Coalition

[bdoyledimou]

Wow......is there any possible way you could clarify what the heck you just posted? I am trying to figure out what this has to do with the coalition.

The right to strike movement started in the early 1900's, in the BC mining industry ( they were fightiing for 8 hour days, and a set work week), and wasn't expanded to the 'public service' until the late 60's -early 70's. Strikes are seldom about money, the wildcat strike by jail workers in 1979 was about the right to actually bargain their own contract. The provincial strike in 1996 was about benefits and working conditions, and 2001 was about pension controls, privatization and the decimation of public services by Harris and his cronies. The money lost during a strike is seldom recouped through the additional quarter/hour an employee gets after negotiations (maybe $500/ year). THe labour movement (strikes) have brought Canadians;
Workman's compensation
Occupational Health and Safety Rights
Minimum Wages
Universal Healthcare
Dental and Medical benefits
Pension plans
Vacation
Maternity Leave
Public Holidays
Severance Pay
the 40 hour work week
rest periods between shifts
and the Ministry of Labour Act (in which some Public Servants are exempt from certain rights)

Do you know the difference between a civil servant and a public servant? Government workers (Civil Servants) don't have the right to strike, and Public Servants don't have political alliance, so a Public Servant's right to strike in no way benefits a political party. What it does, is prevent a dictatorial employer from providing their own arbitrator to 'fairly' enforce a contract.

As far as funding of political parties, the Tories are making this motion because they are the party of the 'haves', while the NDP/Green are parties of the 'have nots' (the Liberals have a mix). This will give the Tories a bigger benefit in elections. It is the same as McGuinty's efforts to eliminate all funding for the Green and NDP parties in Ontario, due to low seat totals.

Quiet simply... these are the Items the "coalition" have issues with and they are both bogus.

I don't care if a job has political ties or not. If you do not like your job, or the working conditions, or the pay, or the benefits, change jobs.
Using the auto industry as a basis, the companies that are NOT unionized are the ones that are doing well, (and the employees are also happy).
The unionized companies are the ones that are hurting, with disgruntled workers and a lack of stability.

And a complete and utter removal of 'rewarding' political parties based on how many votes they received is regressive and archaic as well. I didn't see anything that said "only the winning party gets funding for their platform". Everyone should have to pay their own way for their platform, with funds that they raised. Not funds that have been provided from taxes.

I don't care if it's $1.95 or $0.01 . If they want to run, run, but pay for it themselves.

 

[Ham Ham]

I'm truly sorry you feel that way. As living in a province that carries the 2nd largest french speaking population, I will say that I believe we all care about our country. We in the prairies have had the same feeling you have. Many an election, our votes didn't even count as the election was called at the Ontario border. I believe that Quebec is fortunate in that they do have a federal voice that is looking after their respective province and only their province. None of us can make that claim. This is not an issue of we don't care....it's an issue of who will truly speak for all of us. In an odd example, if the Bloc would win the majority of seats and form a national gov't, how could they serve the entire country...it is not their party's mandate.
I'm an not looking at anyone getting angry at each other. I believe it's the mess that has been created is what we need to focus a productive anger at. We need to look within how, in the future, parties will govern. Something good will come of this down the road.

Off the top of my head Ontario probably has the 2 nd largest numbers of Francophones of any Canadian province. With NB having the 2nd highest percentage of Francophones in their population.

I was at a syposism once and heard figures and was quit surprised. That Alberata had more Francophone's than Manitoba.
-------------------------------------------
I don't see how the Bloc being painted as the bads guys here by Harper helps anyone.
The bombardment towards the Bloc has stirred up an almost dormant nationalist sentiments in Quebec.
If the Bloc is so unpalatable to the Conservatives why did Harper work so closely with Bloc over the past few years?

Most Quebecers who voted for the Bloc to represent them because they feel that the Bloc will best represent their interests. Can't blame folks for that.

No big fan of Stephen Harper or any of the other choices we have, just some of my observations.

Get out there and vote next time folks.

 

[digskat]

Quiet simply... these are the Items the "coalition" have issues with and they are both bogus.

I don't care if a job has political ties or not. If you do not like your job, or the working conditions, or the pay, or the benefits, change jobs.
Using the auto industry as a basis, the companies that are NOT unionized are the ones that are doing well, (and the employees are also happy).
The unionized companies are the ones that are hurting, with disgruntled workers and a lack of stability.

And a complete and utter removal of 'rewarding' political parties based on how many votes they received is regressive and archaic as well. I didn't see anything that said "only the winning party gets funding for their platform". Everyone should have to pay their own way for their platform, with funds that they raised. Not funds that have been provided from taxes.

I don't care if it's $1.95 or $0.01 . If they want to run, run, but pay for it themselves.

"Quite" simply what the Tories are trying to do is tip the scales in their favour. They are the party of the wealthy, extolling tax breaks for their friends in big business. The Green Party and NDP are the parties of the lower and middle-lower class. What will be created is a complete partisan political system, where the wealthy will buy votes. If the Tories are adverse to taxpayer dollars being used, balance the scales, and limit all spending in campaigns.........no aggressive fundraising. The 'only the winning party gets funding' was a move brought on by McGuinty after the last provincial election in Ontario, in an effort to silence the NDP and Green.

The coalition has issues with the Conservatives being in power, not with any issues on the table. The LIberals, NDP and Bloc have completely separate views on just about everything else, and are merely using the Conservatives platform as a jumping point. It could have been Afghanistan that started it, but Flaherty's speech was first in line, and Harper replied with a followup to the American's buyout idea.

You obviously do have an issue with political ties, since

'The "right to strike" is nothing more then Gov't workers holding Canadians hostage. It should go. (note this is a sentiment only for Public Service workers, who's very job is to server the public, at the public's expense)'
and
'Both of these issues are selfish and do not serve the public, they only server the political parties.'
was the basis of you previous post. Again, do you know what a Public Servant is?

If you are so offended by unionism, feel free to give up everything that the labour movement has provided for ALL employees. Non-unionized factories are happy because they still have several rights their unionized counterparts fought to get them..... a 40 hour work week, a decent wage, WSIB, vacation, an 8 hour work day, pension plans, statuatory holidays, rest periods, maternity leave, etc. The unionized companies are suffering because the big 3 were slow reacting to public demand (fuel economy). If the unions weren't there, the Tories would buckle to big business in a heart beat, and wages and rights would plummet.
A local factory is a prime example of corporate greed. The union worked with the company, and dropped wages by 50%, making the starting wage $12/hr, and willingly negotiated a reduction in benefits. The company rewarded the workers, by using their savings to open a plant in Brazil, and closed the one here. My father-in-law was also anti-union, until his friend was fired after 27 years with his company, purely because his replacement could be hired at $4/hour less, and would get 2 fewer weeks vacation. A classy move by the company, saving about $50 000 by canning a guy 5 years before he could retire.

 

[drag n' fly]

No one seemed to mind when the governments of the time forked out tax money to help Alberta beef farmers during mad cow (even shipping it to Ottawa for federaly funded barbecues, while Ontario Beef farmers faced the same dilema) and created the Atlantic Cod fishers transfer funds in the 80s.

Our 'lack of a recession' kind of smells like Mike Harris' balanced budgets in Ontario during the 90s. He balanced his budget on the sale of our assets, and then we faced a large deficit, when we no longer had their income. What are we balancing our GDP on.........mining of resources (Gold, Salt, Uranium, etc), and production of natural resources (oil, natural gas, water). What sustainable product are we exporting? What will we have when we have finished raping our resources?
Our exports are still going down, because we are currently heavily tied to the American Economy, we provide the materials for their industrial economy, and their industrial economy is hurting. What we need to due is tighten our import laws......you want to sell a car here, you make the car here, you make the car in Mexico, you better hope they are buying them. There was a great t-shirt produced shortly after the free trade agreement was signed, that showed a bald eagle molesting a beaver.....what it missed was the burro that had snuck in behind the eagle.

The beef industry in Alberta is equivalent to the auto industry in Ontario. Believe me we did you a favour. Alberta truly has the best beef in the world Just tryin to keep it light folks

 

[snickerboo]

Whoa! Right now 78% of Canadian DISers are anti-coalition. I just read a news article that an IPSOS-Reid was released today saying that Harper would win 46% of the popular vote if an election were held today and Stephane Dion only 23%

Personally, I'm a Conservative, so I'm probably biased. However, I support everything that was in the fiscal update: why give money to the auto industry before the US makes a decision? If the US chooses not to help the big 3, Canadian tax money would be wasted. Some argue that the big 3 need to go bankrupt to force new labour contracts and new organization. I think the no-strike clause was necessary. I don't think Canadian tax money should go to political parties in a time when we have to pinch pennies.

I don't believe for a hot minute that the coalition deal was actually born out of dissatisfaction in Flaherty's fiscal update, though. I believe this was in the works when the Liberals were slaughtered in the election. My whole problem with a coalition government is this:

The propsed cabinet is not proportional representation; it's the Liberals with a few NDP (6, I think?) thrown in for good measure. The Liberals get all the powerful positions (ie: finance) & Stephane Dion as PM. But the majority of Canadians voted against the Liberals, decidedly, and especially Stephane Dion! I saw a poll on CTV News (Lloyd Robertson) that said Canadians were split on the coalition vs. Conservatives but 65% do not want Stephane Dion as our PM. This coalition does not accurately reflect the sentiment of Canadians. If the Liberals and NDP really had no confidence in the gov't and wanted to put Canada first, the make-up of the coalition would more accurately reflect the results of the election. I might be able to support a coalition with more NDP and a different Prime Minister but, to me, this was just a coup d'etat to try and deflect the fact that the Liberals were crushed in the election. I can't support a politican who puts that first in a very dark time for Canada.

 

[declansdad]

And a complete and utter removal of 'rewarding' political parties based on how many votes they received is regressive and archaic as well. I didn't see anything that said "only the winning party gets funding for their platform". Everyone should have to pay their own way for their platform, with funds that they raised. Not funds that have been provided from taxes.

I don't care if it's $1.95 or $0.01 . If they want to run, run, but pay for it themselves.

Taking away funding hurts our country more than it helps. This funding helps all parties create an effective governemnt and opposition. By taking away this funding Stephen Harper knew he would hurt an already weak oppposition and position himself to win a majority. It had nothing to do with helping the economy.

 

[TheZue]

I think the big issue with the Auto industry is handing the American companies any money before we know what congress is going to do is just plain old silly. Even if the congress DOES give them money it may come with conditions that the work force reductions must come from plants outside the US. But I`m not actually sure they are even going to get their bailout. People in the US are so against it and it`s really not what that bailout package was intended for.

That said I think there needs to be a plan to retrain the workers and get them back on their feet. Dying industries are NOT fun and that might be what we are on the brink of here. It needs to go beyond just EI as well.

 

[TheZue]

Whoa! Right now 78% of Canadian DISers are anti-coalition. I just read a news article that an IPSOS-Reid was released today saying that Harper would win 46% of the popular vote if an election were held today and Stephane Dion only 23%

Personally, I'm a Conservative, so I'm probably biased. However, I support everything that was in the fiscal update: why give money to the auto industry before the US makes a decision? If the US chooses not to help the big 3, Canadian tax money would be wasted. Some argue that the big 3 need to go bankrupt to force new labour contracts and new organization. I think the no-strike clause was necessary. I don't think Canadian tax money should go to political parties in a time when we have to pinch pennies.

I don't believe for a hot minute that the coalition deal was actually born out of dissatisfaction in Flaherty's fiscal update, though. I believe this was in the works when the Liberals were slaughtered in the election. My whole problem with a coalition government is this:

The propsed cabinet is not proportional representation; it's the Liberals with a few NDP (6, I think?) thrown in for good measure. The Liberals get all the powerful positions (ie: finance) & Stephane Dion as PM. But the majority of Canadians voted against the Liberals, decidedly, and especially Stephane Dion! I saw a poll on CTV News (Lloyd Robertson) that said Canadians were split on the coalition vs. Conservatives but 65% do not want Stephane Dion as our PM. This coalition does not accurately reflect the sentiment of Canadians. If the Liberals and NDP really had no confidence in the gov't and wanted to put Canada first, the make-up of the coalition would more accurately reflect the results of the election. I might be able to support a coalition with more NDP and a different Prime Minister but, to me, this was just a coup d'etat to try and deflect the fact that the Liberals were crushed in the election. I can't support a politican who puts that first in a very dark time for Canada.

I don`t think Dion was behind this, I think it was Layton...I`m not sure Dion is organized enough to put this all together.

Anyways this is the timeline of his rebutal from CTV...it`s pretty funny in a sad way.

6:15-6:30 - The Liberals miss their promised deadline to deliver Dion's statement to the television networks.
6:40 - Liberals arrive with a single tape at the press gallery in Ottawa. They were supposed to deliver two tapes: one in French, one in English. They arrived with a single tape in DVD-minicam format, which is not broadcast quality.
Shortly after 6:40 - The Liberals decide to run back to their offices -- a block away -- because the French portion of the tape needs another edit.
7:05 - Liberal staffers are still in their offices as the networks go to air with the Harper address.
7:07 - Harper's statement finishes and network anchors are forced to kill time as they wait for Dion's address.
7:10 to 7:15 - Liberal staffers arrive back at the press gallery on Wellington Street with a DVD-minicam player that they had taken from their own offices, along with the associated cables. There is still only one tape, not two. A press gallery official tells the Liberals that the gallery is not the feed point and an argument ensues. The Liberals ask why they weren't told that earlier. The feed point is next door at the CBC building, which is the long-established feed play point for all network pools. The Liberals are informed that they need to be walked into the building by authorized staff.
7:20 - English network anchors are still live on television, wondering where the tape is. CTV has still had no communications from the Liberals about Dion's address.
Approximately 7:15 - CBC receives the tape and begins dubbing into French and English versions. This takes about 10 minutes.
7:28 - CTV decides to go off-air and back to regular scheduled programming at 7:30. CTV has still not seen a feed of the tape.
7:28 - CBC incorrectly punches out the finished feed only to their network.
7:30 - CTV signs off broadcast at scheduled time.

 

[esdras]

Okay, I've been following this, but waited until now to post as I wanted to be as neutral as possible.

As a disclaimer, I have generall voted Liberal federally except when Harper got his first Minority mandate. I was so utterly dissatisfied with all parties during that election that I returned a blank ballot. In the subsequent election I am fortunate enough to have a new Liberal candidate in my riding who has a fantastic history of community service and is well known for his bi-partisan approach in Ottawa. I would have voted for him regardless of party affiliation.

On to the issues - what are the mistakes that have been made:

Conservatives:

1. Harper has never accepted his status as a minority PM - his plan to eliminate the $1.95/vote funding (even if he didn't come up with the plan, he should not have allowed it) was not mentioned during the campaign or the Throne Speech. It was a partisan blind-side attack on the Opposition in an attempt to eliminate any chance of the Liberals challenging him in the next election. It would have saved $30 million in the budget - it was a political ploy, not an economic plan.
2. For the love of God, is Mr. Harper completely incapable of actually saying "I'm sorry" for his part in this. That isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of a leader who cares more for his country than his desire to lead a majority government. Any remorse he has expressed has been indirect or backhanded.
3. Don't tape caucus conversations that aren't your own. If this is investigated it could really damage the Conservatives regardless of what the NDP was saying.
4. Asking the GG to Prorogue Parliament was a bad idea. It sets a horrible precedent where a PM can avoid defeat by locking up the government. With the world economy, whatever is done by any group to help our economy will still be affected by the rest of the world and the U.S. - the real differences between a coalition or Conservative plan won't be huge in the long run. However, Harper (though I think his ego prevents this) could have been a better man by facing the Confidence vote. Canadians would have (most anyway) hated Dion as PM if the non-confidence vote resulted in the GG asking the coalition to form a government. It wouldn't have lasted that long, and Harper would have a better shot in the next election without the "coward" sound-bite that you know will be used against him in the future.
5. Attack the NDP aspect of the coalition, as bad socialist economics - the main focus of their attacks was on the Separatist element - they've screwed themselved in Quebec during the next election and - possibly - screwed Charet in the provincial election next week.

Coalition:

1. When the Conservatives backed down on the funding issue, the Coalition should have done the same.
2. The coalition should have been clearly Liberal/NDP - Duceppe should have been nowhere near the signing ceremony. It should have been an announcement of a plan to work together, and then say "considering the extent to which the Bloc has expressed their lack of confidence in the current government, we are hoping they will choose to support our coalition." Duceppe then could have said, on his own, that under the current conditions, his party has more confidence with a Liberal/NDP coalition than the Conservatives. This would have thwarted the Conservative "Separatist Coalition" sound bite.
3. Using a boxing analogy - why would you "telegraph" your punch. If you were planning a coalition, keep it quiet. The Conservative war chest is huge, you only gave them time an ammo to counter your plans.
4. For the Liberals in the coalition - not only keep your plans secret, couldn't you have waited a few months? You KNOW that Canadians dislike Dion even more than Harper. Sure, taking down the government after May with a new leader gives a greater chance of an election being required instead of the GG allowing you to form a coalition government - but, simply, you are going nowhere with Dion.

What should be done during the break (if I was an advisor to either side):

Conservatives:

1. Harper needs to resign. He has now become more of a liability to the party. The Conservaties have divided Ontario on the coalition issue, amost totally alienated Quebec and the Maritimes seem to be more in favour of a coalition than the Conservatives. Flaherty also needs to step down. The Conservatives need to replace Harper with Peter MacKay as the interim leader - he is from the old PC side of the party and from Atlantic Canada. It might not be enough to restore their fortunes in Quebec (unless they can find a good Finance Minister from there), but will help restore them in Atlantic Canada. The west will still fall in line with the Conservatives even without Harper as leader.
2. Stop the radio and TV ads now. Even though you have enough cash, be conciliatory and not aggressive. Show that you are willing to work with other parties and run the government as you should considering you only have a minority mandate.

Coalition:

1. Liberals - scrap the May leadership convention - through together something NOW and on the cheap where Liberal pary members can vote online or by mail. If you are still serious about taking down the Conservatives after the January Budget, it's hard to say whether there will be an election or if the GG will call on the coalition. Either way, Dion can't be the leader when that happens.
2. Liberals - seriously consider telling Bob Rae to drop his candidacy. He may be PM material, but there are far too many in Ontario who still remember "Rae Days" and hate him. The road back to leadership for the Liberals requires a strong showing in Ontario - Rae isn't a good choice.
3. Not adivce here - but an observation that the choice between Ignatieff and LeBlanc is harder - LeBlanc would solidify Liberal support in Atlantic Canada, but it's already pretty good. Ignatieff seems to have better credentials in terms of brains - but he's lacking in charisma. Really, the Liberals would be better if they had viable candidates either from west of Ontario (to erode Conservative support there), or from Quebec (to take advantage of the Conservatives alienating that province over the last few days).
4. NDP - Layton isn't going anywhere - he has the advantage of being able to continue the attacks on the Conservatives with impunity. He needs to keep his party base strong by playing up their hatred for the Conservatives - since some hard-core NDPers aren't necessarily happy with helping the Liberal party as it might take votes from them in the next election.
5. Duceppe - for the good of the separatist movement needs to make sure he maintains some distance from the coalition. Really, if there was a coalition and it was successful, that would actually help the federalist movement - they could argue that Duceppe accomplished more for Quebec by working with the rest of Canada rather than trying to break it up. As a federalist, I would like that to happen - but it isn't too likely.
6. The Green Party - okay, not in the coalition, but if you want ANY chance of having influence in Parliament, there is only one option - unite with the Liberals. Much as the PC's and Alliance united, if the Liberals and Greens united, with some reasonable Green candidates running, there is a chance of getting a good amount of the 10% Green support going to the Liberals - they need it. Economically, Greens are somewhere between Liberal and Conservative policies. As long as they don't go too radical on environmental platforms, it could help in the long run.

Without some serious consolidation of the political parties in Canada, we are destined for a number of minority governments in the near future. Unfortunately, with the crap this week, the Bloc has been strengthened in Quebec, meaning that even if the Conservatives ditch Harper and the Liberals pick a good leader, there's a good chance that neither would be able to form a majority - meaning that the Bloc would still hold the balance of power.

Admittedly, this is all fascinating - but it's also extremely messy.

Sorry for the length of this post.

 

[declansdad]

esdras - this is the best post in this entire thread. Well done!

 

[Salome]

I'm truly sorry you feel that way. As living in a province that carries the 2nd largest french speaking population, I will say that I believe we all care about our country. We in the prairies have had the same feeling you have. Many an election, our votes didn't even count as the election was called at the Ontario border. I believe that Quebec is fortunate in that they do have a federal voice that is looking after their respective province and only their province. None of us can make that claim. This is not an issue of we don't care....it's an issue of who will truly speak for all of us. In an odd example, if the Bloc would win the majority of seats and form a national gov't, how could they serve the entire country...it is not their party's mandate.
I'm an not looking at anyone getting angry at each other. I believe it's the mess that has been created is what we need to focus a productive anger at. We need to look within how, in the future, parties will govern. Something good will come of this down the road.

I agree with you, I'm sorry about how harsh my post came out the other day... I was just so pissed off with Harper about his way of putting the fault on the "evil separatists" when he's got nothing but himself to blame...

But seriously, if his goal is to revive Quebec nationalism he got it just right because I'm sure he just help Mrs Marois and she might have some more seats tuesday morning because of him

And like I said, I did not vote Bloc for a very long time, but now I think it is probably a good thing that we have them to look after us...because it is not Charest that will do it...

enought said, I love my country, I love Canada and hopefully, like you said, something good will come of this down the road.

 

[esdras]

esdras - this is the best post in this entire thread. Well done!

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment.

My main concern, really, is what is best for Canada overall. That was where my suggestions came from. At the moment, not even considering the possibility of a majority, Canada will have a PM from either the Conservatives or the Liberals - neither Harper or Dion are (in my opinion) PM matieral.

If I was being totally partisan, I would prefer a Liberal government - but not with Dion or Rae. That leaves me with LeBlanc or Ignatieff. I don't think either one is a stellar candidate, but I think I might prefer LeBlanc. I think the Maritimes also know what it's like to be shafted by Ottawa, and he might be able to appeal to Liberals across Canada. He is from Atlantic Canada - check. He could use the "shafted" experience to connect with westerners who feel the same, and perhaps his francophone background could help him in Quebec. There's still enough Liberal support in Ontario to be regained by any decent Liberal leader (with, as I mentioned, the exception of Rae).

From the Conservatives, I would accept MacKay or Prentice (although he was interviewed by the CBC about the taping of the NDP caucus and tried to justify the action by focusing on the content rather than the ethical - and perhaps legal - issues regarding the event. As a lawyer, he should know better).

My real dream would be for Canada to have an Obamaesque leader. While I think Obama is a smart man, it isn't that factor that makes him a good leader. The defintion of a leader isn't someone who knows it all (because nobody does). it isn't someone who thinks they know it all and becomes a control freak (like Harper), and it isn't someone who has brains but an inability to lead or motivate (like Dion). I want a leader with the ability to motivate people and command respect - a statesman. I also want a leader who doesn't necessarily know a whole lot about every issue (like economics or foreign policy), but would likely have a background in some politically relevant area. Instead, I want the leader to know how to appoint people who DO know a lot about a particular subject. A good leader delegates. I dream of a PM with the ability to motivate the nation, and the instincts to put the right people in the right portfolios. Consider men like Paul Martin and Joe Clark - both were lousy PM's, but each excelled in the Cabinet positions. I want a PM with the ability to find people like that to guide the nation - while the PM himself manages the "public" image of the nation.

On the other hand, I'd also like the maple tree in my front yard to sprout $20 bills instead of leaves this spring. Sadly, I think both are about equally likely.

 

[maddiel]

Another really good post, esdras!

I think your bang-on about the lack of PM material among the current part leaders. I think that's why there was so much interest in Obama from this side of the border during the US election and so much apathy here when it came time to vote.

So who else is out there that has that kind of leadership potential - either for the Conservatives or the Liberals? (I think Justin Trudeau has the potential for potential, but I doubt he's ready yet.)

My main concern, really, is what is best for Canada overall.

Yup!

M.

 

[tgropp]

Whoa! Right now 78% of Canadian DISers are anti-coalition. I just read a news article that an IPSOS-Reid was released today saying that Harper would win 46% of the popular vote if an election were held today and Stephane Dion only 23%

Personally, I'm a Conservative, so I'm probably biased. However, I support everything that was in the fiscal update: why give money to the auto industry before the US makes a decision? If the US chooses not to help the big 3, Canadian tax money would be wasted. Some argue that the big 3 need to go bankrupt to force new labour contracts and new organization. I think the no-strike clause was necessary. I don't think Canadian tax money should go to political parties in a time when we have to pinch pennies.

I don't believe for a hot minute that the coalition deal was actually born out of dissatisfaction in Flaherty's fiscal update, though. I believe this was in the works when the Liberals were slaughtered in the election. My whole problem with a coalition government is this:

The propsed cabinet is not proportional representation; it's the Liberals with a few NDP (6, I think?) thrown in for good measure. The Liberals get all the powerful positions (ie: finance) & Stephane Dion as PM. But the majority of Canadians voted against the Liberals, decidedly, and especially Stephane Dion! I saw a poll on CTV News (Lloyd Robertson) that said Canadians were split on the coalition vs. Conservatives but 65% do not want Stephane Dion as our PM. This coalition does not accurately reflect the sentiment of Canadians. If the Liberals and NDP really had no confidence in the gov't and wanted to put Canada first, the make-up of the coalition would more accurately reflect the results of the election. I might be able to support a coalition with more NDP and a different Prime Minister but, to me, this was just a coup d'etat to try and deflect the fact that the Liberals were crushed in the election. I can't support a politican who puts that first in a very dark time for Canada.

Is there the chance that we could be playing musical chairs being a prime minister? If Dion could form the next government, and 3 months down the road the Bloc and Conservatives joined forrces, could the PM change again, and again every different party decides to go to bed together. Te only way to stop this madness is for political parties to merge (liberals and NDP) much like the way the Conservatives and the western conservatives did years ago. There are just to many different parties out there splitting the votes. Ideally, three parties would be enough.

 

[declansdad]

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment.

My main concern, really, is what is best for Canada overall. That was where my suggestions came from. At the moment, not even considering the possibility of a majority, Canada will have a PM from either the Conservatives or the Liberals - neither Harper or Dion are (in my opinion) PM matieral.

If I was being totally partisan, I would prefer a Liberal government - but not with Dion or Rae. That leaves me with LeBlanc or Ignatieff. I don't think either one is a stellar candidate, but I think I might prefer LeBlanc. I think the Maritimes also know what it's like to be shafted by Ottawa, and he might be able to appeal to Liberals across Canada. He is from Atlantic Canada - check. He could use the "shafted" experience to connect with westerners who feel the same, and perhaps his francophone background could help him in Quebec. There's still enough Liberal support in Ontario to be regained by any decent Liberal leader (with, as I mentioned, the exception of Rae).

From the Conservatives, I would accept MacKay or Prentice (although he was interviewed by the CBC about the taping of the NDP caucus and tried to justify the action by focusing on the content rather than the ethical - and perhaps legal - issues regarding the event. As a lawyer, he should know better).

My real dream would be for Canada to have an Obamaesque leader. While I think Obama is a smart man, it isn't that factor that makes him a good leader. The defintion of a leader isn't someone who knows it all (because nobody does). it isn't someone who thinks they know it all and becomes a control freak (like Harper), and it isn't someone who has brains but an inability to lead or motivate (like Dion). I want a leader with the ability to motivate people and command respect - a statesman. I also want a leader who doesn't necessarily know a whole lot about every issue (like economics or foreign policy), but would likely have a background in some politically relevant area. Instead, I want the leader to know how to appoint people who DO know a lot about a particular subject. A good leader delegates. I dream of a PM with the ability to motivate the nation, and the instincts to put the right people in the right portfolios. Consider men like Paul Martin and Joe Clark - both were lousy PM's, but each excelled in the Cabinet positions. I want a PM with the ability to find people like that to guide the nation - while the PM himself manages the "public" image of the nation.

On the other hand, I'd also like the maple tree in my front yard to sprout $20 bills instead of leaves this spring. Sadly, I think both are about equally likely.

You are reading my mind!

 

[Ham Ham]

I don`t think Dion was behind this, I think it was Layton...I`m not sure Dion is organized enough to put this all together.

Anyways this is the timeline of his rebutal from CTV...it`s pretty funny in a sad way.

6:15-6:30 - The Liberals miss their promised deadline to deliver Dion's statement to the television networks.
6:40 - Liberals arrive with a single tape at the press gallery in Ottawa. They were supposed to deliver two tapes: one in French, one in English. They arrived with a single tape in DVD-minicam format, which is not broadcast quality.
Shortly after 6:40 - The Liberals decide to run back to their offices -- a block away -- because the French portion of the tape needs another edit.
7:05 - Liberal staffers are still in their offices as the networks go to air with the Harper address.
7:07 - Harper's statement finishes and network anchors are forced to kill time as they wait for Dion's address.
7:10 to 7:15 - Liberal staffers arrive back at the press gallery on Wellington Street with a DVD-minicam player that they had taken from their own offices, along with the associated cables. There is still only one tape, not two. A press gallery official tells the Liberals that the gallery is not the feed point and an argument ensues. The Liberals ask why they weren't told that earlier. The feed point is next door at the CBC building, which is the long-established feed play point for all network pools. The Liberals are informed that they need to be walked into the building by authorized staff.
7:20 - English network anchors are still live on television, wondering where the tape is. CTV has still had no communications from the Liberals about Dion's address.
Approximately 7:15 - CBC receives the tape and begins dubbing into French and English versions. This takes about 10 minutes.
7:28 - CTV decides to go off-air and back to regular scheduled programming at 7:30. CTV has still not seen a feed of the tape.
7:28 - CBC incorrectly punches out the finished feed only to their network.
7:30 - CTV signs off broadcast at scheduled time.

Here's a link to the above text. Looks like Alphée Moreau, a senior Liberal communication staffer provides the time line info.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...81203/20081203/?hub=QPeriod&subhub=PrintStory

As far as I know there is no DVD-minicam format. There's a MiniDvd format but it's not tape. There is a Mini-DV format that is tape. I think the Liberals may have shot it on MiniDvd, pulled the video/audio into a computer, did what ever editing they needed to do then dumped it back out to MiniDvd or Mini-DV. Wouldn't expect Dion to know this but the guy handing out the excuses should.

Did a little digging Alphée Moreau was a news producer for CBC Television in Quebec City for years and is no rookie when it comes to deadlines or logistics in network TV. Which ever communications staffer who headed this up for the Liberals needs to go.

The Liberals really handed some fodder over the Conservatives with this gaffe.
Hope the Liberals have learned to hire professionals next time they need something shot on video.

When the government asks for 30 minutes you can't blame CTV for cutting away but I am surprised CTV didn't stick with it until it was all done.

 

[dhluvsDisney]

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment.

My main concern, really, is what is best for Canada overall. That was where my suggestions came from. At the moment, not even considering the possibility of a majority, Canada will have a PM from either the Conservatives or the Liberals - neither Harper or Dion are (in my opinion) PM matieral.

If I was being totally partisan, I would prefer a Liberal government - but not with Dion or Rae. That leaves me with LeBlanc or Ignatieff. I don't think either one is a stellar candidate, but I think I might prefer LeBlanc. I think the Maritimes also know what it's like to be shafted by Ottawa, and he might be able to appeal to Liberals across Canada. He is from Atlantic Canada - check. He could use the "shafted" experience to connect with westerners who feel the same, and perhaps his francophone background could help him in Quebec. There's still enough Liberal support in Ontario to be regained by any decent Liberal leader (with, as I mentioned, the exception of Rae).

From the Conservatives, I would accept MacKay or Prentice (although he was interviewed by the CBC about the taping of the NDP caucus and tried to justify the action by focusing on the content rather than the ethical - and perhaps legal - issues regarding the event. As a lawyer, he should know better).

My real dream would be for Canada to have an Obamaesque leader. While I think Obama is a smart man, it isn't that factor that makes him a good leader. The defintion of a leader isn't someone who knows it all (because nobody does). it isn't someone who thinks they know it all and becomes a control freak (like Harper), and it isn't someone who has brains but an inability to lead or motivate (like Dion). I want a leader with the ability to motivate people and command respect - a statesman. I also want a leader who doesn't necessarily know a whole lot about every issue (like economics or foreign policy), but would likely have a background in some politically relevant area. Instead, I want the leader to know how to appoint people who DO know a lot about a particular subject. A good leader delegates. I dream of a PM with the ability to motivate the nation, and the instincts to put the right people in the right portfolios. Consider men like Paul Martin and Joe Clark - both were lousy PM's, but each excelled in the Cabinet positions. I want a PM with the ability to find people like that to guide the nation - while the PM himself manages the "public" image of the nation.

On the other hand, I'd also like the maple tree in my front yard to sprout $20 bills instead of leaves this spring. Sadly, I think both are about equally likely.

I like your thinking!

Do you wanna run???????????????????

 

[TheZue]

If I was being totally partisan, I would prefer a Liberal government - but not with Dion or Rae. That leaves me with LeBlanc or Ignatieff. I don't think either one is a stellar candidate, but I think I might prefer LeBlanc. I think the Maritimes also know what it's like to be shafted by Ottawa, and he might be able to appeal to Liberals across Canada. He is from Atlantic Canada - check. He could use the "shafted" experience to connect with westerners who feel the same, and perhaps his francophone background could help him in Quebec.

I'm just adding some Western perspective to this. I don't think an Atlantic leader is going to garner any additional support in the West. The way that the West feels shafted is different. It's literally like the feds say "We'll take a lot of money from you guys; but you get no say...and if you do too well we'll step in and take you down a notch". That's if any attention is payed to the West at all. This next observation is totally based on my inlaws and their friends but a lot of people from Ontario travel out to the Atlantic a lot, but rarely out to the West Coast. It's totally a distance issue; but still I feel like I have a lot more in common and am more familiar with California than Ontario...let alone Halifax.

The culture is just so different...and there never seems to be any recognition of that beyond assuming we are all crazy right wing hicks. The Western issues are just different and I'm not sure that the Atlantic issues would translate out here...they aren't still mad about the National Energy Program and scared of it coming back. So picking somebody from Atlantic Canada to reach out West...well it probably won't work in that way so picking somebody or giving them more credence for that reason not the best way to pick out a candidate.

 

[Ham Ham]

Looks like Dion may be done.


Click on headline for link to thestar.com
Sources predict early Dion departure

Dec 05, 2008 03:06 PM
Be the first to comment on this article...
LES WHITTINGTON
OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA – Federal Liberals say that Stéphane Dion's leadership role could be coming to an early end as the party gears up for the next round of political conflict with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.

Dion, who stayed on as interim chief after the Liberals suffered a disappointing loss in the October election, is under pressure from his caucus to rethink his current commitment to remain at the helm until a leadership convention to replace him is held in May.

 

[esdras]

So who else is out there that has that kind of leadership potential - either for the Conservatives or the Liberals? (I think Justin Trudeau has the potential for potential, but I doubt he's ready yet.)

Justin has the charisma, I have no idea whether he would know who put in key Cabinet posts - he would need to be in Cabinet himself for a while, and run it well, proving that he chose good people to help in his portfolio. Of course, the Liberals need to form the government for him to do that. Less credible, but perhaps the only alternative is for him to do well in the Shadow Cabinet as a critic of a high profile Conservative Cabinet Minister.

Even with that, there is the clear reality that the name Trudeau is still poison in the west, and portions of Quebec. I'm not sure what he would have to do in order to make himself appealing as PM to those groups.

I like your thinking!

Do you wanna run???????????????????

Thanks, but given the choice between being a part of our current governments (in power or opposition) and no-novacaine root canal - I think the latter would be less painful for me personally.

I wouldn't mind being a political advisor - it might give me the opportunity to personally smack a politician when it looks like they might get stupid.

I'm just adding some Western perspective to this. I don't think an Atlantic leader is going to garner any additional support in the West. The way that the West feels shafted is different. It's literally like the feds say "We'll take a lot of money from you guys; but you get no say...and if you do too well we'll step in and take you down a notch". That's if any attention is payed to the West at all. This next observation is totally based on my inlaws and their friends but a lot of people from Ontario travel out to the Atlantic a lot, but rarely out to the West Coast. It's totally a distance issue; but still I feel like I have a lot more in common and am more familiar with California than Ontario...let alone Halifax.

The culture is just so different...and there never seems to be any recognition of that beyond assuming we are all crazy right wing hicks. The Western issues are just different and I'm not sure that the Atlantic issues would translate out here...they aren't still mad about the National Energy Program and scared of it coming back. So picking somebody from Atlantic Canada to reach out West...well it probably won't work in that way so picking somebody or giving them more credence for that reason not the best way to pick out a candidate.

A valid observation. Although I still think an Atlantic Canadian would play better out west than a leader from either Quebec or Ontario. By the same token I could argue that those in the east don't want another leader from the west at the moment. The Liberals could get away with a party leader from the west, but the east would see another western Conservative as Harper Part II. I will soften this somewhat though. British Columbia is - I think - perhaps the one western province that could have a leader of the Conservatives with a shot in the east.

If the Conservatives still want the party leader to come from western Canada, the best shot to make the choice seem appealing to the east is to choose someone whose conservative roots come from the old PC Party rather than a Reform background.

At the moment, Canada is becoming totally regional in focus - with each region being unwilling to accept leadership or direction from some (or all) of the other regions. Sadly, I don't see anyone on the national stage capable of appealing to a majority of Canadians to lead us out of this divisive mess.