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

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Jade

Of course. Because the Bloc just agreed to support the liberals out of the goodness of their hearts and the love of Canada.

They had to be promised something, and it had to be something big, to agree. And if at any point the liberals try to do something they don't like, they can get it changed by threatning to topple the coalition. The only reason they aren't getting cabinet posts is because if they were officially in the coalition, the GG would be much more likely to say no.

So what is this something? I'm sure we'd all like to know what this conspiracy is about.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Maybe I misunderstand you...but there is a BIG difference between working with the Bloc to bring down the government and working with the Bloc to form the government.

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't understand how everyone figures that the Bloc is forming government here. There are no cabinet roles for them, and they have only agreed not to vote against the government in terms of confidence measures. That is a far cry from governing!

Its my understanding that no 2 opposition parties have enough votes to defeat the conservatives.

Lets say the coalition takes power. The NDP+Liberals dont have enough votes to pass a bill. They need the blocs votes, essentially giving the bloc power over the bills if they dont want another election.

Its true the bloc will have no ministers - that would be a major faux pas on the NDP and Liberal part of course, but they need the votes to pass any bills so to suggest the bloc has no power is crazy IMO.

So essentially on all the important bills (confidence bills, etc like the budget the bloc holds the cards). Also, as to the blocs "2011 pledge" I am reminded by one of my favorite movies, Braveheart "An oath from a liar is no oath at all"

If people really think the coaliton will last until 2011, then wow break out the Koolade cause I need some stat.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Its my understanding that no 2 opposition parties have enough votes to defeat the conservatives.

Lets say the coalition takes power. The NDP+Liberals dont have enough votes to pass a bill. They need the blocs votes, essentially giving the bloc power over the bills if they dont want another election.

Its true the bloc will have no ministers - that would be a major faux pas on the NDP and Liberal part of course, but they need the votes to pass any bills so to suggest the bloc has no power is crazy IMO.

Yes except that the Bloc have committed in writing with their leader's signature to an accord that says they will support any confidence measures that are put to vote by the coalition government in June 2010. Reneging on that deal would put them in a very tight battle in Quebec against the Liberals. That is why they've only committed to 18 months to allow this coalition to govern.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Well it seems kind of unclear exactly what Harper was suggesting to the GG back in 2004 other than to consider all your options (including allowing a coalition to govern).

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

But the Liberals and NDP said those arguments were undercut by Mr. Harper's 2004 letter to then-governor-general Adrienne Clarkson, which requested that she turn to him if Paul Martin's newly elected government were defeated in the Commons.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. 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," the 2004 letter stated.

Essentially advising the GG to avoid an election.

Still very different from an official agreement made in backroom meetings that involved a promise from the bloc to uphold all confidence matters. Working together in a loose agreement where neither party has given up any of their ideology to force it to stick is different than what has happened here. Especially since it was all hypothetical anyway.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by ikaris

But exactly how will they be determining policy if they will not vote against the coalition on any confidence measures? They got already what they wanted from the coalition in terms of an auto and forestry bailout. They're only going to support it until June 2010, what else could they really ask for in that timeframe? The coalition has also agreed that any "Quebec Nation" talks are off the table.

whatever policies and legislations that are gonna be brought up in the House will have sweeteners thrown in for Quebec. When they raise taxes it will come out of everyone's pockets and they will all go to the CAW and Quebec. There will no doubt be a carbon tax designed to bankrupt AB and SK for the benefit of Quebec, this has been the Bloc's agenda all along and they did nothing to hide this during the last election: "We want more more and more from the rest of Canada" THAT is what's in it for the Bloc to be in bed with these crooks, to STEAL from everyone west of Thunder Bay.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

So what is this something? I'm sure we'd all like to know what this conspiracy is about.

Yes. We would. So why won't the liberals announce what they promised. Why won't they tell us what this coalition will cost us in order to appease both the bloc and the NDP.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And yet, he nailed you dead to rights.

I'm willing to bet he clicked it.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Jade

Yes. We would. So why won't the liberals announce what they promised. Why won't they tell us what this coalition will cost us in order to appease both the bloc and the NDP.

I posted the accord in writing in this thread...

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

whatever policies and legislations that are gonna be brought up in the House will have sweeteners thrown in for Quebec. When they raise taxes it will come out of everyone's pockets and they will all go to the CAW and Quebec. There will no doubt be a carbon tax designed to bankrupt AB and SK for the benefit of Quebec, this has been the Bloc's agenda all along and they did nothing to hide this during the last election: "We want more more and more from the rest of Canada" THAT is what's in it for the Bloc to be in bed with these crooks, to STEAL from everyone west of Thunder Bay.

First of all, they said no carbon tax. The only thing that has been suggested is that they will try to implement a North American cap and trade system. This will need American support. Frankly, if the Americans agree to a system like this, why should we oppose (I really doubt they would though anyways)?

I don't trust the Bloc either, but their commitment and word is in writing. Not much more I can say other than that. If they refuse to honor their commitment, an election will proceed.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Jade

Still very different from an official agreement made in backroom meetings that involved a promise from the bloc to uphold all confidence matters. Working together in a loose agreement where neither party has given up any of their ideology to force it to stick is different than what has happened here. Especially since it was all hypothetical anyway.

But still hypocritical of Harper to criticize.

[Thunderball]

Interestingly, in the markets:
Dow UP 270 points
TSX DOWN 67 points
CDN Dollar DOWN to .7999

Can't say the coalition has no effect now.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

I posted the accord in writing in this thread...

So the accord was made involving two parties promising to vote with another without a single meeting on the policies they would be voting for? I highly doubt it. They have yet to release anything on their policies, and the comments made make it fairly clear they don't even know exactly what they are planning yet themselves. But no one does anything in politics unless they get something out of it, certainly not the bloc. Promises had to be made, and we don't know what those are yet.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Thanks browna!!!! Most usefull post of the thread.

An honest question from a staunch Conservative: There's obviously a bit of a CPC bias to your summary. Did Harper really "own" Dion as much as you make it out to be?

I saw most of it and yeah, he did.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by habernac

I saw most of it and yeah, he did.

Yup me too, Dion really should not be leading this country.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

But still hypocritical of Harper to criticize.

Believe that if you want, everyone will see this differently. But it still isn't nearly as hypocrytical as the liberals saying in the last year (rather than four years ago under a different political climate) that he would not create a coalition just before turning around and doing just that.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Interestingly, in the markets:
Dow UP 270 points
TSX DOWN 67 points
CDN Dollar DOWN to .7999

Can't say the coalition has no effect now.

BZZZZZ

OIL BBL DOWN 4.3%

We have a petro dollar dontcha know?

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Yup me too, Dion really should not be leading this country.

I have a feeling that is something everyone in Canada except Dion himself can agree with.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Yes except that the Bloc have committed in writing with their leader's signature to an accord that says they will support any confidence measures that are put to vote by the coalition government in June 2010. Reneging on that deal would put them in a very tight battle in Quebec against the Liberals. That is why they've only committed to 18 months to allow this coalition to govern.

Ok.

I know where you stand.

You trust the bloc, for the rest of us who would as soon give them a quick kick to the nuts as if they stole our extension coord, I will continue to believe they are some of the biggest liars on the face of the planet and I guarantee this coalition wont last a year. And to think that Dion and Layton would go to to bed with this disease ridden street walker of a party might be the biggest load of bs I have heard since someone said the Oilers were a good team.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its actually a very good article.

Personally, Option 1 is what I would do. I don't think she's unpartisan at all, (I think she was a terrible choice from the beginning) and I think HMTQ would side with the PM on that, especially to avoid a question of Monarchy relevance and potential uproar from other commonwealth nations. The Queen refusing to acquiesce to the PM of Canada makes it a Commonwealth-wide issue. Australia is looking for an excuse to dump the Queen... why risk it?

Options 7 and 8 have merit too. The GG would be very ill-advised to refuse an election with all the press this is getting. If she refuses, I think this brings our Constitutional Monarchy into severe question.

Option 8 with the prorogue is the likeliest though. Stall till January and launch scathing ads at the Separatist Coalition, while convincing 12 MPs to switch... 12 new cabinet posts may not even be necessary, just a shuffle with a few new ones.

Options 6 and 10 are the worst, frankly. Its too late to toss Flaherty, and tossing Harper is surrendering and admitting the coalition is right. It will more likely than not actually galzanize the coalition, proving in their minds to everyone their objection and need to govern is correct. Not surprised RP thinks its the best.

Problem with option 1 is that Jean is relatively popular in Quebec, and booting her because of her separatist history would be conceding much of rural Quebec to the Bloc. And since with a new GG, the best you can hope for is a prorogue and then an election, the Conservatives are going to feel that string sooner rather than later. And even outside of Quebec, some voters may feel that Jean is being unfairly victimized, as she hasn't done anything (as far as I can recall) that suggests a Liberal/Bloc bias since being appointed.

I agree with you that Harper's resignation will only galvanize the coalition. His best chance is trying to recruit MPs from the Liberals and NDP. A prorogue will give these MPs time to go home, listen to their constituants, and read all the presumably angry mail they're getting. I think getting 10 MPs as well as formalizing the support of the independents is very possible.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Yes except that the Bloc have committed in writing with their leader's signature to an accord that says they will support any confidence measures that are put to vote by the coalition government in June 2010. Reneging on that deal would put them in a very tight battle in Quebec against the Liberals. That is why they've only committed to 18 months to allow this coalition to govern.

So if the NDP and Liberals cut ALL Funding to Quebec, the BLOC will allow that to happen?