Three’s Company

Three Amigos? Three Musketeers? Three Stooges?

I’m trying to think of a good name for the three leaders of the coalition party that is looking to take over Canada.

I think three stooges fits.

You see, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe want to form a coalition government. They announced that they will defeat a Conservative economic package next week and then ask Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to throw the Conservatives out of power and let the three of them take over.

They will even let Dion be the leader of the coalition.

I’d laugh if I thought they were joking.

Stephane Dion brought the Liberal party to one of its worst ever showings in the election two months ago. He can’t even lead his own party properly, and now he’s expected to be the leader of three? How does that work?

And where is the logic in it? “Yes, Mr. Dion, you failed miserably last election, but we think you’re the best option we have to lead this coalition.”

I wonder if Canada will go down like Dion’s election numbers.

The Bloc will be looking to get as much as they can, and will hold the other two parties hostage. Won’t give more money for bridges? There goes the coalition. Won’t give more money for language lessons? No more coalition. Need a new French language law passed? Better say yes, or bye-bye coalition.

I’m most disappointed in Jack Layton. He’s supposed to be smarter than this. He was always the politician that seemed to have the most common sense, but no longer.

How do you get three parties to agree on one thing anyways? Do they design a three-sided coin? Paper, rock, scissors? Or maybe a game of Twister.

I think the governor general would be smarter to say, if you don’t want to vote for the economic package, then don’t. If you vote against it, it’s an election.

I bet Dion would back down pretty quickly. There’s no way he would risk sending his party further down the polls, and would probably help lead Harper to a majority.

On the flip side, this sounds like a good idea for a television series. Three wacky people are forced into a situtation where they have to be a leader, only they never agree on anything.

Unfortunately, Canadians might be living this TV show every day.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under News

7 responses to “Three’s Company

  1. Dennis

    Jack Layton’s always been a wanna-be.

  2. I, for one, eagerly await to see what Canadians think about these particular shenanigans.

    It’s a bold move by Dion — but he’ll have to wear this one for a long time. Unfortunately, the Liberal party tends to be rather short of inhospitable to those who dishonestly pursue power, so sadly there will likely be few consequences unless Canadians get really mad.

  3. Graham

    Harper finally showed his true conservative colours and it will cost him his leadership. Eliminating public funding for political parties creates huge potential for corruption and is such a dangerous idea that it warrants a three party coalition takeover. Calling another election would not be justified as that would be much too wasteful. The coalition is the only card left to play and who knows how functional it would be but something has to be done to show that this public funding needs to remain.

  4. Cheryl

    I’m with ya, Tom. Check the update to my last post though … the GG has the option to tell them all to just get back to work. I wish that was a more prominent possibility.

    Just a note on your post title – doesn’t the saying go “Two’s company, three’s a crowd”? I think that’s more appropriate anyway. 😛

  5. Making political parties raise funds from their members and supporters rather than giving them public funds that could be better spent elsewhere breeds corruption?

    Yeah. That makes sense…

  6. Graham

    It does breed corruption because that entices political parties to seek out support from those with the deepest pockets and then those with the deepest pockets are calling the shots. That’s where democracy breaks down. Funding per vote gives everyone an equal voice to some extent, certainly much more than eliminating the subsidy altogether. It’s a very dangerous path that could make your vote matter less.

  7. Nonsense.

    You’re apparently forgetting that we have placed limits on political donations in Canada. Furthermore, corporate donations are unlawful.

    Furthermore, portions of any political donation are also tax-deductible, making it more feasible for those whose pockets may not be as deep as someone else’s to donate the limit.

    Forcing political parties to fundraise using strictly their own fundraising apparatus may disadvantage parties whose supporters tend to be less wealthy than the other parties (hello, NDP). This is certainly so, and it’s a valid point.

    But forcing parties to do their own fundraising breeding corruption? I’m sure you’re about to tell me that working for a living breeds corruption as well.

    Which makes about as much sense as what you’re trying to argue here.

    But I salute you for being one of the few left-wing commenters in Canada to admit that this coalition government is only about the Liberal party protecting its precious subsidies. I disagree with you on the topic of whether or not it’s OK, but you deserve respect for your candor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s