Statement of the obvious

by Aaron Wherry

Michael Ignatieff reminds everyone how our democracy works.

If the governor general wants to call on other parties, or myself, for example, to try and form a government, then we try to form a government,” Ignatieff told CBC’s Peter Mansbridge in an exclusive interview Tuesday afternoon.

“That’s exactly how the rules work and what I’m trying to say to Canadians is, I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I will follow them to the letter and I’m not going to form a coalition. What I’m prepared to do is talk to Mr. Layton or Mr. Duceppe or even Mr. Harper and say, ‘We have an issue, and here’s the plan that I want to put before Parliament, this is the budget I would bring in,’ and then we take it from there.”




Browse

Statement of the obvious

  1. It's obvious, yes.

    But he's been avoiding the follow on questions that will now come up:
    - what concessions will be given to the Bloc
    - what concessions will be given to the NDP

    He better get answers to those questions now.

  2. It's obvious, yes.

    But he's been avoiding the follow on questions that will now come up:
    - what concessions will be given to the Bloc
    - what concessions will be given to the NDP

    He better get answers to those questions now.

    • I suppose the same questions should be asked of Mr. Harper. "Mr. Harper, what concessions will you provide to opposition parties in order to gain the confidence of the House of Commons?"

    • What concessions will be given to the Conservatives?
      Is a "grand-coalition" that unreasonable?

    • You forgot:

      - what concessions will be given to the CPC.

      After all, he said he'd asked Harper for support on bills, too.

  3. I suppose the same questions should be asked of Mr. Harper. "Mr. Harper, what concessions will you provide to opposition parties in order to gain the confidence of the House of Commons?"

  4. This raises an interesting point – if Harper wins another minority and he is unable to maintain the confidence of the House, will the last two years of misinformation force the Opposition parties to keep mum wrt to the G-G's decision?

    Would the Liberals have to grudgingly accept the GG's request to form a government or would they still be required to prove that they could maintain confidence before he makes his decision?

    p.s. how hard is it not to refer to the GG as she/her?? ;)

  5. This raises an interesting point – if Harper wins another minority and he is unable to maintain the confidence of the House, will the last two years of misinformation force the Opposition parties to keep mum wrt to the G-G's decision?

    Would the Liberals have to grudgingly accept the GG's request to form a government or would they still be required to prove that they could maintain confidence before he makes his decision?

    p.s. how hard is it not to refer to the GG as she/her?? ;)

    • It's definitely going to take a while for me to stop thinking of Michaëlle as GG. I really like that woman, and she was superb.

      • Is it gauche of me to admit that I continue to hold a rather embarrassing schoolboy crush on Mme Jean? :)

        • I shook her hand at a reception a few weeks back, and it was all I could do to keep from giving her a big hug. She's even more impressive in person.

        • It isn't gauche at all…

          • Thanks! Not gonna lie – I'm also holding similar flames for Kady and Rosie….god, am I a nerd or what?
            :D

  6. This is actually a big deal, not merely a statement of the obvious.

    For the first time, Ignatieff has clearly and publicly acknowledged that he might bring down a Conservative minority after the election and make the case to the GG that his party could govern with the support of the opposition parties.

  7. Unless Harper gets a majority, the bottom line is that the parties are going to have to find a way to work together. Maybe we could stop hand wringing and accept the reality of it.

  8. This is actually a big deal, not merely a statement of the obvious.

    For the first time, Ignatieff has clearly and publicly acknowledged that he might bring down a Conservative minority after the election and make the case to the GG that his party could govern with the support of the opposition parties.

    • How is saying that he'd do exactly what is required in a minority Parliament a gaffe?

      Our population might be ignorant, but should our leaders be required to lie to us, too?

      If Harper fails to win a majority and cannot hold the confidence of the House, this is how legislation and budgets will advance.

      • Our population might be ignorant, but should our leaders be required to lie to us, too?

        Do you really want me to answer that? This is an election campaign. Not a time for discussions requiring nuance or detail.

        I'm offering a pragmatic response, not an ideological one. My preference would be for all citizens to have passed a suitable civics course and take a direct interest in how their government operates. I'm just being pragmatic, from a campaign perspective.

    • It would take an ignorant political noob (Conservative base) to think that Ignatieff would be happy to return to the campaign trail after 2 months, if a Harper minority is won again. The common sense alternative is either a Liberal NDP (Green?) coalition with Bloc acquiescence, or a few Cons break off from caucus and support the coalition. Or another informal Conservative and Liberal coalition like before except with the Liberals on top for a short while, with fewer seats.

      • Floor crossing -I forgot about that old chestnut.

      • For purely fiscal reasons, both the NDP and Liberals would be out of cash and unable to mount a campaign so shortly after completing one. That would probably even strain the CPC.

        • Interesting, perhaps a MAD election where the Liberals force once to eliminate the CPC warchest too, and take the NDP out. Then they are all on level (pits) as it should be.

        • The parties get reimbursed for 50-60% of their campaign spending as long as they get a minimum number of votes (I think 10%). And they all will still have lawn signs left over. So I doubt any of the parties would actually be "out of cash"

          • Fair enough, but I think it'd be a stretch to assume that they wouldn't have serious 'cashflow issues' while they wait for Elections Canada to reimburse them. I'm sure most of them use up their lines of credit during the election and pay it all back during the inter-election period. It's not like they all have huge mountains of cash they're sitting on.

          • Or more, if they're clever.

      • You are just a dreamer.

        Can't get the results in real life and then you, just like Iggy, just start dreaming away, because you think you deserve to be on top…………………..for a short while. :) ))))))) You are unbelievable.

        • But I'm not the only one.

          • I hope someday she'll join us.

          • So tempting to add that emotional last line. But, well, it really belongs to Stephen Harper.

    • If harper has the most seats, its up to harper to stay in power.

    • 'For the first time, Ignatieff has clearly and publicly acknowledged that he might bring down a Conservative minority after the election and make the case to the GG that his party could govern with the support of the opposition parties.'

      But what else was he supposed to say? "If the Conservatives get a minority, we'll support them unconditionally and give them a de facto majority?" Quite a thing to toss away your only bargaining chip right off the hop.

    • Ignatieff can't "bring down the government", CR. You know that. He's but one party.

      It is all up to Harper. If he wins the most seats, he can try to seek the confidence of the House. If he can't, then the GG can either call a new election or ask Ignatieff if he can gain the confidence of the House.

      It's a big deal only because we've been spoonfed a bunch of self-interested crapola from Harper which goes against his own actions from at least 1997 (Geddes now says earlier) to just before he became PM.

      • You're wrong, Ted. Ignatieff, along with Layton and Duceppe, could write one of the letters, like the one Harper wrote with Layton and Duceppe back in 2004, advising the GG that he has "options." You know, all those options that don't involve bringing down the government (because, certainly, Harper had NO intention of bringing the government down back in 2004, that would be a coup).

        • It would have been sublimely awesome if Ignatieff had used that direct quote in his response to Mansbridge:

          "I would ask the GG to consult with opposition leaders and consider all of his options before exercising his constitutional authority".

          A missed opportunity, to be sure.

          • Nah, there's no expiry date. If Harper gets a minority, job one for Iggy, Jack and Gilles is to fire off the same damn letter to the GG, just replace Harper's name with Iggy's. Then we'll find out all those options at the GG's disposal that don't involve bringing down the government.

      • Ignatieff can't "bring down the government", CR. You know that. He's but one party.

        Actually, Ignatieff is but one MP. However, if the party he leads was considering defeating a minority CPC government, and replacing it with a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP and the Bloc, I imagine Ignatieff would be conferring with Layton and Duceppe about this possibility in advance.

        In a very real sense, it would be Ignatieff's decision to bring down the government. I'm sure the NDP and the Bloc would love this outcome, because it would give them tremendous influence even if these parties weren't at the cabinet table as part of a formal coalition.

        From Ignatieff's point of view, given the polls, this is probably the only realistic scenario that would make him Prime Minister. I could see him trying it, even if the Liberals fare poorly in this election. What would he have to lose?

        • Why is it always if Ignatieff defeats a minority CPC – Layton (who has told Harper to his face he cant trust him), seems maybe even more likely to direct his party to vote non-confidence as the possibility of the Liberals doing so.

  9. Unless Harper gets a majority, the bottom line is that the parties are going to have to find a way to work together. Maybe we could stop hand wringing and accept the reality of it.

  10. It's absolutely a big deal. It'll be either a monumental gaffe for Ignatieff and the Liberals, or implicit permission to do just that from the voters. At least it's on the table.

    And here I was thinking that this election was going to be boring and predictable. :D

  11. What concessions will be given to the Conservatives?
    Is a "grand-coalition" that unreasonable?

  12. It's definitely going to take a while for me to stop thinking of Michaëlle as GG. I really like that woman, and she was superb.

  13. You forgot:

    - what concessions will be given to the CPC.

    After all, he said he'd asked Harper for support on bills, too.

  14. Is it gauche of me to admit that I continue to hold a rather embarrassing schoolboy crush on Mme Jean? :)

  15. Is it possible to alter the budget at this point to please other parties and avoid having it defeated? Just asking.

  16. Agreed – the important thing is that it's on the table. The GG would probably want to see a signed agreement, according to Ned Franks. Ignatieff would have to negotiate with Layton and Duceppe to arrive at an agreement, and to craft a common agenda.

    I imagine this would involve some fairly significant compromises. What parts of the Liberal platform are negotiable? What would Ignatieff be willing to surrender to the Bloc in exchange for that party's support?

    • Don't necessarily have to "surrender" anything to the Bloc to get minimal support for a time period. Last time there weren't any catches for 3 years support, simply so Quebecers wouldn't have to face another 'unwanted' election within a short period of time.

    • What happened to the red door? He lumped himself in with Jack and Gilles. This is just tooooooo muuuuuch.

    • Noithing that Harper wouldn't to negotiate if he gets another minority.

      • You think you've caught much of the Canadian 'spirit' by lying constantly???

    • I suppose it comes down to the number of votes received. The GG doesn't require signed letters of support from Harper for leading a minority government, nor did any preceding minority PM's. It just requires confidence of the House.

      If they were only behind the Conservatives by two or three seats, would they simply be given the chance to make a throne speech and introduce a budget? What about ten seats? Twenty?

      This is going to be a fascinating national discussion on the implications of our Parliamentary system, I'm sure.

    • Gee, that sounds like Harper, Duceppe and Layton in 2004

    • While waiting for the subway today, I ran into Mephistopheles, and we started talking Canadian politics. He strongly implied that Iggy agreed to the standard transaction for Bloc support. True story.

  17. Is it possible to alter the budget at this point to please other parties and avoid having it defeated? Just asking.

    • You'd think, wouldn't you? I mean, that's sorta what governing in a minority house is all about isn't it?

      Frankly, I suspect the only way the GG is forced to make this call is if the Conservatives make him.

    • In a word , yes. The budget was never voted on. It could change wholesale in the next parliament. That said I don't think the Conservatives will change it, they'll leave it to the coalition to manage it. Who knows, they might even support some of the measures. But now that Ignatieff has come out and said he'd try and scoop a minority government with the help of the bloc the chances of a CPC majority just went up.

      • Harper can't be cocky here; he's got to have a plausible response to the question of how he would make a minority parliament work. If he insinuates that he can't, and swings for the majority fence, he may find that it will work against him.

        But my visceral reaction is that Ignatieff just touched the third rail, and it'll shock him but good.

    • Harper's first challenge would be to get a throne speech passed. Only then could he get a budget passed and there is no reason it has to be the same as the existing one, though for practical reasons it probably would be that budget with some concessions/changes.

  18. Agreed – the important thing is that it's on the table. The GG would probably want to see a signed agreement, according to Ned Franks. Ignatieff would have to negotiate with Layton and Duceppe to arrive at an agreement, and to craft a common agenda.

    I imagine this would involve some fairly significant compromises. What parts of the Liberal platform are negotiable? What would Ignatieff be willing to surrender to the Bloc in exchange for that party's support?

  19. I shook her hand at a reception a few weeks back, and it was all I could do to keep from giving her a big hug. She's even more impressive in person.

  20. Don't necessarily have to "surrender" anything to the Bloc to get minimal support for a time period. Last time there weren't any catches for 3 years support, simply so Quebecers wouldn't have to face another 'unwanted' election within a short period of time.

  21. How is saying that he'd do exactly what is required in a minority Parliament a gaffe?

    Our population might be ignorant, but should our leaders be required to lie to us, too?

    If Harper fails to win a majority and cannot hold the confidence of the House, this is how legislation and budgets will advance.

  22. It isn't gauche at all…

  23. As the GG himself said, those are indeed the rules in our system.

    All of our leaders are having to face the reality of another minority govt….Liberal or Conservative.

  24. As the GG himself said, those are indeed the rules in our system.

    All of our leaders are having to face the reality of another minority govt….Liberal or Conservative.

  25. What happened to the red door? He lumped himself in with Jack and Gilles. This is just tooooooo muuuuuch.

  26. You'd think, wouldn't you? I mean, that's sorta what governing in a minority house is all about isn't it?

    Frankly, I suspect the only way the GG is forced to make this call is if the Conservatives make him.

  27. Noithing that Harper wouldn't to negotiate if he gets another minority.

  28. I suppose it comes down to the number of votes received. The GG doesn't require signed letters of support from Harper for leading a minority government, nor did any preceding minority PM's. It just requires confidence of the House.

    If they were only behind the Conservatives by two or three seats, would they simply be given the chance to make a throne speech and introduce a budget? What about ten seats? Twenty?

    This is going to be a fascinating national discussion on the implications of our Parliamentary system, I'm sure.

  29. It would take an ignorant political noob (Conservative base) to think that Ignatieff would be happy to return to the campaign trail after 2 months, if a Harper minority is won again. The common sense alternative is either a Liberal NDP (Green?) coalition with Bloc acquiescence, or a few Cons break off from caucus and support the coalition. Or another informal Conservative and Liberal coalition like before except with the Liberals on top for a short while, with fewer seats.

  30. The budget was never voted on….the govt was defeated for contempt of parliament.

  31. Our population might be ignorant, but should our leaders be required to lie to us, too?

    Do you really want me to answer that? This is an election campaign. Not a time for discussions requiring nuance or detail.

    I'm offering a pragmatic response, not an ideological one. My preference would be for all citizens to have passed a suitable civics course and take a direct interest in how their government operates. I'm just being pragmatic, from a campaign perspective.

  32. In a word , yes. The budget was never voted on. It could change wholesale in the next parliament. That said I don't think the Conservatives will change it, they'll leave it to the coalition to manage it. Who knows, they might even support some of the measures. But now that Ignatieff has come out and said he'd try and scoop a minority government with the help of the bloc the chances of a CPC majority just went up.

  33. "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth." – Michael Kinsley

  34. If harper has the most seats, its up to harper to stay in power.

  35. actually it was defeated by a kangaroo court in an opposition dominated committee, without regard to any rules of evidence. It's as bad as the HRC.

  36. Floor crossing -I forgot about that old chestnut.

  37. For purely fiscal reasons, both the NDP and Liberals would be out of cash and unable to mount a campaign so shortly after completing one. That would probably even strain the CPC.

  38. That's not how history…or anyone other than the Con cult…will record it.

  39. Harper can't be cocky here; he's got to have a plausible response to the question of how he would make a minority parliament work. If he insinuates that he can't, and swings for the majority fence, he may find that it will work against him.

    But my visceral reaction is that Ignatieff just touched the third rail, and it'll shock him but good.

  40. That's not how history…or anyone other than the Con cult…will record it.

  41. Excuse me! Are you for real???

    Of course BQ had a say at the 2008 go around. The coalition never got to form government and so nothing came of it.

    How can you be so naive??

  42. Just so you know, the "opposition dominated committee" that defeated the government was parliament sitting as a Committte of the Whole which voted to find the Minister in contempt, and without their confidence. Do you have a problem with voting in the House of Commons?

  43. This is what saskboy posted as one of his replies: "Don't necessarily have to "surrender" anything to the Bloc to get minimal support for a time period. Last time there weren't any catches for 3 years support, simply so Quebecers wouldn't have to face another 'unwanted' election within a short period of time. "

    Are Canadians this naive? If it is true that Canadian can be that naive, then it's time for the media do cover the story of this election, because voter's ignorance would be the topic to cover, bar none!!

  44. Just so you know, the "opposition dominated committee" that defeated the government was parliament sitting as a Committte of the Whole which voted to find the Minister in contempt, and without their confidence. Do you have a problem with voting in the House of Commons?

    • Cons have never accepted the reality of being a minority government. That's why the chances of them behaving any differently with another minority are slim to nil.

  45. This is what saskboy posted as one of his replies: "Don't necessarily have to "surrender" anything to the Bloc to get minimal support for a time period. Last time there weren't any catches for 3 years support, simply so Quebecers wouldn't have to face another 'unwanted' election within a short period of time. "

    Are Canadians this naive? If it is true that Canadian can be that naive, then it's time for the media do cover the story of this election, because voter's ignorance would be the topic to cover, bar none!!

    • I agree, Canadians are TERRIBLY naive, but not for the reason that you claim (that you think I am). Many Canadians think this election was called because of the budget, because our media is all too happy to parrot what BS parties release to the press, when we know it was because of CONTEMPT. The cover story of this election is how a party that was felled by lying to Parliament so significantly that they lost the confidence of the House, is somehow near majority government territory. It's almost as if Canadians don't care for democracy anymore and are happier to let crooked politicians (not redundant) run their lives instead, and blow their savings on jets and jails (to steal a line from the Liberals).

  46. Yep, the same as it ever was…

  47. OK, let's get this straight. If the Conservatives were to win more seats but not enough to form a majority government, then it would be up to the Conservatives to give more concessions to the opposition parties in order for the budget to be passed?

    If that is the understanding of some Canadians, well, then it would be better for the opposition parties to get fewer votes. Because they now seem to reason that fewer votes will give them more rights to decide on the budget.,

    Incredible, this new Canadian logic being spun freshly.

  48. OK, let's get this straight. If the Conservatives were to win more seats but not enough to form a majority government, then it would be up to the Conservatives to give more concessions to the opposition parties in order for the budget to be passed?

    If that is the understanding of some Canadians, well, then it would be better for the opposition parties to get fewer votes. Because they now seem to reason that fewer votes will give them more rights to decide on the budget.,

    Incredible, this new Canadian logic being spun freshly.

    • Yep, the same as it ever was…

    • Fewer votes? I know you're a smart person, so I'll let you add the votes of the opposition parties from the last election, compare them to the Conservative vote total, and see who got fewer of them. You're apparently going to be surprised. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

      • Including the votes of a separatist/provincial party!

        The Conservative party is a federal party, and it's total vote count (to outnumber all of the other parties) should not be overridden by a provincial/ separatist vote count. This is a federal election and our House is a federal House, not a provincial one.

        • Was that what you were saying back in the day when Reform was basically a west-only party?

    • Yep, that is exactly how our representative democracy works. To the letter. A perfect description. Funny thing is we've so rarely had minority governments that we're still kinda getting used to the whole thing, in my humble opinion.

  49. 'For the first time, Ignatieff has clearly and publicly acknowledged that he might bring down a Conservative minority after the election and make the case to the GG that his party could govern with the support of the opposition parties.'

    But what else was he supposed to say? "If the Conservatives get a minority, we'll support them unconditionally and give them a de facto majority?" Quite a thing to toss away your only bargaining chip right off the hop.

  50. OK, let's imagine Ignatieff forms a minority government with fewer seats than the Conservatives have won.

    When Iggy puts together a budget, he will have to satisfy the demands of the opposition. If Iggy can therefore not implement his own platform, then that's too bad. What matters most is that the opposition demands are being met.

    This is absolutely crazy.

  51. OK, let's imagine Ignatieff forms a minority government with fewer seats than the Conservatives have won.

    When Iggy puts together a budget, he will have to satisfy the demands of the opposition. If Iggy can therefore not implement his own platform, then that's too bad. What matters most is that the opposition demands are being met.

    This is absolutely crazy.

    • So why can't he satisfy some of the wants and needs of the CPC? Is that just too much to believe? Are the CPC so incapable of co-operating?

      • But the CPC has cooperated!

        What I am asking, is how much should the CPC give and how much should the opposition demand.

        If the opposition is to demand everything, well, then that would count for Ignatieff too if he were to form a minority government. Everything the CPC demands must then be satisfied by the Ignatieff minority government, because that 's what he now asking of the CPC minority government.

        It's logic. Nothing else. Ignatieff does not understand logic, as do many others here on these posts and media members alike not understand. Logic. It is all about logic.

        • 'But the CPC has cooperated!' but but but…
          If the CPC were actually co-operating they would be trumpeting their magnanimous and noble attempt at making parliament work.
          Where's the beef F?

  52. Ignatieff can't "bring down the government", CR. You know that. He's but one party.

    It is all up to Harper. If he wins the most seats, he can try to seek the confidence of the House. If he can't, then the GG can either call a new election or ask Ignatieff if he can gain the confidence of the House.

    It's a big deal only because we've been spoonfed a bunch of self-interested crapola from Harper which goes against his own actions from at least 1997 (Geddes now says earlier) to just before he became PM.

  53. I wish some of the reporters, like Wells, would start weighing in on this issue.

    How do they see this unfolding?

    Do members of the media think that it is the role of any minority government to implement all of the opposition demands, or else the minority government will fall?

    I have never heard such crazyness in my life!

  54. I wish some of the reporters, like Wells, would start weighing in on this issue.

    How do they see this unfolding?

    Do members of the media think that it is the role of any minority government to implement all of the opposition demands, or else the minority government will fall?

    I have never heard such crazyness in my life!

    • Frances, you're not eight years old. People negotiate. I know it's a big word and all, but the concept is simple. After you steal from the cookie jar and you're made to go to your room for the rest of the night, you might try to talk to your mom and find out if she'll change her mind — for example, if you need to go potty — that's called negotiation. Now politics is a little more complicated but the general idea is the same, mature people discuss their issues and differences, then compromise for the good of everybody (AND, as a bonus, they avoid soiling the carpet).

      • Yeah, your post could be wrtitten by a five year old. Five year olds are incapable of logical thinking. In fact, the five year old brain has not yet developed to think in logical terms enough to bring things to logical conclusions.

        You simply cannot address the logic I am presenting and then try to hide your shortcomings by stating none sense in your post. It's a common thing here on these boards.

        If you were capable of logical thinking, you would have answered me differently a long, long time ago.

        • You are hardly Mr. Spock.

          All 'logic' has got to say is, what advances what I am interested in? For example how logical was Harper's 'nation motion' logical? How was his residential schools apology logical? The Conservative/ Reform types I knew from my younger days in BC would have been apoplectic at the thought of these, yet he seems not a whit to have suffered for it.

          As Wells has indicated, Harper is smart, so if he's in a minority he may look for means to avoid more turmoil. And who's to say they don't have some nasty items hidden away that could topple him in a heartbeat? Don't forget, the A-G report, the detainee docs, just now on the news they're talking about a bump in inflation. So smart – and logical – for him might be to be cooperative. It may also be logical for him to retain power and stand a chance later of eventually getting a majority, else if he mucks it up and loses govt, he may be gone as CPC leader; there's already speculation floating around that another minority may result in calls for him to quit.

    • Are you paid by the post, or by the word?

      • Another man who cannot think for himself.

        Why not address the twist of logic I am getting at?

        Are you guys really that incapable of thinking logically?

        • "Do members of the media think that it is the role of any minority government to implement all of the opposition demands, or else the minority government will fall?"

          Yes, do lecture all of us on logic.

          • What do you think, TJCook, since you haven't answered any of my posts on the topic so brought to the fore by me.

            I know, I know, it's always the same thing. You don't really want to address the questions I pose because you know your logic will run into trouble, so you rather just circumvent the whole argement. Most members of the media are doing the exact same thing. They, too, just bypass the real questions.

          • Ok, here's my answer:

            "Do members of the media think that it is the role of any minority government to implement all of the opposition demands, or else the minority government will fall?"

            No, the members of the media would never believe anything so utterly stupid. There you go: stupid question asked, stupid question answered.

          • So why then should a minority CPC government implement all of the opposition demands?

            Answer the questions. Where should the line be drawn??

          • You are the only person asking whether a minority government should implement all of the opposition demands. If you think somebody else is asking such a foolish question, perhaps you could share a link.

    • I have never heard such crazyness in my life!

      That's funny, I read such craziness nearly every day. Usually in top-nested bursts of four or five at a time.

      • Jealous much?

        I can't help it that you don't share my passion for Canada.

        • Calling your rants a "passion for Canada" is akin to a wife-beater bashing out of love.
          The things freedom makes people do…

        • I won't outright lie for it, if that's what you mean.

          Scratch any True Nationalist, and you always find a tyrant.

  55. Harper's first challenge would be to get a throne speech passed. Only then could he get a budget passed and there is no reason it has to be the same as the existing one, though for practical reasons it probably would be that budget with some concessions/changes.

  56. Yes, how dare we plebes question what sirs Iggy and Wherry think of Canadian democracy!

    • Oh yes, how dare we plebes believe anything other than what the CPC war room tells us to believe.

      • So it's only the "CPC war room" that would be outraged at the thought of a bad Iggy campaign being rewarded with a prime ministership? Is that what you're tying to say?

        • No more than the ROC being outraged with Harper being rewarded for being in contempt of parliament.

          • How can Canadians be outraged at something nobody understands except a desperate opposition? lol

          • That's right Dennis. Canadians are in the dark and the CPC works to keep them there.

          • Yes, it's all Harper's fault. The opposition doesn't have to take any responsibility for forcing this bizarre and fourth $300 million election in seven years, does it. Or for wanting power despite running bad losing campaigns. Gotchya.

          • Finally you speak a half truth. You're on your way Dennis. Just don't tell your 'friends'.

          • 4th election. 11 years. Somehow the nation has kept calm and carried on.

          • If it's so calm and carrying on, why outright lie about how many elections we've had in the last seven years? lol. Next.

        • A representative democracy such as ours does have nuance that's for sure. We are currently holding 308 individual elections across the country to send 308 representatives to Ottawa.

          Once they arrive there, the rest is up to them.

          You know as well as I know that the Prime Minister is the leader of the party who enjoys the confidence of the House. By tradition (not by any law as far as I believe) the leader whose party has won the most seats gets first crack at forming a government. If that government fails to gain the confidence of the house, the Governor General does hold the option of asking the leader of another party to form a government. Iggy has (finally?) stated the obvious- he'd be happy to give it a whirl if asked.

          • Yet, for some reason, Canadians aren't buying it, just like they aren't buying much of anything that has come from the opposition so far, including why we needed this fourth $300 million in seven years in the first place.

          • Well my friend, when you have a string of minority governments, multiple elections are to be expected. Personally I have no issue with the $300 million- it's the cost of being a western democracy. To me it's like complaining about the cost of roads or police or fire departments or hospitals. It's a necessary expense. If our democracy needs $16 or $20 bucks (300 mil divided by 16 mil taxpayers) out of my pocket every two or three years to pay for an election, so be it. Happy to pay up.

            (Um, mind you as a non-resident I won't actually HAVE to pay that $16 bucks heh heh).

          • It's one thing to pay $300 million for a road that is crucial for people in a community, it's another to build it in the middle of nowhere simply to satisfy the whims of a few people.

            People have an odd understanding of democracy if they think frequent and frivolous elections are a condition of its survival.

          • There you go again, criticizing the investments made in the Muskoka region for hosting the G20.

          • That you would ever find an election "frivolous" leads me to think that you don't deserve to live in a democracy Dennis.

  57. Am I reading what I think I'm reading? How in heaven's name could anyone conflate Ignatieff's statement with a coalition? How did Harper manage a minority government without a coalition? Give your heads a shake! If Harper loses the confidence of the house and we presume nobody (Conservatives included) wants another immediate election, some other leader could try to do exactly what Harper has done for the past five years (without the nasty bit of course).

    I am starting to think we are a people characterized by some sort of mass insanity brought on by overexposure to wingnuttery.

    • Shhhh, don't startle them. They'll get themselves all riled up and not realize that the rest of the country is nodding whilst quietly and slowly backing away.

    • Here's a sane guy who will explain it to y'all — and if this fails to work, try banging your head on the table several times. You just might get a momentary glimpse of reality:
      http://politicswatcher.blogspot.com/

  58. Yes, how dare we plebes question what sirs Iggy and Wherry think of Canadian democracy!

  59. Am I reading what I think I'm reading? How in heaven's name could anyone conflate Ignatieff's statement with a coalition? How did Harper manage a minority government without a coalition? Give your heads a shake! If Harper loses the confidence of the house and we presume nobody (Conservatives included) wants another immediate election, some other leader could try to do exactly what Harper has done for the past five years (without the nasty bit of course).

    I am starting to think we are a people characterized by some sort of mass insanity brought on by overexposure to wingnuttery.

  60. You're wrong, Ted. Ignatieff, along with Layton and Duceppe, could write one of the letters, like the one Harper wrote with Layton and Duceppe back in 2004, advising the GG that he has "options." You know, all those options that don't involve bringing down the government (because, certainly, Harper had NO intention of bringing the government down back in 2004, that would be a coup).

  61. Folks….Harper may have to form a coalition to stay in power.

    • Amen. And woe to any party that travels that road. *sarcasm off

      • I think that's the concern….Harp has no friends.

    • Let me quote Frances ~ 40 min. ago:

      "This is absolutely crazy." ;-)

      • Too much Con propaganda….Harp has them thinking this is something unheard of, and evil…and even a 'coup'….when he may have to do the same thing himself. Harp's been doing a case-by-case coalition all this time…..it's just that was always shaky, and may not work anymore.

        • I agree Emily, I most certainly agree!

  62. Folks….Harper may have to form a coalition to stay in power.

  63. It would have been sublimely awesome if Ignatieff had used that direct quote in his response to Mansbridge:

    "I would ask the GG to consult with opposition leaders and consider all of his options before exercising his constitutional authority".

    A missed opportunity, to be sure.

  64. Cons have never accepted the reality of being a minority government. That's why the chances of them behaving any differently with another minority are slim to nil.

  65. I'm as real as you are, and I'm hoping you're not a bot.
    The coalition agreement last time was simply between the NDP and Liberals, and the Bloc agreed to not vote against confidence motions for about 3 years. You can read it yourself, the Conservatives are happy to wave it around everywhere as supposed proof there is STILL a coalition agreement (even though nothing came of it as you say correctly).

  66. I'm as real as you are, and I'm hoping you're not a bot.
    The coalition agreement last time was simply between the NDP and Liberals, and the Bloc agreed to not vote against confidence motions for about 3 years. You can read it yourself, the Conservatives are happy to wave it around everywhere as supposed proof there is STILL a coalition agreement (even though nothing came of it as you say correctly).

    • Are you out of your mind?

      Duceppe said as late as a few days ago, that during the 2008 coalition the BQ was as signatory to the coalition by agreeing to the stimulus package being put forth by the coalition agreement. He then went on to say that this time around it would be something else, since the stimulus package is no longer on the political burner this time around.

      Have you not read the following agreement signed in 2008?

      Please, read it and open your eyes, please: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf and http://mikewatkins.ca/2008/12/01/breaking-coaliti….

      • A signatory. Not a member of the coalition.

      • Your questioning of my mental faculties is going to become more comical if you continue.
        "This document outlines the key understandings between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada regarding a new cooperative government." Hmm, where's Bloc in the title?
        How many Bloc cabinet ministers? 0
        "a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois" NOT permanent 'surrender'.
        Then look at the bottom, the Bloc isn't even listed as a signatory. Thank you for that link, it confirmed my recollection and made a mockery of yours.

        • You don't understand the difference between a coalition government and a coalition agreement.

          The document between the Libs and the NDP, indicating Ministers etc, is the outline of the coalition government to be presented to the GG.

          Read the preamble: " "Preamble
          The new Government is supported by parties that share a commitment to fiscal
          responsibility, a progressive agenda and a belief in the role of Government to act
          as a partner with Canadians and Quebecers. Where appropriate, these goals
          should be pursued in full partnership and consultation with the provincial and
          territorial governments."

          Note: Canadians AND Quebecers.

          The coalition agreement, as an accompanying document, and signed by Duceppe as well, then goes on to spell out the common demands made, inclusive of the BQ

  67. Shhhh, don't startle them. They'll get themselves all riled up and not realize that the rest of the country is nodding whilst quietly and slowly backing away.

  68. Here's a sane guy who will explain it to y'all — and if this fails to work, try banging your head on the table several times. You just might get a momentary glimpse of reality:
    http://politicswatcher.blogspot.com/

  69. Interesting, perhaps a MAD election where the Liberals force once to eliminate the CPC warchest too, and take the NDP out. Then they are all on level (pits) as it should be.

  70. Ignatieff can't "bring down the government", CR. You know that. He's but one party.

    Actually, Ignatieff is but one MP. However, if the party he leads was considering defeating a minority CPC government, and replacing it with a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP and the Bloc, I imagine Ignatieff would be conferring with Layton and Duceppe about this possibility in advance.

    In a very real sense, it would be Ignatieff's decision to bring down the government. I'm sure the NDP and the Bloc would love this outcome, because it would give them tremendous influence even if these parties weren't at the cabinet table as part of a formal coalition.

    From Ignatieff's point of view, given the polls, this is probably the only realistic scenario that would make him Prime Minister. I could see him trying it, even if the Liberals fare poorly in this election. What would he have to lose?

  71. Nah, there's no expiry date. If Harper gets a minority, job one for Iggy, Jack and Gilles is to fire off the same damn letter to the GG, just replace Harper's name with Iggy's. Then we'll find out all those options at the GG's disposal that don't involve bringing down the government.

  72. The parties get reimbursed for 50-60% of their campaign spending as long as they get a minimum number of votes (I think 10%). And they all will still have lawn signs left over. So I doubt any of the parties would actually be "out of cash"

  73. I agree, Canadians are TERRIBLY naive, but not for the reason that you claim (that you think I am). Many Canadians think this election was called because of the budget, because our media is all too happy to parrot what BS parties release to the press, when we know it was because of CONTEMPT. The cover story of this election is how a party that was felled by lying to Parliament so significantly that they lost the confidence of the House, is somehow near majority government territory. It's almost as if Canadians don't care for democracy anymore and are happier to let crooked politicians (not redundant) run their lives instead, and blow their savings on jets and jails (to steal a line from the Liberals).

  74. Are you out of your mind?

    Duceppe said as late as a few days ago, that during the 2008 coalition the BQ was as signatory to the coalition by agreeing to the stimulus package being put forth by the coalition agreement. He then went on to say that this time around it would be something else, since the stimulus package is no longer on the political burner this time around.

    Have you not read the following agreement signed in 2008?

    Please, read it and open your eyes, please: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf and http://mikewatkins.ca/2008/12/01/breaking-coaliti….

  75. You think you've caught much of the Canadian 'spirit' by lying constantly???

  76. I like what he said.
    Too often I've had to explain to friends and family how our parliamentary system works.
    The complete lack of understanding of how our government works by the electorate is OUTRAGEOUS.
    Its about time people who know start educating those who don't.
    The CPC should be called out for misinforming the voter and Ignatieff should be commended for telling it like it is.
    The truth may just be a 'gaffe' during an election but I'll take truth over having wool stuffed in my eyes and ears any day.

    Oh – and about 'what part of the Liberal platform is on the table?' – sounds to me like at least SOMEONE is willing to co-operate in parliament. It certainly isn't Harper and the 'my way or highway' crew.

  77. I like what he said.
    Too often I've had to explain to friends and family how our parliamentary system works.
    The complete lack of understanding of how our government works by the electorate is OUTRAGEOUS.
    Its about time people who know start educating those who don't.
    The CPC should be called out for misinforming the voter and Ignatieff should be commended for telling it like it is.
    The truth may just be a 'gaffe' during an election but I'll take truth over having wool stuffed in my eyes and ears any day.

    Oh – and about 'what part of the Liberal platform is on the table?' – sounds to me like at least SOMEONE is willing to co-operate in parliament. It certainly isn't Harper and the 'my way or highway' crew.

  78. Fair enough, but I think it'd be a stretch to assume that they wouldn't have serious 'cashflow issues' while they wait for Elections Canada to reimburse them. I'm sure most of them use up their lines of credit during the election and pay it all back during the inter-election period. It's not like they all have huge mountains of cash they're sitting on.

  79. You are just a dreamer.

    Can't get the results in real life and then you, just like Iggy, just start dreaming away, because you think you deserve to be on top…………………..for a short while. :) ))))))) You are unbelievable.

  80. Frances, you're not eight years old. People negotiate. I know it's a big word and all, but the concept is simple. After you steal from the cookie jar and you're made to go to your room for the rest of the night, you might try to talk to your mom and find out if she'll change her mind — for example, if you need to go potty — that's called negotiation. Now politics is a little more complicated but the general idea is the same, mature people discuss their issues and differences, then compromise for the good of everybody (AND, as a bonus, they avoid soiling the carpet).

  81. So why can't he satisfy some of the wants and needs of the CPC? Is that just too much to believe? Are the CPC so incapable of co-operating?

  82. A signatory. Not a member of the coalition.

  83. So, do people think that this interview was a softball by Mansbridge?

    • No, it's not yet a softball interview.

      You see, this interview will be followed by an interview with Duceppe. It will be of interest to all Canadians to hear what Mansbridge will ask Duceppe. I can't wait.

    • Depends. If you define softball as total-waste-of-time, you may be on to something there.

  84. So, do people think that this interview was a softball by Mansbridge?

  85. Oh yes, how dare we plebes believe anything other than what the CPC war room tells us to believe.

  86. Amen. And woe to any party that travels that road. *sarcasm off

  87. Let me quote Frances ~ 40 min. ago:

    "This is absolutely crazy." ;-)

  88. Thanks! Not gonna lie – I'm also holding similar flames for Kady and Rosie….god, am I a nerd or what?
    :D

  89. Why is it always if Ignatieff defeats a minority CPC – Layton (who has told Harper to his face he cant trust him), seems maybe even more likely to direct his party to vote non-confidence as the possibility of the Liberals doing so.

  90. So it's only the "CPC war room" that would be outraged at the thought of a bad Iggy campaign being rewarded with a prime ministership? Is that what you're tying to say?

  91. Are you paid by the post, or by the word?

  92. Your questioning of my mental faculties is going to become more comical if you continue.
    "This document outlines the key understandings between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada regarding a new cooperative government." Hmm, where's Bloc in the title?
    How many Bloc cabinet ministers? 0
    "a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois" NOT permanent 'surrender'.
    Then look at the bottom, the Bloc isn't even listed as a signatory. Thank you for that link, it confirmed my recollection and made a mockery of yours.

  93. But I'm not the only one.

  94. Gee, that sounds like Harper, Duceppe and Layton in 2004

  95. I'd rather hear Ignatieff say this than say that he would refuse to try to form a government.

    What will Harper do? Would he offer a place in cabinet to a member from the other side, like he did for Emmerson, to a few?

  96. I'd rather hear Ignatieff say this than say that he would refuse to try to form a government.

    What will Harper do? Would he offer a place in cabinet to a member from the other side, like he did for Emmerson, to a few?

  97. Fewer votes? I know you're a smart person, so I'll let you add the votes of the opposition parties from the last election, compare them to the Conservative vote total, and see who got fewer of them. You're apparently going to be surprised. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

  98. No more than the ROC being outraged with Harper being rewarded for being in contempt of parliament.

  99. You don't understand the difference between a coalition government and a coalition agreement.

    The document between the Libs and the NDP, indicating Ministers etc, is the outline of the coalition government to be presented to the GG.

    Read the preamble: " "Preamble
    The new Government is supported by parties that share a commitment to fiscal
    responsibility, a progressive agenda and a belief in the role of Government to act
    as a partner with Canadians and Quebecers. Where appropriate, these goals
    should be pursued in full partnership and consultation with the provincial and
    territorial governments."

    Note: Canadians AND Quebecers.

    The coalition agreement, as an accompanying document, and signed by Duceppe as well, then goes on to spell out the common demands made, inclusive of the BQ

  100. I think that's the concern….Harp has no friends.

  101. Including the votes of a separatist/provincial party!

    The Conservative party is a federal party, and it's total vote count (to outnumber all of the other parties) should not be overridden by a provincial/ separatist vote count. This is a federal election and our House is a federal House, not a provincial one.

  102. Too much Con propaganda….Harp has them thinking this is something unheard of, and evil…and even a 'coup'….when he may have to do the same thing himself. Harp's been doing a case-by-case coalition all this time…..it's just that was always shaky, and may not work anymore.

  103. But the CPC has cooperated!

    What I am asking, is how much should the CPC give and how much should the opposition demand.

    If the opposition is to demand everything, well, then that would count for Ignatieff too if he were to form a minority government. Everything the CPC demands must then be satisfied by the Ignatieff minority government, because that 's what he now asking of the CPC minority government.

    It's logic. Nothing else. Ignatieff does not understand logic, as do many others here on these posts and media members alike not understand. Logic. It is all about logic.

  104. Why do all you people assume the liberals will have enough votes to even be relevant, never mind a coalition with the blockheads?Wake up people…this is going to be a buttkicking like we have not seen in a long time.Canadians are not as dumb as they used to be…

    • Why do you assume the Liberals won't win this election?

    • Good comment Harry. Say hi to Lloyd for me.

    • You may be right on the first point, we'll find out on May 2

      On the last point, I wouldn't be so sure if the comments on this board are at all representative.

  105. Why do all you people assume the liberals will have enough votes to even be relevant, never mind a coalition with the blockheads?Wake up people…this is going to be a buttkicking like we have not seen in a long time.Canadians are not as dumb as they used to be…

  106. How can Canadians be outraged at something nobody understands except a desperate opposition? lol

  107. Not as crazy as your obsessive posting. Seriously – take some time to breathe.
    In through the nose, out through the mouth…

  108. Yeah, your post could be wrtitten by a five year old. Five year olds are incapable of logical thinking. In fact, the five year old brain has not yet developed to think in logical terms enough to bring things to logical conclusions.

    You simply cannot address the logic I am presenting and then try to hide your shortcomings by stating none sense in your post. It's a common thing here on these boards.

    If you were capable of logical thinking, you would have answered me differently a long, long time ago.

  109. When did plebes learn how to write? So annoying….. but mostly boring…

  110. Another man who cannot think for himself.

    Why not address the twist of logic I am getting at?

    Are you guys really that incapable of thinking logically?

  111. No, it's not yet a softball interview.

    You see, this interview will be followed by an interview with Duceppe. It will be of interest to all Canadians to hear what Mansbridge will ask Duceppe. I can't wait.

  112. 'But the CPC has cooperated!' but but but…
    If the CPC were actually co-operating they would be trumpeting their magnanimous and noble attempt at making parliament work.
    Where's the beef F?

  113. That's right Dennis. Canadians are in the dark and the CPC works to keep them there.

  114. "Do members of the media think that it is the role of any minority government to implement all of the opposition demands, or else the minority government will fall?"

    Yes, do lecture all of us on logic.

  115. Or more, if they're clever.

  116. Another excuse in order not having to counter my argument, which usually comes peeking around the corner: tell the poster she is posting too much.

    But SamDavies, I really believe we live in a free country. We can posts as many posts as we want. I do not have to ask your permission or anybody else's/

    If you have a problem with me posting too much then just bypass my postings. Funny, you can't quite manage to do that………………….

  117. Another excuse in order not having to counter my argument, which usually comes peeking around the corner: tell the poster she is posting too much.

    But SamDavies, I really believe we live in a free country. We can posts as many posts as we want. I do not have to ask your permission or anybody else's/

    If you have a problem with me posting too much then just bypass my postings. Funny, you can't quite manage to do that………………….

    • Wasn't being here a waste of time for you? Was that only yesterday?

      • Today is a new day! The snow is melting, the sun is shining!

        Ignatieff has finally come clean. I hope that the media will follow suit soon by also coming clean soon.

        Perhaps reading and posting to you won't make a difference at all, I've always understood that for a long time. But perhaps reading and writing over your head will make a difference to our federal Nation we call Canada.

        I'm very hopefull again.

        • Come clean? Too bad the CPC warroom hasn't.

          Caught editing Ignatieff's comment, instead of correcting it they removed the entire thing.

          You know, so that they wouldn't have to deal with the soul-rending pain of putting out a communique that showed Ignatieff offering to be cooperative with Harper.

    • Indeed – It is a free country. And yet, I don't seem to recall suggesting that it was not?
      I also don't seem to recall ordering you to do (or not do) anything – I was simply giving my opinion, which you no doubt respect, given that we live in a free country.

      In any case – In through the nose (count to 4), hold for 4, breathe out for 6, then hold for 2. Repeat.

  118. I hope someday she'll join us.

  119. Yes, it's all Harper's fault. The opposition doesn't have to take any responsibility for forcing this bizarre and fourth $300 million election in seven years, does it. Or for wanting power despite running bad losing campaigns. Gotchya.

  120. Why do you assume the Liberals won't win this election?

  121. Wasn't being here a waste of time for you? Was that only yesterday?

  122. What do you think, TJCook, since you haven't answered any of my posts on the topic so brought to the fore by me.

    I know, I know, it's always the same thing. You don't really want to address the questions I pose because you know your logic will run into trouble, so you rather just circumvent the whole argement. Most members of the media are doing the exact same thing. They, too, just bypass the real questions.

  123. I have never heard such crazyness in my life!

    That's funny, I read such craziness nearly every day. Usually in top-nested bursts of four or five at a time.

  124. Today is a new day! The snow is melting, the sun is shining!

    Ignatieff has finally come clean. I hope that the media will follow suit soon by also coming clean soon.

    Perhaps reading and posting to you won't make a difference at all, I've always understood that for a long time. But perhaps reading and writing over your head will make a difference to our federal Nation we call Canada.

    I'm very hopefull again.

  125. Ok, here's my answer:

    "Do members of the media think that it is the role of any minority government to implement all of the opposition demands, or else the minority government will fall?"

    No, the members of the media would never believe anything so utterly stupid. There you go: stupid question asked, stupid question answered.

  126. So why then should a minority CPC government implement all of the opposition demands?

    Answer the questions. Where should the line be drawn??

  127. Jealous much?

    I can't help it that you don't share my passion for Canada.

  128. Indeed – It is a free country. And yet, I don't seem to recall suggesting that it was not?
    I also don't seem to recall ordering you to do (or not do) anything – I was simply giving my opinion, which you no doubt respect, given that we live in a free country.

    In any case – In through the nose (count to 4), hold for 4, breathe out for 6, then hold for 2. Repeat.

  129. Finally you speak a half truth. You're on your way Dennis. Just don't tell your 'friends'.

  130. Was that what you were saying back in the day when Reform was basically a west-only party?

  131. Calling your rants a "passion for Canada" is akin to a wife-beater bashing out of love.
    The things freedom makes people do…

  132. Good comment Harry. Say hi to Lloyd for me.

  133. You are hardly Mr. Spock.

    All 'logic' has got to say is, what advances what I am interested in? For example how logical was Harper's 'nation motion' logical? How was his residential schools apology logical? The Conservative/ Reform types I knew from my younger days in BC would have been apoplectic at the thought of these, yet he seems not a whit to have suffered for it.

    As Wells has indicated, Harper is smart, so if he's in a minority he may look for means to avoid more turmoil. And who's to say they don't have some nasty items hidden away that could topple him in a heartbeat? Don't forget, the A-G report, the detainee docs, just now on the news they're talking about a bump in inflation. So smart – and logical – for him might be to be cooperative. It may also be logical for him to retain power and stand a chance later of eventually getting a majority, else if he mucks it up and loses govt, he may be gone as CPC leader; there's already speculation floating around that another minority may result in calls for him to quit.

  134. A representative democracy such as ours does have nuance that's for sure. We are currently holding 308 individual elections across the country to send 308 representatives to Ottawa.

    Once they arrive there, the rest is up to them.

    You know as well as I know that the Prime Minister is the leader of the party who enjoys the confidence of the House. By tradition (not by any law as far as I believe) the leader whose party has won the most seats gets first crack at forming a government. If that government fails to gain the confidence of the house, the Governor General does hold the option of asking the leader of another party to form a government. Iggy has (finally?) stated the obvious- he'd be happy to give it a whirl if asked.

  135. I agree Emily, I most certainly agree!

  136. You are the only person asking whether a minority government should implement all of the opposition demands. If you think somebody else is asking such a foolish question, perhaps you could share a link.

  137. That's "Senator Mansbridge" to you, bub.

  138. Yet, for some reason, Canadians aren't buying it, just like they aren't buying much of anything that has come from the opposition so far, including why we needed this fourth $300 million in seven years in the first place.

  139. Come clean? Too bad the CPC warroom hasn't.

    Caught editing Ignatieff's comment, instead of correcting it they removed the entire thing.

    You know, so that they wouldn't have to deal with the soul-rending pain of putting out a communique that showed Ignatieff offering to be cooperative with Harper.

  140. I won't outright lie for it, if that's what you mean.

    Scratch any True Nationalist, and you always find a tyrant.

  141. You may be right on the first point, we'll find out on May 2

    On the last point, I wouldn't be so sure if the comments on this board are at all representative.

  142. I don't give a whit what you think about my cognitive abilities. I am merely trying to awaken you to a reality you apparently wish to avoid. Your Mr. Harper managed to stay in power for five years by abandoning some of his agenda in order to avoid losing the confidence of the House.

    Nobody in the press has ever expressed "…that it is the role of any minority government to implement all of the opposition demands, or else the minority government will fall?" have they? If I am correct, the notion of compromise has been covered in journalists' musings, and in spite of all his bluster to the contrary, Mr. Harper has certainly had to compromise. You see, with a minority, even megalomaniacs like Harper cannot always have their way.

    So why not give your head a shake and use that nimble brain of yours to consider alternative ways of seeing the world. You might enjoy the view.

  143. Huh? The Liberals are forming a coalition with you? Can I get a citation please….

  144. Huh? The Liberals are forming a coalition with you? Can I get a citation please….

  145. While waiting for the subway today, I ran into Mephistopheles, and we started talking Canadian politics. He strongly implied that Iggy agreed to the standard transaction for Bloc support. True story.

  146. Just had a horrifying thought — living in a world that was all Harper Conservatives all the time.

    Almost had a seizure. The UPDATES in this piece started it all:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-b

    Do these people take some sort of mental steroid or something? That Soudas guy is like the Barry Bonds of Bullsjh*t.

    • Just read the French press on his bonbons and threats tactics in PPG (Port of Montreal riding) back in 2006. It's like "On the Waterfront" without Brando's charisma.

  147. Just had a horrifying thought — living in a world that was all Harper Conservatives all the time.

    Almost had a seizure. The UPDATES in this piece started it all:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-b

    Do these people take some sort of mental steroid or something? That Soudas guy is like the Barry Bonds of Bullsjh*t.

  148. Yep, that is exactly how our representative democracy works. To the letter. A perfect description. Funny thing is we've so rarely had minority governments that we're still kinda getting used to the whole thing, in my humble opinion.

  149. Well my friend, when you have a string of minority governments, multiple elections are to be expected. Personally I have no issue with the $300 million- it's the cost of being a western democracy. To me it's like complaining about the cost of roads or police or fire departments or hospitals. It's a necessary expense. If our democracy needs $16 or $20 bucks (300 mil divided by 16 mil taxpayers) out of my pocket every two or three years to pay for an election, so be it. Happy to pay up.

    (Um, mind you as a non-resident I won't actually HAVE to pay that $16 bucks heh heh).

  150. It's one thing to pay $300 million for a road that is crucial for people in a community, it's another to build it in the middle of nowhere simply to satisfy the whims of a few people.

    People have an odd understanding of democracy if they think frequent and frivolous elections are a condition of its survival.

  151. So tempting to add that emotional last line. But, well, it really belongs to Stephen Harper.

  152. 4th election. 11 years. Somehow the nation has kept calm and carried on.

  153. Really Mr. Wherry?

    That's how our democracy in Canada "works"?

    It happens all the time that the losing party goes to the GG to form government?

    As common as the rising Sun?

    Nothing to see here eh?

    Tell me, Mr. Wherry, when was the last time this "oh so normal its almost 'yaaaawnable' moment" occured in Canada's history? Here's a hint: not in our lifetimes.

    That which Wherry suggests is the expected manefestation of our election has never happened in our lifetimes …..(unless you're 87 years old or so).

    The level of disnohesty coming from those willing to cover for Iggy is astounding.

  154. Really Mr. Wherry?

    That's how our democracy in Canada "works"?

    It happens all the time that the losing party goes to the GG to form government?

    As common as the rising Sun?

    Nothing to see here eh?

    Tell me, Mr. Wherry, when was the last time this "oh so normal its almost 'yaaaawnable' moment" occured in Canada's history? Here's a hint: not in our lifetimes.

    That which Wherry suggests is the expected manefestation of our election has never happened in our lifetimes …..(unless you're 87 years old or so).

    The level of disnohesty coming from those willing to cover for Iggy is astounding.

  155. If it's so calm and carrying on, why outright lie about how many elections we've had in the last seven years? lol. Next.

  156. Depends. If you define softball as total-waste-of-time, you may be on to something there.

  157. There you go again, criticizing the investments made in the Muskoka region for hosting the G20.

  158. Just read the French press on his bonbons and threats tactics in PPG (Port of Montreal riding) back in 2006. It's like "On the Waterfront" without Brando's charisma.

  159. That you would ever find an election "frivolous" leads me to think that you don't deserve to live in a democracy Dennis.

  160. The obvious is a shield for intended subterfuge by Ignatieff and his impatient cohorts.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *