Thursday, December 04, 2008
It's prorogation.
Welcome to Stephen Harper's Canada. Opposition parties need not apply.
P.S. Thanks for nothing, Ms. Jean. Feel free to let us know when you finally grow some ovaries.
AFTERSNARK: I'm guessing I'm going to take some flak for dumping on that worthless hack Michaelle Jean, so let me put it to you this way -- if Jean couldn't say "no" under the current circumstances, what circumstances would have inspired her to refuse a request for prorogation?
Think about it -- we have a minority government, only two weeks after an election, having accomplished absolutely nothing in the current session, about to lose a vote of confidence and in the midst of having to deal with an imploding economy, and all of that isn't enough for her to say "No, get back to work, you whiny douchebag"?
How much worse would it have to get? Or, put another way, can you even imagine a worse set of circumstances? Seriously, what could make this worse to the point where Jean might have rejected the request? Because if Jean couldn't turn down a request under these circumstances, then there is nothing that would convince her. In short, once this prorogation is over, Harper can simply ask for another one and Jean has absolutely no foundation for refusing the next time either. Or the time after that. Or the time after that.
Michaelle Jean just fucked us all. Thanks for nothing, you hack.
P.S. Maybe after the prorogation, Harper will simply call a snap election. And given the precedent she's already set, Jean will have no choice but to agree to that as well. Apparently, the word "no" simply isn't in her vocabulary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
I don't think that's fair, though, CC. I think Ed Broadbent is right -- this is entirely at Harper's door, for putting Jean in an impossible position. Prorogation has never been refused before, and she herself would be setting a precedent and possibly setting off a different constitutional crisis by disagreeing to prorogation.
It's Harper himself who has created this impossible either/or for her, and has set out on a destructive path.
All I could think yesterday, about Jean, was "she's going to be vilified and demonized no matter what she decides." So perhaps it's "our side" that's going to vilify her instead of "their side." But I'd rather vilify the creator of the crisis than the woman whose choice was absolutely impossible.
Phyl: While it's true that the GG was put in an awful position, the fact is it was her duty to make the decision.
Unfortunately she has made the wrong one. The precedent set now will have long and devastating effects on Canadian Democracy.
Now, ANY future minority government will have the ability to prorouge parliament whenever it faces a vote of non-confidence....
I know. And yet one of the tenets of that old parliamentary Responsible Government thing is that the Crown is to follow the advice of the Prime Minister. She could theoretically also have been setting back that parliamentary principle if she'd gone the other way.
See what I mean? She's going to be vilified by half the country either way. 15 minutes ago, the Con crowd were calling her a "Liberal lackey," and suddenly they're going to call her a hero of democracy.
Frankly, I think Solomon himself couldn't have made a "right" decision here.
I'd rather NOT get sidetracked from the main issue to dump on this woman, and dump on the inventor of this crisis: Stephen Harper.
(Harper has won if we dump on her and don't now concentrate all our efforts on keeping the coalition together and turfing him permanently for his cowardice and his own attacks on the very Constitution with his rallies and contempt of parliament and so on.)
I'd like to hear a more expanded version of the train of thought that led you to the conclusion that she was "wrong", unless you've joined the Canadian Sentinel school of political analysis. (E.g.: "Wrong" = "Stuff I Don't Like".
CC, there were constitutional experts (who did NOT appear to be partisan hacks at all, but long-time students of the constitution) who said that there is some argument for the Crown allowing the just-set-up government to try to pass a budget and regain the confidence of the House.
There will not be a single justification for saying "Yes" a second time. Simply not. She will not grant it again.
IMO, that's a straw woman you're setting up.
I'd really rather not vilify one of Harper's coldly-chosen victims, and vilify him directly instead.
And right away, Harper succeeds at setting us at each other's throats. We'll be pushovers for his remaining moves over the next few months if we keep letting him control us like this.
Phyl:
This may surprise a few people, but I don't hold Stephen Harper responsible for this.
As PM, Harper had every right to be as childish, petty, petulant and vindictive as he wanted.
It took G-G Michaelle Jean saying "yes" to enable him. It is totally and entirely her fault.
Well, we'll have to respectfully disagree on that one, CC.
I agree that the blame for this lies entirely with Harper. However, the crux of the matter is that a precedent has been set that strengthens the power of the executive over and against parliament.
This is dangerous for a parliamentary democracy.
So, that difference of opinion established, my next question to you would be -- are you going to spend the next two months mostly vilifying her, or fighting Harper? The former will do no good now (especially since she, too, had the Constitutional right to make the decision she made), and the latter may have some effect.
B: Wrong - Yes. I don'l like it - of course. I would much prefer she had made the right decision.
It is wrong because if the GG is to remain to have any power (which is required for separation of powers in our system) then she must use it. As per CC in the aftersnark, if not now, when would be a good situation to deny a PM from proroging parliament.
This is the time where she should have turned to the house to demonstrate confidence in Harper before granting him his wish.
Phyl,
I hear what you're saying. But it was a stupid decision.
I intend to vilify her for a little bit, while continuing with my ongoing vilification campaign against the guy who she has just enabled.
Sure, no G-G has had to do this before, but no G-G ever had as stupid a PM before.
Yep. No point ragging on the GG. Odds were high she'd be more conservative (small c) than provocative. Rag on the Cons who started this and want to end it their way.
If the Cons do a volte-face and actually...*actually* put out policies to do national good, then kicking, screaming or otherwise, they were forced into it by the opposition parties standing up and booting them in the ass. And that's the real point here.
If by January 27, the Cons have proven predictably moribund and virulent, then the opposition parties, which hopefully have not been silent and passive during the reprieve given this government, do a non-con vote and move them out.
Everybody hopes a bad situation can be ended in a miraculous poof of 'aha', but c'mon, was anyone unprepared for this delaying tactic of the government? If the coalition can't handle a prolonged fight for what they think is right, then they're not up to the job. Everyone is on trial now. Government and Opposition.
Even if moved to the opposition right now, you'd be kidding if you think the Cons would be standing idly and politely by, not spending their PR monies to savage the 'separtist coalition' government.
At least there's open *resistance* to the Cons steamrollering now. I wanted the Xmas present, but I'll take the revenant Opposition. I'll take the open siding of 'elder statesmen' against the Cons, I'll take the more biting tone in media against the government message.
I don't know if we'll ever find out, but I wonder if there were any 'conditions' put on the prorogue by the GG, or if she can do that. Historically, they could chew PMs out. She's meeting with the opposition parties today as well, for more than tea and cake I presume. What happens if she says, let the Cons present a budget, vote on it and then I'll give you a chance instead of an election.
I don't envy HE Jean being in this position, and I very much blame the Cons for being the rightwing believers in the 'American Way' that they are.
Niles, I pretty much agree. I know it was in Jean's power to set a date as a condition for agreeing. They must have talked about something for the almost two hours Harper was in there. I can't think it was just her letting him talk the whole time.
Even if moved to the opposition right now, you'd be kidding if you think the Cons would be standing idly and politely by, not spending their PR monies to savage the 'separtist coalition' government.
The thing is -- the coalition could virtually ignore the Cons, no matter how loud they got, and simply create and pass legislation without them. That would be the one advantage they have that the Cons don't even now: they could get stuff done no matter what sort of "campaign" the Cons aroused.
Under those circumstances, the Cons would have to drum their people up to violence or stuff like that, outside of parliament. And their true colours would be so visible for all to see.
One thing I've been fearing, since last Thursday with that "Fiscal Update," was that we could end up with civil war. When neo-Cons get frothy at the mouth enough, they are good at creating that sort of thing. I know "we don't do that here," but it always starts somewhere.
Phyl sez:
the coalition could virtually ignore the Cons, no matter how loud they got, and simply create and pass legislation without them
Which, to my mind, raises another constitutional question: Do the Crown's minions respond to their ministers or to Parliament? When the ministers try to tell the minions to do something contrary to an act of Parliament? In other words, can the Prime Minister of Canada issue "signing statements" that tell the minions what an act of Parliament really means and/or how they are not to compromise the PM's constitutional powers in their execution of legislation?
I agree with Balbulican. It's as legal and as constitutional a decision as the decision of the opposition MPs to propose a coalition. We live and die by the sword, here.
But while the legality and the constitutionality of the coalition didn't stop the invective of some Conservative supporters, I don't think it stops us from applying terms of our own to Harper. Things like coward, for instance. But that might not be productive.
Yeah, I think we're looking at a March election, and I'm seriously tempted to suggest this: consider it a run-off election. Let the coalition field one candidate per riding -- either the victorious candidate in the October 14 election or, in ridings where the Conservative won, the second place finisher.
That will likely gain the coalition seats in Saskatchewan, British Columbia and rural Ontario, and give them more authority to take down Harper when parliament reconvenes in April.
Craig, I have a feeling Charest is toast already, and Quebecers won't forget the demonization that's been going on, by Monday.
Three slim silver edges to this very dark cloud.
First, if the GG had allowed a confidence vote to take place on Monday or forced Harper to use a nuclear option, chances are good the inflamed rhetoric would have pushed even more Quebecers to vote for the Parti Québécois in Monday's provincial election, quite possibly enough for the PQ to form the government. Though it remains to be seen how Quebecers will react to Jean's decision, the possibility exists that putting Parliament into the freezer may also freeze movement toward the PQ.
Second, this gives the Liberals time to deal with their Dion problem. No assurance they'll take advantage of it, of course, despite the now increased likelihood of a post-budget election.
Third, Harper remains the head of the Conservatives. As long as he is, especially after his scorched earth tactics in Quebec, the chances of the Cons' becoming the natural governing party or even forming a majority government are greatly reduced.
Now that prorogation has been granted, if Harper still can't hold it together in January and receive the confidence of the house, why should the GG grant him an election?
Her place is not to prop up the current government, in opposition to the house. Her place is to ensure that the house -- the only body we elect, it cannot be said enough -- functions to the benefit of the people. Currently she has stopped its functioning. To stop it again, for another six weeks, would be unconscionable.
It would be absolutely outrageous for her to continue to deny the people appropriate representation in the house after today.
Phyl, while it's fairly clear Charest's not going to be waltzing to a majority government, it's too soon to say more. The reports of movement toward the PQ come from the PQ. And though Charest has been strangely silent re the machinations in Ottawa, in people's minds he's not automatically linked with Harper. Indeed, he's seen by many as having been instrumental in stopping the Cons' advance in Quebec in the last election. It will be interesting to see how this plays in the Quebec media in the next two or three days. So far, what the anger/disgust I'm hearing on phone-ins and from francophone clients is directed at Harper, not Charest. And the 1:30 news had a report that Charest is now arguing he needs a majority government to avoid the kind of mess we're seeing at the federal level.
James Bow:
Good Idea but the 'coalition' will never ever run one candidate in each riding. The NDP will never accepted it and remain a thorn in the Liberals side. Layton's goal is to be Prime Minister and the coalition leader would have to be a Liberal in an election campaign.
This coalition is officially over.
I suspect M@ is right, and the GG would turn to the possible coalition first, before authorizing another election.
This decision does mean that we'll have been without a functioning parliament for about 5 months by the time it sits again. I can't imagine a way -- unless the coalition does allow itself to disintegrate in the next two months -- to justify another election without parliament even having sat for more than 2 weeks in 6 months.
Just because it's never been done before is no reason for Jean not to have stopped Harper. He and his have set a lot of precedents, so what's the problem with her doing it if it is justified?
It isn't as though Harper had not already been given a change to make parliament work. Jean allowed him to hold another election for that very reason, and he failed again to work with the other parties.
At the very least, she should have met with the coalition folks to see what they could offer in order to prevent the House shutting down at a time when it is extremely important to take action on the economy, in particular.
I agree with CC - she failed in this, and I think she whimped out. She's GG - she shouldn't be worried about taking flack, her first concern should be for what is best for Canada and our democracy.
Previous GG Schreyer said ""Any group that presumes to govern must be willing to face and seek the confidence of Parliament, and it mustn't be evaded and it mustn't be long avoided. I can't put it any more succinctly than that," and that's the problem here - Harper used this to evade a confidence vote, and Jean didn't even meet with the others to hear if that vote was warranted.
Shiver me timbers! It's Canada's new "talk like a pirate" day. Since we now have no functioning government and are a failed state, we can look to other similar countries for guidance. In Somalia the main economic stimulus comes from piracy.
It's buggery on the high seas, mates! Arrrrgh!
It ain't over 'til it's over. (h/t Yogi B.)
There's work to do. Lots.
Hmmmm.... wv = unmadist. I keed you not.
right frank. Winuts whine and cry, but we curse, get really pissed - for about five minutes - then we act.
CC, did you stop to consider she may had other considerations?
She's black, French-speaking, and from Quebec, and Harper's already got his hoopleheads in a lather over the supposedly undemocratic putsch being carried out by the separatist coalition. As others have pointed out, they'd be screaming bloody murder if a Haitian immigrant gave 'their' government to the enemy.
Why fuel wingnut rage and western separatism for a mere 6 or 7 weeks of false principal? As I understand it, she and her successors will always retain the prerogative of doing whatever the fuck she wants, precedent be damned. ;)
Jean not only set a dangerous precedent for Canada's parliamentary system but for ever other parliamentary democracy throughout the world. Way to make a mark on history.
The Harper retrogrades crying that a coalition government would create a "banana republic" are now crowing that their Leader is victorious. Yup, a real victory for democracy -- not.
We get to join the ranks of Malawi, Sri Lanka and Pakistan who suspended their Parliaments in the past few years. But in those cases, real political crisis (including violent riots and bombings) was the catalyst, not one leader's burning desire to hang on to power for his own benefit.
**sigh**
All this did, was force a stay, until such time as a REAL confidence issue could be raised.
And given the choices of spending 30 billion dollars on a band aide solution to a very ill defined problem, and this? I will take this.
My ideal situation is a PC (not CPC) minority government with a strong opposition. I got neither. I got a strong CPC government in a minority role, and an opposition staffed with a bunch of simpering fools and cry babies. The only leader in the group of the coalition is the seperatist Duccepe.
Hell, now days, if the Bloc did not stand for the destruction of Canada as we know it, I could easily vote for them.
Predictions, given the farce going on? Whoever wins out come Jan, when the confidence motion is raised, will not be a major party after the next election, especially if that does not occur until after the recession.
The comments directed at Jean in this post, and the others on the subject, speak to an ignorance of the role of GG, and is no different the the venom heaped on her when she appointed Morgentaler to the Order of Canada. Just more ignorant lashing out about a situation not well understood.
And in other news... Liberals talking sense?
Damn, just how does a hat taste with ketchup?
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/12/04/7634186-cp.html
At the instant the G-G had to make her decision, did Stephen Harper have the confidence of the house?
I think that's an important question and one that the G-G would have to take into account before granting the request for proroguing parliament.
Technically, I believe he still does. There hasn't been a formal vote for non-confidence yet. His party had the most seats at the last and very recent election and was granted permission to form the government. With that, he gets some authority.
In light of this, I don't see the G-G's decision as very difficult in this situation and I don't believe she was placed in a position where a "choice was absolutely impossible."
There is no imminent threat to Canada or Canada's democracy. Both sides of the main issues being argued, especially regarding the economy, are valid and debatable. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the G-G can know whether proroguing parliament will ultimately be a good or bad thing. That's asking too much.
So, she should go with the default: does the PM have the confidence of the house? At present, technically at least, yes. Therefore, he gets his request. It's not that hard.
Remembering that the G-G is mostly a ceremonial figure, the G-G should be expected to go along with the PM in virtually all cases as long as he has the confidence of the house. It's hard to imagine circumstances so exceptional that this wouldn't be the case.
I'm with M@ on this one in that this situation all changes once he loses a non-confidence vote.
Aye, I am with M@ and Jimmy here... Come confidence motion time, all bets are off. At that point, if the PM has lost the confidence of the house, then the Coalition should stand up and demand to form Government then.
So I've got Jimmy and AM agreeing with me... what the hell do I do now!?
I was in the "bad old GG" camp until I saw a picture in the paper of Queen Elizabeth II opening the British parliament yesterday. I've always liked the Queen as a symbol of our traditions. The article, as usual, was explaining she reads the speech but has no part in writing it, as the monarch is no longer allowed to be involved in politics. She can detest the current government, yet will still read the Speech without showing that. Like the way she moves her purse to the other arm when she wants to be extricated by her staff while meeting people, she can give subtle hints of her opinion without actually voicing it.
So it would be for our GG. There is no question in my mind she would be going against tradition in not granting a prorogue, since her PM requested it. She is expected to follow her PM's advice unless there is a clear breach of law or even tradition. She probably read him the riot act though. While this particular case raises eyebrows even though she is following tradition, granting another prorogue right after would be going against tradition, which she has now shown she is not comfortable to do.
The CPC are now hoping that an election will be called after the budget defeat. They will argue it has been long enough to warrant one. But since the house was elected to form a government for up to 5 years, it would also be going against tradition to skip allowing an alternate government to be formed. Stability of the process of government is the GG's goal, since the last major instability led to a regicide in the 17th century.
Governments are top down hierarchies, descended from the monarchy and court. We do not have a system in which we vote on every issue. Instead we have a government as we always have had, except we can periodically elect the members who make our laws, and who choose our government leaders from among themselves (usually that is predetermined because of the party system). This is done mainly to avoid despotism, or at least allow it to end in a few years' time. So having never ending elections is against our tradition. The election is mainly a way to avoid governments becoming too comfortable and unaccountable. It is not intended to be a referendum of the week. We had one only a few months ago, and we should not need one so soon unless no government can gain the confidence of the House.
What the GG has done is in keeping with our traditions. We have a Senate, as the place for sober second thought, for the same reason. She is telling us to cool off and be sure we have all our ducks in a row.
What I find funny is that Harper regularly rails against the Senate providing the same sober second thought in the face of his demagogic attempts to browbeat us into his far right agenda. He wants to make it an elected body, and so subject to the same browbeating demagoguery, instead of being a place where members no longer have to answer to any political party since there is nothing to use on them as leverage.
He says a lot about Harper's nature that he would use this ability to let cooler heads prevail when he thinks it will result in the coalition falling apart, yet would like it to be unavailable when he wants to frogmarch us into yet another of his far right fantasies. What it says is he doesn't believe in fair play. He is nothing more than a petty cheater.
granting another prorogue right after would be going against tradition, which she has now shown she is not comfortable to do.
See, this is where I have the problem. There's no tradition guiding this, just as there's no tradition guiding the notion of proroguing in order to sidestep a confidence motion.
While I agree that the GG is trying to maintain the stability of the parliament, there really must be limits. I mean, if you want real stability, install a dictatorship.
If a government isn't adequately supported by the parliament, what possible justification is there for keeping it in power?
The G-G's job is not to protect PM's from the consequences of their actions.
You prorogue parliament when the work of the session is over.
This minority government had just got down to business and the PM revealed himself to be a small-minded psychopath and the opposition was going to declare their loss of confidence in his ability to govern.
The ONLY reason Harper requested this prorogation was to save his skin. It is NOT the job of the G-G to help the PM save his skin.
It is NOT the job of the PM to put off the representation of the people until such time as rage at the government's incompetence subsides.
It's laughable that you see fit to lecture people on this mr. Alpha Male, given that your understanding of responsibilities is as limited as your understanding of basic economics.
Ahh, poor poor thwap. Well, a little study of things other then fortune cookies oes a long long way.
Wow! Alpha Male, thanks for putting it that way! Now it makes much more sense!
I understand that your an empty-headed, pompous ass much more clearly now!
You sigh self-importantly that people don't understand what they're talking about, without saying why. You don't address CC's, or my own, or anyone else's critique of the G-G's decision, but reply to me with another empty bromide.
Your inability to argue your position is coming through loud and clear.
BTW: You really don't understand economics. Capitalist politicians might say that you can't spend yourself out of a recession, or at least mitigate their effects, but the trillions that the developed country governments are pouring-out to bailout their capitalists is evidence that they don't really believe that.
Of course, you're still pining for the party of Peter Mackay and David Orchard, so what would you know about anything?
thwap, I do not like you, because you are a prejudiced little toad from babble. That's first.
Second. No confidence vote, no ability to form a coalition and take government. Advertise that you are forming a coalition, and going to take parliament, and you are being an idiot. It's like playing hockey, and shouting out what kind of shot you will take and where you intend to put it in the net. Only a complete IDIOT would show their hand before the bet is made.
Name just one recession where spending our way out of it worked. Just one. You know even less about economics then you do about Afghanistan, clearly.
You are a self agrandizing, yet oefully ignorant ass. Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on.
(Oh, and by way of yours and CC's arguements, the GG should have been fired after Morgentaler got the order of Canada... Such a way of thinking, is idiotic, moronic, and speaks to an abosulte ignorance of the issues involved... These things are more then empty, prejudiced ignorant rhetoric... If fuck sticks like you ever figure that out, maybe, just maybe people would take you seriously).
Aww, I've hurt your widdle feewings, 'eh?
Apparently for a long time 'eh?
I'd suspect that you're "Reason" but you've managed to maintain coherence longer than he ever did when descending into sputtering rage.
Too bad for you, dipshit, that announcing that you're going to form a coalition is a good way to inform the G-G that there's a stable government-in-waiting should the present government fall.
Regarding fiscal policy, I think the impact of World War II on the Great Depression ought to be proof enough. See the rest of the postwar economy for that.
Friedmanism is discredited drivel, preached to willing dupes such as yourself.
So, we have to wait 30 years, and go through a world war to come out of the recession?! Great. Wonderful choice. Spending the the great depression made things a lot worse for anyone for a very long time, before they got better.
Your team, came up with a pretty decent play... Probably could have done something with it. Then they displayed their play on the jumbotron, pointed to it and said "See, we deserve your confidence!".
Now, you are crying foul on the ref, because she had no choice but to allow a time out. No choice at all. There was no play to declare a loss of confidence. None.
There was a confidence issue coming, but the vote had not yet occured. Hence the PM did not yet lose the confidence of the house, thus the ref could not force the play to go through.
She made the only call she could make, and because of it, mouth breather, ignorant children on both sides of the political spectrum hate her, and what see see her gone. The right, because of her doing her job, and announcing Morgentaler to the Order of Canada. The left, because of her doing her job, and giving an asked for time out.
She seems to be the only adult in the fucking room, and yet she has less power then anyone else going.
Oh, and you did not hurt my feelings anymore then I clearly hurt yours... Time for you to take the soother out of your mouth, and grow up. You too CC... Grow up. Try to understand cause and effect, and maybe, just maybe we could have a political force to counter the bullies in office now (and I am saying this as a con... The clowns in office are bullies, even I would not weeep to see them go now, but what alternative do we have that is not a simpering half wit?).
No confidence vote, no ability to form a coalition and take government. Advertise that you are forming a coalition, and going to take parliament, and you are being an idiot.
You're setting up a no-win situation for the opposition, there. If they hadn't prepared in advance for the coalition, the line would be "you can't cobble this together overnight. The GG can't give them the government. This is a backroom deal." and so on. (Of course, that last one is a lie that the CPC has been propagating as much as it can despite the fact that, as you say, they've been completely honest and open about it.)
As for the GG's decision, proroguing parliament to avoid a confidence vote isn't good government. It means that the will of the people as expressed in a very recent election is not being represented. How that squares with the GG's mandate I'm not sure.
PREPARE IN ADVANCE! M@ you know this better then anyone. Always prepare in advance. The mistake here, is they showed their cards too early, allowing this to happen. They showed their cards, a time out is allowed, and there is no reason why a time out can not be allowed, in fact, the GG had no choice.
Rumours and innuedo are not enough to call a time out. Announcing a coalition, and a confidence vote in afvance are...
I do not like the coalition for two reasons. They are stupid, and they are weak. The strongest voice in the coalition is the one guy who would like to see Canada destroyed.
I want a minority government with a strong opposition... I could care less at this point if it was the PCs or the NDP... Instead I have bullies in government with a weak opposition.
And yes, it is a no win situation of the coalition's making, not the GG's who was put in an impossible situation.
Again, I say she was the ONLY adult in the room.
There will be a confidence vote in the future. Very near future. There is absolutly no avoiding it now.
The adults will be going to the back rooms, and coming up with a real plan. Not this quick fix bullshit we have been seeing of late. Those that are weak and ineffectual should be replaced.
The NDP will never form government. They have made too many mistakes at the provincial level... Mistakes that will create strategic voting situations. They will never form government until the day the acknowledge "Rae Days" because Ontario has not forgotten that.
The Liberals are weak, because they have a fool at the helm. A bandaid man... "Oh, a sliver? Here's a bandaid... Oh, a severed coratid artery? Here's a bandaid...". He has no fore thought, and frankly has all the appearances of a bought man.
The CPC has some (hone in on some, will ya? All the parties have some good ideas) good ideas, with exceptionally bad execution, followed up with schoolyard bully tactics.
Given the status of voter turn out, we have the government we deserve. The only apparently honest and honourable man in the house is a seperatist. Give me a dream come true, convince Duccepe to give up seperation as an issue, and form a real federal party.
You can keep yammering the same thing over and over, that doesn't make it true.
"They showed their hand" has to be the most asinine criticism I've ever heard.
bye.
My point is that if the coalition hadn't explained in advance what they wanted to do, not only would they not have been able to actually form a coalition -- do you think the GG would have given them a few days after the confidence vote to sort it all out? No, she wouldn't -- the opposite of your current argument would be used to attack them. The GG would have dissolved parliament by the time they had gotten together.
Or, if they had arranged the coalition in secret, the GG would have had an even tougher choice -- a sudden and unexpected alternative to the government, given to her with no time to assess it before deciding whether to hand them power. Does that sound more reasonable, somehow?
I can accept, or at least agree to disagree on, the other stuff you're saying. But the idea that a coalition should have been hatched in secret and thrown into the open the moment the government fell is not warranted by the situation, and it's a responsible move by the coalition to work that way.
Post a Comment