Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« (Video) James Cohen on the looming tidal lock crisis | Main | Actor Ray Winstone on Britain's big government »

Monday, December 01, 2008

Bloc-blessed junta is undemocratic and most unfair to NDP and Liberal voters

It's not surprising that Jean Chretien of Adscam and "Culture of Entitlement" fame is now trying to pull the backroom marionette strings and replace our democratically elected federal government. What sparked this railroading? Not the economy and not  "economic stimulus" – well unless you count the stimulus/subsidy for politicos paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

The Liberals, Bloc and the NDP got upset at the mere suggestion that before politicians ask Canadians to tighten belts in face of economic challenges, politicos might have to do the same. They were terrified. After all, they're “entitled to their entitlements” – our tax dollars to fund their political ads, staffers, and pollsters. Eighty-six per (86%) cent of the Bloc Quebecois’ political budget is funded by your tax dollars. That’s thanks to a system started by Chretien and jealously guarded by Dion and Layton.

Thought we stopped this graft years ago? Think again. They're reaching out from the grave, desperately trying to end one of the first governments in years that actually showed at least some stability, reason and focus in its economic approach with real and even pre-emptive tax cut and infrastructure stimulus.

Even in recent days, the government has shown that it’s willing to work with the other parties – they’ll even introduce an early budget and shelve the political subsidy cut. The government is clearly responsive. Got a problem with the ways things are going? They're obviously willing to talk. Why not, in this time when we need stability, give the government a chance to do its work? Why not show the world we are a mature, civil and fair society and respect the results of our own election?

We now know that while Prime Minister Harper was standing for this country’s economic interests at the G20 and elsewhere, the NDP was already plotting this power grab with the Bloc Quebecois. While they want to bring down the just re-elected government, they don’t want to face the voters or any democratic approval for their plot.

This is actually most unfair to those Canadians who voted Liberal or New Democrat. These parties just finished an election where they explicitly campaigned against any “coalition.” There’s no mandate for this. Had NDP and Liberal voters known those parties wanted to write a blank cheque to the Bloc Quebecois, many might have voted differently. You don’t need to like the current Prime Minister in order to see how profoundly undemocratic and unfair a Bloc/Liberal/NDP backroom coalition would be.

The people have spoken. They didn’t want a leaderless or poorly-led Bloc-blessed junta united only by partisan hatred of the Prime Minister. They didn’t want cabinet decisions made with care to Gilles Duceppe’s whims and approval as top concern and this country’s economic future as an afterthought. Many said the economy was threatened enough when Quebec sovereigntists took power in Quebec last time. The result of having this happen in any way in Ottawa would not only be political lunacy, it could be catastrophic.

Most analysts believe that at best this hate-based coalition could only last a matter of months -- time enough to just cause damage and set back work already started by the previous government. Where’s the stability or sense in this? How is this anything except an unwarranted power grab? This allergy to democracy is unhealthy. It sends the wrong message to the world.

Like him or hate him, the Prime Minister was quite correct when he said Canada's government should be decided by Canadians - not backroom deals. It should be our choice. Well, we've chosen. Let the opposition know they need to come out of the backroom and let the current democratically elected government continue to do its work.

Posted by Liam O'Brien on December 1, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e20105362ea0dc970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bloc-blessed junta is undemocratic and most unfair to NDP and Liberal voters:

Comments

I could barely stop laughing when I read that a Newfie was railing against "entitlements", and it's even funnier coming from someone whose province voted en masse for who Danny boy told them to vote for.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-12-01 8:03:44 AM


LOL. Easy fella. . . try to contain your prejudices.

Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-12-01 8:05:53 AM


Well , the people continue to speak this morning . Stock market down 650 points at the opening , in response to a 3 stooges coalition . God help us if this closet socialist GG , actually takes these idiots seriously and allows such a monstrosity to happen .

Posted by: daveh | 2008-12-01 8:07:30 AM


After all, they're “entitled to their entitlements”
Posted by Liam O'Brien on December 1, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3bvORzwd-Y

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-12-01 8:26:52 AM


Stig - sounds like you're a little obsessed with Danny Williams. This isn't an article written by Danny Williams or which has anything to do with him . . . unless you believe all Newfoundlanders must share one hive mind with him . . . . please keep tilting though . . . very funny.

Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-12-01 8:34:25 AM


I wonder how you can say that a government that got only 37.6% of the vote is democratically elected. This is just an anomaly of the Canadian electoral system (which is inappropriate for a five-party election campaign by the way), where you can get a lot of seats having under 40% of the vote. However, if you add up the votes of the two parties wanting to overthrow the government, they got 44.4% of the vote. It seems they would form a more legitimate government representing a higher proportion of the population.

When you run a minority government, you have to consider the possibility of being overthrown. One of the greatest steps towards a better democracy in Canada has been the law on political parties public funding. Why should the future of the country be decided by lobbyists funding alternately one of the two major parties? Now any party that gets many votes gets a sizable budget. Suddenly, when Harper sees his party is full of cash and the opposition is struggling, he decides to cut this measure. Is ~20 million dollars pro annum going to save Canada from recession?

That's just one of the reasons I support the petition to overthrow Harper:
http://causes.ca/coalition

Why can't Harper make consensus. He did in the past, why is he so rigid now? He still has a minority government. At least until he gets overthrown.

Posted by: YesAgainstHarper | 2008-12-01 9:13:50 AM


Be honest here. There are three parties in the proposed junta. The Bloc Quebecois is every bit as essential and integral to the plan by these parties to overthrow the government and achieve what none of them could achieve in our most recent democratic election. Also - be honest about the backroom process by which the "Prime Minister" in this coalition of hatred is being selected. Safer money is on the one leader actually democratically selected by Liberals (Dion) not getting it . . so apparently a meeting between a few higher up Liberal chaps in Toronto will pass for you as democratic selection of a prime minister . . . . to lead a "coalition" concept against which the parties that got the percentages of votes you mention explicitly campaigned against. You make no sense at all.

Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-12-01 9:28:17 AM


Stig - sounds like you're a little obsessed with Danny Williams.
Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 1-Dec-08 8:34:25 AM

Bwahahahaha. I'm merely highlighting what happens when you vote an asshole into office.

. . . unless you believe all Newfoundlanders must share one hive mind with him . . . .
Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 1-Dec-08 8:34:25 AM

Almost 85% of Newfies voted against the Conservatives.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-12-01 9:47:20 AM


Actually, what makes no sense at all is the political system is this country. When there is an election, who are you voting for?
A- A member of parliament for your riding
B- A political party
C- A prime minister
D- Another party that has chances of defeating your current MP you dislike
E- All of these answers

Come on, let's get serious here. Nothing is black or white in the Canadian political system. You don't necessarily vote in support of the leader of the party when you cast a vote for that party. People resign, they get replaced, but the elections do not necessarily come right away.
If we could cast a vote answering multiple questions (which MP, which PM, etc), than you could say that yes, this person was not democratically selected. However, is there anything that we chose in our political system? Nothing besides the MP. You cast a vote for a representative, who happens to be in a party, which happens to have a leader. Leaders come and go.

This country needs democratic reform. Not just smoke and mirrors by scrapping the senate. Real reform to reinstate democracy. The democracy in this country is so indirect, that elections are not elections anymore, there are lotteries.

Posted by: YesAgainstHarper | 2008-12-01 9:55:23 AM


"I wonder how you can say that a government that got only 37.6% of the vote is democratically elected...However, if you add up the votes of the two parties wanting to overthrow the government, they got 44.4% of the vote."

YesAgainstHarper,

There is a crucial missing piece in your argument. In a democracy, you want the preferences of citizens to determine who gets to be in charge, right?

You're right that the first-past-the-post system is not the best way of ascertaining the will of the people, but you haven't presented evidence that a Liberal-NDP coalition represents that will, either.

For example:

We know there are people out there with preferences that look like this:

1. LPC
2. CPC
3. NDP
4. Bloc

That is, they prefer the Liberal party most of all (and voted for the Liberals), but they prefer the Conservatives to the NDP.

We don't know how many of these people exist, but some percentage of the people who voted for the Liberals have preferences like this.

There might even be some weirdos out there with preferences like this:

1. NDP
2. CPC
3. LPC
4. Bloc

A coalition of the LPC-NDP-bloc cannot reasonably be said to represent the preferences of people in either of these groups.

The coalition could really only be said to represent the preferences of people who would prefer ALL parties to the Conservatives. Well, what percentage of Canadians fit that description? We just don't know.

Certainly, 44.4% of voters do not fall into this group. Some of them undoubtedly prefer the Conservatives to the NDP. Thus, you simply can't claim that a Liberal-NDP coalition is representative of that entire group.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-12-01 9:57:17 AM


I would like to give my three cheeres for LIAM
O!BRIEN for writing the coloum on the NDP and Liberals, You have a Turncoat BOB RAE who destroyed Ontario while being NDP government,you have got Chretien who is a has been, then you have another liberal that can,t even give his name a so called (YESAGAINSTHARPER)or an NDP . The only way morons Like that can win is by a coalition.and if us canadians can let this happen ,and not do anything about it we deserve to be ruled by ontario and Quebec.

Posted by: George Hofer | 2008-12-01 10:10:03 AM


Stig said:
"Almost 85% of Newfies voted against the Conservatives."

1. The term "newfie" is consider by some to be in the same range of words as the other n-word.

2. I wasn't part of that 85%.

To the anti-Harper man -- I am quite serious . . . if this is an option that was being seriously entertained by the parties now proposing it (and apparently it was all along and had nothing to do with the Fiscal Update), then they should have been honest enough to face the electorate and admit it was an option instead of campaigning against it. . . .

Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-12-01 10:39:06 AM


When approached by the coalition, the Governor General must consider something like the following before making any decision to hand over power: Did the electorate give consideration to the possibility that the elected parties have a mandate to join together to form a government? On the affirmative she could consider the great debate where most reporting of it claimed that it was a gang bang on Harper - consistent with a coalition premise. On the negative she could consider that there exists inter-generational contempt for liberals within NDP supporters (particularly blue collar types) who perhaps would vote Conservative as many did for Reform, if the alternative was joining with Liberals.

She must also weigh the cost of another election. With one of the major issues involved - the need for "stimulus spending", the election cost may pale by comparison. She has been criticized for her leftist (and separatist) partisanship. Allowing the coalition would reinforce that claim. The easiest ($120,000,000) decision to rationalize would be to call for another election with the possibility / probability of the coalition front and centre before the electorate. Whether or not the video professor and the lame duck Liberal "leader" can last through another election campaign and still be willing to bed each other (with separatist voyeurs looking-on) is another issue.

Canada's future is, more liberal lite (already bending to accomodate) under Harper or the Left Lib coaltion on steroids under ? and the video professor, with or without another election. Ain't democracy great!

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-12-01 10:56:46 AM


1. The term "newfie" is consider by some to be in the same range of words as the other n-word.
Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 1-Dec-08 10:39:06 AM

Some doesn't include me. Nor Stompin Tom Connors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD1XhvT9gRc

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-12-01 11:33:38 AM


You do realize the opposition holds the majority of seats in Parliament. How is that against democracy?

Posted by: PoliCana | 2008-12-01 1:22:12 PM


The opposition never campaigned as a "coalition" and I think many folks would agree that it's rather anti-democratic to just six short weeks ago have the NDP and Liberals explicitly saying this type of arrangement was NOT a possibility and to now see it happen. . . It's also rather deceptive given what we know about Layton and the BQ. Even if it does cost money, I think the democratic thing to do here should the government be defeated is take this newly-plotted and exposed Bloc-blessed Junta back to the people of Canada and see if they actually want it governing them. . . surely the members of this group aren't afraid to lay their "coalition" before the people of Canada . . . . if they are then they are allergic to democracy and it only proves they are desperate to avoid the democratic selection of the governing party.


Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-12-01 1:28:55 PM


Any appetite over here for a Western Self-determination movement? SDA is lighting up over the threat of the coup. The point being that we in the West gave this "canada" thing one more go, and now we're fed up. This certainly does not reflect the will of the West, to further press YesAgainstHarper's line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. It is high time for the West to begin throwing big punches, instead of the weak-kneed "excuse us, may we come in?" we constantly live with.

I suspect this might be the push we need out West to seriously begin the work of eliminating Eastern rule over Western canada.

Posted by: bcf | 2008-12-01 1:44:44 PM


YesAgainstHarper

Chretien had majorities with 38% of the votes, and he was totally cool with that.

Posted by: bcf | 2008-12-01 1:47:16 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.