What Are You Prepared To Give Up To Head Government In Canada

Tuesday, December 02, 2008 03:45 AM

What would you have to offer the Bloc party in order to have them support you in the House of Commons in governing Canada?

The Bloc wants Quebec as a separate country. Now let’s look at the standings in parliament.

The Conservatives have 143 seats; the Liberals 77, NDP 37 and the Bloc 49 seats, there are 2 independents.

The popular vote in Canada in the last election is as follows, Conservatives 38%, Liberals 26%, NDP 18%, and the Bloc 10%.

Now regardless of what your political stripe is, the question that must be answered is, do you want a political party that wants to break up Canada sitting in a position of power? Because in order for the coalition (as proposed by the NDP and the Liberals) to work, they will need their support in order for it to work.

Now what will we as Canadians be asked to give up in order for this marriage to succeed? Those are questions that should be front and center on the minds of Canadians.

What will the new NDP/ Liberal coalition offer to the Bloc for their support in the House? Because without it, they have only 110 seats far short of a majority in any sense of the word.

10% of the popular vote in Canada went to the Bloc in the last election. Now whether that was handed them with the intention of trying to form a new country is not known. On the other hand if you are a reasonable thinker what would you expect from any political party if your support was the only way they could remain in power?

Canada sits on a slippery slope today, regardless of how you feel politically about Canada, the bigger issue is; Do you want a Canada in which Quebec is not a part? If your answer is yes, then I hate to break it to you, you would have a Conservative government and the whole matter of who should be running the country would be redundant.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Join Meisner on CFIS FM and on Opinion250 through live streaming audio at 9:00 this morning , "Meisner" will throw open the lines for your thoughts on the events in Ottawa.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Denaljo on December 2 2008 5:58 AM

Your fear mongering is misplaced Ben.
Even the Bloc recognize Harper for what he is; an egomaniac who will do and say anything to stay in power; while Rome burns. Eh!

Posted by: Andyfreeze on December 2 2008 7:00 AM

Well said Ben,and to believe that Dion and Layton didn't offer Duceppe anything under the table to take part in this little lovefest is incredibly naive!
If this goes ahead we may all very well regret it.
And we didn't even get a say in it,which only goes to show us that our votes mean very little.
So much for true democracy.
It is also an example of what happens when people DON'T get out an vote, and never was that more noticable than in the last federal election!

Posted by: rattlesnake on December 2 2008 7:08 AM

"It is also an example of what happens when people DON'T get out an vote, and never was that more noticable than in the last federal election!"

So so true. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: ammonra on December 2 2008 7:47 AM

So why do we not just disenfranchise the whole of Quebec. Let's make them vote the way the rest of the country votes. Let's tell them what to do. That would be real democracy, wouldn't it?

Quebec MPs are no different than BC MPs, and have the same rights in the house. The fact that we do not like their separatist opinions does not deprive them of the right to have those opinions. Neither does it deprive them of the rights that go along with being an MP.

Democracy is not always easy. Accepting other people's right to different opinions is not always easy. If we give in to any desire to suppress either one, however, we will be moving towards oppression and giving up a free society.

Please remember that despite many, many years of separatist MPs in Parliament, Quebec still remains a province of Canada. Actions speak louder than words, and for the moment the Bloc Quebecois is cooperating.

Posted by: Rufftimes on December 2 2008 8:52 AM

It may be the time to eliminate all political parties. Every MP runs as an independant and brings his or her voice to Ottawa. It is becoming obvious to me that the so called democracy we have is no longer effective.

Let the best candidate be elected. Every candidate votes on behalf of his constituents, not a party position. Wouldn't that allow even more freedom to represent your riding? Just a thought.

Posted by: gus on December 2 2008 9:20 AM

It is something that many people have a difficult time to understand - why would a group of people who wish to separate from the country actually participate in that country's parliamentary process, especially when they will never be able to achieve a majority?

Once you have figured that out, try answering this question. Why would that same province, for its provincial parliament, not elect a party which had separatism in its sights as well? There they could actually achieve a majority with separatism as its main platform and start negotiating a separation process and agreement with Ottawa.

I think I hear more separatism sentiments from the West during election times these days than I do from Quebec. There are words being said about Harper and how it is obvious that eastern Canadians cannot stand a Prime Minister from the West. Do they forget where Diefenbacker was from? How about Kim Campbell? First one born in BC.

Get over the separation issue. It is a non issue. Rather, talk about the BQ as a left wing party joining with the NDP, another left wing party which have more in common than they have differences, then getting together with the Liberals who would then be pulled away from the centre in order to govern together. That is, after all, what the majority of Canadians voted for.

Posted by: Eagleone on December 2 2008 9:34 AM

I'm now looking forward to the Governor General rejecting a parliament with political parties. I hope she throws all the political parties out on the cold Ottawa winter street for the next four years to cool off and think about how a democracy is supposed to work.

Meanwhile we could have a grand coalition of a Parliament full of independent MP's... who would then vote in a secret vote for the bi-partisan cabinet positions... as was done recently to elect the liberal Speaker of the House. Its within the constitution... so why not kill the political parties for one parliament... in order to save Canada from the partisan party politics gone mad....

On the up side you disperse the socialists on the floor so they don't get emboldened when they pack up like wild dogs looking for a subsidy... the liberals would have to point in all directions when using lesser of two evil politics... the separatists would forget why they are there and would be forced to rub shoulders with and mix ideas with their brothers from other mothers... and the conservatives would find it easier to tape all the members of the opposition for black mail latter on to keep them in line. Everyone would be happy and we wouldn't have to have an election for 4-years.

If I was one of the two independent MP's I would draw up my proposed shadow cabinet and start getting support for the party of one to get the right from the GG to form the next coalition government. If a party of 77 can form a coalition then why not a party of one as long as the party of one has enough other MP's supporting their plan?

Posted by: Wolfie on December 2 2008 9:38 AM

Gus has it right. The BQ is about far more than separatism these days. During the last election, they ran on a strict "anybody but Harper" platform, and this is why they got the number of seats that they did. Voters in Quebec saw them as the best place to park their Anti-Harper vote. Quebecers just don't like Stephen Harper. So, considering that they got their mandate to keep Harper from getting a majority, it is the Bloc's responsibility to their constituents to keep Harper from acting like he has one. Harper thought he effectively had a majority, tried to govern accordingly, and as a result the Bloc had to stop him. That's what this is about... the Bloc recognizing that their constituents want Harper out, and doing their best to make it happen. Isn't that what democracy should be?

Posted by: palomino on December 2 2008 9:48 AM

The fact that Dion, and Layton, would conspire with the enemies of a united Canada, (the Bloc, and Duceppe), pretty much blows the smoke off just where their own priorities lie, and what they're willing to do to you and I, as a people of this once enviable Country to achieve their own personal gains.

To believe that Dion and Layton do not realize that to succeed in their scheme, would mean handing the balance of power in this country to a gang of seperatists, is outright incompetance, and blatant stupidity, not to mention TREASON !!

I cannot believe that some of the posters on this forum do not realize what this is going to do to Canada if these imbeciles actually succeed in their mutiny !! Surely, we, as a free society, haven't, as a whole, sunk to that level of incompetance !

The obvious hatred some of these posters have for a particular individual, such as those that clearly hate Canada's Prime Minister, Mr. Harper, and those that hate B.C.'s premier Mr. Campbell, must overpower all rational thought. I'm stunned at what these posters would advocate we do to all of Canada to "get" the Guy they've decided to "hate".

If that's the case with what's coming up in the rank and file to one day "rule" over us ---- God help us all, and God help Canada !! ( Oh yeah, --- I'm not supposed to refer to "God" publicly because it might offend some atheist, or "other" religion )!!

Well -- sorry, but I'm NOT sorry !!

palomino

Posted by: gus on December 2 2008 10:02 AM

If working with the Bloc is treason, then having the Bloc in parliament is treason and every single person sitting as an MP from outside Quebec is aiding and abetting treason. In fact, by voting for people who are willing to accept treasonous MPs in parliament, the voter is complicit in that treasonous act.

Posted by: aleroone on December 2 2008 10:41 AM

Great letter palomino...exactly what is taking place; "treason".
The three stooges should be jailed for what they are attempting to do. They actually make George Bush look like a genius.
Why the Bloc is even allowed to be considered a National Party is a joke.
These three have just taken Canada to the lowest depths of it's history. Three losers who lose an election, get together over a "whine" and cheeze party and decide they'll run the country anyway. I thought that only happened in places like South American or African nations where there are constant coups taking over the government... apparently not.. Canada is now one.
Solution ... separate at the Manitoba border. We have the resources and will drop the lunacy of the Eastern power mongers who feel they can run this country despite what the voters say

Posted by: Bridge on December 2 2008 10:47 AM

I would not trust the block. What is their political philosophy? Why dont the people of Quebec support an existing political party? Is there a hidden agenda? Many people in Quebec have for years just talked about seperation. Why have their political beliefs changed at this time?

To most of us the coaltion is all about ego and lets hope the Govenor General will see it that way and tell them to get back to their seats in parliament and govern as they have been elected to do.

Our economy is on the brink and here we have these boys playing games when the future of Canada is a stake. The whole notion is ridiculous.

Cheers

Posted by: gus on December 2 2008 11:38 AM

"Solution ... separate at the Manitoba border"

Great idea for the foundation of a new western party. That will make it 5.5 parties in Parliament and we will likely never get a single party to have a majority and we will have coalitions for some time to come. Starting to look like some of the better run European countries.

Happy medium between the defacto 2 party US system of 49% versus 51% and the call for getting rid of political parties altogether.

Posted by: gus on December 2 2008 11:52 AM

http://www.eyeweekly.com/city/city/article/46738

from the above: "Here in Canada, a Liberal-NDP coalition may be as unprecedented as a Leafs/Senators charity picnic, but in the rest of the world this sort of political tag-teaming happens all the time. And for the most part it actually works. More often than not, a country faces a problem that�s unsolvable by one party on its own, or else the country�s unity is threatened by some type of crisis and parties stand in solidarity for the greater good."

Posted by: supertech on December 2 2008 1:21 PM

I believe Harper did the right thing by trying to take away tax money from the partys. The government has no right to give my money to the Bloc or any party that I do not support. Let's face it -- the only reason this coalition was formed is due to the public funding issue. They try to make it look like something else but it scared the hell out of them because they couldn't operate without it. I say we push parliament to remove the public funding regardless of who is in power. As a coalition, they will be at each others throats in two weeks and collapse anyway so lets hope our Gov General makes the right call. (She was put there by a Liberal--could be awful results)

Posted by: camoose on December 2 2008 2:21 PM

Very interesting times indeed. For someone who has lost all faith in politics I find it all eye opening. It is apparent that the the big blue machine has it's spin out and it's flourishing on this board. For the information of a few of the posters, the idea of a coalition government is part of Canadian politics and is legal. It matters not if some wish to call it treason or not or if the GG has no background in politics, it is still legal. Harper has no one to blame for this situation but himself and his handlers. He is still a minority government and he appears to have forgotten that fact. I can't for the life of me see Dion being a good PM, or Layton or our friend from Quebec. So that leaves us without a viable PM once again. I wonder where all the Joey Smallwoods and WAC Bennetts of politics are. We could sure one now.

Posted by: herbster on December 2 2008 2:45 PM

To anyone who thinks that Harper is saving you money- $300 million for the last unnecessary election, and $300 million for the upcoming unnecessary election. All in a futile and miserly attempt to save $26 million in financing the opposition parties. I would have given Harper kudos if he unilaterally refused government financing for the Conservatives, and dared the other parties to follow suit. But this just makes him look mean-spirited and stupid.

Posted by: bowzone_mikey on December 2 2008 5:23 PM

How anyone that calls themself a Canadian can support this idea is far beyond my scope of comprehension

I know a lot of people that voted NDP and Liberal ...those people are never gonna Vote for those 2 Parties again based soley upon this scheme that has obviously been in the works for some time.

I personally see this to the begiinging of the first ever Canadian Civil war ... and if and when it comes to that I will step up for the Rightfull leaders of this country .. the ones that got the most votes.

I cant beleive that several members of my Family have fought in wars all over the world for the past century (some still are over seas fighting for democracy as I type this) only to see this BS happening in their own country .....

However it would be good way to make the olympics a non event in 16 months time wouldnt it?

Posted by: bowzone_mikey on December 2 2008 5:37 PM

I cant get over how many comenters are drinking Liberal Kool Aid. A non-confidence vote is fine ... but but this idea of a coalition government is a bad one ....
Lets not forget the 2+ Billion dollars the Libs watsed on the long gun registry that has never worked ... the GST 7% tax introduced by the PC was not a good idea so they were voted out in 1993 ..the libs vowed to abolish it then ... hmm jump forward to 2006 ..13 years later its still at 7% and National Dept is moreso that it was in 1993 when the GST was introduced ... remember why it was .. to PAY DOWN THE DEPT!!!! not to Buy Bombardier aircraft for the PM and all his friends

granted the GST is still here but its doing what it was intended to do and has dropped 2% to 5% ..

Now you people that Support this idea want to put all your money into the hands of these people that I wouldnt trust to operate a Lemonade stand on the corner of Sintich and Hwy 97south ....

If that happens I am not sure what I am gonna do ... Most likey seriously look at emigrating to the USA (that is a bold statement for me to make for anyone that knows me knows my veiws of the USA and that I once was the proudest Canadian you will ever know)

Posted by: herbster on December 2 2008 6:10 PM

Hey bowzone- who you gonna shoot first- Harper for proposing a coalition with the Bloc 4 years ago, or Dion for actually making it work? Look, 2/3 of the population did not vote for Conservatives- their elected representatives have every right to try a coalition government. Look on the bright side, if it works we save $300 million on another election.

Posted by: bowzone_mikey on December 2 2008 6:45 PM

the people of Canada spoke and the Tories got the popular vote ...with 6 official parties in Canada (Cons, libs, bloc, NDP,Independants, and green) .... the CDN governemnt system is a farce at best ...Minority Governments are now a normality

the Tories actually got a good number of the Votes ... 46.4% (143seats out of 308)

BTW 53.6% is not 2 outta 3 ..go back to school and learn basic math (66.6% is) its more like 1608/3000 choose one of the other other 4 parties that have seats (green not having any seast in the HOC )
its alot closer to 1/2 than 2/3 ... you are very "Liberal" with the rounding up arent you?

Posted by: herbster on December 2 2008 7:04 PM

The Conservatives got 38%(ok a little over a third) of the popular vote which translates into a greater number of seats because rural ridings tend to be over-represented. They did not win the popular vote. That's why they were a minority government. That's why Harper had to play ball with at least one other party to stay in power. Which is why he will join Joe Clark as a former Prime Minister who couldn't count the votes needed to keep a minority government in power.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on December 2 2008 7:10 PM

It really doesn't matter who proposed what and when.
What matters is what's happening now,and canadians across the country are growing more angry by the minute.
Check out the polls on the net,including the one on Opinion 250....are they all wrong,because the numbers I am seeing are saying an overwhelming majority DO NOT want this farce of a coalition!
There is no doubt the power broker here is Duceppe and who would have thought we would ever see that?
I wonder what they promised him?
But imagine,the once great Liberals cutting a deal with the separatists?
I can hear the laughter in Quebec all the way up here!

Posted by: bowzone_mikey on December 2 2008 7:17 PM

Herb .. how many seats do the Tories hold? ... Rural ridings are over represented ...

You need a lesson ... Urban ridings are too small therefore a when Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver can win an election for a party ... something is wrong ...
Rural Canada is the heart and soul of this country , Rural Canada is where the manufacturing happens, Rural Canada is where the oil , mining and forestry industries are

I can see triing to explain this to you would be like beating my head agaisnt the wall

this Coalition is comprimised of Liberal and NDP (the Bloc is not officially part of it ..the Bloc could potentially make this thing backfire on Dion and Layton) ... the same NDP led by Jack Layton ..whom just a few months ago on his campain to become the rightfull PM of this once fine country promised to revamp the constitution to outlaw the whole idea of a coalition government ....

Am I the only one here that finds this Ironic

Posted by: NMG on December 2 2008 7:23 PM

One would assume that the concept of a coalition government was enshrined into our political system for a reason. The very fact that it exists would indicate that it is an option under our system and that someone had the foresight to envision a place and time when it would be relevant. There is no point being angry about the system, it is what it is.

If anything, people should be angry about the fact that the party in power caused it to come into play by making a strategic blunder of epic proportions. It was a blunder who's sole purpose was to effectively chop democracy off at the knees, all for the sake of 30M dollars. How ironic that democracy itself, is the one now wielding the axe.

Posted by: herbster on December 2 2008 7:36 PM

Hey bowzone
Democracy is 1 man = 1 vote.

Posted by: my2bits on December 2 2008 8:21 PM

It seems everyone here is forgetting that in 2004 Steven Harper was trying the very same thing against Paul Martin-forming a coalition with the other opposition parties. Now he's crying foul.

He has less than half the seats, and less than 40% of the people's votes. He'd be better off to govern with the other parties on board, than to pretend that he has a mandate to govern in his own way.

The majority of Canadians did not vote for him. In fact, less than a quarter of the eligible voters voted for him.
He felt that he could again do as he wants, because the opposition parties are in disarray (again).

If handled correctly, minority governments can be the best governments, because they have to satisfy all the parties and their ideas. He has yet to learn that.

Posted by: supertech on December 2 2008 11:09 PM

lawful plunder ; "the law takes from people what belongs to them and gives it to others to whom it does not belong, or benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."

Sort of sounds like funding political parties to me. Harper has a good idea. I wrote to all the parties and gave them this description. (as if they had a conscience)

Posted by: gus on December 3 2008 8:59 AM

"The majority of Canadians did not vote for him. In fact, less than a quarter of the eligible voters voted for him."

I think too many of us forget that this is NOT the USA. Only those people in his riding actually voted for him. No one else did unless they broke the law. He speaks in the same way in parliament as many on here do.

We vote for an individual in a riding. Unlike the USA, we do not also vote for the leader of the country. In the case of a party having less than half the number of seats in the country, they can try to form government. That party's members (not caucus) votes for their leader.

In fact, according to the polls, if he was running as a leader in the same way that the president in the USA does, he would have lost big time.

The opinion has been that in both his and Dion's case, for different reasons, the leaders are holding the party back. In other words, had someone with a personality like Jack Layton (forget about his politics) been in charge of the Conservatives, they likely would have formed government with a relatively comfortable majority.

In a nutshell, Harper is a prima dona and people do not like prima donas.

Posted by: Shellshadow on December 3 2008 4:15 PM

I like Harper and I do not care what any of you think about it!! The Canadian people voted him in NOT ONCE BUT TWICE!! Get over it already and let the winning party run government!! My thoughts on the "three" is losers who can not take losing and make fools of themselve and Canada by showing it. They are slapping the Canadian people in the face by insinuating that we did not vote right! They are not respecting the wishes of the tax payers! YOU!!. WE VOTED!! HARPER WON!!! MOVE ON!! GROW UP!!

Posted by: gus on December 4 2008 12:37 AM

The issue is not who one likes. The issue is how does Parliament work. There are rules.

Rule 1 - a motion is won by a simple majority. There is no reference to parties.

The Conservatives do not have a majority, thus they need votes from others in order to win a motion. They need fewer votes than the other parties, but they still need those votes.

If others can get the votes for a majority, then so be it. Again, it does not matter whether there are three parties, 17, or none.

So, the conservatives have the easiest job of getting other's votes since they need the fewest additional votes to support their cause. I suggest they seriously negotiate getting those votes. Being a**holes does not get them those votes. They are no less pretenders to the throne than any of the others.