BS: Wild Canadian Politics

Subject: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 03:00 PM

No, not a contradiction in terms! The right-wing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he of the tin ear and the arrogance, has dished himself (couldn't happen to a nicer person). The Liberals and NDP (if they don't kill each other) are poised to take over the government in Parliament. And the Prime Minister may be Stephane Dion (tortoise vs. hare) who has basically resigned! And the pivot person?   The Governer General herself!!!

We are in a constitutional crisis -- what fun!!

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 03:04 PM

Harper will soon meet his demise. One way or another.

The world is changing, and it can't accomodate the likes of him.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 03:07 PM

Peter..... we are buddies ....... I am begging you ........ stand for PM. We need a Buddhist up there, especially one who can speak Parisienne (sp?) as well as Quebecois (sp?, correct use of term?).

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bankley
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 07:32 PM

How about Franglais ?

Mr. Duceppe holds the balance of power. Harper shot himself in his last good foot.... the other one was blasted when he cut arts programs before the election and then tanked in Quebec...
now this, and spying on NDP caucus meetings as well, then releasing the recording.... not too swift...

good on him, imagine if he had a majority !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 07:41 PM

The Cons are sounding desperate, it'll be interesting to see their next move.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 08:40 PM

Peter T., I think that when you wrote that "Prime Minister Stephen Harper...has dished himself" you meant "dissed" as in caused some political harm to himself {dissed-slang for disrespected; insulted].

If so, {or even if my sense of what you wrote is incorrect}, would you or anyone else reading this thread please post some information or links to articles that provide a summary of what this thread is about.

Thanks,

Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 09:10 PM

It's about the rip-roarin', hell-for-leather, shoot-'em-up politics of Canada, our neighboUr to the North, where the PM has recently gone so far as NOT to raise the pinky when sipping tea. This threw the entire country into a Constitutional Crisis of major proportions, and the Sociable Democrats have taken the Liberal Conservatives to task over the matter.

Stand by for more fast-paced action in the coming days, if the snow doesn't fall first.















(All said with a big grin. I LIKE Canada.)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 09:24 PM

The following is the spark that lit the fuse:

"The opposition parties say they have lost confidence in the Harper government after last Thursday's economic update by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty failed to provide a stimulus package for Canadians. Since then, the Liberals had been in negotiations to form a coalition with the NDP, planning to oust the Conservatives in a confidence vote."

There were also a couple of other contentious proposals in the economic statement that have since been withdrawn due to the unexpected firestorm. One was the removal of the right to strike by public service employees and the other was the repeal of of public funding to political parties.

The actions triggered by the fuse can be read about here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:00 PM

I really didn't think it was about failure to raise the pinky while taking tea.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:20 PM

These are very exciting times in an otherwise very boring political game. But the game has gotten very serious. We are now in a moment of time where by a mistake can be very detrimental to each and every one of us. The Game is no longer a Game. It's a Historical event. I only hope that a year or two down the road we don't start saying that maybe Harper was right.
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:24 PM

I think the term "constitutional crisis" is overblown for the situation. As someone on CBC put it this morning, it's a "political crisis". The situation (for those outside our borders) is that a minority government is about to be replaced by a coalition government, or so it seems. It's parliamentary democracy. The minority ruling party will be outnumbered by what will be in effect a new, temporary, majority party - the coalition. If this coalition decides to defeat the ruling Tories in a "confidence" vote, then, as I understand it, they will be within their rights to form a new government - with the official okay from the Governor-General (the Queen's representative figure-head), which she could not very well withhold.

A "confidence" vote can be a vote on financial legislation introduced by the governing party, or on a motion of "non-confidence" in the government, which can be introduced by any member.

The situation is provoking no end of excitement in the media, but I don't think anyone else is paying much attention to it. Well, I shouldn't say that: apparently the Toronto Stock Exchange took a dive ...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:28 PM

Couldn't have said it better "meself".
I to don't think that anyone else outside Canada gives a $hit. Well Maybe the Queen.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 10:41 PM

Ha! This is great. ;-) Harper has unintentionally buggered himself with his ill-considered legislation which was arrogant and inappropriate. He acted like he already had a majority mandate from
Canadians, which he most definitely doesn't. Only 37% of the Canadian public voted for Harper's conservatives in that election they just won. Now the other three parties have decided to dethrone them, and I think that's just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Dec 08 - 11:52 PM

Fairly well put, Meself.
Just one little discrepancy.
The Governor General owns the decision on whether to accept the coalition or, at the recommendation of the Prime Minister, announce an election.
Regardless of the Main Stream Media rhetoric and given that one of the parties is actually a separatist group, it is highly unlikely that she will accept the coalition. Well, maybe 50/50.
As for no-one paying too much attention... Are you still out west?
Folks are fuming here.
Want to know more about Governor Generals making up their own minds?
Ask some of the Australians here about Sir John Kerr. R.I.P.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:36 AM

So it was business as usual with Harper and his shower of hoors.

Not content to work with the (again) minority government WE the voters (all 55% of us who bothered to show up to vote) wanted and gave them--the same minority they had before the pointless election they put us through last month--Harper and the Regressive Conservatives (again) practiced their prickish strategies of trying to force the hands of the opposition parties to cause us to have another election.

(This, by registering a "Vote of Non-Confidence" in which all the members of the opposition parties, who would make up a majority together, vote against a major policy instituted by the governing party. A Vote of Non-Confidence would necessitate an election being called so that the public could voice their approval or disapproval by voting (again) for their preferred parties..... for the information of those Mudcatters unfamiliar with how the Canadian government is supposed to work)

The tactics are so blatantly self-serving! Jim Flaherty, Conservative and Canada's Minister of Finance, submits an impromptu "budget"--something normally done in the spring, so why do it now?--which can count as a motion which is Vote-of-Non-Confidence-worthy--including an item which he knows the other parties can't swallow. Namely, that all parties give up the public funding they receive to operate. Everybody knows the Liberal Party are broke and require that funding desperately. The Conservative Party are flush and don't need those funds.

This idea is put forward as being necessary because of the economic situation now before us. So it's made to look as if the Conservatives are taking some kind of progressive economic stimulus measures, but actually no action plan is in place or suggested. They just want to starve the other parties, especially the Liberals. They want the Liberals and other opposition parties to vote against it and bring on another election so the Tories can blame it on them. Talk about passive-aggressive!

It's the same old crap Harper and his Party have been pulling since they first got in 3 years ago: continually trying to force a Vote of Non-Con and another election so he can get a majority government and really get to work fucking this country sideways. He finally got tired of waiting and called the last election a year early (breaking one of his own proposed rules in the bargain). But that didn't work out so well for him. Canadian voters gave him the same minority government they did before. And he's been gritting his teeth over it since then.

Yep. Stephen Harper refuses to work with the government WE want! He's going to force election after election until he gets the result HE wants... just like the PQ in Quebec tried to practice with their separation referendums.

If he's pulling this shit now, with a minority, what kind of Rodeo Fuck is he gonna give us if he actually gets a majority? If he keeps this up, he's going to make Brian Mulroney look like Tommy Douglas.

We have a system of government based on checks and balances with opposition parties. Stephen Harper wants to sweep all that away and rule this country like a dictator. And he's willing to pull any kind of weaselly move to do it.

*pant pant pant*

And I'm basically apolitical.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 01:11 AM

"The Governor General owns the decision on whether to accept the coalition or, at the recommendation of the Prime Minister, announce an election."

Yes, I'm sure you're right (I knew I was missing something there). And that's where there is the potential for an actual constitutional crisis. If her call were not seen to be the right one - or at least fairly reasonable - then the role of the office of Governor-General would probably be called into question. She will likely make it clear that she is consulting with the constitutional experts (you and I should be awaiting her call) and the elected potentates before announcing her decision, so as not to appear too high-handed. Fortunately, I don't think that any of the main players would want a constitutional crisis regarding the role of the Governor-General, even if their particular manouverings don't work out they way they would hope.

"As for no-one paying too much attention... Are you still out west?
Folks are fuming here."

Well, from what I gather, the Conservative supporters, predictably, are fuming. The Conservative opposers are, predictably, pleased. As for the rest - they're just going about their business ...

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 01:34 AM

Actually, I meant "dished". It was a reference to British Parliamentary slang ("Disraeli dished the Whigs"), meaning he out-manoeuvred them in the fight for governance.

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will serve.

And yes, absolutely right, it isn't a constitutional crisis at all, I was hysterical with laughter at the time. Although what the Bloc Quebecois is going to get out of this may precipitate one real soon anyway.

yours ever,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 01:40 AM

"....the British slang verb to dish, meaning ''destroy,'' first noted by the great lexicographer Francis Grose in his 1788 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue: ''He is completely dished up; he is totally ruined.'' When the conservative Tories stole the legislative clothes of the liberal Whigs by passing the radical reform bill of 1867, the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, delightedly chortled, ''Don't you see we have dished the Whigs?'

(from William Safire, The New York Times language column)

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:13 AM

"The Conservative opposers are, predictably, pleased. As for the rest - they're just going about their business ... "
I found that interesting during the Clinton/Obama spat too.
What's that old saying about sitting idly by while others' rights are trampled?
Ended in something like "Who will help when they come for you?"
I think you may be in for a surprise though.
My guess is that Justin Trudeau will bring eight or nine disgruntled Liberals across the floor thereby giving the Conservative Government a majority.
You are aware that all three opposition leaders are from Quebec, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 07:41 AM

"You are aware that all three opposition leaders are from Quebec, right?"

You are aware that Quebec is a part of Canada, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 07:53 AM

good one bobad .... good one.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 07:57 AM

Anyone mention that Harper was ALSO gonna take the right to strike away from Public Servants?

Now, when you mess with the PSAC, you mess with the guys that you depend upon to do the leg work of policy formulation and implementation. Mess with the biggest (coalition of) union(s) in the country? The guy must be stunned as me arse!... must???

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 08:28 AM

Thanks for links to and comments about the current happenings in Canada's politics, particularly those comments about the behind the scenes reasons why Canadians think this is happening. It's unlikely that I would have found these opinions by just reading articles.

I'm not sure I understand the Canadian political system, but I'm trying to get a sense of how it works.

Special thanks to Peter for sharing information about that British Parliamentary slang term "dished". It seems to me that Stephen Harper may have "dished" himself and other people are "dissing" {dissin'} him because of his actions.

Then again, "dissing" has a connotation that the putdowns are unwarranted, but it seems that's not the case with Harper.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:14 AM

You betcha I'm watching Canadian politics! There aren't any buffer states between me and Alberta and any day the Canadian Defence Forces might invade us and, in a sudden swoop, conquer Idaho so that Idaho's Famous Potatoes would become a Canadian product to complement the "Alberta Beef" and "Alberta Chicken" campaigns. Then they'd take away my guns and force me into a French-speaking gay marriage with an Inuit who raises huskies for his on-line pharmacy business.

Besides, I actually care about what's happening to our Northern Neighbor.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:56 AM

Jack Layton is about as Toronto as it gets.

I think that there is a constitutional issue here after all: whether Stephen Harper is within his rights to prorogue Parliament till the new year. I think it is a Governor General's call, and that always turns constitutional.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 10:23 AM

Harper has the right to ask for Parliament to be prorogued but, under the assumption that there is someone else (Dion) who can claim to command the support of a majority of MPs, the Governor General should refuse it and ask Mr Dion to attempt to form a government.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 10:45 AM

The nice thing about this situation is that it reminds people that at root Parliament is about Parliament -- who can command a majority in the house -- and not primarily about political parties, which is what everyone focusses on.   It returns some of the fluidity to it.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 11:50 AM

"What's that old saying about sitting idly by while others' rights are trampled?"

Whose rights are being trampled? As the man said, it's all about who can command a majority in the house. And, if the figure that is being tossed about is correct, the Tories only had 37% of the popular vote. Sometimes the imperfect system works in your favour - in this instance, by allowing you to form a gov. with such a minority - and sometimes it works against you - in this cse, by (possibly) allowing the rest of the House the opportunity to organize themselves so as to take that gov. away from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:07 PM

Didn't see a Coalition Party on the ballot and according to polls, Canadians are 76% against the coup.
All in the way you choose to sit idly by, I suppose.

"You are aware that Quebec is a part of Canada, right?"

Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:29 PM

All you were voting for, Jim, was an individual to send to Ottawa and who will use his or her judgment on the issues of the day. I'm pretty certain that, constitutionally, political parties don't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:31 PM

You Damn Right it is.

Beer
(Adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:43 PM

It may be a 'power grab', but it's not a coup. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 03:27 PM

I think this is very interesting, and I'll be paying close attention to it as it develops. The beauty of the Canadian system as opposed to the US system is that if the Prime Minister pisses off enough people, he'll get removed from his position. In the US, the president can piss off just about everyone and still remain in power much longer than he or she should.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 04:14 PM

Yes, CC. It is one of the "positives". And, that is exactly what he has done. And, it started long before last week.... before the last election, which he called in contradiction of the mandatory "term of office" HE HIMSELF put forward... blah, blah, blah....

Dunno if THIS was mentioned above... in the past several weeks, he has been globetrotting and shooting his mouth off in a most disgraceful and arrogant manner, telling the superpowers of the world that they should listen to him and follow Canada's policies and example(s)... AND, he has been signing Free Trade Agreements with countries without consultation with Parliament. The arrogance and the treachery have brought together the rest of the political parties who have little choice but to kick his ass. To stand by while he continues to ruin Canada and Canada's reputation is unacceptable.

BTW, last time I checked, La Belle Province still had over 25% of the population of Canada. And, over 50% of the balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:05 PM

Last time I checked, Quebec's share of Canada's population had fallen to 21% with projections of a continual downward trend.........

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: meself
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:06 PM

What about the gonad quotient? Is it still at 50?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:34 PM

Terry... there has been a census since 2006? Where?

meself... 60% and rising.

And, a quote from the media... "A Facebook group inviting people to join a day-long party of sorts in cyberspace billed as "Stephen Harper's Last Day as Prime Minister" had send out almost 30,000 invitations - with nearly 8,000 accepting as of Tuesday afternoon."

Biased, obviously, but I'll bet it's a higher percentage amongst the populace.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:36 PM

Terry... "...projections of a continual downward trend..."

Predictions? About Québecers fucking? Heheheheheeee!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:44 PM

"Predictions? About Québecers fucking? Heheheheheeee!"

And smoking? And eating EVERYTHING deep-fried?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 05:57 PM

Well, I have eaten a few "deep fried" clams in my time. And a few smoked Macreaux.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 06:04 PM

Can he pirogue Parliament... up the creek without a paddle?

>;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 06:07 PM

Can he pierogi Parliament?... and turn up the heat in the kitchen?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 06:16 PM

Hmmm - the 2007 percentage for Quebec is 23.4, less than 25% but more than the 21% I quoted! As a 'get out of jail' card, I must confess that I said 'the last time I looked' and I was basing my figures on the early 2000s when I used to write 'scholarly' articles on Quebec's place within Canada (my mate Stephane Dion used to ask me to send them to him - honest!). At the time there was considerable fear that Quebec would drop below 20% and this would be seen as highly symbolic by politicians in Alberta and BC (you know, people like Klein and Harper - whatever happened to them?).

Although Quebec attracted a high number of immigrants, because it had its own rules, the thinking was that they didn't stay,newcomers just used it as a gateway to the rest of Canada. Maybe everything's changed since my days as a professional Canadianist - but I'm not so sure. We are, after all, playing around with statistics and you know what Disraeli said about those.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 06:18 PM

Fascinating situation, however!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 07:00 PM

Terry... "Although Quebec attracted a high number of immigrants, because it had its own rules,...."

ATTRACTED????? WTF? Immigration? Separation? You don't know the flood of immigrants forced upon Québec as part of a perceived assimilation program by English Canada caused the Separatist movement to flourish? That it caused them to pass legislation requiring language capabilities? That.... sweet Jesus Christ... what you said is the absloute opposite of why the Québecois stood up to "English Canada" and said, fuck you... I will not surrender my country to a bunch of corporate sellouts.

Holy fuck! Am I wrong here? Je me ne pas souviens?

BTW, the language capabilities are law at present. But, the crowd down the road from me can't speak either. They got federal $$$ to buy out a lease from a family of French and English Canucks who have been here for seven and six generations, respectively, who built the business. Tell me there ain't someone gettin paid offshore for that fuckin bullshit. And tell the Québecois. Just don't expect them to help out the rest of Canada when the shit hits the fan that they plugged in.

It's Canada INCLUDING Québec. But, it ain't gonna be if all these money whores sell it down the river.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 08:28 PM

"BTW, the language capabilities are law at present."
Well, kind of. There is a legal document that immigrants have to sign but there are no language police for immigrants.
In other words, they don't follow up with it.

As for Mr. Trudeau; boy was I wrong?
Guess it's up to the ladies to provide some sanity now.

Interesting times indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:25 PM

"La Belle Province still had over 25% of the population of Canada. And, over 50% of the balls"

....and may I add many well dressed and attractive women, and 90 percent of Canada's strip bars.....many on St Catherines Street in Montreal.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:26 PM

Anyone from NZ or Australia on line to explain how well coalition governments work there?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Beer
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:32 PM

Ed.
I think that maybe Toronto out does us with the Strip Bars now. But we still have some mighty fine looking ladies. Especially those coming in from the North Shore.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 10:02 PM

A shame that Harper is so colorless and fails to garner strong support.
The clowns from the other parties will be very bad for Canadian business.