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

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by peter12

I've got to ask a Dipper this.

What do you know of economics? Seriously. I am not making fun of you. In your mind, what would be the proper response from a minority government now, instead of two months down the road when we can work with the new American administration?

The idea that the power grab is prompted by economic stimulus is bogus anyway. If people want to buy that idea, the economics don't matter.

The whole thing is fascinating in a train wreck (and I'm on the train) kinda way.

If the GG recognizes the coalition and they can stay together for a even a short while, that will be more than enough for joe average to be ok with it I think.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

This is my biggest issue. Being dependent on the Bloc to pass anything through the house could be a big problem... the Bloc would be granted more power than I am comfortable with them having.

This is what I was getting at in the old thread when I stated that just because someone voted Liberal or NDP does not mean that they would support a Liberal or NDP led coalition that includes or relies upon Bloc support.

There is a large chunk of rightish Liberals or NDPers who would prefer a Conservative government over one that depends on the Bloc.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

I've got to ask a Dipper this.

What do you know of economics? Seriously. I am not making fun of you. In your mind, what would be the proper response from a minority government now, instead of two months down the road when we can work with the new American administration?

This is exactly it. We can't start tossing sums of money around when we have very little idea what the US is going to do. Running out half-cocked could be a very expensive version of pissing in the wind.

As mentioned above, the economic stimulus stuff is not why their doing this.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

I understand economics as well as anyone who has no formal training or schooling in the field.

I am commenting on a message board about things I have read in articles... that's it.

The NDP have, in recent times, always been the party that the Big Two (Con, Lib) turn to, to help them try and defeat the ruling minority or even form coalitions. (It should be noted that Harper tried to form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc in 2005)

I have no further justification... the justification is politics because that is the game being played in Ottawa right now.

Completely not true. He approached them to topple the government in a non-confidence motion. That's all. Not to jury-rig a crazy coalition government with no elected leader.

The reason that I ask the question is, I always hear Dippers piss and moan about social situations, cuts to public funding etc.. but without a clear economic solution except... well government needs to do more or isn't doing enough.

I am curious as to how you think money goes in and out of the government's coffers and if you think things like overtaxation are justified.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

This is exactly it. We can't start tossing sums of money around when we have very little idea what the US is going to do. Running out half-cocked could be a very expensive version of pissing in the wind.

As mentioned above, the economic stimulus stuff is not why their doing this.

Oh I know that. But it's nice to strip away the lies and get to the truth. It's about flouting democracy in place of an extreme fringe agenda that the vast majority (see 80%+) cannot stomach in any form.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by peter12

Completely not true. He approached them to topple the government in a non-confidence motion. That's all. Not to jury-rig a crazy coalition government with no elected leader.

The reason that I ask the question is, I always hear Dippers piss and moan about social situations, cuts to public funding etc.. but without a clear economic solution except... well government needs to do more or isn't doing enough.

I am curious as to how you think money goes in and out of the government's coffers and if you think things like overtaxation are justified.

Wrong

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation," read the Sept. 9, 2004, letter from the three leaders.

"We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/546135

Just to review:

1) Harper and the rest are scared that Martin will pull the plug and let the electorate decide
2) Harper insists that the GG should look and see if a coalition government can be put together.

He was right then, and his opinion then is right now

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Completely not true. He approached them to topple the government in a non-confidence motion. That's all. Not to jury-rig a crazy coalition government with no elected leader.

That's actually not correct. In fact, Harper wrote to the GG, urging that the option of allowing a coalition government between the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives remain on the table. I quote:

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation," read the Sept. 9, 2004, letter from the three leaders.
"We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/546135



Seriously--do you honestly believe that the Liberals are evil and the Conservatives are good? Politics is an ugly business--there are no good guys.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Wrong

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation," read the Sept. 9, 2004, letter from the three leaders.

"We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/546135

Just to review:

1) Harper and the rest are scared that Martin will pull the plug and let the electorate decide
2) Harper insists that the GG should look and see if a coalition government can be put together.

He was right then, and his opinion then is right now

Hahahaha, how am I wrong? That is exactly what I said. BTW, at that point,
Harper wanted an election. Martin was getting worked in the polls and the only reason the government survived any longer as because Martin and Layton got together and sold out the taxpayers for a few more months of power.

If you honestly think that Harper or the Conservatives ever thought they could work with the NDP for more than 30 seconds, than you need to stop posting in here.

[flamey_mcflame]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Stop calling him Iggy. For the love of God, knock that sh*t off.

Since you seem like an easily excitable fellow, I think Iggy shall be forever my shorthand for Ignatieff. Iggy for P.M. , unless Harper bows to Iggy and apologizes for his despot rule. I think Iggy would then reconsider a coalition government.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's actually not correct. In fact, Harper wrote to the GG, urging that the option of allowing a coalition government between the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives remain on the table. I quote:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/546135



Seriously--do you honestly believe that the Liberals are evil and the Conservatives are good? Politics is an ugly business--there are no good guys.

Consulting the opposition is standard tradition for the GG in any case.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by peter12

Completely not true. He approached them to topple the government in a non-confidence motion. That's all. Not to jury-rig a crazy coalition government with no elected leader.

The reason that I ask the question is, I always hear Dippers piss and moan about social situations, cuts to public funding etc.. but without a clear economic solution except... well government needs to do more or isn't doing enough.

I am curious as to how you think money goes in and out of the government's coffers and if you think things like overtaxation are justified.

Tories blink first in showdown

But opposition MPs are accusing the Prime Minister of hypocrisy, charging that Harper is overlooking his own efforts to forge a coalition to replace Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government in 2004.

Harper, then Conservative leader, even joined with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe to write then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson, urging her to look at "options" if Martin's government fell in the fall of 2004, mere months after it won a minority mandate on June 28.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation," read the Sept. 9, 2004, letter from the three leaders.

"We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

That message is in stark contrast to the one Harper delivered Friday night, when he charged that Liberals don't "have the right to take power without an election."

There are ways to make social programs work such as better universal health care, better funding for post secondary education (and therefore lower tuition fees), labour laws that mandate more and better benefits for workers. I am no expert but I know in Europe they make many of these programs work... so I think that if they can do it there, there should be a way to do it here without crazy taxation. I don't know it because I am not an economist but I am sure there must be a way.

[peter12]

Seriously--do you honestly believe that the Liberals are evil and the Conservatives are good? Politics is an ugly business--there are no good guys.

Not really, but one has been the subject of a judicial investigation on governmental corruption and the other hasn't.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hahahaha, how am I wrong? That is exactly what I said. BTW, at that point,
Harper wanted an election. Martin was getting worked in the polls and the only reason the government survived any longer as because Martin and Layton got together and sold out the taxpayers for a few more months of power.

If you honestly think that Harper or the Conservatives ever thought they could work with the NDP for more than 30 seconds, than you need to stop posting in here.

It's exactly what you said except for the part where it's the exact opposite of what you said.

Dude, you were wrong. There's no shame in that. There is shame in persevering with an opinion that you know to be wrong in the face of evidence to the contrary.

In any case, it's not a surprise--nor is it a big deal. It's just how politics works. Harper isn't somehow magically immune because you voted for his party.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

He was right then, and his opinion then is right now

Out of curiousity, what was your party's thought on that at the time?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hahahaha, how am I wrong? That is exactly what I said. BTW, at that point,
Harper wanted an election. Martin was getting worked in the polls and the only reason the government survived any longer as because Martin and Layton got together and sold out the taxpayers for a few more months of power.

If you honestly think that Harper or the Conservatives ever thought they could work with the NDP for more than 30 seconds, than you need to stop posting in here.

BTW at that point Harper did not want an election, the actual letter states that they were against dissolution of the House. Dissolution of the House, just to assist you, means that we are in an election. I will repeat just because i am afraid you did not read Steve's words properly:

"We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

1) Should a request for dissolution arise: ie. should Martin request that Clarkson call an election
2) This should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined: The GG should pause and consider her constitutional options
3) To consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority: The GG should consider all her options, including the formation of a coalition government.

The quote cleary states that Harper did not want an election, the PM is the only one who can request a dissolution of the House. The PM at that time, FYI, was Martin. So Martin asks for an election and Harper wanted the GG to consider all options before granting an election. Harper wanted to avoid an election at that time.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

There are ways to make social programs work such as better universal health care, better funding for post secondary education (and therefore lower tuition fees), labour laws that mandate more and better benefits for workers. I am no expert but I know in Europe they make many of these programs work... so I think that if they can do it there, there should be a way to do it here without crazy taxation. I don't know it because I am not an economist but I am sure there must be a way.

No offense dude, but this is exactly why the NDP will never electively gain power in this country.

NDP Platform

"Please elect us. We don't really know how we're going to do it, or even what we're going to do... all we know is that Good Things happen in other parts of the world, so they should also, logically, be able to happen here.

Vote for us and we'll... uhh... do stuff which may or may not be good or bad. We don't really know, to be honest."

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's exactly what you said except for the part where it's the exact opposite of what you said.

Dude, you were wrong. There's no shame in that. There is shame in persevering with an opinion that you know to be wrong in the face of evidence to the contrary.

In any case, it's not a surprise--nor is it a big deal. It's just how politics works. Harper isn't somehow magically immune because you voted for his party.

I have never voted for the Federal Conserative Party in my five years as a member of the voting public. Not once. Never.

Harper approached Martin in '04 to prevent the NDP from securing a coalition, when that fell through, he attempted to topple Parliament, finally succeeding in '05.

Of course, the three parties had to work together to introduce a non-confidence motion, but the talk of the GG exploring alternative means is simply part of our constitutional tradition.

[nik-]

It makes me sick that a Separatist party holds so much swing power in this country. It makes me absolutely sick.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

There needs to be a vehicle in place (outside of an election) for letting Parliament know that this is not acceptable. Sitting here being forced to watch this happen and not be able to do anything about it is completely maddening.

Sadly there isn't. But there is this Saturday Dec 6th.

http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=m...id=60732295648

Email I got:

Thank you everybody for joining this event.

Planning is underway for Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton, Kitchener, Toronto, Ottawa, Saskatoon and Halifax. We are still in need of volunteer organizers for Calgary and Montreal.

As we are trying to draw as much attention as possible, it would be much appreciated if everybody could invite as few as 10 friends to the event.

Again, I thank you for your hard work and commitment to democracy in Canada. See you all on Saturday!

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Out of curiousity, what was your party's thought on that at the time?

I would guess my party was against it, since I am a Liberal. But that does not take away from the fact that it is completely within the rights of the House to attempt to put together a government. This has always been the case in a Westminster style system. In that case, Martin got the support of the NDP and kept his government alive.

That is the situation when you are in a minority, you are always a coalition government. Harper just needs to get the support of another party. If he can, he remains as PM, if he cannot then the GG would have an obligation to see if there are any other coalitions that can be built and are stable that can govern the country.