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

[Fire]

Originally Posted by evman150

With all the talk of this coalition being undemocratic, the only thing that has actually been undemocratic through this whole issue is Robert Mug...I mean Stephen Harper snaking out of facing his comeuppance by the ELECTED OFFICIALS OF CANADA by appealing to the Crown who makes a terrible decision that as far as I know has no precedent in parliamentary law.

Disgusting decision, disgusting politics and a disgusting anti-democratic precedent set by Her Excellency.

Today is a terrible day to be Canadian, a terrible day for Canada and a terrible day for democracy.

I wonder who you didn't vote for?

How about letting the conservatives, that was just elected a few weeks ago, govern the country. Maybe the people should decide who should govern instead of the separatists.

[evman150]

How about letting the MPs elected to the House of Commons govern themselves how they see fit?

[Jade]

Originally Posted by evman150

With all the talk of this coalition being undemocratic, the only thing that has actually been undemocratic through this whole issue is Robert Mug...I mean Stephen Harper snaking out of facing his comeuppance by the ELECTED OFFICIALS OF CANADA by appealing to the Crown who makes a terrible decision that as far as I know has no precedent in parliamentary law.

Disgusting decision, disgusting politics and a disgusting anti-democratic precedent set by Her Excellency.

Today is a terrible day to be Canadian, a terrible day for Canada and a terrible day for democracy.

Not liking who was elected does not mean keeping it is undemocratic. We all put up with the liberals for years. Didn't like it, but didn't get this bent out of shape about it. Putting off a vote that would topple a brand new, democratically elected government is not undemocratice. The result of this sets nothing back economically, as the budget will be delivered the same day it was always supposed to (possibly a day early). All it does is leave time for those involved in the coalition power grab to be forced to face the people who elected them (on the promise that a coalition would not form) before they get the chance. Will it change anything? Probably not. They seem pretty sure of themselves, and they certainly don't seem to care what canadians want or what is best for the country. But at least it gives a chance for the wishes of canadians to be heard.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Jade

Not liking who was elected does not mean keeping it is undemocratic.

LOL what??

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by evman150

How about letting the MPs elected to the House of Commons govern themselves how they see fit?

I'd prefer they all work together instead of grasp for power and set back anything being done further than it will now.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by evman150

LOL what??

Okay badly worded. What I was getting at is that not everyone likes who canadians as a whole elected. But to say allowing them to govern is undemocratic is absolutely ridiculous. It's actually exactly what is supposed to happen in a democracy.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by evman150

How about letting the MPs elected to the House of Commons govern themselves how they see fit?

How about no.

[evman150]

The government that should be in right now (or in four days) is not going to be in. That is antidemocratic.

The MPs have, under constitutional law, the right to form whatever coalitions they want in order to gain power. People elect MPs, the MPs do what they think is right under constitutional law.

The events of today disenfranchised the MPs of the House of Commons, and by extension disenfranchised the citizens of Canada.

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by evman150

With all the talk of this coalition being undemocratic, the only thing that has actually been undemocratic through this whole issue is Robert Mug...I mean Stephen Harper snaking out of facing his comeuppance by the ELECTED OFFICIALS OF CANADA by appealing to the Crown who makes a terrible decision that as far as I know has no precedent in parliamentary law.

Disgusting decision, disgusting politics and a disgusting anti-democratic precedent set by Her Excellency.

Today is a terrible day to be Canadian, a terrible day for Canada and a terrible day for democracy.

Oh the drama

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by SebC

On farmers:
People dislike farmers for pretty much the same reason they dislike unions: because they whine a lot, and because they think they're worth more than the market says they are. How many times do we hear "if the government doesn't support me, I can't make a living and will have to sell my farm"? Well boo fricken hoo. If you can't make a living doing something, that's a pretty good indication that you should be doing something else. I don't care that your farm has been a family business for generations, and neither should the government. Furthermore, you often hear them whining about not getting the same levels of services as cities. Well of course you don't! It's far more expensive for the government to provide those services to you in your rural area on a per capita basis than it is for them to be provided to city dwellers. Asking for equal service levels is asking for a massive subsidization from the cities. Adding to the resentment is the fact that their electoral ridings have smaller populations, and therefore they have a disproportioate amount of power over governmental affairs. (And also, they're all uneducated redneck hicks. )

Wow. Ok. You have a nice day too.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by evman150

The MPs have, under constitutional law, the right to form whatever coalitions they want in order to gain power.

They can form them; it is at the GG discretion whether or not they are given an opportunity to govern.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by evman150

The government that should be in right now (or in four days) is not going to be in. That is antidemocratic.

The MPs have, under constitutional law, the right to form whatever coalitions they want in order to gain power. People elect MPs, the MPs do what they think is right under constitutional law.

The events of today disenfranchised the MPs of the House of Commons, and by extension disenfranchised the citizens of Canada.

Which Canada are you talking about?

The one that voted 47% in favour of a Harper lead Conservative party leading us through the financial crisis (compared to 34% for a Dion lead Coalition)?

If that's the Canada you're talking about, you may want to check your numbers.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jade

So you consider it undemocratic for canadians to get their say? I tend to disagree.

Like I've said several times, I don't think a plurality of votes is very meaningful. Harper is only the PM because he hasn't yet faced a confidence vote... if that gives him the authority to delay a confidence vote, it should be fairly self-evident how that is problematic.

Originally Posted by Jade

It isn't like he's magically making the vote of confidence go away. He's just forcing those involved to take some time, think about it, and give the constituents of the NDP and the liberals a chance to get their say. Vote's still going to happen, just not in the panic that the liberals want it to happen in. Why are they trying to rush it so much anyway? Maybe because they know it isn't what a large portion of their voters want, but if they don't hear it, they didn't purposely go against those that voted for them.

I actually agree that giving Parliament a cool-down period is beneficial, just not at the expense of the precedent it will set.

There is a signed document preventing the removal of the bloc from the equation. They are in there, and the promises made to them are going to happen. And given that the conservatives have more seats in the house than the liberals and NDP combined, if they were involved, it stands to reason they would be leading. That is the reasoning why the liberals get 'control' of the coalition, even though it started with the NDP and bloc. Kind of like how we voted it. You know, the structure being overthrown right now.

Sure the conservatives could support the coalition. But since the separatists have already been promised whatever they want to keep them involved, its kind of irrelevent. And given that they are the elected government, why do they have a duty to lying down for the liberal agenda. Should they bend, yes, and they have. Too bad the NDP and liberals are hell bent on ignoring it. At this point it no longer has anything to do with policy for either the liberals or the NDP. It's about prooving to themselves and anyone ignorant enough to believe it that they beat the conservatives in this election.

Besides no one has said that the conservatives have never made aggrements with the bloc. We've just mentioned that making concessions on a case by case basis is different than handing them the keys.

The inherent contradiction in this part of your post is that either the paper that's been signed is worth something, and the concessions that have been made have been made and that's it, and therefore the Bloc no longer has "the keys" or "a veto", or the paper is worthless and the Bloc do have "the keys" or "a veto", but they CAN be removed from the equation.

Agree with you on many of the other points though. Like I've said (before you made an appearance in this thread, so I can understand why you might have missed it), I am both a Liberal and against this coalition.

Some places where I disagree are with your assertion that the Conservatives are the elected government. They are only the government for as long as they have the confidence of the house. As for how the Conservatives could support the coalition without having a leading role despite having the largest number of seats... well it's because at this point they don't have the negociating position to stop the Bloc any other way. Like I said, it's very counter-intuitive, but it does stand to reason.

I will draw an analogy to mutually assured destruction (where giving power to the Bloc is the end of Canada, i.e. the end of the world ). Let's say I have nukes. You have more nukes. You're saying that because you have more nukes, you should be able to dictate the terms of a peace agreement to me. And we have to have a peace agreement, because otherwise we'll both get destroyed. But if I've already set my nukes on a ten-minute countdown, and tell you that if you don't give into my demands I won't cancel the launch, and you believe that I am willing to follow through on that threat, then you don't really have much of a choice, do you? I get to dictate the terms, or you get blown up. Sure, you could take me down with you, but that doesn't really change your predicament.

Of course, for me to do that, I'd have to be crazy. Unless I know that you're not crazy and won't let mutually assured destruction happen, and will therefore cave into my demands, as hard as that would be. And if we're both crazy, well then the nukes will go and the world will end.

And as weird as that scenario (as well as the scenario of the Conservatives supporting the Liberal-NDP coalition) is, it's a very real application of game theory. The US actually recently declassified information on an attempt by Richard Nixon to make the soviets think he was insane. Had he succeeded, the Cold War would have ended right then and there.

And yes, by my analogy, this is a crazy move by the Liberals. I'm perfectly okay with that.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Wow. Ok. You have a nice day too.

Haha, well you asked! And of course that last bit was just a joke. I prefer emoticons to green font. Also, those are generalizations, and there are always exceptions.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Which Canada are you talking about?

The one that voted 47% in favour of a Harper lead Conservative party leading us through the financial crisis (compared to 34% for a Dion lead Coalition)?

If that's the Canada you're talking about, you may want to check your numbers.

Oh noes...a POLE!

Wow.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by SebC

I actually agree that giving Parliament a cool-down period is beneficial, just not at the expense of the precedent it will set.

As has been pointed out in the media, and here as well, to not grant the PM a prorogue would have been the precedent setting decision.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by evman150

Oh noes...a POLE!

Wow.

Yes. Heaven forbid we use actual, fact-based data to make our points, instead of wild tangents.

Oh wait... You're talking about a pole... Which kind of pole would you like to discuss? A telephone pole? How about a tetherball pole? My favourite, of course, is a stripper pole.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by evman150

The government that should be in right now (or in four days) is not going to be in. That is antidemocratic.

The MPs have, under constitutional law, the right to form whatever coalitions they want in order to gain power. People elect MPs, the MPs do what they think is right under constitutional law.

That very same constitutional law legitimizes Jean's decision today. So by your own argument, you should be supporting her.

The events of today disenfranchised the MPs of the House of Commons, and by extension disenfranchised the citizens of Canada.

The people represented by over 140 ridings were disenfranchised by the axis of evil. I'm sorry that your side's dirty politics was defeated by my side's dirty politics. That's life.

Now comes the real test for the leaders of this coup: Can they actually remain united for two months? We're about to find out whether Dion and his puppetmasters can actually live up to their bravado.

Canada won today, because for the next two months, we have stability at a time when it is needed most. And two months from now, Jean will know for certain whether allowing the coalition or calling an election represents the better direction.

Assuming there is still a coalition in place, of course.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

As has been pointed out in the media, and here as well, to not grant the PM a prorogue would have been the precedent setting decision.

As does granting a prorogue to a PM who is using it to delay a non-confidence vote that he would have certainly lost. My whole point was that either decision sets a bad precedent.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by SebC

As does granting a prorogue to a PM who is using it to delay a non-confidence vote that he would have certainly lost. My whole point was that either decision sets a bad precedent.

Ah. Yes, I agree with you there. Sorry, I missed the bit about you mentioning both sides.

it is an interesting conundrum though. One would hope that future PMs recognize the crisis that we were currently in, and don't try to use the "precedence" argument to avoid a defeat when they don't have the support of Canadians.

I guess there are two ways of looking at today's decision: the first is that the prorogue enabled the CPC to avoid a defeat on Monday... but another way to look at it, is that it allowed the recently elected (and still publicly supported) Government to to continue with the mandate we gave it.

How today's decision looks depends a great deal on whether or not someone believes that the Coalition was in the best interests of Canadians as a whole.