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

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

In the wake of the election, what Harper should have done is reach out to nine fiscally-conservative Liberal MPs from the Paul Martin branch of the party and pass important economic policies to deal with the current crisis while leaving divisive social issues off the table.

You'd be right if this was the US and MPs weren't forced to vote with their party or be booted out of the party. Good luck finding 9 liberals who would be willing to basically join the conservatives to give them a majority.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by calculoso

While Harper's act was a bad move, it is still no reason why the "Coalition" should get a free pass with what they're doing... They're using a Nuclear Bomb to swat a mosquito. They don't want to just reverse the clause they disagree with, they want to blow up parliament and take over. I don't see how this can be acceptable in any way, despite what caused it.

Just because Steve Moore hit Naslund, it in no way justifies what Bertuzzi did.

That mosquito was a nuclear bomb for the opposition parties. Take away their funding? Talk about completely disregarding that actual issue.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Dion

He commented on trannys post twice.

Post 1534 was North East Goon quoting Tranny99
Post 1535 was Ronald Pagan quoting Kermitology
Post 1536 was Ronald Pagan quoting Tranny99

No idea what you are talking about.

[malcolmk14]

The CPC agreed to put the bill aside pertaining to public political funding.

From an article by Chuck Strahl MP

"In order to diffuse this crisis, our government has agreed to separate the political party financing issue from the confidence vote, and we’ll be bringing it back to Parliament in a stand-alone Bill for a vote next year. Whether a person believes the taxpayer should be forced to pay for political party finances will be debated and decided at another time."

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

That mosquito was a nuclear bomb for the opposition parties. Take away their funding? Talk about completely disregarding that actual issue.

What I find funny is it wasn't a budget or social issue that has a large effect on our country that finally brought down the government, it was an issue that really only hit the politicians in their own pocketbooks! Talk about looking out for your own interests...

I have a question...how did parties ever seize to exist before the funding was put in place in 1993? How do independents even run campaigns without public funding? How did the Green party grow so large without public funding? The public funding was put in place to benefit the incumbent parties and nothing else! It's a sort of "rich getting richer" scheme. The majority party at the time found a way to pad their pockets to help ensure they would remain on top...

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Post 1534 was North East Goon quoting Tranny99
Post 1535 was Ronald Pagan quoting Kermitology
Post 1536 was Ronald Pagan quoting Tranny99

No idea what you are talking about.

I see the error of my ways

Apologies Pagan.

[Ronald Pagan]

Well regardless what you think of the funding subsidy it threatened the very existence of the three opposition parties. It was hardly as calculoso would say a little mosquito of an issue. They saw it as life and death. Terrible miscalculation by Harper. Just plain stupid.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I don't think so. My understanding is that it would be a 1.3 billion increase in the equalization transfer payment to the province of Quebec. Guess which provinces the money would come from?

Originally Posted by ikaris

How exactly would they just increase it? The equalization payments are based on a formula.

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Probably as a "special condition" over and above whatever inflated amount the formula gives them.

Or change the formula to one that is more favorable to Quebec. Who knows. But one thing I do know, is that when politicians have the "will" to pork barrel money to their supporters, they will find a "way".

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by kevman

What I find funny is it wasn't a budget or social issue that has a large effect on our country that finally brought down the government, it was an issue that really only hit the politicians in their own pocketbooks! Talk about looking out for your own interests...

I have a question...how did parties ever seize to exist before the funding was put in place in 1993? How do independents even run campaigns without public funding? How did the Green party grow so large without public funding? The public funding was put in place to benefit the incumbent parties and nothing else! It's a sort of "rich getting richer" scheme. The majority party at the time found a way to pad their pockets to help ensure they would remain on top...

Public funding was put in place for the purpose of getting big money from special interest groups out of politics. Without public funding, the parties would be beholden to their donors (moreso).

It should also be noted that Canada is not unique in financing election campaigns with taxpayer money. John McCain, for example, ran his recent presidential campaign at the expense of the American people (Obama also had the right to accept public funding , but he declined because he calculated he could raise more money from private donars).

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Or change the formula to one that is more favorable to Quebec. Who knows. But one thing I do know, is that when politicians have the "will" to pork barrel money to their supporters, they will find a "way".

Except that doing this would cost the Liberals heavily in votes in the future. Just isn't logical. Remember, the Liberals are a national party outside of Alberta.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Dion

I see the error of my ways

Apologies Pagan.

I could have sworn that all three of those posts were from RP too.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Well regardless what you think of the funding subsidy it threatened the very existence of the three opposition parties. It was hardly as calculoso would say a little mosquito of an issue. They saw it as life and death. Terrible miscalculation by Harper. Just plain stupid.

A party, especially as big and proud as the Liberals, should be able to fund themselves...

That said, It was a terrible miscalculation by Harper! Risk/Reward...and it blew up in his face, the conservatives face and most importantly the face of Canadians!

However, have they not backed down on the issue? Just like every other issue they brought up that confronted fierce opposition? To me that means they're governing like a minority and trying to make things work, doesn't it?

[Jade]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Public funding was put in place for the purpose of getting big money from special interest groups out of politics. Without public funding, the parties would be beholden to their donors (moreso).

It should also be noted that Canada is not unique in financing election campaigns with taxpayer money. John McCain, for example, ran his recent presidential campaign at the expense of the American people (Obama also had the right to accept public funding , but he declined because he calculated he could raise more money from private donars).

Liberal supports can keep trotting out the 'it was for the good of canada' line all they want, it doesn't make it any more true. It was to line their own pockets, pure and simple. Don't forget it was done at the same time as the sponsorship debacle, which in the end was also a sponsorship of the liberal party. The liberal party needed money, and this was a good way to fleece canadian taxpayers into giving it to them.

And so what if we're not the only country that does this? Still doesn't mean that the majority of canadians think we should. Not very often people try to determine the views of canadians by polling florida.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Despite being a Liberal, I mentioned numerous times in the election thread that I'm not impressed with Dion as a leader. I've also expressed my extreme fear of what the NDP would do to our country's finances if they ever got any real power in parliament. The proposed Dion-Layton coalition government makes me extremely worried.

BUT

Anyone who doesn't think the blame for this mess doesn't start and end with Harper's office needs to remove their CPC homer googles. In the wake of the election, what Harper should have done is reach out to nine fiscally-conservative Liberal MPs from the Paul Martin branch of the party and pass important economic policies to deal with the current crisis while leaving divisive social issues off the table. An alliance of the CPC and a few blue liberals might have been very successful, and certainly better than what we're going to get.

Instead, Harper chose to play a game of brinkmanship and acted like he had a majority, banking on the Liberals allowing him to pass anything he wanted because they're not ready for another election until after their leadership converntion. Unfortunately for him, the opposition parties called his bluff.

This is pretty much what I think too. Down on Dion, down on Harper. Not to mention the separatists. I'm not even decided on what would be good going forward.
But, I don't think what anyone is proposing is illegal, and thus while I'm sure many don't like the people involved, there isn't anything wrong with it.
It's as against the spirit of democracy as Harper's original proposal was trying to cripple his political opponents.
(now some will lamely argue that Harper then decided to work with them and compromise, but that was being reactionary when the opposition called his bluff.)

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Dion

I see the error of my ways

Apologies Pagan.

Originally Posted by kevman

A party, especially as big and proud as the Liberals, should be able to fund themselves...

That said, It was a terrible miscalculation by Harper! Risk/Reward...and it blew up in his face, the conservatives face and most importantly the face of Canadians!

However, have they not backed down on the issue? Just like every other issue they brought up that confronted fierce opposition? To me that means they're governing like a minority and trying to make things work, doesn't it?

That's the way I see it now.

I just can't see the coalition working long term. I could see it holding up until the Liberals get a new leader (maybe), then dropping the writ.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Except that doing this would cost the Liberals heavily in votes in the future. Just isn't logical. Remember, the Liberals are a national party outside of Alberta.

The Liberals don't care about Alberta's 26 parliamentary seats and they haven't for a long time. They have survived quite well without any representation from Alberta. They look at Alberta as a big tub of money that they desperately want to get their hands on so they can dole it out to other areas of the country to buy their votes.... Quebec being one of those areas.

They figure that what support they lose in Alberta and Saskatchewan (have provinces) they will more than make up for in the some of the have-not provinces. Does NEP ring a bell?

[Ford Prefect]

I think I found out where the Separatist Coalition is getting their stimulus package ideas from. Somebody should have told them this is sarcasm rather than sound economic policy.

http://e.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showp...&enablejs=true

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The Liberals don't care about Alberta's 26 parliamentary seats and they haven't for a long time. They have survived quite well without any representation from Alberta. They look at Alberta as a big tub of money that they desperately want to get their hands on so they can dole it out to other areas of the country to buy their votes.... Quebec being one of those areas.

They figure that what support they lose in Alberta and Saskatchewan (have provinces) they will more than make up for in the some of the have-not provinces. Does NEP ring a bell?

Didn't my last sentence exactly state what you are saying? I look forward to seeing your analysis of the Conservative budget that will be released in late January.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Public funding was put in place for the purpose of getting big money from special interest groups out of politics. Without public funding, the parties would be beholden to their donors (moreso).

No. The cap on how much a person could donate was brought in to keep special interest groups out of politics. The public funding was added to prop up parties (read: Liberals) who couldn't/wouldn't get donations from their base under such a system. The two are very much separate - the public funding has nothing to do with getting special interest out of politics and everything to do with keeping ineptitude afloat in Canadian politics.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

That mosquito was a nuclear bomb for the opposition parties. Take away their funding? Talk about completely disregarding that actual issue.

And it's been removed, so why persist in this hypocricy?