Musical Chairs
If you're just tuning in now, well, I can see how you'd be a bit confused. This was the scene last January:
And now we have a Conservative-socialist coalition, propped up by the separatists, passing that very same budget Jack was talking about above.
And after being almost certain that we were heading into an election a week or two ago, there's now no election until EI gets through the House - which I imagine won't be overly fast, given it's now in a lot of people's best interests to have it not move fast.
So here's a handy guide to help you navigate through the topsy turvy world of where the parties stand on the need for an election.
Today.
I may have to update this guide on a weekly basis.
Conservatives
Last year: Nothing wrong with early elections.
This spring: No one wants an early election.
Now: No one wants an early election.
In reality: Given their complete unwillingness to compromise at a time when the NDP is bending over backwards to find any excuse imaginable to support the government, it's a safe bet that Harper wouldn't mind a fall trip to the polls.
Liberals
Last year: Backing down and loving it!
This spring: Backing down, but putting the government on double secret probation.
Now: Trying to force an election at every opportunity.
In reality: Glad the NDP are rolling over.
NDP
Last year: Voting against the Conservatives. Accusing the Liberals of being wimps.
This spring: Voting against the Conservatives. Accusing the Liberals of being wimps.
Now: Errr...let's make parliament work guys.
In reality: Really don't want an election.
Bloc
Last year: Il s'en fout
This spring: Il s'en fout
Now: Il s'en fout
In reality: Il s'en fout
And now we have a Conservative-socialist coalition, propped up by the separatists, passing that very same budget Jack was talking about above.
And after being almost certain that we were heading into an election a week or two ago, there's now no election until EI gets through the House - which I imagine won't be overly fast, given it's now in a lot of people's best interests to have it not move fast.
So here's a handy guide to help you navigate through the topsy turvy world of where the parties stand on the need for an election.
Today.
I may have to update this guide on a weekly basis.
Conservatives
Last year: Nothing wrong with early elections.
This spring: No one wants an early election.
Now: No one wants an early election.
In reality: Given their complete unwillingness to compromise at a time when the NDP is bending over backwards to find any excuse imaginable to support the government, it's a safe bet that Harper wouldn't mind a fall trip to the polls.
Liberals
Last year: Backing down and loving it!
This spring: Backing down, but putting the government on double secret probation.
Now: Trying to force an election at every opportunity.
In reality: Glad the NDP are rolling over.
NDP
Last year: Voting against the Conservatives. Accusing the Liberals of being wimps.
This spring: Voting against the Conservatives. Accusing the Liberals of being wimps.
Now: Errr...let's make parliament work guys.
In reality: Really don't want an election.
Bloc
Last year: Il s'en fout
This spring: Il s'en fout
Now: Il s'en fout
In reality: Il s'en fout
posted by calgarygrit at
8:16 a.m.
20 Comments:
You know, its getting a ittle sad with you Liberals lately comparing the government working with the NDP and/or the Bloc in Parliament as a “coalition”. The Tories put forth policies (like EI reform) to be voted on and the NDP and the Bloc either vote yes or no as they are supposed to. That is how Parliament is supposed to work – government proposes, Opposition supports or rejects. How is doing THAT a “coalition”?
It unfortunate that we have a party dedicated to taking Quebec out of Canada as a reality in Parliament. That can’t be helped, so they have to be worked with. It is the normal, everyday business of a minority Parliament. It is a far, FAR cry from a formal agreement from all the Opposition parties to supplant the current government in order to form their own government for a set period of time – and to have it beholden to the Bloc for its survival.
Get over yourselves.
By
Lycan Stark, at 8:35 a.m.
Lycan, you think the legislation comes to the top of the order paper without backroom talks between Layton's and Harper's people?
You can't possibly be that naive, can you?
By
Anonymous, at 8:40 a.m.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/toons/Brucex17.jpg
By
me dere robert, at 8:44 a.m.
You can't possibly be that naive, can you?
Oh, please. Hardly.
Lycan, you think the legislation comes to the top of the order paper without backroom talks between Layton's and Harper's people?
That is hardly even "backroom" or even relevant when the government (regardless of the party forming it) says its going put forth legislation to be voted on as it always does, and a party (who we all know is just trying to save its skin) supports it. It happens all the time. That is hardly a working "coalition", LOL.
Saying it is a "coaltion" is just pathetic rhetoric designed to dress up something that is commonplace (parties voting for or against in Parliament) as something it is obviously not.
Nice try, guys. but that dog won't hunt, and voters will never buy it.
By
Lyvan Stark, at 9:05 a.m.
Actually, that dog will hunt. The reason for that is Harper and all his rhetoric last December. He lied and lied and lied and made it sound like the very notion of working with the socialists and separatists was high treason. He made them out to be the enemy - and now he is sleeping with them.
"It is a far, FAR cry from a formal agreement from all the Opposition parties to supplant the current government in order to form their own government for a set period of time – and to have it beholden to the Bloc for its survival."
I love this argument. IN fact, what happened is the Bloc agreed to give up their right to defeat the coalition government. The terms of that agreement were there for anyone to see. In other words, no backroom deals, but rather open and accountable. This is much more stable than any agreement Harper has ever arrived at with the opposition parties.
By
Gayle, at 9:17 a.m.
Actually, that dog will hunt. The reason for that is Harper and all his rhetoric last December. He lied and lied and lied and made it sound like the very notion of working with the socialists and separatists was high treason. He made them out to be the enemy - and now he is sleeping with them.
Actually, no that dog WON'T. Working with parties in Parliament on a case-by-case basis with "separtists and socialists" as a daily function of Parliament because they have to is NOT the same as a "coalition" or "sleeping with them", even though you want and need so much for it to be. Screaming "coalition" every time the common-place in Parliament happens makes you guys look like the foolish boy that called wolf to make people pay attention to him when nothing was happening. You get points for trying, though. :)
I love this argument.
I love that point I put across, too. It is just never wrong.
IN fact, what happened is the Bloc agreed to give up their right to defeat the coalition government.
In return for what, exactly? Even you can't be so naive as to believe that they would have given that much for nothing.
The terms of that agreement were there for anyone to see. In other words, no backroom deals, but rather open and accountable.
So what was agreed to give the Bloc in order for the Bloc to give up what they did?
This is much more stable than any agreement Harper has ever arrived at with the opposition parties.
The Liberals supporting the Tories dozens of times on confidence measures was a form of something stable, even if it was rather inconvenient politially to the Liberals.
A "coalition" that never would have been able to take power without the involvement of separatists that gave up what they did for nothing? Yeah, REAL stable, open, and accountable, LMAO.
By
Lycan Stark, at 9:51 a.m.
"If we do not win a majority, this country will have a Conservative government propped up by the socialists and the separatists. That government may not last very long, but every day it's in office, it will do long-term real damage to this ......country. This country cannot afford a government like that." - Steve Harper, September 9, 2009
By
Anonymous, at 11:50 a.m.
Holy F@ck! Can't believe the blatant disregard for facts from some of the replies to this post!
First of all, Harper lied blatantly (and continues to) about a supposed "Liberal coalition with separatist" - there was NEVER one. Secondly, what Dion WAS doing was with the NDP, and the Bloc was only going to support matters on a case-by-case basis - and ONLY for a few months. THAT is not a coalition my friends.
Now Stevie boy is doing the same (EXACT) thing with the Bloc and it's somehow different?
Idiocy - thy name is Conservative kool-aid drinkers...
By
WesternGrit, at 1:50 p.m.
I know history is not a strong suit for many Canadians, but come on people, this is less than a year old! I've got stuff sitting on my desk that's older than this!
The Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc all signed a legal agreement trying to form a government together. A coalition does not require all the parties to be put into cabinet but a formal legal agreement for power sharing does qualify (indeed, that group never did announce the makeup of a cabinet, since they never took power). Without the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP together still did not have as many seats as the Conservatives, and could not claim power. It was only with the Bloc that they could try to seize power - without the Bloc there was nothing.
@Anon, if you wish to twist a quote for humourous ends, you really should say so. That you find nearly $1 Billion Dollars being made available to thousands of Canadians who need assistance in the current global economic circumstances to be "real damage" is unfortunate.
@Others: the House Leaders have agreed, in their normal manner for determining the Business of the House, to fast-track the EI changes.
By
Paul, at 3:31 p.m.
Exactly Paul. There was no sharing of power with the Bloc. They agreed to support the Liberal-NDP coalition on matters of confidence for a period of time with no policy requirements.
Yet Harper continues to equate Bloc support with a coalition. Ergo, Bloc support of Harper must also be a coalition. Now, unlike in 2004 and 2005, there is no "agreement" between the NDP, the CPC and the Bloc, but Harper's words behind closed doors in September lambasted the very idea of relying on support from the socialists and separatists.
But of course, that was before he realized his job depended on the Bloc support. Now it's different.
By
Old School Liberal, at 4:39 p.m.
Gayle, you said that Harper is sleeping with the enemy. I've heard a lot of bad things about Harper, but this is the first allegation I've heard that Harper is working with the separatists. (You know, in a way that's more than MPs collaborating and closer to the sort of coalition that was put together earlier in the year)
What can you share with us that we apparently don't know?
By
Robert Vollman, at 4:49 p.m.
The Bloc want an election. Every time Parliament fails they can go back to the voters and said Canada failed, and attempt to inch closer to separation.
Personally I say that if Canada/Parliament is failing for Quebeckers, the solution is to replace those who are trying to make it fail with those who want to make it work for Quebec. But that's just me.
By
Robert Vollman, at 4:50 p.m.
"In return for what, exactly? Even you can't be so naive as to believe that they would have given that much for nothing."
Well maybe you should actually read the agreement you are going on and on about, and then you would know. It is all there.
Like I said - open and accountable. As for the rest of your comment, I see others here have already set you straight on that.
By
Gayle, at 5:19 p.m.
Robert - I thought it was obvious I was being intentionally inflamatory - just borrowing a page from Harper in that regard.
By
Gayle, at 5:20 p.m.
OSL, quite the contrary: what is happening today is nothing more than Parties voting in favour of matters which serve the best interests of the Country.
What happened last year was a legal agreement, signed by all three opposition Parties, including the Bloc.
Please don't misrepresent a legal agreement which occurred outside the framework of Parliament as just a bunch of MPs voting in favour of legislation.
By
Paul, at 8:45 p.m.
Well maybe you should actually read the agreement you are going on and on about, and then you would know. It is all there.
I read it and I do, I'm not an NDP supporter afterall; I read documents I talk about before deciding wether they have worth or not.
It is patently obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You won't answer the question because you can't. I know enough about you now that you you're typical schtick is to dodge by telling someone proving you wrong to "re-read" what I wrote", or "read if for yourself" before running away. Try again, Gayle
Like I said - open and accountable.
Your empty assertions with a lack of proof of such have "said" nothing.
As for the rest of your comment, I see others here have already set you straight on that.
Yep, you're running away. And no.......no they didn't. Nice try though.
By
Lycan Stark, at 11:38 p.m.
That agreement between the Bloc and the coalition set out the areas where the Bloc would support the coalition - matters that all three parties agreed should be prioritized.
You ask "what price" as if there IS another price. If you believe that agreement is based on some other, unnamed price, then you are basing your question on a false assumption - one that is designed to have no answer.
Face it - the facts are against you. Must be why you started resorting to ad hominem attacks.
As for the rest - sorry, I did not think you would want yet another person pointing out how wrong you are. Clearly I was wrong, so here goes:
"First of all, Harper lied blatantly (and continues to) about a supposed "Liberal coalition with separatist" - there was NEVER one. Secondly, what Dion WAS doing was with the NDP, and the Bloc was only going to support matters on a case-by-case basis - and ONLY for a few months. THAT is not a coalition my friends."
"There was no sharing of power with the Bloc. They agreed to support the Liberal-NDP coalition on matters of confidence for a period of time with no policy requirements."
By
Gayle, at 12:54 a.m.
Paul:
I was using Harper's own words. Back in 2004, when the Conservative, NDP and Bloc reached an arrangement to put Harper into office without an election and wrote to the GG suggesting as much in a joint letter, in the joint press conference held by the Three Amigos, Harper said they had reached an "agreement". This has been confirmed by Gilles Duceppe.
Can't change history. You can't change a flip floppers self-serving spots either. Harper will say anything to get and keep power.
By
Old School Liberal, at 9:51 a.m.
OSL, once again, your facts are in question.
The letter which was sent in 2004 was a nothing more than a reminder to the GG to consider all options, including asking the other Parties whether they could form a Government. It was not a demand that she do so, nor had any legal agreements been in place among the Parties.
The letter which Ignatieff signed in 2008 was a demand that the GG hand over power to the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois, who had all signed a legal document on power sharing among the three parties.
By
Paul, at 2:19 p.m.
Paul, once again, your reading is in question.
I am not talking about the agreement the Cons, Dippers and Bloc had to jointly send a written request the GG to "consider all her options" before calling an election - gee, whatever on this planet could that have meant??? - but to the "press conference" they held to announce their cooperation in which Harper referred to "our agreement" to support "measures" they had agreed upon such that an election after a loss of confidence should not be the GG's first choice.
Clearly and obviously they had an agreement. Just because it is not written down doesn't mean they didn't have an agreement. Duceppe has talked about this too. It may not have been a power sharing coalition like the NDP and Liberals proposed in December, but it was at least more specific than the agreement the NDP-Liberal coalition had with the Bloc.
By
Old School Liberal, at 2:43 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home