24

The paperwork of history


 

Here is the policy agreement presently being hashed out between the British Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. There doesn’t appear yet to be a published governance agreement, but the Times has a useful FAQ.

For the sake of comparison, here is the unholy, treasonous governance accord signed by Stephane Dion and Jack Layton a year and a half ago. And here is the unholy, treasonous policy accorded signed by Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton and Gilles Duceppe.

Well removed from the discord of December 2008, it is probably worth evaluating those documents on their written and structural merits. Both for the sake of assessing the past and, one imagines, the possibilities of the future.


 

The paperwork of history

  1. Coalition Vs Harper next election.

    OK media if you want to play it like that then great. It helps Harper big time.

    The cats in the bag!

  2. Does anyone have a copy of the letter outlining the "perfectly legitimate and democratic agreement" between Messrs. Harper, Layton and Duceppe from 2005?

  3. Note the arrangement to transform the House of Lords into one that is primarily or entirely elected, not that the straight anti-democratic Liberal media wants you to know about that.

    A country with an unelected chamber holding the final word on legislation passed by the peoples' representatives (actually the Queen technically does too) cannot reasonably be considered democratic. Dump the monarchy, let's replace it with one or more republics.

    • Sure, then if we disagree on policy, I can say "my president right or wrong" and accuse you of being a traitor if you hold a position contrary to the government, which will drape itself in the symbolism of nationhood.

      I'll still with a monarch that reigns but does not rule, and the chance to be considered "her majesty's loyal opposition" if you please.

      • Why stop at accusations of treason when you can just go bawl your eyes out to Her Majesty's human rights kangaroo courts?

        Hey, I just realized something: the monarchy is dead, dead, dead the second a man ascends the throne. Do you think feminists for a second will kowtow to a monarch with a penis? And use phrases like His Majesty and The King in reference to a man with a penis and a crown? Good heavens no. Cool, I'll kick back and let the man-haters handle this one.

        • You must be afflicted with some self-loathing, perhaps related to the anatomical references in your comment, to even mention this.

  4. What the Neocons are going to trip over – in their eagerness to shoot down a democratic coalition – if need be – is them trying – once more – to demonize the Bloc. I know it is hard for them to see far in front of their noses – but the last time I looked – Sovereignty (or separatism – if they prefer to use the inflammatory word – it matters nought) was dead and put back in its coffin!
    What the Bloc members are – are legally elected Members of Parliament representing a large part of a population of some 7 million people…
    what's the best that Alberta and Saskatchewan raise between them – 3 million – 4 million?
    It's called democracy folks – get used to it!

    • Obviously you are not watching the situation in Quebec unfold. If the provincial Libs don't do something in a hurry to restore their credibility we are going to have a PQ government governing Quebec. How much you want a bet there is a referendum on separation during their term. The Bloc is a provincial protest party and thats it. They care not a wit about Canada. What would happen if every province decided to elect their own protest party to serve in the federal parliament? The Reform party tried it but was willing to change their policies to appeal to a wider audience. However, if it is a true protest party it will act just like the Bloc. The country would be ungovernable.

      • I will bet 100 per cent of the money I currently have (specifically, $2.63) that there will not be a sovereignty referendum during the next term of PQ government in Québec.

  5. and the equally flatulent argument that the Liberals aren't representative because they don't have any seats west of the Manitoba / Saskatchewan border (stand up a little straighter Ralph Goodale – they seem to have forgotten you – and what about the Liberal MPs in BC) is – if we cut off the MPs from Alberta and Saskatchewan from Parliament – say put a firewall around them – the CPC would be dead in the water! Representative? Phooey!

    • As long as Johnny Baird has hot air in his lungs, the CPC and his patron demon, Mike Harris, will live on.

  6. Just wondering if there was an Aaron Wherry policy of not posting precisely relevant analyses from the National Post. And I truly hope that this won't inspire the usual knee-jerk bashing of that paper. If and article's good, then it's good, right?

    • The article to me was just another journalist selling a LibNDPBloc coalition like a cardsharp selling a new cardgame to a bunch of marks: Let's play a few hands of this, tell me if you like it.

      I'm sure Stephen Harper would be happy to sign a coalition agreement with the first party willing to pass a budget with $9 billion in cuts in the next 50 days, however no such party exists in Canada, they're all quite simply barbarians who want to ravage the treasury and enslave the next generation in debt. Ignatieff is actually committed to new spending and costly new social programs.

  7. When the loyal opposition explicitly denies any talk of a coalition during an election campaign and then, after not just losing, but being soundly thumped and losing tons of seats, tries to steal power with what they have explicitly denied was a possibility, it's just you know, kinda, sorta seems to be like not the same man…ask Gordon Brown why HE isn't forming a coalition with the libdems, that would be a better comparison

    • You forget to mention Harper's astonishingly dishonest and inflammatory fiscal statement. Honest mistake, right?

      • So do you seriouly believe that document (FU) came out of a vaccum? Or, do you think there were rumors about defeating the budget (regardless of what was in it) and forming a coalition that were sufficiently well afoot to prompt the PM to pursue the path he did? Either way the people had soundly repudiated both Layton and Dion as national leaders and in fact even Dion' own party had repudiated him after his appalling performance in the election. There are no legitimate comparisons here. Their combined seat totals were less than the CPC solo, and their sole play was to form a coalition with a party dedicated to the destruction of the nation. To achieve what noble goal? Oh, Haperhitlerbushstalinpolpot is a bad man…please please please let me sit in the big chair, I promise I'll be a good boy and give everyone everything they could ever hope for. Seriously, can you imagine the mess we'd be in right now with the back stabbing kings of the world running the show, beholden to the dippers and the bloc for every initiative?

        • "Their combined seat totals were less than the CPC solo"

          Indeed, I agree. Weak hand.

          The rest of your comment is hysterics… reads to me like DionLaytonhitlerbushstalinpolpot.

  8. Tone is a funny thing in short comments. I can't tell if "unholy, treasonous governance accord signed by Stephane Dion and Jack Layton a year and a half ago" is light irony or bitter sarcasm. If it's light irony then I agree the Conservatives' characterization of the coalition was absurdly over the top, but for that matter so was the Liberals and NDP's characterization of the prorogation (the first one, not the second one).
    If you were going for bitter sarcasm and you really are still upset over the coalition not happening then I'd respectfully suggest getting over it. As many people have said, yes it was perfectly legal and within the constitution, but given the situation (explicitly denying such a possibility during the election amongst other things) it was really politically illegitimate.
    The most interesting (to me) part about the comparison between Canada and the UK and post-election coalitions is how grown-up the British seem to be about the whole thing rather than here where we have all sides just screaming hysterically at each other.

    • The biggest difference between our alleged coalition was that it was made up by the losers in the election. Rather the U.S. coalition is made up by the party that won the most seats and a party with a lesser number of seats. Quit a difference in my opinion.

  9. Wherry……I am glad you realized it was treasonous! :-)

  10. Well, after reading all these comments, I come to the conclusion that it's very useful for you guys to have the frenchies to bash around. Otherwise, you would have to face the fact that you are a second-rate country governed by second-rate politicians who boast about the economy of Canada to mask your second-rate status and who feel it's totally acceptable to bring forward second-rate policies to the people of Canada to vote on.

Sign in to comment.