NationStates Jolt Archive

It's official, a Canadian coup, Stephane Dion (not Celine :P) will be PM til spring 2009 with the support of the NDP and Bloc, Harper's government is set to fall as soon as possible. The Coalition is set to rule for 18 months until I guess there's yet ANOTHER federal election.

I can't believe it (at the same time I kinda can, but whoa, damn).

Implications: Dion got his wish after all, and won't be only the 2nd leader to ever be PM...

The Bloc may either hinder separation by this (i.e. why separate when we can work with Canada) or outrage separatists (i.e. how can you work together with Federalist parties).

And the NDP will just be piss happy to have, finally, an official role in government!

Conservatives will be seething and will be looking for blood come next election...it will NOT be pretty.

Why do I get the feeling someone will confuse Stephane Dion with Celine Dion?

you made a singer prime minister you canucks are crazy. lol just kidding. had the same thought south.

I'm kinda interested in moving to Canada around 2010/2011 so... what exactly does this mean?

Its been a long time coming. I'm not happy about the effects on the economy, but change usually has a price, and hopefully they will manage the economy better than Harper once they are actually in. Even a couple of months with Harper was hard to swallow and I am definitely excited.

Canadians... *Shivers*

Um, how does this work? Dion can't lead without an election, even if their was a no confidence vote (only a possibility last I heard). So unless the liberals sent in their secret stormtrooper army and removed Harper by force since the last time I checked the news, nothing's certain yet.

Remember: proof or it didn't happen.;)

Edit: I just looked this up and apparently they can do this by forming a coalition government. I didn't know that, which isn't suprising given its aparently only happened once before. I'm not sure how I feel about this, given that the conservatives won the vote last election. Then again, they have no majority and this is perfectly legal from what I can tell.

Well, I can't say I like Harper, but I'm still pissed. God I hate the NDP.:headbang:

I'm kinda interested in moving to Canada around 2010/2011 so... what exactly does this mean?

it means bring your guns Canada will be in a state of Anarchy.
I myself am hoping to establish a kingdom in the region during the period of unrest.

Most Americans are already making plans to raid north to steal the cheap medical supplies.

I'm kinda interested in moving to Canada around 2010/2011 so... what exactly does this mean?

I dunno, coming from America, probably not all that much. Canadian politics isn't quite the rabid piranha pool that American politics is. We'll have to wait and see what happens here.

Canadians... *Shivers*

Canucks... *trembles*

YAY! End of Conservatives!!!

To Harper:

Na na na na na na na na, hey hey-ey Goodbyeeeee

They shouldnt have been ruling at the 1st place since they only got 30% of the vote...

aaarrrrggggghhhhh the Conservatives would do way better in this economic crisis than 3 parties squabbling. why r the liberals upset its their fault that taking away the 30 mil dollars that the government gives parties is affecting them because they passed the legislation saying that you can't have public donations. why should the taxepayer give money to parties they dont even support. not to mention that a separtist party would be in power.

Link please?

aaarrrrggggghhhhh the Conservatives would do way better in this economic crisis than 3 parties squabbling. why r the liberals upset its their fault that taking away the 30 mil dollars that the government gives parties is affecting them because they passed the legislation saying that you can't have public donations. why should the taxepayer give money to parties they dont even support. not to mention that a separtist party would be in power.

U kidding me? Canadian politics will be much more interesting w/ Dion vs Duceppe...

Link please?

Dude, just google it!

aaarrrrggggghhhhh the Conservatives would do way better in this economic crisis than 3 parties squabbling. why r the liberals upset its their fault that taking away the 30 mil dollars that the government gives parties is affecting them because they passed the legislation saying that you can't have public donations. why should the taxepayer give money to parties they dont even support. not to mention that a separtist party would be in power.

Supposedly the new Coalition will NOT include the Bloc heads on a Cabinet basis, so sleep well...they'll just merely support and uphold the new government.

And for the record:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html

This is fucking AWESOME.

More linky:

Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.wPOLcoalition1201/BNStory/politics/home)
CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html)
National Post (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1018500)
Edmonton Sun (http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2008/12/01/7598881.html)
The Star (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/546661)

aaarrrrggggghhhhh the Conservatives would do way better in this economic crisis than 3 parties squabbling. why r the liberals upset its their fault that taking away the 30 mil dollars that the government gives parties is affecting them because they passed the legislation saying that you can't have public donations. why should the taxepayer give money to parties they dont even support. not to mention that a separtist party would be in power.

You should really read the bill, it explicitly states that each party gets the money PER VOTE, so if you do not vote for a party, it doesn't get your money. If you can't understand that then you deserve the government you threw upon the rest of us.

Despite my love of conservatives getting owned, Im not sure how I feel about what, to my understanding*, essentially amounts to ignoring the results of an election.


*-Im sure someone will correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

This is fucking AWESOME.

No, no it isn't. Canadian Conservatives, by and large, are not as extreme as America's. I don't like them, but I don't see a great deal of difference in overall quality between them and the Liberals/NDP.

The Liberals are kind of bland, but I don't agree with their goals of leaving Afghanistan and supporting hate speech laws. The NDP is a pathetic rabble, picking candidates based on affirmative action rather than who is best for the job or most electable, and supporting Unions which are probably as corrupt as the corporations.

Don't take this to mean I like the Conservatives, though. What Harper apparently did to the Justice System by supporting tougher sentencing for minor crimes is something that is fundimentally contrary to my view on how the Justice System should operate. And he's way to close to Bush for me to trust or like him. Next election, I'll probably vote for a fringe candidate.

Despite my love of conservatives getting owned, Im not sure how I feel about what, to my understanding*, essentially amounts to ignoring the results of an election.


*-Im sure someone will correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

Let me give a Coles condensed version of what's happening.

After an election, the party with the largest showing in the House is invited to form the government. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. The Conservatives have a minority government...just enough of a majority to form the government, but not enough to get much done. None of the other parties by themselves had enough members elected to form the government...but with the Liberals aligning themselves with the NDP, you now have a 'new party', that is larger than the Conservative party, and the leader of that party (Dion) should be Prime Minister.

While it's true that the Libs and NDP did not run on a coalition platform, it is also true that the coaltion better represents the overal vote than the Conservative minority government.

I for one, simply didn't think they could put aside their differences enough to do this.



Other important factors...this is an attempt to avoid another election. The Conservative financial plan (re: no plan) is so unpopular, that they Conservatives were facing a non-confidence vote anyway (basically the House says they don't support the government, and then we go to the polls again). This way, the government continues, under a different party.

The Governor General has to give her consent to this. She could instead call another election. Harper could lock the House up, and prevent the non-confidence vote that is supposed to trigger the coalition government...but he can't do it indefinitely and it won't help.

More linky:

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html)

Michael Ignatieff?

Yikes!

Canadians... *Shivers*
With their bent sticks and feet-blades; worshipers of the midnight sun and devourers of the sacred moose meats. How we hate them, but fear them as well . . .

Let me give a Coles condensed version of what's happening.

After an election, the party with the largest showing in the House is invited to form the government. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. The Conservatives have a minority government...just enough of a majority to form the government, but not enough to get much done. None of the other parties by themselves had enough members elected to form the government...but with the Liberals aligning themselves with the NDP, you now have a 'new party', that is larger than the Conservative party, and the leader of that party (Dion) should be Prime Minister.

While it's true that the Libs and NDP did not run on a coalition platform, it is also true that the coaltion better represents the overal vote than the Conservative minority government.

I for one, simply didn't think they could put aside their differences enough to do this.



Other important factors...this is an attempt to avoid another election. The Conservative financial plan (re: no plan) is so unpopular, that they Conservatives were facing a non-confidence vote anyway (basically the House says they don't support the government, and then we go to the polls again). This way, the government continues, under a different party.

The Governor General has to give her consent to this. She could instead call another election. Harper could lock the House up, and prevent the non-confidence vote that is supposed to trigger the coalition government...but he can't do it indefinitely and it won't help.


Oh, so Canada has essentially a Westminster system but with this "coalition government" option??

Ok, that makes it sound a lot less like a coup.

No, no it isn't. Canadian Conservatives, by and large, are not as extreme as America's. I don't like them, but I don't see a great deal of difference in overall quality between them and the Liberals/NDP. Then you don't actually understand Canadian politics all that well. The current Conservative party was born out of a Conservative/Reform alliance, and some of the most extreme conservatism in Canada has had a major influence on Harper's policies. The Conservatives of today are not the Conservatives of Mulroney's era.

The Liberals are kind of bland, but I don't agree with their goals of leaving Afghanistan and supporting hate speech laws. The NDP is a pathetic rabble, picking candidates based on affirmative action rather than who is best for the job or most electable, and supporting Unions which are probably as corrupt as the corporations. Sources?

Don't take this to mean I like the Conservatives, though. What Harper apparently did to the Justice System by supporting tougher sentencing for minor crimes is something that is fundimentally contrary to my view on how the Justice System should operate. And he's way to close to Bush for me to trust or like him. Next election, I'll probably vote for a fringe candidate.
Source?

Oh, so Canada has essentially a Westminster system but with this "coalition government" option??
Westminster has the option to form a coalition government as well. It's just that there hasn't been an opportunity to do so for quite some time.

It won't last. Given how rare coalition governments are (I read somewhere that their's only been one real one in Canadian history), and given that these are two different parties with different politics, this will likely mean another election in a few months instead of now, and back to the Conservative minority. In which case its a largely pointless stunt, and will ultimately weaken the liberals by keeping Dion as leader of the party.

This is fucking AWESOME.

Agreed. This is the second time in a matter of months the Conservative minority has failed to lead the Canadian government. Instead of working with the Opposition parties as a minority government should, they've just pissed them off. I'm rather excited at the prospect of this possible coalition government.

Michael Ignatieff?
Huh?

Dion is staying on as leader of the Libs for now...
Yikes!

Oh, so Canada has essentially a Westminster system but with this "coalition government" option??

Ok, that makes it sound a lot less like a coup.
It's not even remotely a coup.

It's going to be VERY interesting to see the power dynamics. Consensus-based decision making is absolutely essential to the survival of this coalition, but it's going to come from the left...the Conservatives will become the 'opposition'.

Westminster has the option to form a coalition government as well. It's just that there hasn't been an opportunity to do so for quite some time.


I didnt know this either.

Huh. Sounds like Canada now has their own version of the Whitlam Dismissal in Oz.

It's not even remotely a coup.


Indeed, I see this now. Thank you for filling in the gaps in my knowledge.

When I said someone would correct me if Im wrong, I actually had you or your lover in mind, kind of a hint hint nudge nudge thing:p

I didnt know this either.

Australia quite regularly has Coalition governments.

It's not even remotely a coup.
I was merely shocked at the possibility that Michael 'torture is a lesser evil' Ignatieff could get anywhere near the head of a political party.

Australia quite regularly has Coalition governments.

This coalition government thing intrigues me. Too bad I hate the Westminster system.

It won't last. Given how rare coalition governments are (I read somewhere that their's only been one real one in Canadian history), and given that these are two different parties with different politics, this will likely mean another election in a few months instead of now, and back to the Conservative minority. In which case its a largely pointless stunt, and will ultimately weaken the liberals by keeping Dion as leader of the party.

It's a possibility that the coalition will fall apart if the Bloc decides to withdraw after 18 months...it's possible that internal strife will tear it apart...but it's not guaranteed, and frankly, the coalition government is on no less shaky ground than the Conservatives were.

And at least we're shaking ourselves out of political apathy, and paying attention to what's happening in the House.

Indeed, I see this now. Thank you for filling in the gaps in my knowledge.

When I said someone would correct me if Im wrong, I actually had you or your lover in mind, kind of a hint hint nudge nudge thing:p

Well he'd say it more eloquently and succinctly, but I'm here and he's not :D

This coalition government thing intrigues me. Too bad I hate the Westminster system.

Oh, ditto. And I live under one...

I was merely shocked at the possibility that Michael 'torture is a lesser evil' Ignatieff could get anywhere near the head of a political party.

Oh. Yes, well I'm virulently anti-Ignatieff, and if anything this at least delays his ascendancy, giving Rae some time to build up some momentum...hopefully enough to take the bastard out.

Dion's got some balls though. Possibly inflatable, because they weren't apparent before. Let's see how that plays out.

Oh. Yes, well I'm virulently anti-Ignatieff, and if anything this at least delays his ascendancy, giving Rae some time to build up some momentum...hopefully enough to take the bastard out.

Dion's got some balls though. Possibly inflatable, because they weren't apparent before. Let's see how that plays out.

So, I know Harper was what amounted to a Bush sycophant. Is Canada kicking out their Bush lackies too?

Westminster has the option to form a coalition government as well. It's just that there hasn't been an opportunity to do so for quite some time.

Well essentially a Westminster system always allows the formation of a coalition government (and is part of the reasons why parties formed), the basic function of the formation of government in the Westminster system requires that parties (or representatives) go into a coalition with each other.

Well essentially a Westminster system always allows the formation of a coalition government (and is part of the reasons why parties formed), the basic function of the formation of government in the Westminster system requires that parties (or representatives) go into a coalition with each other.
Sorry, I should have made myself clear; I'm talking about the Westminster, not the Westminster system in general.

And it's not required that parties go into coalition with one another... unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Then you don't actually understand Canadian politics all that well. The current Conservative party was born out of a Conservative/Reform alliance, and some of the most extreme conservatism in Canada has had a major influence on Harper's policies. The Conservatives of today are not the Conservatives of Mulroney's era.

Well frankly they're limited in how Conservative they can be in a country like Canada, in the same way Obama is limited in how liberal he can be in a country like America.

Oh and some specific examples would be nice, as opposed to just being told how ignorant I am.

Sources?

http://www.prisonjustice.ca/starkravenarticles/tory_mandmin_advice_0706.html

I did a high school debate on this I think, but it was a while ago. I had to look up a source, and I don't know how reliable it is, but at least it shows I'm not pulling it out of my ***.

Source?

http://www.canada.com/vancovercourier/news/story.html?id=821b6317-a616-42d4-boe3-8d00abfe7a9f

Edit: second link doesn't go to the right page, don't know why. Maybe I copied the address wrong, I'll check it out.

So, I know Harper was what amounted to a Bush sycophant. Is Canada kicking out their Bush lackies too?

It's quite a stretch to call Harper a Bush sycophant. He was more supportive of Bush policies than many Canadians were comfortable with, and we tend to have a sort of 'thing' with our politicians giving the finger (literally or figuratively) to US leaders...but yeah.

Sure, things have changed a bit with Bush on the way out, but Harper was never particularly popular. A majority gov't escaped him.

Well frankly they're limited in how Conservative they can be in a country like Canada, in the same way Obama is limited in how liberal he can be in a country like America.

Oh and some specific examples would be nice, as opposed to just being told how ignorant I am.

Your claim is that the Tories are essentially the same as the Grits. This is so fundamentally flawed, that I really don't think I need to provide specific examples...even if I had the time to do so. I'd sort of rather focus on the coalition gov't and its implications, thanks.


http://www.prisonjustice.ca/starkravenarticles/tory_mandmin_advice_0706.html

I did a high school debate on this I think, but it was a while ago. I had to look up a source, and I don't know how reliable it is, but at least it shows I'm not pulling it out of my ***.
This only talks about an election pledge made back in 2006...you would need to show that Harper indeed instituted these mandatory minimum sentences in order to back up your claim.

Also, you need to back up the affirmative action accusation.

Sorry, I should have made myself clear; I'm talking about the Westminster, not the Westminster system in general.

Oh ok sorry.

And it's not required that parties go into coalition with one another... unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Yes I am now not the one being clear here. I meant more along the lines of if no one party is able to get the majority of votes in the House in order to elect a leader than they will need the support of other parties or representatives. I was also referring to the old days when any representatives were without parties and they would come together and vote for a leader of the house (The PM), and then these people would have formed a coalition of sorts because they all wanted to ensure that a particular person was voted in and they had similar beliefs and ideals and so parties were formed, or a coalition that continues past any individual government.

Yes I was being unclear in my post and a bit all over the place.

Your claim is that the Tories are essentially the same as the Grits. This is so fundamentally flawed, that I really don't think I need to provide specific examples...even if I had the time to do so. I'd sort of rather focus on the coalition gov't and its implications, thanks.

Actually I don't believe that I said they were the same. I don't think their's a big difference in overall quality, but that just means I think they both suck ass in different ways.

However, I'll acknowledge I may not have been clear, so I'll resist my urge to accuse you of straw manning.;)

This only talks about an election pledge made back in 2006...you would need to show that Harper indeed instituted these mandatory minimum sentences in order to back up your claim.

I do recall hearing that he did institute some of this crap a while back, but in any case this is an example of his attitudes on this issue (attitudes which I do not want in the government).

Also, you need to back up the affirmative action accusation.

I tried. I really did. If I can't get the link to work I'll post another one. Just don't expect me to get everything done instintaneously.;)

Honestly, I'm just glad Canadian politics are starting to get interesting.

This is fucking AWESOME.
For once, we are in agreement.

Now back to our regularly scheduled bickering!! :D

Honestly, I'm just glad Canadian politics are starting to get interesting.

This.

If nothing else, this might help overcome the overwhelming political apathy in this country...though it could end up biting the left in the ass.

This.

If nothing else, this might help overcome the overwhelming political apathy in this country...though it could end up biting the left in the ass.

Yes, no good will come of them retaining Dion as their leader.

Yes, no good will come of them retaining Dion as their leader.

Not unless she takes some singing lessons.

Agreed. This is the second time in a matter of months the Conservative minority has failed to lead the Canadian government. Instead of working with the Opposition parties as a minority government should, they've just pissed them off. I'm rather excited at the prospect of this possible coalition government.
Yes indeed!! Harper set a 4 year term on elections, got the opposition to bend over backwards and still called an election only in the 3rd year of said government.

When Harper called the election, he was relatively certain that he would win a majority. He new that Canada was headed for recession and stated that we wouldn't run a deficit, although we already were running montly shortfalls. HE LIED!!

When he got elected Harper stated that he knew that his mandate was to work with the opposition to make government work. On his first opportunity to show how genuine he was, he kicked the opposition in the nuts. HE LIED!!

Harper will go down....HURRAY!!

Rumour has it that the Conservatives are pushing a "draft John Baird (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081130%2fconservative_budget_081201)" campaign at 3:25 into the interview. :)

It's quite a stretch to call Harper a Bush sycophant.

Hey, I only know what my angry canuk neighbor below me says about him:p

Hey, I only know what my angry canuk neighbor below me says about him:p

Get off her and ask her what she meant.

Get off her and ask her what she meant.

Nice.

Ill ask her tomorrow. And by below me, I meant lives below me :p

Nice.

Ill ask her tomorrow. And by below me, I meant lives below me :p

Oh, you're in one of those 24/7 D/s relationships, cool.

Do you not let her out of the cage until tomorrow or something?:D

Oh, you're in one of those 24/7 D/s relationships, cool.

Do you not let her out of the cage until tomorrow or something?:D

Who the fuck says I let her out of the cage?

EDIT: Shes just passed out from all the sex right now. Ill wait for her to wake up tomorrow.