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

[metallicat]

http://www.leaderpost.com/coalition+...127/story.html

OTTAWA — The nation’s game of political brinksmanship remained at a full boil late Sunday evening, as the Liberals and New Democrats closed in on a tentative accord on forming a coalition to topple Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government within weeks.

The two major opposition parties, which would operate with support of the Bloc Quebecois but provide them no cabinet posts, were close to a tentative deal, an NDP official said.

However talks were still underway and there was no confirmation of the numbers in a CBC report which said a deal had been struck between outgoing Liberal leader Stephane Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton for a coalition of two-and-a-half years with the NDP getting 25 per cent of cabinet seats. The report did not say how large cabinet would be or which portfolios the NDP would get.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

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.

Okay, so fair enough. Minorities govern like coalitions. However, in the Westminster system, these are cobbled-together coalitions that are needed very temporarily. What we are talking about is a jury-rigged coalition that will stand as a unified government.

As a Liberal, how do you feel about selling out your party's federalist tradition?

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

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

Look, I am not an expert. Can you tell me right now exactly how your political party of choice is going to, in detailed terms, accomplish its agenda?

I believe that if you set up a research project to study the way other governments accomplish the funding of these programs so much more efficiently and effectively than we seem to be able to currently, that could yield results that lead to policy and budget decisions. That's the best I can do.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

Well, you can't have it both ways. It can't both be part of the constitutional tradition and a radical undemocratic coup d'etat.

But in any case, your explanation doesn't account for Harper's assurance to the GG that "the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the house have been in close consultation"

You're telling me that's just boilerplate? I'm not saying Harper did anything wrong then. As you say, it's part of the constitutional tradition--and indeed, it would be irresponsible for the opposition parties NOT to explore a coalition government under these circumstances.

But it might just be cause for everyone to cool it with the fake outrage.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

http://www.leaderpost.com/coalition+...127/story.html

Just to be clear, that article was posted before the article about Ignatieff coming on board to be the PM in the coalition.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

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.

This is where the USSR is risking a lot.

If the coalition government remains stable, Joe Average will get used to it.

If it is unstable, and collapses quickly, then Joe Average is going to be pissed when he heads to the polls for the third time in four years.

The Conservative message is going to be that the USSR brought down their government over the desire to spend Joe's money on themselves, and ice it with the fact that, by virtue of the coalition collapsing, would have failed even at their stated reasoning for joining up - to protect the economy.

What is the USSR's reply going to be to that? I truly have no idea, but it had better be good, otherwise this coup could well see a Conservative majority within a year. And if that does happen, kiss the pork subsidies goodbye. There will be no stopping it then.

And for a morally and financially bankrupt Liberal party, that would be an utterly devastating blow.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Just to be clear, that article was posted before the article about Ignatieff coming on board to be the PM in the coalition.

Whoops, my bad. Thanks.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, you can't have it both ways. It can't both be part of the constitutional tradition and a radical undemocratic coup d'etat.

But in any case, your explanation doesn't account for Harper's assurance to the GG that "the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the house have been in close consultation"

You're telling me that's just boilerplate? I'm not saying Harper did anything wrong then. As you say, it's part of the constitutional tradition--and indeed, it would be irresponsible for the opposition parties NOT to explore a coalition government under these circumstances.

But it might just be cause for everyone to cool it with the fake outrage.

That to me just says that the Opposition required something to be done. There was no official talks of backroom deals being done, no troika of party leaders divying up cabinet seats.

You do know that the Conservatives could never, ever conceive of governing with either the Bloc or the NDP... right? I mean there is an ethical difference between then and now. You see that, right?

[flamey_mcflame]

Originally Posted by peter12

Okay, so fair enough. Minorities govern like coalitions. However, in the Westminster system, these are cobbled-together coalitions that are needed very temporarily. What we are talking about is a jury-rigged coalition that will stand as a unified government.

As a Liberal, how do you feel about selling out your party's federalist tradition?

How do you feel about:

A) your party calling for a dissolution of the government a few months back

B) your party always prodding and goading other parties and failing to realize that they are not a majority government.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If the coalition government remains stable, Joe Average will get used to it.

If it is unstable, and collapses quickly, then Joe Average is going to be pissed when he heads to the polls for the third time in four years.

This is the real risk they're taking. I think the smart play is to let Harper eat the economy-turd-sandwich for 18 months and then run against his failed economic policies. This way they make themselves responsible for the economy at the worst possible time. High risk, high reward, I guess.

(at first I didn't know who you meant by "USSR." Just an FYI--that's about as apt a comparison as if I were to call the Conservatives the "Fascists." Exaggeration is all fun and games until somebody loses an eye. )

[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.

http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downl...es/050426E.pdf

Please refer to the second page where it has national voting intention. Unfortunately, Decima does not go all the way back to September of 2004, but I can guarantee that Martin was around 44-46% in the polls at the time and wanted an election, but as of December 2-5 of the 2004, the numbers were as follows:

Liberals - 44%
Conservatives - 24%
NDP - 19%
Bloc - 11%

Those are majority numbers, especially when you look at the Ontario numbers underneath:

Liberals - 54%
Tories - 25%
NDP - 18%

Those numbers in Ontario are the type that give the Grits 85 to 90 seats at the time, and that along with a strong showing in Atlantic Canada, 25 seats or so in Quebec, which they would have picked up due to the fact they were at 30% at the time, and support in Vancouver, a bit in Winnipeg and 2-4 seats at the time in Saskatchewan would have been enough to give them a majority government.

That was the reason that Harper was desparately trying to avoid an election at the time, it was the reason why Martin ended up forging a coalition, because he knew that if his government fell the GG would be obliged to see if another coalition could be put in place. At the time Harper wanted a coalition, he was desparate to avoid an election and advised the GG as much. The circumstances right now are strikingly similar.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

How do you feel about:

A) your party calling for a dissolution of the government a few months back

B) your party always prodding and goading other parties and failing to realize that they are not a majority government.

Nice, Let the record show you completely ignored the question.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

How do you feel about:

A) your party calling for a dissolution of the government a few months back

B) your party always prodding and goading other parties and failing to realize that they are not a majority government.

Parliament wasn't working. All of the parties said that. Harper called an election, gained a stronger mandate with a promise by Dion that he would assist the Conservatives in dealing with this economic crisis and also promising he would never work with the NDP.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

That to me just says that the Opposition required something to be done. There was no official talks of backroom deals being done, no troika of party leaders divying up cabinet seats.

You do know that the Conservatives could never, ever conceive of governing with either the Bloc or the NDP... right? I mean there is an ethical difference between then and now. You see that, right?

Ah, the appeal to personal incredulity. I know how to interpret that.

The difference is that the evidence contradicts what you are saying. Apparently your definition of "close consultation" is not the same as mine. But really--is this so important? What's at stake in elevating Harper to a higher ground than anybody else? Why not just admit that Harper did what he himself said he did in a letter to the GG?

[flamey_mcflame]

[quote=Resolute 14;1539160]This is where the USSR is risking a lot.

Oooh hhahahaah, snaaap. Funny stuff. Hey, I guess that makes the Conservatives Nazi Germany. Hahahahah.....No he di'int

[peter12]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downl...es/050426E.pdf

Please refer to the second page where it has national voting intention. Unfortunately, Decima does not go all the way back to September of 2004, but I can guarantee that Martin was around 44-46% in the polls at the time and wanted an election, but as of December 2-5 of the 2004, the numbers were as follows:

Liberals - 44%
Conservatives - 24%
NDP - 19%
Bloc - 11%

Those are majority numbers, especially when you look at the Ontario numbers underneath:

Liberals - 54%
Tories - 25%
NDP - 18%

Those numbers in Ontario are the type that give the Grits 85 to 90 seats at the time, and that along with a strong showing in Atlantic Canada, 25 seats or so in Quebec, which they would have picked up due to the fact they were at 30% at the time, and support in Vancouver, a bit in Winnipeg and 2-4 seats at the time in Saskatchewan would have been enough to give them a majority government.

That was the reason that Harper was desparately trying to avoid an election at the time, it was the reason why Martin ended up forging a coalition, because he knew that if his government fell the GG would be obliged to see if another coalition could be put in place. At the time Harper wanted a coalition, he was desparate to avoid an election and advised the GG as much. The circumstances right now are strikingly similar.

Hang on. I'm thinking about the Spring of '05. I admit you were right about this particular incident. My apologies.

It still isn't the same. The Prime Minister can choose to dissolve Parliament at will. Why didn't Martin do so? The conditions aren't even close to being similar.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Look, I am not an expert. Can you tell me right now exactly how your political party of choice is going to, in detailed terms, accomplish its agenda?

I believe that if you set up a research project to study the way other governments accomplish the funding of these programs so much more efficiently and effectively than we seem to be able to currently, that could yield results that lead to policy and budget decisions. That's the best I can do.

Canadians voted for the Conservatives twice in a row, more then any other party. That was, however you want to spin it, a comfirmation that this party was best able/more prepared then any party to lead this country.

The question remains as to how a hybrid of 3 different parties all with semi-official hand in their pies, are going to be able to accomplish anything at all internally, when the dust settles and they're done patting each other on the back. The NDP will want to tax every non unionized corportaion an extra 25%, the Bloc, increase transfer payments to Quebec by 25%, and the Liberals throw as much as they can into Bay street as soon as possible (an before the US lays out their plans).

When that trifecta house of cards comes tumbling down after the Bloc and NDP decide that the Liberals aren't listening to them enough, we'll all be right back where we started, if this goes through as proposed. No matter how long ago Layton embarassingly decided to strike a deal with the seperatists (although given the content of that conference call, Layton will have some damage control to do with Duceppe), if they really think the Liberals are going to be agreeable on anything, they're fooling themselves and Layton has even more egg on his face then he has had in the past.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Ah, the appeal to personal incredulity. I know how to interpret that.

The difference is that the evidence contradicts what you are saying. Apparently your definition of "close consultation" is not the same as mine. But really--is this so important? What's at stake in elevating Harper to a higher ground than anybody else? Why not just admit that Harper did what he himself said he did in a letter to the GG?

Feigning political outrage at a simple fiscal update while conducting back-room deals with two fringe parties 6 weeks after an election during a time of economic crisis is the same?

[flamey_mcflame]

Originally Posted by peter12

Parliament wasn't working. All of the parties said that. Harper called an election, gained a stronger mandate with a promise by Dion that he would assist the Conservatives in dealing with this economic crisis and also promising he would never work with the NDP.

It wasn't working?? Except for the usual bickering on parliament that has existed throughout Canadian history, name one major bill that the Conservatives tabled that did not get passed in parliament.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

It wasn't working?? Except for the usual bickering on parliament that has existed throughout Canadian history, name one major bill that the Conservatives tabled that did not get passed in parliament.

There was talk about complete breakdown at the committee level. And yeah, numbers were good for the Conservatives. So we went and had an election. You know, democracy.

Canadians made their choice and it wasn't good for three left-wing parties with entirely different agendas.