SDA gets results!
“We’ve decided that the only person and the best person to lead and form a coalition government is the elected leader of our party … Stéphane Dion,” said leadership hopeful Dominic LeBlanc.“We are comfortable with that, we support that and we think that’s right.” globe and mail
Kate has been pulling for this for donkey’s years.
The Maple Syrup Revolution (h/t Dr. Dawg) will be lead by a man who was decisively rejected by Canada’s voters, had his Party confined to Toronto and a few vis-min ridings in the ROC, ran a distant third in the leadership popularity polls, is despised by a significant section of his caucus and has no program whatsoever. Oh, and did we mention he is in bed with the NDP and the Bloc gets to veto the action.
Perfect.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I’m not overjoyed with this choice, as you know, but as Scott Tribe points out it’s only until May. By the time a new election rolls ‘round, there will have been a new leader with at least several months of experience and public exposure. If a week is an eternity in politics, try six months.
We aren’t, however, off to a swift start. It’s like tying the guy to the leg of a race-horse.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The GG has never been confronted with a situation where a separatist party wishes to govern the country and usurp popular democratic will…I suspect the SCC will take a dim view of it also when the constitutionality of this commie putsch is challenged with a reference to the SCC. I suspect Harper will have a ruling from that reference in hand when he goes to the GG to dissolve parliament.
We will see Parliament proroged till 2009. We will see an amended budget tabled (minus the party subsidy defunding). There will be an election if there is a NC on the budget…trust me on this one.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I suspect the SCC will take a dim view of it also when the constitutionality of this commie putsch is challenged with a reference to the SCC
I seriously doubt that any SCC reference will be made – partially because I even more seriously doubt that the SCC would “take a dim view of it” – knowing that, who is going to bother with a reference? WLMR, you have to learn to distinguish between something you don’t like, and something that’s illegal, or un-Constitutional. There is no reason why, if the three amigos can learn to get along, that they couldn’t approach the G-G and propose to form a government. If they are convincing in their assertion that they will work cooperatively to maintain a Parliamentary majority, she has almost no choice but to give them a chance to do so: they would (if they can corral their members) represent a twenty-seat majority (plus / minus speaker, possible absences, etc), and could therefore propose and pass legislation. That’s what forming a government means – whether it is a government any of us like is not an issue, and something that neither the G-G nor the SCC would consider.
Constitutions are serious things – we don’t bend the rules, or arbitrarily dismiss some MPs simply because we dislike their politics – even the Bloc. Once allowed to run and duly elected, they take their seats in the House like any other MP, and are allowed to conduct their Parliamentary duties – including participation in or support for a coalition, if it comes to that.
December 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
What I love about this whole thing is the gigantic lesson in constitutional law that everybody is getting. We’ve been watching US politics so long that lots of people seem startled by the fact that we vote for MPs and that is really the only say we have in the make-up of Parliament. Dude!
December 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
A silver lining…from a woman who just had heavy hammers applied to her nose.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
There is no reason why, if the three amigos can learn to get along, that they couldn’t approach the G-G and propose to form a government. If they are convincing in their assertion that they will work cooperatively to maintain a Parliamentary majority, she has almost no choice but to give them a chance to do so
-fine if Harper resigns, as he should if he loses confidence. But if he requests a dissolution, the GG is really on the spot, weighing the confidence vote against the principle that she can refuse a Minister, and effectively politicize her office, only in the most necessary circumstances. She must do everything possible to make sure the politicians wear this crisis; if Harper tries to make the case that the proposed coalition is inherently unstable and a danger because of the separatists, I think she should dissolve Parliament and let the voters punish those of bad conscience.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:22 pm
...if Harper tries to make the case that the proposed coalition is inherently unstable and a danger because of the separatists, I think she should dissolve Parliament…
But that’s really not his argument to make – all he can do is present evidence that he has (or does not have) the confidence of the House. I’m not saying he won’t present that argument, but that the correct response to anyone who argues based on what someone else can or will do is to say “I’ll ask them myself.” In any event, we are in interesting times – who would’ve thought that Captain Clarity would be on bended knee to Gilles Duceppe?
December 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“gigantic lesson in constitutional law that everybody is getting”
The best lesson Canadians could get is to open up the Federalist Papers and read what a bunch of home schoolers came up with to avoid the kind of stupidity that we’re witnessing right now.
The only person missing from this Edsel class group of clapped out public sector hacks is Buzz Hargrove as Minister of Industry to show them how to kick it old school so we can reintroduce the Soviet Lada onto the parking lot size potholes that litter the beaver dam choked Trans Canada Highway.
I’m just waiting for Ed “Those aren’t bags under my eyes, those are iron filings” Broadbent to refloat his “Fair Prices Commission” with free disco mirror ball and Bee Gees soundtrack, soon to be available on state of the art Eight Track cassettes to be installed in all Pravda era automobiles under Industry Minister Buzz (is there a fly in the room?) Hargrove.
December 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
By the way, I’m a little disturbed that in these times of crisis a voice of constitutional sanity such as Sheila Copps hasn’t come to our aid.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
But that’s really not his argument to make – all he can do is present evidence that he has (or does not have) the confidence of the House. I’m not saying he won’t present that argument, but that the correct response to anyone who argues based on what someone else can or will do is to say “I’ll ask them myself.”
-the power of the GG to demand a resignation that is not forthcoming is not at all clear, especially if the PM requests a dissolution and election. The powers of the GG to act, to wield actual power, in contradiction to, or absent advice from, her ministers must be considered very minimal in a system of responsible government, perhaps no more than is necessary to right clearly illegal acts. But of course this is all a question of conventions, and I have limited schooling therein, and we are in somewhat unchartered waters. Still, fwiw, it would seem to me that the GG would be well advised to call an election if Harper doesn’t do the proper thing and resign. Therefore, Harper’s ability to make a claim that a lame duck Liberal leader, with an apparent inability himself to go quietly from the scene, with doubtful allegiance from his own party, and in alliance with two other parties, one separatist, cannot be expected to lead a stable government, whatever was signed today, would have to be weighed as a legitimate reason for the presently duly instituted Prime Minister to request a dissolution. In other words, it may be necessary to make Harper, and Dion and Co., not the GG, politically accountable for the fall out from this event.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:55 pm
above should read: the power of the GG to fire a PM when his resignation is not forthcoming and a dissolution is requested, is not at all clear…
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 am
“I seriously doubt that any SCC reference will be made – partially because I even more seriously doubt that the SCC would “take a dim view of it””
Then we put you down as seriously doubtful.