Christian "Independent": Will the Opposition even ALLOW an election? THE 2008 COALITION ACCORD IS STILL IN FORCE!!!

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Will the Opposition even ALLOW an election? THE 2008 COALITION ACCORD IS STILL IN FORCE!!!

We all know that the Opposition plans to take down the Harper Government soon after the Budget is released. But here's a scary thought... will the Opposition parties even ALLOW the Canadian public to decide who gets to govern them at the ballot box?

Everyone seems to be forgetting one important detail... the 2008 Opposition Coalition Accord is STILL IN EFFECT. The signed document, which has yet to be revoked by any of the signatory Parties, had an inbuilt expiry date of JUNE 30, 2011!!!

Can anyone tell me what today's date is? That's right, today is March 12, 2011... the Accord is still in force for another three and a half months!

Don't believe me? Then take a look for yourself!

So I guess the big question that Canadians need to ask is will ANY of the Leaders of the Opposition Parties publicly withdraw their support for the Accord before the upcoming confidence votes?

Labels: election, Liberal/NDP Coalition

26 Comments:

At Sat Mar 12, 02:51:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous said…

That is a ridiculous blog post. Do you seriously believe the stuff you write? Coalition was cancelled when Dion stepped down.
At Sat Mar 12, 02:58:00 p.m. EST, Christian Conservative said…

Show me where and when it was officially retracted, and I'll post it right here, and give you the credit.

[CUE CRICKETS]

You won't find it ANYWHERE online... Iggy's made a comment or two on it, but he HAS NOT recinded the Accord. In fact, he was the final Liberal signatory on the Accord.

The Accord was put into force IN WRITING, and needs to be recinded IN WRITING, otherwise it's still in effect... that's what, Contract Law 101?
At Sat Mar 12, 03:27:00 p.m. EST, utterlyuseless said…

Anything is better than continuing down the corrupt road that is the Harper government. If it is a coalition, so be it. Harper is NOT a Conservative; he's an authoritarian libertarian who uses the religious right as pawns in his game.
At Sat Mar 12, 03:37:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous said…

Dude, your Christ-addled brain has clearly affected your capacity for reasonable thought.

1) There is no conspiracy to bring back the coalition.

2) Even if there were, the coalition was perfectly legal and perfectly democratic within the constitution of Canada and our parliamentary system. You were lied to, and your manifest lack of understanding of the truth of the matter is downright shameful.

Just because you didn't WANT the coalition to be legal, doesn't mean that it wasn't.

Ease off the Bible-pipe a bit; I think it's making you paranoid.
At Sat Mar 12, 03:52:00 p.m. EST, Christian Conservative said…

Go through my previous Coalition posts dude... never ONCE said it was illegal... undemocratic for sure, but I never questioned the legality of the situation.

And for the record, Canadians agreed with me... I seem to recall that 41%-43% was where our numbers hovered last time they tried it...
At Sat Mar 12, 03:54:00 p.m. EST, wilson said…

The accord allows for ANY chosen Liberal as leader.
The coalition of losers is alive and well.

Duceppes agreement ran out in 2010..... but then:

Feb 15, 2011
Joël-Denis Bellavance reports:

``A few weeks of possible federal election, the Bloc Quebecois revives the idea of supporting "a coalition of political parties" - presumably made up of Liberals and NDP - to dislodge the Conservatives of Stephen Harper.

United in general council this weekend, the Bloc Québécois supporters have pushed the issue again at the forefront of political events by entering in the platform of their party that "the Bloc Quebecois reserves the right to support a coalition of political parties "if another minority government is elected...``

So yes,
if PMSH loses confidence of the House,
the coalition of losers could approach the GG on seizing government.
At Sat Mar 12, 04:18:00 p.m. EST, Ardvark said…

Perhaps the funniest thing I read in a long time from an unhinged Harper hater: he's an "authoritarian libertarian"

No wonder nobody takes these guys seriously.
At Sat Mar 12, 04:20:00 p.m. EST, Drew Costen said…

A coalition is just as democratic as the form of representative democracy we have now (which isn't actually all that democratic, but a coalition is no less democratic).
At Sat Mar 12, 04:28:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous said…

And for the record, Canadians agreed with me... I seem to recall that 41%-43% was where our numbers hovered last time they tried

It really does not say very much for you that you think this is evidence of the truth of the matter, or that indeed a majority opinion should matter at all.
At Sat Mar 12, 04:58:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous said…

It was not undemocratic. It was completely within acceptable protocol in a parliamentary democracy.

So sorry that you didn't like it, or that 43% of the people didn't think it was democratic. You, and they, were wrong. It is democratic - especially given that the larger proportion of represented voters were represented by the coalition.

It may not have been pleasant for you, but that doesn't mean there was anything wrong with it. In the meantime, proroguing Parliament twice and being in contempt of Parliament on a number of occasions is absolutely undemocratic - by definition - and yet I don't hear a damn thing about those incidents from you.
At Sat Mar 12, 05:48:00 p.m. EST, Alberta Girl said…

For all those who believe the Coalition is NOT in effect - or has run out of time; have any of you ever thought that maybe this time they signed a new agreement away from the cameras??

CC brings up a great point - we are all wondering WHY the opposition would go into an election with polls the way they are - maybe that is their plan - vote non confidence and then go to the GG to say - Give us a Chance.

Hmmmm - something to think about; which is why Craig Oliver may have slipped when he said there would be no election this spring?

Curiousier and Curiousier...
At Sat Mar 12, 05:49:00 p.m. EST, Alberta Girl said…

A Coalition MAY be legitimate - IF it is announced before the election and IF it includes the party who got the most votes.
At Sat Mar 12, 05:50:00 p.m. EST, Joe said…

Me thinks you give the coalition too much power. Back when it was first proposed the GG acceded to the wishes of the sitting PM to prorogue parliament. Years after that event the same coalition would face the electorate at the request of the same sitting PM should the sitting PM lose a vote of non-confidence in the house. Quite apart from the machinations of the politicians the Canadian people would rebel at the mere thought of a separatist being anywhere near the levers of power. In fact any federalist coalition partner who mentions the coalition in the next election will be trounced in the polls.
At Sat Mar 12, 05:59:00 p.m. EST, wilson said…

''It was not undemocratic. It was completely within acceptable protocol in a parliamentary democracy''

Correct.

Now explain why Dion was thrown under the bus and Iffy did not seize government with the coalition.

Instead the Liberals/Dippers/Bloc took turns keeping the Harper Government propped up... for 2.5 years and counting.

Why?
At Sat Mar 12, 06:14:00 p.m. EST, wilson said…

Seeing as the Opposition has a majority, they will find the Government in contempt of Parliament, simply because they can.

This is unchartered legal/procedural territory.
The Opps may have come up with some obscure 1800's precedent,
or
-use their power to discipline and declare Bev Oda and Stephen Harper's seats vacant or demand they resign,
-if the PM resigns, that ends cabinet too , at which time the GG does not have to take his advice to dissolve Parliament
or
-some twist using 'the collective cabinet' thingy or demand that the GG dismiss Harper and cabinet...

Seeing as Liberals cant win an election,
they seem bent on using Parliament rules/regs etc to manipulate their way into power.

It's a sad spectacle
At Sat Mar 12, 06:27:00 p.m. EST, Norman in Armstrong said…

hey anonymous, first put a name against your stupid blog.

Second, we the people want to elect a government by our standards. Not by some fudging freeking lying Liberal, or a squeeking NDP with their corrupt Bloc as the ramrod to push things in their direction.

If you want democracy, accept what the people vote for.
At Sat Mar 12, 08:03:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous said…

hey anonymous, first put a name against your stupid blog.

Why? What difference does it make? You can always identify the intellectual lightweights as the people who think making up a name matters. Fine if you insist. My name is Arthur Nonymous. Let's just use A. Nonymous. Actually, forget the period. Just call me Anonymous.

Second, we the people want to elect a government by our standards

No, you the Conservatives didn't want to be outnumbered when the Opposition joined forces against you. You realize that the Coalition represented a majority of votes compared to the Cons by themselves, right? That's why Harper sh*t his pants like a coward, lied to the Canadian people about the illegitimacy and undemocratic nature of the Coalition, and then went ahead and did something that is ACTUALLY undemocratic by proroguing Parliament.

If you want democracy, accept what the people vote for.

I'll say it again, so you might try not to look like an ingoramus for the duration of your existence: The coalition was completely legal and acceptable within our Parliamentary democracy. In fact, if you occasionally picked up a book, you would realize coalitions are very normal just about everywhere else.

The fact is that you all realize you were lied to about the coalition's legitimacy, and you don't like to believe that. Also, you probably don't like to be identified as not knowing anything about our system of governance, as you so clearly do not. I am so sorry that this is the case, but it IS the case. The coalition was legitimate, legal, represented a majority of people, and is normal business in many other parliamentary democracies in the world. Your Dear Leader pushed a bit too hard, because he's just a vindictive turd, and he got his hand slapped by Parliament. Then he cried all the way to the GG like a b*tch.

It sucks, but that's what history will record. Now bug off and chase an issue a little less solid, where you stand a chance of misinterpreting it in your favour.
At Sat Mar 12, 08:24:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous said…

The original question was "will the Opposition even allow an election ?"
The answer is YES, in fact they will insist on an election.
Whether a coalition forms after an election is a different question. Probably won't happen but that's a guess.
At Sat Mar 12, 11:02:00 p.m. EST, Alberta Girl said…

Hey "Arthur"..You are wrong.

Coalitions are legal IF they include the party who actually got the most votes - not the losers AND if the voter realizes that a Coalition is an option after the elction - not snuck onto the electorate.

Also, you obviously know nothing about actual democracy because prorogation IS part of our democratic system, used over a hundred times throughout history.
At Sun Mar 13, 03:46:00 a.m. EDT, Mark said…

Any coalition formed with the Bloc will not last long. Canadians will not accept a government formed with a separtist party. Liberals will do anything for power, even selling out the country so long as they control whatever is left. They'd rather the country fell apart rather than let the people elect a Conservative majority governmet.
At Sun Mar 13, 11:26:00 a.m. EDT, WTF said…

If the opposition takes the easy way out and votes for a non-binding motion that says the Government is corrupt then the Government should immediately introduce a motion of confidence in the Government so the Libs, NDP and Bloc can put their money (extroted tax payer's money) where their mouths are. Didn't Trudeau do that once and the NDP supported him?
At Sun Mar 13, 12:15:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

Coalition is legal BUT Canadians will NEVER accept being Governed by QUEBEC
So get your act together for the fallout you created by attempting to form the Government of Canada with the QUEBEC party that wants to break Canada up
Gilles is clever and only votes if it is GOOD FOR QUEBEC
he states that every time there is a confidence vote
I BELIEVE him he is a statesman an intelligent STRONG leader
fh
At Sun Mar 13, 12:47:00 p.m. EDT, wilson said…

Yes, the Coalition lemmings are all heading for the cliff.

Last 2 polls had both Bloc and Dippers losing seats,
last 7 polls had Liberals losing seats.
So Canadians do not want a change in government,
but the Liberals want to dump their leader, and this is the only way they can do it.

Iffy should just resign instead of taking down other Lib MPs with him.
At Sun Mar 13, 01:12:00 p.m. EDT, KURSK said…

"ACTUALLY undemocratic by proroguing Parliament."

Care to elaborate on that piece of nonsense and absolutely untrue statement Anonymous?

Btw, while you are going through the parliamentary procedures books trying to find validity in that statement, perhaps you can inform us all as to how many times J.C. and Pierre Trudeau Prorogued parliament?

No ?

Here, I did it for you..

Chretien 4, Harper 2.

35th Parliament Chretien 1996/2/2
36th Parliament 1999/9/18
37th Parliament 2002/9/16,2003/11/12 ( the last one was done to avoid the auditor generals release of the report on Adscam)

And if you really want a lopsided score how about this one:

Trudeau 11, Harper 2.

26th Parliament Trudeau 1963/12/21,1965/4/3
27th Parliament Trudeau 1967/5/8
28th Parliament Trudeau 1969/10/22,1970/10/7,1972/2/16
29th Parliament Trudeau 1974/2/26
30th Parliament Trudeau 1976/10/12,1977/10/17,1978/10/10,1983/11/30

15 prorogations to 2!

Who is undemocratic?
At Sun Mar 13, 11:51:00 p.m. EDT, KURSK said…

A slight correction, count a few of those prorogues to the former Liberal PM before Trudeau, Lester B. Pearson!

Different gang same story..
At Sun Mar 27, 11:31:00 p.m. EDT, canadian politicker said…

"A Coalition MAY be legitimate - IF it is announced before the election and IF it includes the party who got the most votes."

No, no, no. Incorrect on both counts.

Alberta Girl, if you actually believe either of these things to be true, you do not understand how the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy works. I don't say this to be unkind, but because it is simply a fact and there seems to be a lot of misinformation that has spread concerning the operation of the Canadian political system since December 2008.

There are simply no grounds for insisting that coalition government must be announced during an election, or that it must include the party which received a plurality of the votes.

In the first place, we don't even vote for governments in Canada. We vote for one person to represent our riding, and then the governor general appoints the prime minister from the party who received the most seats. They govern with the support of the house, and if that support is withdrawn, the GG can choose to either hold an election or to appoint a different prime minister to see if they can maintain the support of the house. There is absolutely no rule anywhere about coalitions including one or another party - the office of the prime minister is entirely based on being able to command the support of parliament (a task that should have been relatively simple for Mr. Harper, considering that cooperation with any one of the other three parties would be sufficient to give him parliamentary stability)

In the second place, our model of democracy is premised on the idea that representatives are accountable at the ballot box - the next time. We have no way of holding our politicians to account during their term in office for all the promises they made during the campaign. This is why politicians can, for instance, "flip flop" on an issue once in office; because nothing is stopping them. If the opposition parties were to form a coalition, Canadians would have an opportunity to render a verdict on the matter - at the following election, as with everything else.

These are not opinions - it is just how the system works. You're free to dislike it, but you do yourself and the people you talk to a disservice by failing to understand how your own political system operates.

Personally, the thing that has upset me more than possibly anything else about Mr. Harper's term in office is his rather brazen efforts at confusing Canadians about the operation of the political system that is our constitutional birthright.