Coalition Deal To Topple Minority Tory Govt- [Update Parliament Prorogued until Jan]

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by ernie

I'm not a fan of appointing people to Senate in the first place but realize that is the way it is done. But it was more than rewarding a guy for being a PC. This was a way to get representation in the government for a province that did not have a good number of MPs (yes i understand that in itself in pandering to Quebec in the hopes of future votes). It had precedence in previous Canadian History i believe. The agreement was also that he step down and run in the next federal election...which he did.

The appointment of May doesn't have such potential underpinnings...it's completely a reward for being a friend of Dion. Nothing more.

So he was appointed to represent the people of Quebec?
The same people who wouldn't elect him to represent them?

If that is OK, then this this whole issue is much ado about nothing!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So he was appointed to represent the people of Quebec?
The same people who wouldn't elect him to represent them?

If that is OK, then this this whole issue is much ado about nothing!

Isn't one of the Conservative ideals to convert the Senate from appointed to elected, anyway? My understanding is that this was turfed by the Libs/NDP/Bloq when the CPC were fist elected and proposed it, though.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember this.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

We don't know they weren't. Seriously, with all partisanship aside.

I mean, we only know the NDP and Bloc were in on it early, because they accidentally leaked it to a CPC staffer. They could have easily been lurking, and just not been caught. I find it hard to believe such a Machiavellian scheme was not in play weeks ago. I think Harper actually did that funding thing to flush them out and try to expose them as greedy opportunists.

Dion is on public record saying no coalition and no NDP cause they are "too socialist," so its not like he's exactly honest.

But then how do we know or not know if Harper was working at setting up a Coalition government against Paul Martin's minority back in 2004. I like how everyone ignores the fact that Harper had to work with the Bloc back then.

Harper did that on purpose? He is going to bring down his own government with it. Kinda extreme don't you think?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You may be right, it was from an article I read this morning.



http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/546900

Yeah, I wondered if it came down to number of sitting days, or something like that. I know that Pearson's gov't had been considered a "successful" minority government and had held on to power for quite a while.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by BerubeHater

If your ineterested, petition link someone emailed to me this morning.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/...nt-canada.html

I signed the petition. Do you think petitions will do any good?

[troutman]

Interesting Globe & Mail editorial:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../politics/home

To leave Canada's response to a global economic crisis in the hands of an opportunistic coalition of also-rans led by Stéphane Dion is to invite great risk. With the opposition poised to defeat the Conservative government in less than a week's time, it may require great selflessness – if not from Mr. Dion, then on the part of Mr. Harper – to prevent it.

Contrary to silly Conservative claims of a coup d'état, coalition-making is entirely within the boundaries of parliamentary democracy. There is no constitutional impropriety here. But there certainly would be a political one. Owing in large part to his now defunct “Green Shift,” Mr. Dion has proved highly unpopular in Western Canada – particularly in resource-laden Alberta and Saskatchewan. What would voters in those provinces make of his elevation to the prime ministership less than two months after they overwhelmingly rejected him? Expect the Conservatives to pour fuel on the resulting regional resentment.

If the Liberals are truly set, however, on defeating Mr. Harper, and every indication suggests they are, then the responsibility for averting this politically illegitimate coalition shifts to the Prime Minister. Mr. Harper is ultimately responsible for this unhappy state of affairs. It is the byproduct of his machinations, and the product of a failure of his leadership. The opposition parties, especially with the Liberals busy licking their election wounds, were not out to pick a fight in the new Parliament. Mr. Harper gave them one anyway, turning his government's economic update into a partisan document aimed less at strengthening Canada's economic position than at undermining their ability to compete in the next election.

Switching to another Conservative leader may at this point be preferable to a legacy as the man who gave Canada Prime Minister Stéphane Dion.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

We don't know they weren't. Seriously, with all partisanship aside.

I mean, we only know the NDP and Bloc were in on it early, because they accidentally leaked it to a CPC staffer. They could have easily been lurking, and just not been caught. I find it hard to believe such a Machiavellian scheme was not in play weeks ago. I think Harper actually did that funding thing to flush them out and try to expose them as greedy opportunists.

Dion is on public record saying no coalition and no NDP cause they are "too socialist," so its not like he's exactly honest.

That would be putting politics first though, and we all know he'd never do that.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ernie

Pick an article from today. The new ads the Tories are launching uses a Dion speech where he says, "you cannot form a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging to the economy."

His words. No one putting words in his mouth on this. He also said it on Mike Duffy live during the election I believe.

He originally said that he couldn't form a coalition with the NDP as long as they insisted on particular taxes that he thought would be damaging. If the NDP has agreed to drop that as part of the coalition agreement, then I don't think it's an issue.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So he was appointed to represent the people of Quebec?
The same people who wouldn't elect him to represent them?

If that is OK, then this this whole issue is much ado about nothing!

Different things. No he didn't win the riding but that doesn't mean the province shouldn't be represented in some manner within the government. This was the method The Tories chose. A method that has been used before and a method that did garner a good amount of support from Quebec. Quenecers weren't dissatisfied with that arrangement at all even if they didn't elect him to be a sitting MP and representing them riding level interests.

But really it ultimately comes down to optics. This is a coalition that the media, and I think general public, is not being very supportive of. They haven't even taken power and there is public talk of handing out Senate seats to the leader of another party that happens to be a close friend to Dion.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

But then how do we know or not know if Harper was working at setting up a Coalition government against Paul Martin's minority back in 2004. I like how everyone ignores the fact that Harper had to work with the Bloc back then.

Harper did that on purpose? He is going to bring down his own government with it. Kinda extreme don't you think?

Peter12 tried to explain this in another thread. Harper made a deal with the NDP and Bloc to vote down the minority government, and since there were no glowing press conferences, handshakes and signed contracts, we can deduce either he was unsuccessful, or he didn't try for more.

When approaching the GG, they have to say all options at disposal... as they are not in a position to dictate to her.

They did not sign an agreement like this, nor did they claim they could run a unified government. It is not the same situation at all, notwithstanding the fact that when the CPCs made a deal to vote down the Government, the sitting government was under investigation for a multi-million dollar SCANDAL. Even Trudeau recognized you can not change the head of government without an electoral mandate.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

But then how do we know or not know if Harper was working at setting up a Coalition government against Paul Martin's minority back in 2004. I like how everyone ignores the fact that Harper had to work with the Bloc back then.

Harper did that on purpose? He is going to bring down his own government with it. Kinda extreme don't you think?

This keeps getting brought up... We're talking about two completely different Governments. The Liberal Government at that time was corrupt, and riddled with scandal after scandal. So much so, that the elected PM stepped down in order to save his own ass from getting tossed out the door. He then appointed his replacement, without so much as a Liberal leadership race, never mind an election.

That Government NEEDED to be taken down. Their approval ratings were in the tank, and it was indeed one of lowest times for Canadians, in terms of Government satisfaction.

This time around, the people are happy with the Government. We just gave them a renewed mandate (minority, yes, but mandate nonetheless) and we just finished re-electing them. It has already been proven that the NDP and Bloq started planning this coalition two days after the last election.

This coalition is not about "what's best for Canada" or "getting rid of a corrupt, lame-duck Government"... it is about power for Layton, Duceppe, Dion and all of their political friends.


The two scenarios are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

[LChoy]

Nelson Wiseman, political science professor at the University of Toronto, said governors general have historically agreed to prorogue Parliament, but they've never been asked to do so so early after an election. The Tories were returned to power seven weeks ago in the Oct. 14 vote.
"Should she follow the convention of agreeing, or should she take into account what appears to be the sentiment of Parliament?" said Wiseman.
"Her job description is to find someone who can command the confidence of a majority, the House of Commons, and you've got a majority saying we're available."
Wiseman dismissed the Harper's attacks on the coalition, who reportedly called it an "undemocratic seizure of power."
"The Conservatives are arguing it's undemocratic, but actually elections don't elect governments," said Wiseman. "They elect Parliaments. Parliaments make a government. Parliaments can break a government."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...gg-return.html

I found that quote the most interesting in the article

[ernie]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

He originally said that he couldn't form a coalition with the NDP as long as they insisted on particular taxes that he thought would be damaging. If the NDP has agreed to drop that as part of the coalition agreement, then I don't think it's an issue.

I don't recall the NDP having a policy convention and changing their platform in the last few weeks. I don't recall them soliciting the opinions of their membership on this.

[EddyBeers]

[quote=Nancy;1541577]The BQ are playing the Libs and NDPs like fools. They are going along with this just to discredit the whole system, to demonstrate that Canada is a dysfunctional, loser nation. Fast forward a few months, and they will be voting against the coalition on a non-confidence motion to bring down the government again. Combine that with a tanking economy, the country will be a shambles, and they will have a strong case for independence. Shortly after that, they will announce a new separation vote.[/quote]

The Bloc is going to announce a new separation vote?? That is a new one, I never really heard of that before. I am assuming that the Prime Minister of Quebec, Jean Charest will just be powerless in the face of the legal right of the Bloc to call a separation vote??

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

Interesting Globe & Mail editorial:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../politics/home

To leave Canada's response to a global economic crisis in the hands of an opportunistic coalition of also-rans led by Stéphane Dion is to invite great risk. With the opposition poised to defeat the Conservative government in less than a week's time, it may require great selflessness – if not from Mr. Dion, then on the part of Mr. Harper – to prevent it.

Contrary to silly Conservative claims of a coup d'état, coalition-making is entirely within the boundaries of parliamentary democracy. There is no constitutional impropriety here. But there certainly would be a political one. Owing in large part to his now defunct “Green Shift,” Mr. Dion has proved highly unpopular in Western Canada – particularly in resource-laden Alberta and Saskatchewan. What would voters in those provinces make of his elevation to the prime ministership less than two months after they overwhelmingly rejected him? Expect the Conservatives to pour fuel on the resulting regional resentment.

If the Liberals are truly set, however, on defeating Mr. Harper, and every indication suggests they are, then the responsibility for averting this politically illegitimate coalition shifts to the Prime Minister. Mr. Harper is ultimately responsible for this unhappy state of affairs. It is the byproduct of his machinations, and the product of a failure of his leadership. The opposition parties, especially with the Liberals busy licking their election wounds, were not out to pick a fight in the new Parliament. Mr. Harper gave them one anyway, turning his government's economic update into a partisan document aimed less at strengthening Canada's economic position than at undermining their ability to compete in the next election.

Switching to another Conservative leader may at this point be preferable to a legacy as the man who gave Canada Prime Minister Stéphane Dion.

I disagree with this article in one key point. If the NDP and the Bloc were negotiating the deal prior to the release of the mini update, then its clear that they were looking to pick a fight that they could topple the government over.

Combine that with the fact that they're screaming for economic Stimulus, something that would be included in the budget and not in the update means that they were looking for the opportune time to topple the government before the Conservatives could release a budget that could possibly be done well enough to pass in the house.

[CaptainCrunch]

[quote=EddyBeers;1541621]

Originally Posted by Nancy

The BQ are playing the Libs and NDPs like fools. They are going along with this just to discredit the whole system, to demonstrate that Canada is a dysfunctional, loser nation. Fast forward a few months, and they will be voting against the coalition on a non-confidence motion to bring down the government again. Combine that with a tanking economy, the country will be a shambles, and they will have a strong case for independence. Shortly after that, they will announce a new separation vote.[/quote]

The Bloc is going to announce a new separation vote?? That is a new one, I never really heard of that before. I am assuming that the Prime Minister of Quebec, Jean Charest will just be powerless in the face of the legal right of the Bloc to call a separation vote??

why would Quebec want to separate now. under this new coalition, they are effectively going to run Canada and be able to promote their economic dreams and desires.

This is the best scenario for the Bloc and the province of Quebec.

[bigtmac19]

http://www.windsorstar.com/opinion/l...798/story.html

Great column in today's Windsor Star re this whole mess.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

I found that quote the most interesting in the article

Yeah, I found it an interesting point. Really, our system favours having more parties, not less. For example, an Albertan party that will form a coalition with other Conservative parties when appropriate, but which will also have the autonomy to break with such a coalition, should it turn unfavourable. Perhaps we, as voters and participators in democracy, would be better served by 10 regional parties. There would be the potential, for example, for an Albertan and Quebec party to join together for the purposes of passing legislation regarding provincial rights, for example, and then for the Albertan party to join with Saskatchewan and Newfoundland for the purposes of an energy policy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ernie

I don't recall the NDP having a policy convention and changing their platform in the last few weeks. I don't recall them soliciting the opinions of their membership on this.

They don't need to in order to agree not to pursue certain policies while part of the coalition.

Just like the Bloc can temporarily agree not to pursue its soverignty or the Conservatives can temporarily agree not to pursue parts of their platform if they feel the timing is wrong... you don't need a convention for that and parties do it all the time. In fact, one of the things I like about Harper is that he typically doesn't have a problem putting certain things on the back burner if they are unpopular.

[Thunderball]

[quote=CaptainCrunch;1541626]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

why would Quebec want to separate now. under this new coalition, they are effectively going to run Canada and be able to promote their economic dreams and desires.

This is the best scenario for the Bloc and the province of Quebec.

I don't think Quebec is actually serious about ever leaving. They're a bunch of entitlement laced spoiled brats who want to suckle at Canada's hind tit and call us a bunch of pricks in the process, incorrectly "reminding" us that they are Canada's most important province and top contributor to Confederation.

They know the system and they play it well. I wonder what would happen if the RoC told them to suck it. I doubt they'd actually leave. They'd be broke in a month.