uh Quebec wouldnt separate the very second the bloc would get any kind of power.... They could start a referendum, which means Quebecers would vote about whether to stay in Canada or leave, and I'm not sure such a referendum would pass at all today. And EVEN if the referendum passed, the Canadian government could refuse to recognize it.


Also, Farmrush, its far from a perfect system, but it has lots of pretty good sides to it. For instance, third parties and no-names can get some power instead of just being pretty much a wasted vote. The Green party came real close to have a few people elected. The NDP got actually quite a bit of power, though not as much as hoped. In a system like the American one, the NDP would have no power at all, and the green party wouldn't even be known. I cant believe they actually invited the chief of the GREEN PARTY to the debate. Thats pretty awesome!

Everyone who thinks this is a coup or non-democratic or whatever needs to fucking go back to grade school. Look up the Westminster parliamentary system.

see the problem is "everyone" doesn't mean only canadians and none of our gradeschools touched on this and more importantly the dude in the link who apparently is a poli sci professor up there says it's never been done federally before sooooo who cares about some westminster parliament?

also believe it or not no one really keeps up with canadian politics so from everything we're hearing, yeah, it looks like some bizarre overthrow of an election because a party isn't moving fast enough on the economy. you both said GO BACK TO SCHOOL and then muttered something about how its more fair and how its been done in history before (ignoring that oftentimes when it has been done it's been done to implement a more fascist regime).

its not necessarily undemocratic but it certainly isn't a tenet of democracy to ignore the results of an election because they've led to an unfavorable party getting elected.

if I haven't got it right at all, can you blame me? you guys aren't really justifying your statements with any examples at all and from what we're picking up it sounds like the other parties are going to oust the conservatives from power and somehow this is democratic?

if this isn't the case please clarify because that's what I'm hearing here? actually from dulcinea's post it sounds like they're just conglomerating into a single party which is weird but then I actually don't understand the non-democratic argument at all; if say Joe Lieberman wants to work with Democrats on an issue, he can and does. if the Greens were to collaborate with the Democrats, which is sort of what I guess is going on here, how is that undemocratic?

basically no matter how I look at it one of these sides is completely wrong and it's basically a matter of being confused whether they are ousting the conservatives (undemocratic) or just blocking their votes (perfectly okay) but if either is correct the other side really doesn't have a leg to stand on???

I'm pretty sure what it is is that all they're doing is forming a new coalition in parliament to form a majority, which can result in the forcible ousting of cabinet members.

so what it is is that they're overturning the dominant party's control of canada's political institutions.

I'm not allowed to vote so I didn't get the opportunity to cast my ballot in the last election.

I also grew up in the US, so I had to do research on what the hell was happening in order to better understand the idea that I haven't got a fucking clue what the Canadian government thinks its doing. I think I understand the concept of what's happening with the whole coalition thing, about the three parties combining (well, two plus support from one) to press a vote of no confidence, basically forcing out the Conservative cabinet. Thusly, we'd go from having a minority Conservative government to a (bad Zelda pun completely intended) Tri-Force Majority. If there is something wrong with my understanding of the situation, please feel free to correct me.

As it has been pointed out, something like this has never been attempted in Canada at the federal level, and I honestly think that throwing together such a coalition is a rotten way for the losing parties to lash out at the Conservatives. Basically, I see it as the Liberals and the NDP throwing something of an elaborate temper tantrum. A coordinated tantrum, but no less a tantrum. They didn't get a majority, so they're going to force a majority. It strikes me as bad politics.

Not that the Conservatives are any less to blame for the matter. Or, I should be more direct in saying that Steven Harper pulled a bonehead move in asking the Governor General to come to his rescue. Even worse is that she agreed to help, proroguing the parliament as to avoid the vote of no confidence. Here's brains for you: Let's put the government on hold so we can all sort out how to behave like grown-ups.

So now we've got the PM hiding behind the skirts of the GG. The left-wingers of the parliament are attempting to strong-arm their way in to power not even three months after the public vote denied them that right, and they are doing so after (according to CBC, anyway) they promised they wouldn't!

I am inclined to agree with Izekeal; if, at the end of January, the GG decides we need another election, I don't see Canada coming out with anything other than a Conservative minority provided the Liberals and the NDP don't do something stupid like, say, merge parties completely.

Isn't this the problem of minority govs? If they don't have majority they will face problems, I don't know the specifics about this case but this has happend in Sweden a few times. It led to another election though I think if I remember correctly.

Also big cross-party coalitions are un-democratic. Especially if they go all across the spectrum from left to right, your votes have to matter. If you don't feel your vote matters you won't vote and that is a huge democratic problem. Also saying that a big coalition will represent more of the people probably isn't correct. The compromises they will have to do probably doesn't represent their votes very well and they have to drop some of their key issues for the coalition to work.

I don't know enough about canada ;_;

edit: now im unsure if it actually happend in Sweden but at least here you only need to have 51% of the votes in parlament to oust a government. This is democratic btw, they represent 51% of the voters so they have the right to kick em out. They hardly ever do because they have an interest in not ridiculing the swedish democracy by ruining elections all the time.

also believe it or not no one really keeps up with canadian politics so from everything we're hearing, yeah, it looks like some bizarre overthrow of an election because a party isn't moving fast enough on the economy. you both said GO BACK TO SCHOOL and then muttered something about how its more fair and how its been done in history before (ignoring that oftentimes when it has been done it's been done to implement a more fascist regime).

It's all about west vs. east.

The west(BC,Alberta,Saskat,Manitoba) are against the coalition because they are mostly right-wing and the east(Ontario but mostly Quebec) are for the coalition because it's the only way that the NPD could have any real power. Also, as a Quebecer, it's pretty funny to see how the rest of Canada sees the Bloc. Shit, I'm not separatist and I find it a bit ridiculous that you freak out at the Bloc being(not even being, just supporting) the coalition.

It's sad I'm canadian but I know much more about american politics than our own..

but steven harper man holy shit

It's all about west vs. east.

The west(BC,Alberta,Saskat,Manitoba) are against the coalition because they are mostly right-wing and the east(Ontario but mostly Quebec) are for the coalition because it's the only way that the NPD could have any real power. Also, as a Quebecer, it's pretty funny to see how the rest of Canada sees the Bloc. Shit, I'm not separatist and I find it a bit ridiculous that you freak out at the Bloc being(not even being, just supporting) the coalition.

It's mostly the west that views ANY sort of Bloc involvement as DEAL WITH DEVIL but not JUST the west. I live in New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in the country, and there's actually a fair amount of language tension between french and English, and I know a few people who were actually angry about the Bloc being in on this deal. The term "frog" gets thrown around here a lot.

"Fucking frogs are going to mooch more off the government if this happens" is the general opinion. Some people I know were actually members of the Confederation of Regions (CoR) Party here in the province, which was a ridiculously right wing radical anti-French party that almost got control of the legislature. They profess REPENTANCE but the fact remains that they are pretty anti-French. They hated Dion, and they'll continue to hate the coalition because of Duceppe.

We're all white, but Canada still has some ethnic tension.

It's stupid, of course. The Bloc has publicly stated they will only prop up the Coalition, not demand deals out of it. They've propped up minorities in the past and lo and behold, Quebec is still a province in dominion of Canada. It's hard to call a particular side CORRECT in this issue, though I'm leaning on the Coalition. Harper's actions proroguing Parliament are just bullshit. He's a hypocrit for doing so; he's spoken out against minority leaders attempting to avoid a confidence vote in the past, namely when he was the opposition to Paul Martin's minority Liberals.

This is just the way parliamentary politics works. Ireland's government for the past few terms has been a coalition and just like Gordon Brown the current prime minister wasn't in charge of his party when they won the last election. Even with certain issues that the parties disagree on the majority opinion will still come through.

Ignatieff Newly named Liberal Leader ready to form Coalition

This is pretty surprising to me (no, not that Ignatieff was appointed.. even though that in itself is pretty funny given his history) but rather that he's going to go forward with forming the coalition. Insiders were saying that he was against the forming of it and he did keep pretty silent as this was unfolding, so it's interesting that he's going to keep bulldozing on forward in the same path his predecessor set.

I don't think that the coalition will work. Polls around the country are actually showing the a majority of Canadians are against it (here's one), and Harper's popularity is the highest its ever been. It's actually an impressive political maneuver how he managed to turn an issue that was against him (the economy) into something that the majority would rally with him (Canadian unity). This whole thing is like a giant chess match. I can't stop watching.

I also think that Ignatieff's appointment is going to disappoint a fair amount of Liberals. Not having any input into choosing a leader must suck for them, especially when some might not support him since he's spent 30 years of his life outside of the country (only to return in 2005 to jump into politics and make a bid for the leadership of the Liberal party.)

This is so much more exciting than the last American election. There's real drama and tension here, and much uncertainty. Who knows what'll happen next?

i just wanted to point out (since i have not seen this mentioned) that the reason this happened now, and not earlier, is because when they did the BUDGET they wanted to eliminate a $2 vote subsidy for parties to "save money". harper and the conservatives were the ones who wanted to do this, and it was basically a move to try and kill off the other parties because this is VITAL MONEY for smaller parties (especially ones like the green party). a simple way to look at it is whoever you vote for gets two dollars in tax money. this works out to a little over $30 million total which is basically a drop in the bucket, and is why it's suspected to be a political move and not a financial one.

i am indifferent on what is happing because i think both sides are being underhanded. i am siding more with the coalition though, but i don't think it will survive when parliament gets started again.

And I think that most people aren't too uptight about Montreal or the big cities in Quebec, but mostly about the rural areas. At least here they tell us that's where most seperatist support is.

And that's where the irony is. Rural areas are more conservative (as in right-wing not as the party) and most urban areas are more leftist (blame the universities) yet the Partie Quebecois make it seems like the country of Quebec would be that awesome multicultural(but french speaking!), open and social democratic country even if most of their supporters from rural areas are close minded and racists. Sure, not all of them are. A lot of university student are seperatists but it's only because they want to be rebels or they just are because it's the "cool" thing to be or else you're some square head who loves the Queen.

That seems to be a poorly conceived idea.
Are there only certain times Parliament can convene or something? I don't get why they can do that, or how it would benefit the PM. I got that they won't be able to do anything, but what happens when they come back together? It's like it would just really tick off the Parliament and only further their resolve to boot Harper out.

Sorry to be asking dumb questions like this but I'm trying to grasp the situation.

It's not a dumb question.

What Does Proroguing Parliament Mean?

For many Canadians, it's a term they're not familiar with but have come to know all too well in the last week: proroguing Parliament.

But just what does it mean?

Proroguing Parliament is a lot like rebooting your computer after you've finished working. You're essentially starting with a clean slate uncomplicated by all the programs you may have been into before you hit that restart command.

It's the period between two sessions of a legislative body, although it rarely happens just weeks after an election has been held.

It means all the MPs who were elected last October 14th will remain in place, but any unpassed bills or motions - like the controversial economic statement that started this mess - will be non-existent.

In effect, when the session starts again, in this case in early January, it would be as though the Conservatives never brought in the document and they get a second chance at presenting a new one.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is expected to do just that, bringing down an early budget.

Many Canadians are openly questioning the wisdom of letting a de facto bureaucrat no one voted for decide such a vital issue, but under our system, it inevitably falls to Jean. (The Governor General of Canada).

Suspending parliament gives Harper some time to come up with an economic plan so that he can present it when parliament reconvenes. Since that's a major reason why they're trying to oust him this allows him breathing room and time to fix up that issue. However, I don't quite think that that's going to make a major difference since it seems like this was just a catalyst to spark the opposition - they're not going to back down even if they are fine with the new plan I don't think. The damage has been done.