Interesting column in the NP.

You realize that this is all the fault of the Boomers. I have written a whole piece about this, how they have fallen from the high towever they placed themselves after they tossed aside their hippy ideals, assumed the world woudl just obey them, became wealthy, joined the cons, assumed a modicum of power and cannot accept that they might lose it? They are the helicopter parents of the nation..

I case the person I am talking to will not post here, we are considering an alliance of all the Premiers, all ex-Governor Generals led by Leonard Cohen taking the stand and placing Mr. Cohen in a caretaker PM capacity. As referee in a hockey game waiving the goofs out of the face off circle, he will dismiss all guilty parties who have cooked this stuff up.

And Brent Bamby? Tell me he'll be the master of ceremonies.. One can only hope.

Harper will prorogue parliament and the GG will take the advice of her first minister.

It just gets better and better.

And better:

"...The Bloc rebutted Harper’s criticisms, claiming that in 2000 then-Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day, now Harper’s trade minister, had proposed a coalition with the BQ the day after the Liberals under Jean Chretien won. Day denied any knowledge of it in the Commons, saying it is "not in my DNA." But minutes later a BQ official handed out the letter sent by Day. It proposed "a new consensus government" that would be led by "Stockwell Day as Prime Minister of Canada." It referenced talks that had been had on minister’s jobs, a speech from the throne and what support the BQ would provide..."

Oh my.. this is so good.

I am sure the Condroids will all say "thats why he's not leader anymore" followed by a lot of wah wah wah noises, flag waving etc...

Not a bad line-up.

Interesting point from Coyne.

A few random observations:

(1)
Harper can pull this off. If Harper prorogue Parliament until January (and why not, it's just rules) the inherent unstableness of the coalition could be used against it. In particular, there's a large incentive to be the first major Liberal leadership contender to defect on principle. Given that the Liberals can win the next election and that election could happen in the next 18 months anyway, what the hell.

(2)
If the coalition of the swilling is promising Senate seats to faithful lackies for support, Harper should stuff the Senate in the meantime. Once again, why not? It's just rules.

(3)
I'm still laughing my ass off at people like Goodale who were opposed to Harper's GST cuts -- because remember it encourages _spending_, not _saving_ -- are now saying that want the money so the government can spend the money on the public's behalf.

(3.5)
Random idea: Harper should double up and say he's going to stimulate the economy by cutting the GST to 1%.

(4)
I really want to see some polls to see if public opinion is correlating to pundit opinion

(5)
Did they just pull the $30 billion number out of their ass?

(6)
What crisis? Unemployment is near historical lows. Canada's economy is growing, albeit sporadically.

Reverse order:

6. agreed, nothing to do with economy ultimately. It is all about Harper's lackings as a leader.
5. where else?
4. CTV had a Strategic Counsel report just now that showed more wanting to not let Harper off the hook one way or another.
3. I can't condone your sense of humour.
2. that'll really help Harper.
1. agreed.

Even with all of that, sooner or later Tom Flanagan has to account for the instability of the "all or nothing" strategy, the denigration of "socialists" when the CPC is fundamentally a socialist party, the whipping up of negativity, the end of civility. Reminds me of the years of Mulroney brinksmanship that rightly ended in the two seats of 1993. Needless self-damage.

It's not the CPC that's going to end up with two seats. Though we may end up with a couple of countries out of the deal....

More serious, why not cut GST? Why is that worse that spending 30 billion on digging ditches.

Sorry, I had another though that's important (IMHO LOL, etc.):

(7)
By making the BQ a viable "voice" for Quebec ... e.g. bringin' home da bacon ... the Liberals deny the CPC the ability to make a majority government (for the next decade or so).

I don't disagree with a GST cut except that it would put Canada into deficit. I would rather raise taxes on Canadians whose net incomes are over 250,000 and on a few other elastic things like...err...maybe milk.

But you are right in that the Conservatives run the real risk of setting up the separatist=Quebec connection and then running down the BQ. There was no branch tonight to Federalist Quebec.

Was there even a French version of the Harper presentation?

Ah, I was unclear in stating what I meant. _If_ one believes going into deficit is worth it to stimulate the economy, _then_ GST cuts would be an amusing way to do it. First of all, because the money gets in people's hands immediately, as opposed to e.g. building houses on reservations in 2011.

My oven insistently informs me that the pound cake is ready. To be renamed next year to Victory Over C-Notes cake.

See, I am not there either. I think that the auto sector is gone for a while so no propping up. I would buy into infrastructure but, as it is buying assets that will remain in Federal hands, that can be debentured over decades through long term bond issues and not just immediate deficits. So a GST cut is a better deficit but I am not there with the deficit as the key to creating the capacity for expenditure.

Issue Canada savings bonds at 6%?

$30B is approximately the 2% of GDP the G20 set as a target for stimulus spending. It might be coincidence, but grant the Coalition of the Willing to Spend the benefit of doubt.

Which prompts the question: from where does $30B come, if the operating balance is already on the knife edge this year and predicted to fall into a single figures ($B) next. The trial balloon of the NDP's promised withdrawal of $50B in corporate tax cuts was already floated, attracted fire from all guns in range, and hastily withdrawn.

Well, _I_ don't believe the government should do anything except stay the course. False alarm on the pound cake, going for a little while to let the centre firm up. Auspicious?

Savings bonds are bad because they'll take money out of the hands of consumers. It's negative stimulation. Kind of like looking at Rosie O'Donnell for the economy.

True. Too true.