I cannot choose my coworkers...

And neither could Stephen Harper when the polls closed back in 2008. The parliament that was elected in 08 was the group he was given to work with. Many Conservatives joined him, but not so many that he didn't need a little help from the other parties to get anything accomplished. Ergo, cooperation had to happen.

What about you? What about in your job? Can you choose your coworkers and decide to write them off whenever it suits you? Can you declare in your workplace that some things are nonnegotiable and expect them to fold like paper airplanes?

If you're mad about the election I want you to think about who you should be mad at. The Prime Minister who said the budget - the very same budget that NEEDED 1 other party to accept it - was "nonnegotiable"? Or the Liberal leader that gave his suggestions on what should be in the budget for their party to support it?

Should you be mad at the Harper Government who refused to tell their coworkers the price of prisons and airplanes that they wanted to buy? Or the Liberal leader for asking what the cost of those planes and prisons are before supporting those initiatives?

Should you be mad at the Conservative party that overspent election money and is being taken to court over electoral fraud? Or the Liberal leader who won't put up with crooks?

I wish so dearly that I could sit in a room with 3 of my coworkers and demand that things to "my way or the highway" and have everybody do what I want all the time.

But that's not the way the real world works.

And if it doesn't work like that at your office why should we put up with anything less than that in our government?

10 headlines capturing the "work" of the Harper Regime

The Globe and Mail has released a photo slide show titled "A look back at the biggest headlines from Canada's 40th parliament" with 8 of the 10 headlines either critiquing or outright slamming the Harper Regime's path of governance.

The two exceptions? The first was the state of Jack Layton's health. The other was the notable retirements of Jim Prentice, Stockwell Day and Chuck Strahl. As shocking and tight-lipped as their departures will be from the House, one has to wonder whether or not they exit politics because of Harper's style of 24/7 electioneering and strongman governance. Considering the countdown of headlines, it is a bloody miracle that 75% of the country has not turned it's back on Harper.

10. Prorogation
9. G8 & G20 Summits - costs and police presence
8. Long-form census debacle
7. Jaffer and Guergis Affair
6. Security council loss
5. Afghanistan withdrawal date and shift in mission
4. Layton's health
3. Harper Party Retirements
2. Fighter Jets
1. Contempt

Today we hear a number of stanzas from the usual CPC choir ("COALITION!!!!", "no one cares", "we're too fragile for instability", "face it (LPC/NDP) you lost the election", etc, etc.) and the ever familiar chorus everyone knows so well: "we (the Harper Party) do not want an election."

And yet they release election-style attack ad, after attack ad, after EAP ads, and so on. They go on wildly expensive EAP promotional tours and pitch new money and new plans and chatter like squirrels in trees about all the good the "Harper Government" of Canada is doing for Canadians. And we're not supposed to believe we (as in the entire country and our political economy) are not in election mode?

When Harper moved the Opposition Day from two weeks ago to Friday he did it exactly because he wants to fall on his budget. The Harper Regime message is clear: we do not need an unnecessary election to "disturb" our economic "fragility"- which is an odd thing to say considering those CPC ads that claim our economy is one of the strongest in the world... but not SO strong that we can "weather the storm" of political debate and democracy.

But Ignatieff has a counter. A good one that I like. Economics, democracy and politics are all interrelated. And they cannot trust Harper and his party with the economic management of the country if they are found to be in contempt of parliament. If they lie in the House, withhold documents about the costs of projects, and manipulate the bureaucracy then how can we possibly begin to trust them to put us back on track?

Flip-flop Flaherty said that there would be "no new spending" -- but as we saw yesterday there is 2 billion worth of new spending. And how much new revenue is being brought in by closing loop holes? Hundreds of millions. Not bad. Oh wait, that's over several years. Meanwhile, we'll spend 6 billion on corporate tax cuts, 20 billion on fighter jets, and hundreds of millions on prisons -- effectively TAXING AND SPENDING well into the 21st century.

I know Canadians will not sleep away the election campaign, yawning to themselves that this is a waste of time. I know Canadians will pay attention. I believe Canadians will come out and vote. And I know that when each one of us really searches within themselves they'll elect representatives that respect our democracy and put this country back on the right track.

Would Harper prorogue parliament again?

A thought for progressives to discuss:

Layton has two votes this week with one potentially mattering significantly more than the other. If Layton supports the budget on Thursday can he really vote alongside the expected Liberal non-confidence motion on Friday? He could certainly vote against an Opposition Day non-confidence motion, that's for sure, but what motivation would the NDP have unless there's a lot of wheeling and dealing done prior to today's tabling of the budget.

Should Layton and the NDP vote against the budget on Thursday it is likely that Harper will go to Rideau Hall on Friday and speak with the GG about dissolving parliament - stopping the Liberal Opposition Day in it's tracks.

But if the NDP support the budget on Thursday and vote against the government on Friday should a Liberal motion of non-confidence be tabled, will Harper go to Rideau Hall and ask the GG to dissolve parliament? Or will he ask for another prorogation?

Yeah, I said it. Prorogue parliament for a third time.

Why? Why not. Is there not some precedent for "cooler heads to prevail" and to let the government "carry out it's mandate" as outlined in the budget - supported by a majority of parliamentarians (i.e. the NDP)? (Then again, if the NDP supports the budget Ignatieff may not table a motion of non-confidence anyways since it could be fruitless and confusing to Canadians that the House is for, and yet at the same time, against, the government.)

It might not be the stupidest thing to do if you are a government arguing day and night that "now is not the time for an election" and, in fact, may possibly bolster support with the anti-election Canadian population. Moreover, it could entice some hawkish Liberals to start clamoring for a coalition proposal -- playing into the Harper Party narrative that everyone is against them.

That said, I am by no means an expert on our constitution or anything like that and this is all based on hypotheticals and an active imagination. I now turn to my colleagues in the progressive blogosphere to weigh in.

Prorogue "Yea" or Prorogue "Nay"?

UPDATE

Nevermind.

Attn Peter McKay: It's too late to hype your "morals"

From the CBC -- "Libyan mission a 'moral duty,' McKay says."

Well, that's a relief. Just when I thought the Harper Government was devoid of morals, they put a mic in front of Progressive Conservative turncoat, Peter McKay, to talk about the morality of Canada's decision to help enforce the UN no-fly zone over Libya.

To clarify: I support the no-fly zone mission. I support Obama's view that this mission should be about protecting Libyan civilians -- not regime change. Unlike some others.

In short, thanks for the memo Peter. And while everybody should be clear on where leadership on R2P came from; it's ironic that you are the "morality messenger" for a government found twice over to be in contempt of parliament; to say nothing of your backstabbing of David Orchard and the sacrificing of a Canadian political tradition just to sit on the lap of Harper and the Canadian Alliance.

If there was a shred of credibility left in this government, nay, this Harper Regime, to lead the country on the grounds of some sort of moral authority -- it has been thoroughly vaporized.