And the bits that arent, maybe they were a problem, like the threat to per vote funding?

Politicians on both sides say a lot of things that dont come to fruition, and there is always scope for compromise if both sides want it.

The official opposition is supposed to oppose the government. The opposition voting against the government is not precipitating an election, it is them doing the job they are supposed to do.

It was a minority government. The governing party does not have a mandate to do as it wishes. It is a parliament where the majority of MPs were elected to promote policies other than the government's. The government stays in power by forming long-term or short-term coalitions with other parties. If the budget had gone to a vote it would likely have been defeated because the government chose not to include the CPP reforms that the NDP wanted as the price of their continued support.

When a government deliberately puts forward a budget it knows none of the opposition will support it is the government, and not the opposition, that is precipitating the election.

I couldn't disagree more.

The funding of parties and elections by the public purse is to my mind one of the major defining aspects of Canada.

Multiculturalism is another and free at point of delivery health care is a third.

None of these was introduced by a Conservative party, although until it morphed into its present form, none was actively threatened by them either.

Me neither. You cannot have good government if you do not have an effective opposition. This would emasculate the opposition parties for at least a generation.

I don't think it was a game either. In the pursuit of power Harper is deadly serious.

A wee bit dated but still funny:


Jack Layton (NDP) met with the Queen.

He asked her, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give to me in case I form the next government?"

"Well," said the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people."

Layton frowned, and then asked, "But how do I know if the people around me are really intelligent?"

The Queen took a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy, you just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle".

The Queen pushed a button on her intercom. "Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?"

Tony Blair walked into the room and said, "Yes, my Queen?"

The Queen smiled and said, "Answer me this please, Tony, your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?"

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answered, "That would be me."

"Yes! Very good," said the Queen.

Layton went back home to ask Mike Ignatieff, his Liberal cohort. "Answer this for me Iggy; Your mother and your father have a child. It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"

"I'm not sure," said Iggy. "Let me get back to you on that one." He went to his advisors and asked every one, but none could give him an answer. Finally, he ended up in the men's room and recognized Steven Harper's shoes in the next stall.

Iggy asked Harper, "Hey Steven, can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?" Harper answered back, "That's easy you dummy, it's me!"

Iggy smiled, and said, "Thanks!" Then, he went back to speak with Layton .

"Say Jack , I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It is Steven Harper."

Layton got mad and yelled "No you bloody idiot it is not! It's Tony Blair"!

AND THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS WHY WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE POLLS.

I have to agree on this one, the thought of American style campaining turns my stomach.

You think a minority government seeking to remove a major funding source from the parties it opposed seriously thought that that would remain in the final budget?

It was never there with the intention of it being introduced, but rather as a bargaining chip, part of the political game.

Now, if they had a majority and presented it you would have a point (and that day could soon come to pass), but when they floated that idea back in the day it was just some leverage for the conservatives to get something otherwise unpalatable to the opposition through in exchange for removing it from the final budget.

Whether government has any place funding political parties is a whole idealogical thing I suppose, some will be for it, others not. I would hate to see the political landscapee tilted towards big business due to the financial clout that they would lend, but maybe government per vote funding from a stretched tax payer is not the only answer.

On my fantasy island corporate donations would not be allowed, after all corporations dont get a vote. Personal donations would be capped to prevent the superwealthy from buying influence,and parties would be left to fund themselves through personal donations. Some government money would be directed at ensuring that this was all carefully audited. I suspect the majority of tax payers have little interest in funding political parties. If they want to do that they can donate to them personally.

I wonder what the total donations declared to the CRA every year are compared to the government funding.

Harper thought (correctly) that he had a demoralized, weak, badly led and broke Liberal party in his sights. He had been poking at them since 2006 and they had backed down every time. I can't say if he seriously expected the opposition to wear this but I am sure he would have been delighted if they had. I think he would have been equally delighted if it had provoked another election. The Conservatives still had plenty of money and I am sure he thought he could push on to a majority.

Combined with his "crisis, what crisis?" (remember he went into the 2008 election saying Canada would not run a deficit) budget I don't think he expected the reaction he got. So he shut down Parliament to stop any inconvenient votes while he had a rethink.

Yes, I do. I think they thought that having recently had a minority win in an election, the opposition wouldn't have the balls to go back to the vote.

Even though Harper had tried in 2004 to organize a coalition, he'd apparently forgotten that that could be the outcome of inserting a poison pill in the next budget. He was wrong.


Quite.

That is politics of the playground.

The official opposition is supposed to act in the best interests of the country (as is the government). Where they can't agree, they are supposed to debate, attempt a compromise and then put it to a vote.

Voting against proposals just because they are put forward by the "other side" is infantile and reminds me of Mr. Layton's position a few budgets back, "I will vote against it whatever it contains" or words to that effect.

So if corporations fund political parties and they don't have a vote, who are all these voters that vote against their interests all the time?

^This doesnt quite tie in with this I was under the impression he prorogued parliament as it was the best way to avoid another election, but maybe Im wrong. That was my impression at the time anyway. Democracy in action.

He does have rather a worrying track record on that front.

I agree, but what happens when the government refuses to compromise? In a majority, the opposition can only debate and vote against while they are ignored by the governing party.

In a minority the onus is on both sides (not just the opposition) to engage in constructive dialogue. Harper's abject failure to do this precipitated this election and he did it hoping for a majority so that he could continue not to engage in dialogue for the foreseeable future.

The latest polls give rise to more than faint hope that this is attitude going to be his downfall.

Eh?

I don't think he was afraid of another election. I think he prorogued Parliament to stop the opposition forming an alternate government. He was afraid of the opposition going to the GG and making the argument that we had just had an election so another is unlikely to produce a different result. And, if the conservatives could not form a stable government they had an agreement to govern that had the confidence of the house.