[Psudo]

The Crisis in 1917 was a lack of Canadian soldiers, and conscription was perceived as the solution. In 2008, the Economic Crisis is the problem itself. What is the solution being proposed by the proposed coalition government?

Also, it's interesting to note that "Constitutional Crisis" was mentioned twice as often as "economic crisis" in this thread before my first post.

[llama66]

the crisis in 2008 stems from the perception that there is not enough money being spent to stimulate the economy, so the opposition believes that $30 billion in new spending needs to happen to lessen the blow of the effects of an International Recession on Canada.

[Psudo]

Incidentally:

Source

I don't know how $30 billion in Canadian spending would have any relevant effect compared with the 140 times as much that the USA is planning to spend.

[llama66]

Psudo wrote:

Incidentally:

Source

I don't know how $30 billion in Canadian spending would have any relevant effect compared with the 140 times as much that the USA is planning to spend.

wow. Where is the states going to get that kinda money?

[dodobird]

I’ve read this comic for awhile but I have never posted and ill warn you about my grammar ahead of time.

I personally agree with the idea of a coalition, hell i was hoping they’d make a stab at it when Harper sent us to the polls the other month. It seems like you’re all talking in absolutes like politics is drawing a line in the sand and you cant budge from that line no matter what. When you elect people you’re not electing YOUR opinion you’re saying " hey you have some of the same ideas as me i want you to represent me". Even though lets say you believe the economy is very important and the environment is only somewhat important and you elect a guy who says he’s going to make the economy and the environment his top priorities. Well that sounds right good to you so you vote him in. So he gets into office but then he finds out hey I cant have both economy and environment well I feel that environment is more important so I’m going to try and push that. Are you then going to scream foul cause because he isn’t doing exactly as you want him to do? Politics is not a game of absolutes it’s a game of similarities and priorities but you all act as if there is no quarter, especially people who do on some occasions talk with some knowledge in politics.

How could you even act surprised or appalled when Harper try’s to cut the legs out from under the other parties and they don’t just take it? You say the liberals should act in the best interests of Canada have you considered that is what they think they are doing? If you think you’re beliefs are in the best interests in Canada, and another guy, who you do not think is correct, try’s to cut your legs out from under you so in the future it’ll be even harder to lead Canada in what you think is the right direction instead of the wrong direction, are you just going to lie down and take it? Thus effectively giving an even better chance of your opponent at victory and leading even further down a direction you think is wrong. Its not greed or pettiness its foresight and I doubt many of you would act otherwise and if you did well your ideas wont be around for long.

So quit the doom saying and the fear mongering your duly elected representatives are using the full range of options available to them in an attempt to bring about the priorities that they were elected for instead of having someone go against them. Hell a coalition government will be more democratic and have a broader more encompassing policies then the standard Canadian dictatorship.

[martin14]

llama66 wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Incidentally:

Source

I don't know how $30 billion in Canadian spending would have any relevant effect compared with the 140 times as much that the USA is planning to spend.

wow. Where is the states going to get that kinda money?

China and the middle East.

doesnt that speak well for the future ?
The US should have let the crunch happen, and take the short term fallout. Instead,
they are going to screw us all for the next 50-100 years.
Anyway, thats another topic.


What the 3 power hungry little boys are doing is not illegal,
but very bad business for the country. Naked power grabs never are.

At least in East Europe the parties pretty much declare who they will work with
during an election campaign, makes it more clear for all.
Or maybe more important to say who they will NOT work with.
Having said that, i'm sure the NDP and Libs would have been absolutaly destroyed
if they had said 'yes, we will work with the Bloc to make a government'.

Given the GG is a Lib, I doubt we will have new elections quickly if this does actually happen.
What a mess....

[Tiler]

Pseudo, your graph made me say a very angry word about six times in a row. I hope you're proud of making me rage.

Anyways, I just have two things to throw in here.

One, I find it interesting that an interpretation of constitutional law happens to be heavily polarized based on party affiliation. Of course, I wouldn't make such a rash claim that everyone here is just making sophist arguments to support their party during this crisis rather than making arguments based upon an objective assessment of the Canadian constitution. A view like that would probably indicate a bit too much cynicism with politics in general.

Second, for all the crap that goes on in the states, I'm starting to appreciate the fact we have a two party system. For all it's faults, at least it avoids this kind of political nonsense. This is even less democratic than the electoral college, for cripes sake.

[CanadianJeff]

Frankly I hate this with a HUGE Passion. I have never ever liked the GG having a foothold in power and I'm especially sick with the liberal party trying to exploit it.

I was very loud in my wishes over the election to never have such a gigantic idiot as Dion as the PM of Canada. It was the first time I'd ever voted conservative and damn am I glad I did.

This move really undermines what most Canadians believe when they go to the polls. Mainly what JJ said that the government is formed based on representation of mps. Not only does this undermine this understanding but it points a huge fat finger at what I hate most about the Canadian system of government.

The fact that almost every MPs finger seems to be stuck on a big fat "vote the way the party tells me to" button rather then using their brains. It seems any party leader at any time has the ability to say "This is the way it is" and force all their mps to vote one way.

This incident has if nothing else proven just how badly the Canadian system has failed it's citizens. As someone else has said I've never been so ashamed to be Canadian. Most especially now with me applying for full time entry into the Canadian armed forces where I am putting my life into the hands of the Prime minister.

It's a sad day.

[llama66]

well I think this move will leave the left in ruins. perhaps it will be a good thing, it seemed to work for the right after Mulroney.

[martin14]

llama66 wrote:

well I think this move will leave the left in ruins. perhaps it will be a good thing, it seemed to work for the right after Mulroney.

you might be right llama, there are a LOT of people in Canada who will be
very unhappy about this, and not just Conservatives.

Many regular voters will look at this with disdain.
The addition of the BQ to this is extra painful.

[Canadaka]

Psudo wrote:

Incidentally:

Source

I don't know how $30 billion in Canadian spending would have any relevant effect compared with the 140 times as much that the USA is planning to spend.

You have to consider the relative size of the nations and there GDP. The 30 Billion along with other stimulus in Canada would actualy be a larger percentage of the GDP than what the Americans are spending I think.

[dodobird]

So the majority of canadians have elected not to vote for the current government. So now that the majority of canadians dont like how the minority is ruling the country what do you propose all those people do? Are we really that uncomfortable with our represntatives putting aside there differences to rule. To find common ground and rule in a similiar direction? I admit the seperatists do make me a little uncomfortable but theyre still a federal party and they do have other policys besides seperatism i doubt even as much as we demonize them (just as much as they demonize us) that theyre going to bring down the whole country, includeing themselves while theyre here. Even if they do i doubt the liberals will give them as much ground as the conservative government has already given them and itll most likely trigger another election. You say the majority of canadians will be outraged at this personally i havent met any most i meet dont care either way and a couple have approved im still bringing it up in my personal circles though. All in all is seems like canadians want a stable dictatoral minority where the opposition has its hands tied with no options but to agree with the currrent government then they do with democracy and cooperation

[Muzz_1960]

I really can't understand how a political party with a platform based on the elimination of the current parliamentary process should be allowed a voice in federal politics in the first place. The Bloc Québécois is a regional party with a separatist agenda which represents a minority view within the vastness of the Canadian political spectrum. Yet, this party actually holds the balance of power within the House of Commons and with this new coalition.

It is just further proof that Francophone issues circumvent common sense. Quebec separation is a provincial issue; it is a mandate in which the interests of Quebec override the interests of the nation. Therefore, it is illogical for the federal system to even entertain the notion of validating their claims, let alone provide them with the theatre in which to act out their designs.

It surely must be time for political reforms. If not, we might as well adopt green as another of our coutry's official colours. Since we seem poised to adopt Italy's style of government, it would be nice to acknowledge the tribute by adopting their country's colours as well.

[Beeej]

Several points here:

- I have not read every single post in this thread, most everyone's point was clear in their own first post.
- I don't feel nearly as well versed in politics as anyone here, so forgive me if I come across as naive.

I'm finding it incredibly difficult to feel my vote is connected to federal politics lately. I voted Liberal in the last election on the simple premise that my local Liberal candidate was the best person for the job (it's a bit scary how radical an idea that sounds, isn't it?). I honestly didn't want Mr. Dion to be the PM, but I could easily wager he wouldn't be so I was confident to 'vote local'.

My local Liberal guy was elected, Liberals formed opposition and things were fine. To support JJ's main point, that is what I expected. My Liberal vote was not an authorization to form a coalition with other parties. It was not me saying I wanted them to depose the Harper government at the first God given (or in this case Queen given) opportunity. The conservative minority is not an automatic mandate for the other parties to overrule them. The opposition parties can already pass or fail legislation depending on how willing they are to cooperate, we don't need to go through all this bullshit just so Dion can pad his resume.

When I cast a vote based on my local choices and the federal gov't forms based on the national election results that's fine. To have this turn around not two months after the election makes my head spin.

Is this coalition the end of democracy in Canada? No.
Is this coalition going to improve the leadership and direction of Canada? No.
What does it matter who is forming the gov't when none of this changes the number of seats any of them have, meaning no actual power is changing hands here? Who the hell knows?

[Northwolf]

I've skimmed most of the posts in this thread, and other than the usual personal flames, most of them have valid points. However, a few things haven't been mentioned. I've never posted here before, but this is an issue with far reaching implications.

1. Sure, what the NDP and Libs are trying to do is technically legal, but so is dragging a dead horse up Young street on any day but Sunday. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. Both laws are outdated, stemming from a far different time. In particular, from when the GG was actually appointed by the Queen(or King, depending), and represented Her interests directly, to the point of slapping down the commons as required. Our country hasn't run that way in a long time, and yet the rules are still there. So this coalition is not a technical violation of the laws that govern our country, but it's damn well a violation of the spirit in which the population agrees to be governed.

2. No one has pointed out how this will go down in western Canada, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan. We didn't vote for the Liberals at all. The NDP got a smattering of seats in N. Sask. And despite what most people believe, there is a larger separation movement in Alberta than there is in Quebec. It has nearly come to a head before, and this could easily bring it to a head now.

I love this country and am generally proud to be Canadian. But if this perversion of the spirit of our national gov't succeeds, and we, as western Canadians, say "No f**king way", I know where my vote and my voice will support. And unlike Quebec, western Canada is fiscally solvent enough to make it on their own. It would be a sad reality, but a reality none the less.