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

[Nehkara]

Just to be clear, I support the NDP because that is my party of choice and I am more left-leaning than most. I have also voted Liberal once upon a time and, under some circumstances, may do so again.

I do not support a coalition that relies on the Bloc... it is not something that makes me feel secure at all.

[Nehkara]

Also, to be clear, if this coalition ends up actually happening it will be because the Governor General has asked for the three parties to try and govern. Otherwise, there will likely be another election in January.

[corporatejay]

What's even worse is that Alberta has steady eddie stelmach who couldn't govern his way out of a paper bag to stand up to these bozos.

This is like the perfect shat storm.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Just to be clear, I support the NDP because that is my party of choice and I am more left-leaning than most. I have also voted Liberal once upon a time and, under some circumstances, may do so again.

I do not support a coalition that relies on the Bloc... it is not something that makes me feel secure at all.

That's honest. Thanks, Nekhara.

I support the Conservatives from an ideological standpoint, but I have voted Liberal in the past and I have never voted Conservative.

I am mainly uncomfortable with allowing the Bloc into this, if the Libs and the NDP were able to maintain a seat count higher than the Conservatives on their own, then I think the government would be fair game. Bringing the Bloc into the mix just makes this whole thing stink.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

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?

On what planet is that what I said?

[photon]

I'd much rather have the election.

Either someone gets a majority, or if we end up back where we started it's a clear message to the parties to "stop screwing and do something!"

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

On what planet is that what I said?

From a simple point of process, Harper's actions in '04 are similar. However, the context and the ethics are entirely different now.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by photon

I'd much rather have the election.

Either someone gets a majority, or if we end up back where we started it's a clear message to the parties to "stop screwing and do something!"

Thank you. Exactly what I would like to see happen. I don't understand this whole thing about people being upset with another election. It took me 30 minutes to vote last time. Even if it takes 8 hours, is that really too much to ask for (when considering what's at stake)?

[browna]

Somewhat lost in this, how are Johhny Punchclock and Sally Housecoat going to react to another election in a month or less?

Even if they didn't vote last time, I think you'll get a higher turnout this time, and I'm guessing most of its going to be a protest vote to get this settled (yes, thats a simplified statement) and get on with things, once and for all.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

I'd much rather have the election.

Either someone gets a majority, or if we end up back where we started it's a clear message to the parties to "stop screwing and do something!"

I thought that was the message of the LAST election!

We can't just have an election every time these big babies can't work together. At some point we need a government that does its thing for a few years, and then we can decide as a group if we want change or more of the same. I'd like to see Harper make this work, but if he can't I definitely don't want to be voting again in January.

[First Lady]

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/back...ls/#clip117275

Very interesting.....coverage of the leaked call.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

From a simple point of process, Harper's actions in '04 are similar.

In that case, I'm glad we agree on the salient point.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I thought that was the message of the LAST election!

We can't just have an election every time these big babies can't work together. At some point we need a government that does its thing for a few years, and then we can decide as a group if we want change or more of the same. I'd like to see Harper make this work, but if he can't I definitely don't want to be voting again in January.

Didn't Preston Manning campaign on "recall" measure for politicians who we thought weren't doing a good enough job? It'd be nice if we as citizens even had an iota of say in all of this.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

The PM cannot dissolve Parliament at will, that is why Harper and co. asked the GG to consider all options. Once a House is elected, that House is sitting unless there is not a functional government that can be sustained within that House. A sitting PM is still the PM until they are either defeated in a confidence motion or they relinquish power, this is why there were requests/thoughts in 1979 that Trudeau would try to hang onto power as a minority PM, despite the fact that Clark won.

The GG has a responsibility to see if a government can be formed from sitting members before they go to the electorate. This is why Martin backed down in 2004 and worked with the NDP. That is why Martin had 3 budgets in early 2005 because of his constant work with the NDP. In 04 he averted losing government and having the coalition go in by compromisng on his Throne Speech. He did this because he knew that the government could fall and that a coalition government could take its place. It is not the PM's prerogative for when an election takes place, that is the GG's decision. It just happens that virtually 100% of the time there is not a government in waiting in the House that has the ability to govern. If the GG is satisfied that there is a government in waiting in Parliament that can possibly provide a stable government, then the GG has an obligation to let that government govern until it falls due to a non-confidence motion.

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Thank you. Exactly what I would like to see happen. I don't understand this whole thing about people being upset with another election. It took me 30 minutes to vote last time. Even if it takes 8 hours, is that really too much to ask for (when considering what's at stake)?

It's not just the vote itself that the people don't want. It's what another election would bring along with it: another six weeks of petulance and mudslinging, constant coverage in the papers and on TV, BS attack ads on every channel... it's tiresome enough to deal with this crap once every few years, never mind once every few months.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I thought that was the message of the LAST election!

We can't just have an election every time these big babies can't work together. At some point we need a government that does its thing for a few years, and then we can decide as a group if we want change or more of the same. I'd like to see Harper make this work, but if he can't I definitely don't want to be voting again in January.

Well then give someone a majority! Minority Governments rarely work. Why is it so difficult to realize that the only way this crap is going to end is to just give someone a majority?

Canadians brought this on ourselves in the last election. The PCs told us why they called the election, and people didn't believe them. "It's OK" we said. "You can work together" we said.

Well now we find out exactly how greedy and power hungry the Socialists and Separatists really are. Now it's time to show up, come together and just pick a single friggin party to Govern.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by First Lady

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/back...ls/#clip117275

Very interesting.....coverage of the leaked call.

"The New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois had a secret plan to form a coalition party well before the opposition's uproar over the government's fiscal update, CTV News has learned."

Edit: It turns out that the conference call dial-in number was sent out to everyone, and was inadvertently sent to a PC member who (on his own accord) joined the conference call and decided to tape it.

[Ford Prefect]

I don't have the heart to read through this whole thread to catch up, so perhaps this has already been mentioned.

All the partisan rhetoric aside, Stephen Harper's academic background is in economics. He's an economist. Isn't that who we want as PM during the economic crisis the globe is facing? Dion, Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe ... they're not economists, nor have they tabled an economic plan for what they will do once they are in power. They also haven't said anything that explains to me in a detailed factual critique just what their objection to Harper's actions are, other than a rather vague claim that they're inadequate. Inadequate in what way? As others stated in some of the posts I read before losing heart, all the coalition seems to be offering is a hasty, knee jerk throwing around of money. I'm not even sure where they're going to throw this money. At the Ontario auto industry? Or the Quebec manufacturing industry? And where do they intend to find this money? If as feared it's from the oil and gas industry all they'll do is destroy the economic engine of Canada.

I can't help but look down my street at all of my neighbours whose livelihood depends on the oil and gas industry and fear for their futures. Unemployment, lost mortgages, failed marriages due to the stress of the aforementioned. Then there's the collapse of construction projects in Calgary ... I assume Encana's Bow project will be a victim. I saw all this happen in the early 1980s, and I hoped I'd never see it again. And of course there's going to be revenge against Calgary by the feds if the coalition seizes power. I still haven't forgiven Chretien for tearing the Princess Pats away from Calgary when he decided to punish Calgary for fostering the Reform Party.

I think I'm going to be ill. Time to go and assume the fetal position.

[Frequitude]

Cross-posted for partisan comedic pause

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

"The New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois had a secret plan to form a coalition party well before the opposition's uproar over the government's fiscal update, CTV News has learned."

Edit: It turns out that the conference call dial-in number was sent out to everyone, and was inadvertently sent to a PC member who (on his own accord) joined the conference call and decided to tape it.

From what I've read elsewhere he is just a rank and file PC party member too, not an MP or party official. If true, all the screaming about foul play is totally errant.