Coalition Deal To Topple Minority Tory Govt- [Update Parliament Prorogued until Jan] - Page 47 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

ok, ok,....I get it · 12-02-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redforever

Call it whatever version you want, fact of the matter is, the role is quite defined for the GG and a lot of it goes by what precedents have been established.

steady big boy....i was just seeking clarifiication.....

FlamesAddiction · 12-02-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

There are actually three options as I understand them.
Choose the coalition - you'll hear whining about liberal bias
Refuse to bring down the government and tell them to work it out - calls of conservative bias
Call an election - really the only option that's fair to the parties and voters. a pretty terrible option but the best of the three.

I personally have a liberal bias, but if the GG tells them to make it work, I am fine with that and wouldn't consider that decision to be biased towards the Conservatives. It's only been 6 weeks since the election and I think it would make sense.

HotHotHeat · 12-02-2008, 09:36 AM

It's really interesting to see people that generally were on the same side of things in the American election thread at each others throats in this one. Flip floppers!

Flame On · 12-02-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I personally have a liberal bias, but if the GG tells them to make it work, I am fine with that and wouldn't consider that decision to be biased towards the Conservatives. It's only been 6 weeks since the election and I think it would make sense.

Me too. I'm no fan of Harper, think he's got a lot wrong and the cons in general.
Also I think he's had a scare now and don't think he'd be so inclined to try anything. It may actually encourage him to behave as if he was the leader of a minority government.

Bertuzzied · 12-02-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

It's really interesting to see people that generally were on the same side of things in the American election thread at each others throats in this one. Flip floppers!

Not hard to do since all but 3 were Obama supporters. hehe

Phaneuf3 · 12-02-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I personally have a liberal bias, but if the GG tells them to make it work, I am fine with that and wouldn't consider that decision to be biased towards the Conservatives. It's only been 6 weeks since the election and I think it would make sense.

that's honestly what i would prefer as well but figured it might be in part because i am slightly right of center.

in terms of practicality, its the best option. In terms of fairness, probably an election is more fair.

edit: also, calls of conservative bias would more be heard from the politicians rather than the voters i think.

Ronald Pagan · 12-02-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Truth is, RP is trying to tell me that the Government is somehow a better choice to run businesses than private corporations. I say it a load of bunk.

Huh? *bleary eyed*

Where did I say governments are a better choice to run private corporations? What the hell man?

I just merely pointed out that there are examples of successful crown corporations. Look at BC Hydro, Hydro Quebec, etc. It isn't a given as browna would suggest that crown corps lose money.

Thanks for your baseless conjecture though, it has been duly noted.

FlamesAddiction · 12-02-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llama64

The only thing that I worry about with the coalition is the thought of Dion being Prime Minister. If Ignatieff becomes leader of the party in the interim, I'll rest easier. Canada needs a strong leader, Dion is not that.

It's too bad that he isn't French because he is probably the smartest guy in the Liberal party and would possibly be the smartest leader of all the parties - he would give Harper a run for his money anyway. (Despite making a critical error, Harper is still a very smart man).

I find it funny that the U.S. has crossed the race barrier in their presidential election, but in Canada where we try to portray ourselves as more progressive, our major parties haven't even crossed ethnic barriers of the original colonial groups.

mykalberta · 12-02-2008, 09:50 AM

No sure if this has been mentioned, Hareper could also call a recess until next year basically suspending parliment. They mentioned that on Global this morning. The GG has never in the history not accepted a recess of parliment, but then again we havent had a lot of minority governments.

CaptainCrunch · 12-02-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykalberta

No sure if this has been mentioned, Hareper could also call a recess until next year basically suspending parliment. They mentioned that on Global this morning. The GG has never in the history not accepted a recess of parliment, but then again we havent had a lot of minority governments.

Yup, we've discussed ProRogue over the last couple of pages.

Vedder · 12-02-2008, 09:53 AM

Mike Duffy mentioned on Rutherford that another idea would see the conservatives from the west resign on mass. That would leave something like 80 empty seats and would pretty much force an election. Highly unlikely in my mind, but who knows.

Phaneuf3 · 12-02-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vedder

Mike Duffy mentioned on Rutherford that another idea would see the conservatives from the west resign on mass. That would leave something like 80 empty seats and would pretty much force an election. Highly unlikely in my mind, but who knows.

Hah! wow - the coalition wanted political games? they'd get them alright. Would that really work though?

CaptainCrunch · 12-02-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vedder

Mike Duffy mentioned on Rutherford that another idea would see the conservatives from the west resign on mass. That would leave something like 80 empty seats and would pretty much force an election. Highly unlikely in my mind, but who knows.

Its an interesting strategy, and it might sharply reduce the seats that the NDP holds in the West which in theory could give the Conservatives the majority numbers that they want. but I would be more concerned if the Conservatives forced an election in this way that there might be severe backlash in Ontario and East.

I would prefer that the perception remained that the Troika forced this election.

ok, ok,....I get it · 12-02-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its an interesting strategy, and it might sharply reduce the seats that the NDP holds in the West which in theory could give the Conservatives the majority numbers that they want. but I would be more concerned if the Conservatives forced an election in this way that there might be severe backlash in Ontario and East.

I would prefer that the perception remained that the Three Stooges forced this election.

fixed

HotHotHeat · 12-02-2008, 10:00 AM

"The only thing that's holding these three groups together is their dislike of the Conservatives. There's no philosophical agreement or compatibility. If that (government)was ever formed, it would be totally unstable."

Good ol' Preston Manning hits the nail on the head.

loob job · 12-02-2008, 10:01 AM

This may have been posted, i'm not going to read through 47 pages. But how are we now a democratic country. The country voted for PC and now Dion is the PM (almost). So next election are they going to lineup five people then tell us who is going to be PM. Unbelievable. This makes Canada look like a joke, and i have no biased either way to what party should run this country.

CaptainCrunch · 12-02-2008, 10:06 AM

It would be more effective if the Conservatives let this government take over, then responded en masse forcing Riding elections across this country through resignations.

they could state that they didn't feel that this new government was not democratic and didn't have a mandate from the Canadians to lead.

However if the Conservatives did resign in mass, they would still only be completing for 143 seats maximum that they have now.

Would a party resigning immediately from the House trigger an election, I mean if they completely walked out?

Anyone.

loob job · 12-02-2008, 10:07 AM

I'm also glad the country spent billions (or millions) of dollars on having an election and then reversing it seven weeks later. Unbelievable.

CaptainCrunch · 12-02-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

"The only thing that's holding these three groups together is their dislike of the Conservatives (and thier near bankrupt bank accounts status). There's no philosophical agreement or compatibility. If that (government)was ever formed, it would be totally unstable."

Good ol' Preston Manning hits the nail on the head.

Added a thought bubble.

Thunderball · 12-02-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Hah! wow - the coalition wanted political games? they'd get them alright. Would that really work though?

I believe it would. Typically government is not supposed to function with vacant seats, usually a by-election is called, but when its enough to constitute a lack of responsible government, an election has to be called.

Problem with that strategy is Joe Sixpack and the Central Canada Dufus Club are likely to blame the Conservatives for the election and not the coalition.