40

Twelve words from Dean Del Mastro


 

In case you were worried this wasn’t ugly enough as is, here’s Dean.

“This is a time for all Canadians to rally around the flag.”


 
Filed under:

Twelve words from Dean Del Mastro

  1. I stand on my chair, flipping the bird as Harper retreats from national politics in disgrace.

    That, Mr. Del Mastro, is me rallying around the flag. (The Canadian flag, not the flag of the CPoC).

  2. There’s rhetoric on both sides, I think, that has gotten awfully presumptuous.

    But here’s the reality: despite the repeated assertions of the members of the coalition, this is a move that is without precedent. The members of the governing coalition will not have even a plurality in the house. At least one categorically denied during the recent election that they would ever join a coalition, and neither felt the need to put the idea out for public judgment before doing it. It may be common in some parliamentary democracies to form coalitions in that way, but it is emphatically unprecedented in this parliamentary democracy. Nobody reasonably expected during the last election that this would happen. No coalition in Canada has ever governed without a plurality of seats.

    This governing coalition represents a radical change in the political order in this country. It may prove to be a popular change. But the Governor General’s job is not to guess whether it would be popular; Her Excellency’s job is to maintain the democratic legitimacy of the executive. If that requires an election sooner than anyone wants, then so be it. Better to have a disruptive election then to gamble on the legitimacy of the government.

  3. Shorter FB: “It’s nor faaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrr!”

    Apparently identifying as conservative means abandoning all understanding of parliamentary democracy.

  4. FB writes: and neither felt the need to put the idea out for public judgment before doing it.

    You mean like eliminating the right of public servants to strike, eliminating political party subsidies, selling off Crown assets … ?

  5. Oh, and by the way, FB? When you write

    “it is emphatically unprecedented in this parliamentary democracy”

    That’s a lie. Ontario, 1985.

  6. WTF does THAT mean? Oh god Dean is an embarrassment to all of us here in Peterborough

  7. It certainly changes things. But thankfully Harper did his own dress rehearsal on putting together a team of Layton, Duceppe and himself for us to picture the possibilities.
    Funny how he burned those bridges. Hopefully, those CON-voluted followers will spend some time asking him ‘Why?’ as opposed to trying to create an insurgence out of a molehill.

  8. Shorter TJ: “Who needs argument based on principles when all you need to do is yell into the echo chamber at BTC?” It’s not “abandoning all understanding of parliamentary democracy”. It’s saying that when the Canadian understanding of parliamentary democracy is going to change, it ought to do so with the blessing of voters. If Dion had put this out there during the election, things would be different. He didn’t. He insisted it was not on the able. He can’t now be heard to say that this is just normal everyday stuff.

    @Coyne Crisis: In ON 1985, the Liberal plus the NDP made up a plurality of votes. And the Liberals had won more of the popular vote than the PC. Etc.

    @Coyne Crisis: Those lies/reversals are contemptible. But just like the cut to party welfare was no ordinary funding cut, this reversal is no ordinary reversal. They go to the rules of the democratic game. Those, at least, should be beyond the regular dishonesty of politicians.

  9. FB writes: “@Coyne Crisis: In ON 1985, the Liberal plus the NDP made up a plurality of votes. And the Liberals had won more of the popular vote than the PC. Etc.”

    In 2008, Liberal plus NDP plus Bloc make up a majority of the votes. And the three combined won more of the popular vote than the CPC. Etc.”

    FB writes: “this reversal is no ordinary reversal.”

    So what kind of reversal is it when Stephen Harper wrote a letter to the G-G asking her to consider a CPC-BQ-NDP coalition, but now he thinks a Liberal-BQ-NDP coalition is “undemocratic”?

  10. FB, you mean like all the principles, ideas and glockenspiel that Harper has thrown out during the past six months? Election law be darned, Dion and his ‘panic’ ideas to address the economy, the ‘we’d be there if we were going to be in it’ followed by his ‘great depression’ comparison in Peru? How about the no deficit unless a deficit, no? Never mind his ‘i’m a kinder, gentler ogre’ to his ‘arrrggghh!’ just the other day? Or fiscal update, but only after loading up his CON boobs with extra parliamentary goodies like titles, limos and staffed offices? Why don’t you spend some of your well-thought out deliberations to ask these things of your own party leader.
    This still has a ways to go and Harper could have shown some leadership by making a major concession quickly, but he didn’t. Now i can only see, by being a leader that he steps down to save his gov’t. But i’m betting he’s self-centered enough to think inspiring insurrection in the streets over a parliamentary procedure that has plenty of precedents, maybe not here in Canada but elsewhere, is his best option. He’s just that kind of guy.

  11. Mr. Del Mastro is an intellectual lightweight who probably believes that this is an issue to rally around the flag because apparently does not understand our democracy. Canadians – let’s rally around the flag and support this coalition for us!

  12. Coyne Crisis – don’t forget the 6.8% of votes that went to the Greens. I would suspect that the majority of those voters would be happier with the Lib/NDP coalition than with the conservatives.

  13. @FB—so make the BQ part of the coalition, then. No? Whyever not…?

    Nevermind, though. Ian in the Macleans blog comment section has decided what green party voters want. End of discussion.

    Enjoy the echo chamber, folks. I’m out.

  14. Ian: Yes. And if FB still wants to lie about Ontario 1985, I’ve got Saskatchewan 1999 for him.

  15. Lookie! FB can’t stand people contradicting him, so he runs away. Bye, FB!

  16. Okay one more, just because you called me a liar. Identify the lie:
    -The current coalition includes the NDP and the Liberals. (Remember, the three stooges where careful to say that it is a “coalition supported by the BQ).
    -The NDP and the Liberals together do not have even a plurality of the seats.
    -In Ontario 1985, the NDP and the Liberals together had a majority of the seats.

  17. FB: What exactly is your point?

    The Ontario coalition was constitutional, so is the proposed federal constitution. You write: “when the Canadian understanding of parliamentary democracy is going to change, it ought to do so with the blessing of voters”

    …which is utterly meaningless.

    I’m sorry you don’t like our system – perhaps you’re living in the wrong country?

  18. It’s hilarious to read idiots claim you simply have to add up the votes of all the opposition parties to measure the the support the proposed coalition. I’m sure all those Liberal and NDP voters in the last election would have voted the same way if they knew it meant having the Bloc calling the shots for the next few years.

  19. n case you were worried this wasn’t ugly enough as is, here’s Dean.

    Yeah, no kidding. When Dean was born, the doctor slapped his mother.

    *ba dump bump*

  20. It’s because I love my country and wish to ‘rally round the flag’ that I support a NDP-Liberal coalition.

  21. How many people who voted CON last time around for Mr sweater guy have since changed their mind? You know, mr no-deficit, no-panic and good vibrations for my fellow parliamentarians?
    I’m sure his mom is buying up a lot of stuff at this rate.

  22. I guess that would have been the same in 2004 if Harper had gotten into government in the same manner as had proposed to Clarkson, eh Mike?

  23. FB,
    There was no coalition in 1985. The Liberals had fewer seats than the Tories. That means they did not have a plurality and relied on another party to stay in power, just like the coalition.

  24. Yes it would have Scott Tribe. What’s your point?

  25. God Save the Queen!

  26. FB: you asked me to identify the lie. You lie when you state that the Liberal-NDP coalition “is a move that is without precedent

    In 1985:

    The Ontario Liberals in 1985 did not have a plurality of the seats in the Ontario Legislature. They had fewer seats than the Ontario PC Party. There was a written agreement between the Liberals and the NDP that the NDP would support the Liberals for a period of time.

    Fast forward to 2008:

    The Liberal-NDP coalition in 2008 will not have a plurality of seats in the House of Commons. They will have fewer seats than the Conservative Party. There is a written agreement between the Liberal-NDP coalition and the BQ that the BQ will support the coalition for a period of time.

    QED.

  27. Mike: How could you support Harper when he was in talks with separatists to overthrown Paul Martin’s 2004 government?

  28. The breaking news is that Deano knows twelve words….. all different ones too.

  29. This is the time for Del Mastro to go back to selling used cars.

  30. CC, I didn’t and don’t. Nice generalization though.

  31. I have not seen anyone put the reverse spin on this story – that Dion has been underestimated yet again. Here he was – dead leader of the opposition walking and he might become Prime Minister against all odds? M. Dion who was vilified and ostracized by the Quebec intellectual elite for standing up for Canada has now gained a written agreement that Gilles Duceppe will support him (or at least his party ) until June 2010. This is quite a coup and I think that it is time that Dion gets some props!

  32. Mike: I respect your consistency.

  33. It is disconcerting to see how fundamentally this Member of Parliament misunderstands our system of government, or perhaps worse, is willing to misrepresent it to Canadians. In our system, we are able to vociferously oppose the current prime minister and his government, and even contemplate replacing them, without a hint of disloyalty or treasonous intent precisely because the prime minister is not our head of state.

  34. Um, Coyne Crisis — Mike’s not “lying”. Get a grip.

    The coalition government here is the Liberals and NDP. They serve with the support of the BLOC who are not a part of this government. Therefore, this coalition does not have a plurality of seats.

    I grew up in Ontario and now live in BC. This has changed my view of Canada, probably forever. Never thought I would see the day that when billions of taxpayers money are set to be unloaded into the Canadian economy, that federalist parties would agree to depend on Quebec separatists. It’s a big middle finger directed west. We read you folks loud and clear.

  35. Peter Jay: who the hell are you referring to as “you folks”?

    We’re all Canadians here. We all voted according to our personal preferences for our *local* representative. Please spare us the old Wurlitzer of Western alienation trying to turn this into some sort of east-west slap in the face.

    The minority Prime Minister, who won substantial support right here in big, bad Ontario, bungled his job and lost the confidence of parliament. We’ll all watch the various parties jostling for power, but please spare us the regional victim complex.

  36. “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.” Preamble, Coalition Government Plan.

    TJ Cook

    According to the Coalition that I am sure you support, we are not ‘all Canadians here’. Some of us are Canadians and some of us are Quebecers.

    Aaron W

    I am curious to read your thoughts on whether the above sentence, taken from the Coalition statement released yesterday, is more/less ‘ugly’ than Del Mastro’s statement.

  37. That this happened at all (that it was possible for three parties that otherwise hate each other could govern together) is an indication of just how poisonous the CPC influence in the HoC is. These three that hate each other would rather work together than suffer through any more of Harper’s shenanigans. This is an indication that Harper’s error was before the EFU. By repeatedly twisting the knife in the opposition’s belly, he laid the groundwork for his government’s defeat.

  38. jwl: According to the outgoing PM (who I’m sure you support), Quebecers are a nation within Canada.

    Walking around calling them ‘not Canadians’ because you don’t like what’s happening in Parliament… well, it just makes you sound like Mr. Pissypants.

  39. @ Peter Jay : “The west” is a term that has been appropriated by some Canadians who, having been favoured with economic success think that should lead automatically to poltical power, but over the objections of their neighbours who disagree.

    As for fiscal appeasement in Quebec, wasn’t there some big whacking transfer payment to Quebec at the beginning of the last parliament? Some payoff to win votes in Quebec? Or that was just responsible federalism?

    Personally I’d rather have Quebec Separatists (BQ at least seems to have some respect for parliament) running the place than the whackos who see Alberta’s one-party forever model as the one we should follow for governing Canada.

    The rest of the west wants in.

  40. “According to the outgoing PM (who I’m sure you support)”

    TJ Cook

    Incorrect, I am conservative but I voted Libertarian just a few weeks ago because Harper/Cons are not conservative and one of the many reasons I didn’t vote for them was the Quebecers are a nation within Canada nonsense. Either we are all Canadians or we aren’t.

Sign in to comment.