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

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by ikaris

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.

Not really.... you implied that it wasn't logical for the Liberal party to take more money from Alberta and give it to other provinces, particularly Quebec, since this would not go over well in the rest of Canada. I disagree. From their perspective, it is completely logical.

They will, as they have done many times in the past, shower money wherever they figure it will buy them votes. Unfortunately, this money will come from Albertans and other taxpayers. ... and they will quietly say "to hell with the west... we hardly have any seats out there anyways. Lets see how many seats we can buy back in Ontario and Quebec".

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Not really.... you implied that it wasn't logical for the Liberal party to take more money from Alberta and give it to other provinces, particularly Quebec, since this would not go over well in the rest of Canada. I disagree. From their perspective, it is completely logical.

They will, as they have done many times in the past, shower money wherever they figure it will buy them votes. Unfortunately, this money will come from Albertans and other taxpayers. ... and they will quietly say "to hell with the west... we hardly have any seats out there anyways. Lets see how many seats we can buy back in Ontario and Quebec".

Do you think the Conservatives are all that different in that regard? In the 2007 Federal Budget, the Conservative minority earmarked $2.3 billion in extra spending for Quebec in order to strengthen their position in the province and gain the support of the Bloc in the budget vote. And it worked, the NDP and Liberals voted against the budget and the the Bloc, with their $2.3 billion bribe, voted for it.

[Draug]

Tonight, Harper has scheduled a 7pm National Address, followed by a Dion response.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

I wonder why they bother? We, the public, cant really do anything about this situation no matter who we support can we? It's all in the hands of the parties and the Governor General at this point.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Do you think the Conservatives are all that different in that regard? In the 2007 Federal Budget, the Conservative minority earmarked $2.3 billion in extra spending for Quebec in order to strengthen their position in the province and gain the support of the Bloc in the budget vote. And it worked, the NDP and Liberals voted against the budget and the the Bloc, with their $2.3 billion bribe, voted for it.

Far different, the Conservatives were in government at the time and it had to go through the house, it didn't give the Bloc power over the budget or policy, and it wasn't put in place as a back room agreement pursuant to toppling the government.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Draug

Tonight, Harper has scheduled a 7pm National Address, followed by a Dion response.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

I wonder why they bother? We, the public, cant really do anything about this situation no matter who we support can we? It's all in the hands of the parties and the Governor General at this point.

Seriously, I almost expect a Mayor Tommy Shanks level of address from Dion.

Dion - "Hi, how are you, Stepane Dion here. Well . . . goodnight"

[Draug]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Seriously, I almost expect a Mayor Tommy Shanks level of address from Dion.

Dion - "Hi, how are you, Stepane Dion here. Well . . . goodnight"

It isnt like we'll be able to understand him anyway ... watching the news last night, they had a clip of one of his rebuttles in parliment yesterday. I had to rewind the PVR at least 3 times to try and figure out what the hell he was spouting off. It might be a good idea for the English speaking world to be able to understand a country's PM.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Far different, the Conservatives were in government at the time and it had to go through the house, it didn't give the Bloc power over the budget or policy, and it wasn't put in place as a back room agreement pursuant to toppling the government.

I don't see the difference at all. Here's what Rerun said:

Originally Posted by Rerun

They will, as they have done many times in the past, shower money wherever they figure it will buy them votes. Unfortunately, this money will come from Albertans and other taxpayers. ... and they will quietly say "to hell with the west... we hardly have any seats out there anyways. Lets see how many seats we can buy back in Ontario and Quebec".

My point was that the Conservatives too shower money where they need the votes as demonstrated by their budgets. The Conservatives know they'll always get support in the West, so they too funnel money to Quebec because they understand that it's almost impossible to win a majority without support in Quebec.

I'm not saying I like it, but it's a bit of false outrage to criticize the Liberals for doing something that the Conservatives have proven more than willing to engage in.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't see the difference at all. Here's what Rerun said:



My point was that the Conservatives too shower money where they need the votes as demonstrated by their budgets. The Conservatives know they'll always get support in the West, so they too funnel money to Quebec because they understand that it's almost impossible to win a majority without support in Quebec.

I'm not saying I like it, but it's a bit of false outrage to criticize the Liberals for doing something that the Conservatives have proven more than willing to engage in.

Honestly I don't see it as quite the same scenario, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

The spending was put out there without preconditions, in otherwords it might have gained more votes it might not have. It was part of the budget which was passed by the house, and it didn't represent a long term deal which distorted the government.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Yikes!

[Ford Prefect]

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.

That was once true, but it's no longer the case. In the Oct. election the Liberals won 32 out of 42 seats in Toronto, which is 76% of the Toronto seats. And they only won an additional 6 seats in all of the rest of Ontario.

Take the Toronto seats out of the equation and the Liberals were elected to 45 of the remaining 266 seats in Canada, which is only 17% of those seats. So in reality they represent 17% of the constituencies in Canada outside of Toronto.

As for the west, the Liberals won 8 seats in total, including the territories, which is 8.5% of the 95 seats available in the west.

They won 17 out of 32 seats in Atlantic Canada, which is not a resounding mandate.

And they won 14 of 75 seats in Quebec, which amounts to 18% of the seats in Quebec.

Please explain how a party that only has one power base in Canada, Toronto, is national party.

So in effect this is a coalition of Toronto, Quebec separatists and a left wing rump party that will never earn enough voter support to have any legitimate power on its own. Not only are the Liberals NOT a national party, this whole coalition cannot pretend to be a national party when it consists of two regional parties, the Toronto Liberals and the Bloc, plus a fringe group of socialists.

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

Does that mean that we're not part of the nation.

If they don't have seats in alberta which is one of the engines that runs this country, then they really don't represent this country nationally.

[opendoor]

Here's what Stephen Harper said to Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004 after Paul Martin won a minority government:

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.

Also, a 2000 written draft agreement called the "Consensus Leadership for a New Century" that was brokered between the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservatives, and the Bloc has recently come to light. While it never came to fruition because the Liberals won a majority, there were preliminary talks amongst the parties to form a coalition with Stockwell Day as PM to defeat the Liberals if the numbers worked out.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

That was once true, but it's no longer the case. In the Oct. election the Liberals won 32 out of 42 seats in Toronto, which is 76% of the seats. And they only won an additional 6 seats in all of the rest of Ontario.

Take the Toronto seats out of the equation and the Liberals were elected to 45 of the remaining 266 seats in Canada, which is only 17% of those seats. So in reality they represent 17% of the constituencies in Canada outside of Toronto.

As for the west, the Liberals won 8 seats in total, including the territories, which is 8.5% of the 95 seats available in the west.

Please explain how a party that only has one power base in Canada, Toronto, is national party.

So in effect this is a coalition of Toronto, Quebec separatists and a left wing rump party that will never earn enough voter support to have any legitimate power on its own. Not only are the Liberals NOT a national party, this whole coalition cannot pretend to be a national party when it consists of two regional parties, the Toronto Liberals and the Bloc, plus a fringe group of socialists.

You can spin this the same way if you look at Alberta provincial politics. The Liberals got seats in Central Calgary, Central Edmonton an one in Lethbridge.

You take out those areas an no other party other than PC got a single seat!

I'm not sure how valuable that type of analysis is.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Honestly I don't see it as quite the same scenario, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

The spending was put out there without preconditions, in otherwords it might have gained more votes it might not have. It was part of the budget which was passed by the house, and it didn't represent a long term deal which distorted the government.

And any new spending by the proposed coalition would also have to be debated and voted on in Parliament.

Do you honestly think there weren't backroom negotiations to ensure the Bloc would support the Conservatives' budget? Do you think they just randomly put that extra spending in there and hoped for the best?

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Here's what Stephen Harper said to Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004 after Paul Martin won a minority government:

Stephen Harper had no intentions of forming a coalition in this case. In fact, his goal was to remain leader of the opposition, and come to a solution that would result in the Liberals remaining the governing party, and the conservatives remaining the opposition. He outlines this position in an interview with CBC that was posted in this thread earlier. There was no coalition in place to overthrow the Paul Martin government.

[HotHotHeat]

Very well spoken lawyer/political scientist talking about the problems the GG will have with this coalition. Main point is that there's too many little agreements for her to accept the coalition proposal as a stable government.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

That was once true, but it's no longer the case. In the Oct. election the Liberals won 32 out of 42 seats in Toronto, which is 76% of the Toronto seats. And they only won an additional 6 seats in all of the rest of Ontario.

Take the Toronto seats out of the equation and the Liberals were elected to 45 of the remaining 266 seats in Canada, which is only 17% of those seats. So in reality they represent 17% of the constituencies in Canada outside of Toronto.

As for the west, the Liberals won 8 seats in total, including the territories, which is 8.5% of the 95 seats available in the west.

They won 17 out of 32 seats in Atlantic Canada, which is not a resounding mandate.

And they won 14 of 75 seats in Quebec, which amounts to 18% of the seats in Quebec.

Please explain how a party that only has one power base in Canada, Toronto, is national party.

So in effect this is a coalition of Toronto, Quebec separatists and a left wing rump party that will never earn enough voter support to have any legitimate power on its own. Not only are the Liberals NOT a national party, this whole coalition cannot pretend to be a national party when it consists of two regional parties, the Toronto Liberals and the Bloc, plus a fringe group of socialists.

While I am on your side of the argument, you're not doing it any favors with this analysis. The reason that the Liberal parties seats in Toronto count, is because Toronto is a part of Canada.

Everyone is already aware that the Liberal base of power is Toronto, and the Bloc's base of power is Quebec.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Here's what Stephen Harper said to Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004 after Paul Martin won a minority government:



Also, a 2000 written draft agreement called the "Consensus Leadership for a New Century" that was brokered between the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservatives, and the Bloc has recently come to light. While it never came to fruition because the Liberals won a majority, there were preliminary talks amongst the parties to form a coalition with Stockwell Day as PM to defeat the Liberals if the numbers worked out.

Show me the document signed by the leaders of all of the parties involved that they promise to vote as a bloc as though they are one party for a predefined period of time. You can't? why not? Oh right, because it doesn't exist. There was not a formal long term arrangment in place, they were going to see what they could do. And when the liberals came to the realization that they did not in fact have a majority, but instead had to play nice, the conservatives did the right thing and backed off. Too bad the liberals can't say the same.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Here's what Stephen Harper said to Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004 after Paul Martin won a minority government:

What's the problem with that? It was his job to write that letter, as the Leader of the Official Opposition.

All it requests is that the Governor General ask the Leaders of the Opposition parties if there is potential for a replacement Government, should the Prime Minister request a dissolution of Parliament. It was a formality, and his duty as Leader of the Official Opposition. Everybody new we were headed to an election, in fact Harper himself wanted an election.

As to the other thing you quoted, that's already been dismissed in other posts here, as well as in reputable news sources. It's simply not relevant to this dicussion.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

While I am on your side of the argument, you're not doing it any favors with this analysis. The reason that the Liberal parties seats in Toronto count, is because Toronto is a part of Canada.

Everyone is already aware that the Liberal base of power is Toronto, and the Bloc's base of power is Quebec.

I think the point was not that Toronto was not part of canada, but that the liberals do not have strong support across the rest of the country. Looks to me like the only place they have real support is Toronto.