest, playing right into the Tories' hands.

[SCRawl]

They're still claiming that although they're upset with the proposed subsidy cut, the main reason they oppose the update is because it includes no immediate economic stimulus package, which is why they'll still vote against it (only now, they'll probably keep enough of their MPs absent to let it pass). I'm not sure how many people believe that, but politically they CANNOT openly claim to oppose it over the subsidy alone, then remove their objection after it's withdrawn, as the electorate will see that as shameless self-interest, playing right into the Tories' hands.

Anyone who believes that the opposition would bring down the government now over the want of an immediate stimulus package can make me an offer on some swampland I'm selling in Florida. I don't see their opposing the elimination of political subsidies to be "self-interest", though: that's mostly how we fund our parties in Canada, and eliminating those subsidies removes the ability of the politicians to campaign effectively. If they can't disseminate their message, then how would we know what party we want to vote for?

[Ma Deuce]

Anyone who believes that the opposition would bring down the government now over the want of an immediate stimulus package can make me an offer on some swampland I'm selling in Florida.

They only really need a cushion of plausible deniability. Even if people don't really believe them deep down, as long as they can't actually prove otherwise, it should still contain any real voter ire. This has worked for the Conservatives (and many others before them), after all.

I don't see their opposing the elimination of political subsidies to be "self-interest", though: that's mostly how we fund our parties in Canada, and eliminating those subsidies removes the ability of the politicians to campaign effectively. If they can't disseminate their message, then how would we know what party we want to vote for?

All true, but do most voters see it that way? Perception is reality in politics, and if the Tories respond by basically saying "Well, if we can raise most of our funds through donation, why can't you?" (or point to Obama's campaign), can the opposition really explain the answer to that without exceeding the attention span of most voters, and with something that the Tories can't spin-doctor away? Regardless of how objectively correct they might be, the opposition would have a very difficult time directly opposing this measure in times like these without looking bad.

In any case, Harper has pushed this vote off by a week, so what exactly he was scheming is anyone's guess. Perhaps he really did miscalculate this time? Even if a coalition appears unlikely ATM, Harper gambling with another confidence motion this soon after the last election may still be playing with fire, as the GG might actually refuse to dissolve parliament. Or, maybe this is part of a bigger plot to make the opposition look unreasonable: Propose austerity measures that don't seem unquestionable to most voters, but that the opposition would be forced to vote against, back down on most of them, until the time is right to force the opposition to pull the trigger and throw another election; then Harper would go to voters and say "whelp, the opposition wouldn't let us do what needed to be done, so you'll have to give us a majority to get through this crisis". Still a wild guess. All we can say with any confidence is that it was a pure political move to serve their political objectives, though how exactly they are planning to get there we can only speculate.

[TheKwas]

It looks like the opposition is still set on a coalition, despite news that the funding issue has been dropped, the unions right to strike will not be touched, and the Conservatives will probably bring forth a stimulus package in January. I suppose either:

A) This coalition has been in the works for a while (hinted at by the leaked NDP conference call), and they have just been waiting for a good excuse.
B) The opposition was so scared by Harper's plans that they figure that this government, even if it bends over now, can't be trusted and now, with the conservatives in complete disarray, is the best and perhaps only time to take out Harper.

I suspect that B is more likely the case, but I'm pretty sure there's been plenty of discussions of how to prop up a coalition if such a situation arises between the NDP and Bloc, and I don't think it's really a big scandal as the Conservatives are trying to make it out to be. Watching CBC news all day, and you can almost see the CBC journalists forcing themselves not to roll their eyes at the Conservative talking points.

Furthermore, allow me to be the first to suspect that this coalition, if it does come about, has significant lasting power. The NDP and Bloc see eye-to-eye on almost all economic issues and a good portion of social issues, so really all that is needed is a compromise between the NDP and Liberals for an economic plan with the odd bone thrown to Quebec, and the Bloc will almost certainly support the government. Other social issues where the party's differ can be put on the back-burner until the next election cycle, or can be debated without worry in the house since only money-bills are votes of confidence that can bring down the coalition.

Plan and focus the coalition around budget and economic issues (which should be the case anyways, considering the recession), and there's really no reason why this coalition couldn't have moderate lasting power. Indeed, since the opposition parties are pushing for the coalition so hard right now, despite getting almost all their demands, in an indication they HAVE to make it work or they'll look incompetent to Canadians.

The biggest unknown is the Prime Minister issue. I have a hard time imagining Layton or Duceppe as Prime Minister, and Dion is certified lame duck. Even if the Liberals install an interim leader, I can't imagine a Liberal leadership race while the party is in government, de facto making the interim leader an unelected Prime Minister. That said, the fact that the opposition still seems determined to create a coalition is a strong indication to me that they have a pretty good idea what they are going to do in this regard.

[Ma Deuce]

The issue isn't how well the NDP and Bloc would work together, but how well the Liberals would work with the Bloc, their mortal enemies in Quebec. I think you are completely failing to consider the pathological hatred of the Bloc that is harbored by the Liberal Party and it's base in Quebec. There are many Liberals who would never tolerate a coalition with the Bloc under any circumstances whatsoever. You may even see enough right-leaning Liberal voters defect to give Harper a majority when the next election happens, which probably would not be too long after a coalition forms, especially with the Tories constantly trying to sabotage it.

BTW, there are now rumors coming out of the Liberal camp that Ignatieff (who will most likely become the next leader) will not support a Dion-brokered coalition if it is formally tabled, as that would be a "poison chalice" for the next Liberal leader. If he openly rebels to stop the deal, he could probably rally a good number of Liberal backbenchers behind him. If that proves to be a majority of Liberal MPs, then that gambit not only doom a coalition, but it would basically seal Ignatieff's nomination in May.

These are mere rumors, but if true they would certainly be in character for Ignatieff: Note that while he has re-iterated the party line about the reasons they're unable to support the economic update, you haven't heard much from him concerning the Coalition rumors. Most Liberals blame Dion for their recent defeat, and if they feel they can get a kickass leader (in truth Iggy just might have the cajones to be that leader) that can beat Harper without having to rely on the support of union cocksuckers and separatist traitors, they would choose to wait rather than entangling themselves in a coalition.

[President Sharky]

I wish everyone (Conservatives, Libs, NDP, Bloc) would just stop fucking around and actually do the jobs they were elected to do.

[TheKwas]

Just saw Iggy on tv not too long ago toeing the party line.

Either way, it's true that the Bloc and Liberals are mortal enemies in Quebec, but that's primarily on constitutional matters (and even there, the Quebec wing of the Liberal party holds very different views than the rest of the Liberal party, being much more sympathetic to the Bloc). 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. 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.

Lets not forget that Harper is pissing off Duceppe more than usual recently: Cuts in arts funding hurt Quebec disproportionately last election cycle (not to mention that Quebec culture is the main base of support for the Bloc), The Bloc receives something like 85% of it's funding from public subsidizes that were threatened to be cut, the Conservatives are invading Bloc electoral turf, and Quebec is bound to be one of the hardest hit provinces by the coming recession.

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. Besides, lets not forget that some of the big players that are manufacturing this deal are actually of the anti-Quebec wing sort. Chretien is playing a senior role in this deal--the first time he's done anything politically since retiring as far as I know--and it's going to be Dion himself that actually deals with the Bloc once in power.

[Ekiqa]

the unions right to strike will not be touched,

Thank god for that. Strikes are the only things that get the government to the table. And that is usually about 12-18 months AFTER the contract runs out.

[Aaron]

Thank god for that. Strikes are the only things that get the government to the table. And that is usually about 12-18 months AFTER the contract runs out.

What's the fucking point honestly? Half the time they get legislated back to work or a contract imposed on them, BC nurses anyone?