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

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

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.

I don't follow your logic. The original statement was that outside of Alberta the Liberals are a national party. My math shows that to be false. They have no strong base of support anywhere outside of Toronto. How can a so-called national party truly call itself a national party when it has no base of support outside of one regional metro area?

I don't get the Alberta analogy. Alberta provincial politics are totally screwed up too, that I will agree with, but I don't see where the analogy fits. It's a different situation. For one thing neither the Liberals or any party other than the PCs have any kind of power base in Alberta. So including or excluding regional results doesn't change anything. And for the analogy to hold, someone would have to be making the claim that outside of Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge, the Liberals are a provincial party. Then the analogy would work. But I don't think anyone would ever make that claim about the provincial Liberals.

[Ford Prefect]

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 agree ... Toronto and Quebec are a part of Canada. No argument. All I'm saying is that with the Liberal's power base being so regionalized, they cannot be construed as being a national party, which is the original statement I contested. The same is true of the coalition as a whole ... its power base is not nationally based, it's regionalized. I do not mean to imply that Toronto or Quebec are not part of Canada. I was just trying to point out the regional nature of the power bases involved to make the argument that neither the Liberals nor the coalition can be called national representatives.

Edit: Perhaps you misread my meaning because I excluded the Toronto seats from one of my stats. That was not meant to suggest Toronto seats should not be counted. I just wanted to represent the percentage of seats held by the Liberals outside of Toronto ... or in the rest of Canada. To arrive at that figure I logically had to exclude the Toronto seats from the math. I didn't mean to suggest they should actually be excluded from Parliament or anything like that.

[malcolmk14]

You're right, missed your point for a moment. On board now.

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

Except that in the house today, Day denied writing it or having anything to do with it

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1026300

Day told the Commons he knew nothing about the letter, titled Consensus Leadership For a New Century.
"Up until last night I had never seen that letter. I had never seen it, I never authorized that document. This is a fabrication, a complete fabrication. My DNA would never allow me to do a deal, a coalition with socialists and my heart would never allow me to do a deal with separatists," Day responded, declaring as well that he never discussed the document.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Jade

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.

Wrong election. This was the 2000 election when the Chretien Liberals won a majority with 172 seats. Before the election, there were informal negotiations between representatives of the three parties, including Joe Clark's chief of staff, to form a coalition that would see Stockwell Day as PM. A draft agreement was written up and a two page throne speech outline was created.

No, there was never a formal agreement that was signed by the three leaders, but there was no reason to continue the talks once the election results came in and the whole idea was moot. The fact remains, the two parties that form the current Conservative Party of Canada were open to the idea of forming a coalition in which the Bloc held the balance of power if it meant unseating the Liberals.

[ikaris]

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.

This is a great post, it's nice to see it broken out in this way. Still though the 45 seats are a national distribution so you can't just ignore it. The 32 seats that you bring up for Toronto represent a sum of 865,335 total votes. Considering 3,629,990 people voted for the Liberals, I would hardly characterize them just as the party of Toronto.

EDIT: Summary of vote distribution provincially for the Liberals versus total votes:

Alberta 144,364 1,270,294
BC 346,795 1,793,373
Manitoba 89,313 466,889
New Brunswick 119,197 368,035
Newfoundland and Labrador 91,084 195,397
NWT 1,858 13,677
Nova Scotia 130,038 436,008
Nunavut 2,359 8,068
Ontario 1,741,200 5,153,321
PEI 35,372 74,195
Quebec 859,634 3,620,362
Saskatchewan 62,209 418,842
Yukon 6,567 14,511

Hardly just a Toronto party. The 3,629,990 represented 26.2% of the population while the 5,205,334 that voted Conservative represented 37.6% of the voting population.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by opendoor

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?

Except that this was a precondition and part of a signed agreement from the sounds of it for the Bloc to join a majority coalition.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

Yikes!

He looks like an angry tomato

[Bobblehead]

Interesting article on the position the Governor General is in.

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

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I agree ... Toronto and Quebec are a part of Canada. No argument. All I'm saying is that with the Liberal's power base being so regionalized, they cannot be construed as being a national party, which is the original statement I contested. The same is true of the coalition as a whole ... its power base is not nationally based, it's regionalized. I do not mean to imply that Toronto or Quebec are not part of Canada. I was just trying to point out the regional nature of the power bases involved to make the argument that neither the Liberals nor the coalition can be called national representatives.

Let's take this one step further...

Did you know, if you remove the Conservative "powerhouse" Alberta from Canada the Conservatives would have still formed a government with 116/280 seats or ~41%. This is only 3% less than the 135/308 seats Paul Martin won in 2004. In fact, if we go further and remove ALL of Western Canada including the Territories the Conservatives STILL would have formed a government with 71 seats to the Liberals 69. Now if we remove Toronto...

I'm not saying either are fair comparisons because they all belong to Canada but to claim the Conservatives ONLY have support in the West, or Alberta, is far from the truth! Today, the Conservatives would be the true "National" Party.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by kevman

Let's take this one step further...

Did you know, if you remove the Conservative "powerhouse" Alberta from Canada the Conservatives would have still formed a government with 116/280 seats or ~41%. This is only 3% less than the 135/308 seats Paul Martin won in 2004. In fact, if we go further and remove ALL of Western Canada including the Territories the Conservatives STILL would have formed a government with 71 seats to the Liberals 69. Now if we remove Toronto...

I'm not saying either are fair comparisons because they all belong to Canada but to claim the Conservatives ONLY have support in the West, or Alberta, is far from the truth! Today, the Conservatives would be the true "National" Party.

So what you're saying is that the Conservatives are truly a national party? Gasp. Say it ain't so!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by kevman

Let's take this one step further...

Did you know, if you remove the Conservative "powerhouse" Alberta from Canada the Conservatives would have still formed a government with 116/280 seats or ~41%. This is only 3% less than the 135/308 seats Paul Martin won in 2004. In fact, if we go further and remove ALL of Western Canada including the Territories the Conservatives STILL would have formed a government with 71 seats to the Liberals 69. Now if we remove Toronto...

I'm not saying either are fair comparisons because they all belong to Canada but to claim the Conservatives ONLY have support in the West, or Alberta, is far from the truth! Today, the Conservatives would be the only true "National" Party.

Fixed.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by opendoor

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.

In case you missed it....

Post 1512:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
Well, this is interesting....

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

They are ALL scoundrels.
How?

"In an interview, Mr. Chipeur played down the importance of the offer, saying he never discussed the matter with Mr. Day or other MPs, and was simply getting ready in the event of a minority government."

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I don't follow your logic. The original statement was that outside of Alberta the Liberals are a national party. My math shows that to be false. They have no strong base of support anywhere outside of Toronto. How can a so-called national party truly call itself a national party when it has no base of support outside of one regional metro area?

I don't get the Alberta analogy. Alberta provincial politics are totally screwed up too, that I will agree with, but I don't see where the analogy fits. It's a different situation. For one thing neither the Liberals or any party other than the PCs have any kind of power base in Alberta. So including or excluding regional results doesn't change anything. And for the analogy to hold, someone would have to be making the claim that outside of Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge, the Liberals are a provincial party. Then the analogy would work. But I don't think anyone would ever make that claim about the provincial Liberals.

Sorry, just got busy.

As has been said...you can't take TO from Canada just as you can't take EDM/CAl/Leth from Ab. Kind of a hamfisted way to make a point.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Wrong election. This was the 2000 election when the Chretien Liberals won a majority with 172 seats. Before the election, there were informal negotiations between representatives of the three parties, including Joe Clark's chief of staff, to form a coalition that would see Stockwell Day as PM. A draft agreement was written up and a two page throne speech outline was created.

No, there was never a formal agreement that was signed by the three leaders, but there was no reason to continue the talks once the election results came in and the whole idea was moot. The fact remains, the two parties that form the current Conservative Party of Canada were open to the idea of forming a coalition in which the Bloc held the balance of power if it meant unseating the Liberals.

I think you may be just a touch confused. I figured I would touch on both of the instances together. The letter about trying to work together happened in 2004, with Martin in charge. Nothing to do with Cretien. Harper was in charge at the time. There was never anything that involved Day being in charge. The earlier alliance/conservative/bloc alliance never even went through party leadership. Because it never got that far. Just one guy thinking. So no, there was not a plan for the two parties that form the conservative party now to deal with the bloc.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Jade

I think you may be just a touch confused. The letter about trying to work together happened in 2004, with Martin in charge. Nothing to do with Cretien. Harper was in charge at the time. There was never anything that involved Day being in charge. The earlier alliance/conservative/bloc alliance never even went through party leadership. Because it never got that far. Just one guy thinking. So no, there was not a plan for the two parties that form the conservative party now to deal with the bloc.

How do you know this to be true? We don't know that there weren't backroom discussions during this time. Just because they said it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't. The only reason we didn't see more is because the Liberals won a majority.

See how ridiculous this sounds?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by calculoso

In case you missed it....

Post 1512:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
Well, this is interesting....

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

They are ALL scoundrels.
How?

"In an interview, Mr. Chipeur played down the importance of the offer, saying he never discussed the matter with Mr. Day or other MPs, and was simply getting ready in the event of a minority government."

Well of course Gerry did not discuss it with Stock now, if he said he did it would look real bad. And a loyal party soldier like Gerry would never do anything to harm the propoganda movement afoot.

So just to review, there are documents that show:

1) The Tories (or their previous incarnation) tried to do this exact thing before the election was even completed in 2000; and
2) The Tories tried to do this exact thing after the election in 2004.

Something tells me that somebody is losing the moral high ground. Unless you are able to say "But those two times were different, this time it is way worse".

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except that in the house today, Day denied writing it or having anything to do with it

Well I guess that ends that then

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Sorry, just got busy.

As has been said...you can't take TO from Canada just as you can't take EDM/CAl/Leth from Ab. Kind of a hamfisted way to make a point.

I guess I'm thick, because I still don't follow. I'm not actually saying take Toronto out of Canada, I just excluded their seat data for the purpose of mathematical analysis.

As for excluding Edmonton, Calgary & Lethbridge from the Alberta data, that doesn't change anything with the Alberta picture, whereas excluding the Toronto data from the national math does. That's where your analogy breaks down for me and I don't follow the logic.

I'm not trying to be argumentive, just trying to understand but not getting your point somehow.

Or are you contending that the Liberals having only one power base, Toronto, still makes them a national party? Maybe that's where I'm misunderstanding you. If that's your contention, sorry, I have to disagree. I don't feel you can draw on one regional base of support and translate that to a claim of national representation. By that standard, the Bloc is a stronger national voice than the NDP, because even though their support is regional, they have more seats than the NDP. As much as I disagree with the NDP, such an assertion would of course be silly.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

How do you know this to be true? We don't know that there weren't backroom discussions during this time. Just because they said it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't. The only reason we didn't see more is because the Liberals won a majority.

See how ridiculous this sounds?

Actually, doesn't sound ridiculous at all. Maybe there were disscussions on the matter. All we know is that it didn't even get far enough for official discussions, so what does it matter. No signed 'lets work with the separatists' agreement. And that the person who wrote it said that Day, knew nothing about it. And that Day says so himself.