[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Canada's first coup (click to view)
Date: November 30, 2008
There is a very huge and dramatic political crisis brewing in Canada as we speak.

Over the course of the last four days Stephane Dion, the leader of the Liberal Party who was soundly not elected prime minister in the 2008 election held two months ago, has been plotting a scheme to depose the recently re-elected Prime Minister Harper get himself installed in his place.

The plan centers around using the powers of the Governor General of Canada (who we recall is the unelected representative of the Queen of England) to fire Mr. Harper and hand over power to a so-called "coalition government" consisting of Liberal and NDP MPs. Mr. Dion and Mr. Layton, the NDP leader, signed a formal coalition agreement this afternoon, and Mr. Duceppe, the leader of the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the third-largest party in Parliament, has agreed to support the deal as well. Harper has predictably denounced it as a stealth coup to overturn the results of the last election.

And I solidly agree.

Coalition governments may be all the rage in Europe, but they are certainly not the Canadian tradition, and there is absolutely no precedent for any prime minister coming to power in such a backdoor way. Similarly, Dion lost the election. Our system of government may not be perfect, but it is a system with rules. Voters go to the polls with certain understandings of how this system operates, namely, the party that wins the most seats forms the government.

Even if we add up all the seats of the Liberals and the NDP they only have 113 seats to the Conservatives' 143. That would be a number even lower than what Harper had in his first term as leader of a minority government, and would be one of the tiniest governments in Canadian history.

I am often offended with what goes on in the Canadian government, but never before have I felt as genuinely outraged and disgusted with what is presently taking place in Ottawa. To live in a country where elections are virtually meaningless, where there is no direct line between how the votes go and the government that results, is to live in a country where all notions of a clearly-understood social contract between citizen and state is thrown out the window in favor of government by and for the crass partisan opportunism of the day.

The Governor General has no right to subvert a democratic election and install a new prime minister. I pray that she does not, and obeys the instructions of Stephen Harper, the democratically-elected leader of Canada, rather than the pathetic, power-mad men that evidently control the opposition. It is frightening to think that an unelected representative of a foreign monarch holds the future of Canada's executive power in her hands. Yes, this is exactly what we needed at a moment of economic crisis. If the rest of the world thinks Canada is descending into Banana Republicanism, they are right.

I suppose I should add a few words on how this crisis even arose, eh?

The Liberal Party often complains that it hates the Conservative party's agenda, but it still votes for a lot of their bills anyway. The voted in favor of continuing the war in Afghanistan, they voted in favor of tightening immigration restrictions, they voted in favor of increased jail time for first time offenders, and so on. But this week, they finally found something they could not support- ending taxpayer subsidies for the Liberal Party.

Under a regime the Liberals themselves dreamed up when they were in power, every vote a party wins in a federal election automatically generates them about a dollar or so in "public financing" for the next one. The Liberals brought this in alongside rules that placed limits on how much money a single individual or corporation could donate to a party.

These reforms were controversial within the party itself at the time, however, mostly because no party benefited more from the donations of the wealthy and corporate sector more than the Liberals. The Conservatives, by contrast, were much better at grassroots fundraising, and much of their funding continues to come from lots and lots of small, individual voters across the country. According to some estimates, as much as 70% of the Liberal Party's election budget may now come solely from public subsidies, as their private donations continue to decline and their previous backers find their hands tied.

Last week Prime Minister Harper rubbed further salt in the wounds, introducing a bill that would have cut the public finance scheme in its entirety, on the basis that it was too expensive for the government to maintain in a time of financial crisis. This would have obviously been a crushing blow to the Liberals, and thus, he we are.

The Liberals were faced with a dilemma in which they had to consider their own partisan interests vs. the interests of their country. And it's clear where their priorities were.

[Donny_Brasco]

LOL, I love to see the cons squirming.

There is nothing illegal, unethical or unconstitutional about this. Its a great idea and a great day for Canadians when these three groups agree to work together to form a functioning government.

[Kjorteo]

Yes, it sucks to lose an election and to live under a government composed of the opposite party. Policy-wise, I'm about as liberal as they come on most issues, and I just lived through eight years of the Bush administration. It's hard, I know. However, the day you resort to whatever underhanded opportunistic means present themselves to completely subvert the will of the people and overturn a legitimate election just so that you can technically win is the day your country is no longer a democracy.

[Donny_Brasco]

Saxon wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

LOL, I love to see the cons squirming.

There is nothing illegal, unethical or unconstitutional about this. Its a great idea and a great day for Canadians when these three groups agree to work together to form a functioning government.

There already IS a 'functioning government'. Traitors are setting up to change this. It will cost us our province of Quebec. The fact you cannot see this is most distressing, although unsurprising. I never felt libtards were exactly bright.

A functioning governmet tends to be able to pass legislation. Harper and his 144 seats cannot do that on any given day.

And I have the total opposite view of allowing the Bloc to participate in the government. It is inclusion in the system of government that controls their country instead of exclusion - I think it is a great idea to allow people with all points of view to be able to have some control over the way they are governed.

It is Harper's policy of exclusion and idiotic behaviour that has alienated him from the rest of the parties...let him sleep in the bed that he made for himself.

[Donny_Brasco]

Kjorteo wrote:

Yes, it sucks to lose an election and to live under a government composed of the opposite party. Policy-wise, I'm about as liberal as they come on most issues, and I just lived through eight years of the Bush administration. It's hard, I know. However, the day you resort to whatever underhanded opportunistic means present themselves to completely subvert the will of the people and overturn a legitimate election just so that you can technically win is the day your country is no longer a democracy.

Why is it subversion? They got more votes and more seats then the Torys, they have won the right to form a government - if that means working together for the best interests of those who elected them then that is their OBLIGATION in a democracy.

[Streaker]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

LOL, I love to see the cons squirming.

Yep. More than anything else the first post in this thread tells me that its author is a sore loser. It's nice to see these Con rubes having their collective aneurysm.

[Streaker]

Go away. Nobody takes you in the least bit seriously.

[Donny_Brasco]

Saxon wrote:

Streaker wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

LOL, I love to see the cons squirming.

Yep. More than anything else the first post in this thread tells me that its author is a sore loser. It's nice to see these Con rubes having their collective aneurysm.

You call it 'squirming' when we see a coup-d'etat making history? An opposition that acts against the will of the people? Of course we would 'squirm' when the death of our nation is nigh.

The will of most of the people is not that the Torys govern. If it were they would have got the majoruty of the seats and the majority of the votes. They got neither.

It is not a coup, it is not illegal, it is my MP's obligation to represent me as well as he possibly can. If that means chucking Steve out on his ass then that is just fine with me.

[ridenrain]

Blow it out you're ass Streaker. You're the pest in these discussions.

[RUEZ]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

LOL, I love to see the cons squirming.

There is nothing illegal, unethical or unconstitutional about this. Its a great idea and a great day for Canadians when these three groups agree to work together to form a functioning government.

If it was such a great idea why didn't these parties form a coalition before the election? I'll tell you why, because the Canadian electorate didn't want it. I'm looking forward to the next election I can tell you that.

[Kjorteo]

I was just about to edit my post to include something I forgot to mention, but I see there's a ton of replies already, so I'll just tack this on here.

Kjorteo wrote:

However, the day you resort to whatever underhanded opportunistic means present themselves to completely subvert the will of the people and overturn a legitimate election just so that you can technically win is the day your country is no longer a democracy.

Especially if your mad scheme involves the Governor General. The issue of whether to give an obvious ceremonial ribbon-cutting figurehead position actual legitimate powers on the basis of "well, we all know it's for show and the GG won't actually use them, so it's okay" is another debate, but for God's sake, the last two GGs in a row have been talk show hosts. It's pretty much a direct insult to try and plot around the idea that that position is a legitimate part of the governmental process.

Donny_Brasco wrote:

A functioning governmet tends to be able to pass legislation. Harper and his 144 seats cannot do that on any given day.

I hear this one in the States a lot as well, usually when people bemoan our "do-nothing Congress." I think a lot of people forget to realize that taking no action is itself an action, since that at least means agendas are being thwarted. If legislators can't ever agree on anything unless there's some sort of crisis that kicks them into action, that means that everyone's stupid pet peeves are prevented from getting more legitimacy than they deserve while the government can still band together and do something if it's actually important. Take, for example, the Democrat-controlled United States Congress from 2006 to 2008, which spent most of its time stalemated with the Bush administration and everything fell into complete gridlock. Some people see that as a do-nothing Congress or even as an example of Democratic weakness even when they're in the majority. I see that as their successfully putting the brakes on at least some of Bush's mad schemes. A stalemate is preferable to the other guy doing whatever he wants with no opposition.

Donny_Brasco wrote:

Why is it subversion? They got more votes and more seats then the Torys, they have won the right to form a government - if that means working together for the best interests of those who elected them then that is their OBLIGATION in a democracy.

Who's "they?" If you mean the Liberal party, then no, they absolutely did not get more seats than the Conservatives. In fact, they managed to lose seats in the 2008 election compared to their numbers during Harper's first administration.

If you mean the Liberals + NDP, that's still somewhere around 30 seats less than the Conservatives.

If you mean absolutely everyone in the Canadian House of Commons except for the Conservatives all put together, then yes, they're narrowly ahead at that point. That includes the Bloc Quebecois, though. Are you seriously going to tell me with a straight face that people who voted for the Bloc Quebecois really meant to vote for the Liberals?

The notion of "A + B + C combined have more votes than D, therefore A wins" is utterly ridiculous. If we were operating under that system, the Alliance+PC parties would have been ruling for ages now, Al Gore would have won in 2000, and who knows what else. If someone decides to vote for the NDP in the next election, they are not voting for the Liberals. The Alliance+PC realized this and solved the problem themselves when they became the Conservatives. Why can't you?

[Biblesmasher]

Kjorteo wrote:

Yes, it sucks to lose an election and to live under a government composed of the opposite party. Policy-wise, I'm about as liberal as they come on most issues, and I just lived through eight years of the Bush administration. It's hard, I know. However, the day you resort to whatever underhanded opportunistic means present themselves to completely subvert the will of the people and overturn a legitimate election just so that you can technically win is the day your country is no longer a democracy.

Oh please...So tired of hearing that. Any disspassionate observer would hardly say that a system where 38% of the vote could translate into majority rule(as it very well might have been)is anything better or worse then this coalition. Both are legal. full stop, end of story. We either rid our selves of both(which I favour) or we stop whining like its akin to a coup(I lived through several actual coups, so I all this crying about democracies end makes me laugh).

[Donny_Brasco]

The Torys recived less votes and got less seats then needed to form a majority government.

The GG has the right to appoint a prime minister from a coalition of political parties with the most seats in the House of Commons.

[Kjorteo]

Biblesmasher wrote:

Oh please...So tired of hearing that. Any disspassionate observer would hardly say that a system where 38% of the vote could translate into majority rule(as it very well might have been)is anything better or worse then this coalition. Both are legal. full stop, end of story. We either rid our selves of both(which I favour) or we stop whining like its akin to a coup(I lived through several actual coups, so I all this crying about democracies end makes me laugh).

I'm American. Is that dispassionate enough? This obviously has no bearing on me.

Considering one scenario is the results of the last actual democratic election, and the other is a proposal hatched by party leaders that would involve the democratically-elected Prime Minister being fired by a former talk show host appointed to a beauty pageant position using powers that are ordinarily just for show, then no, I don't quite see the equivalent. I will concede that the Canadian electoral process is not without its flaws--being American, I sure do love voting directly for the President instead of just appointing him via his being the party leader with the most seats, for example--but this is absurd.

If they wanted a democratically-elected coalition government, they should have ran as a coalition before the election and thus tried to get their coalition democratically elected. Or, they could do what the Alliance and PCs did. It seems to be working fairly well for them. Except that, as I pointed out earlier, even the Liberals+NDP isn't enough to match the Conservatives now. You need to include the Bloc Quebecois, which...really. The Bloc Quebecois in a national coalition. Come on, now.

[RUEZ]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

The Torys recived less votes and got less seats then needed to form a majority government.

The GG has the right to appoint a prime minister from a coalition of political parties with the most seats in the House of Commons.

The left in Canada sold their souls to the seperatists for power. I hope you guys can live with that.