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

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

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.

The numbers prove what you're saying is simply not true. The Conservatives won a minority so they got more votes, but to say the Liberals are a Toronto only party is just patently wrong.

[CaptainCrunch]

Hey, I'm going by a house of commons statement and an interview where Chipeur said he was preparing for a minority government but hadn't presented it to Day or any MP's

Until you can prove that Day was involved, wrote the document, approved the concept. It doesn't mean that a coalition agreement was in the making or even discussed with members of the party.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Hey, I'm going by a house of commons statement and an interview where Chipeur said he was preparing for a minority government but hadn't presented it to Day or any MP's

Until you can prove that Day was involved, wrote the document, approved the concept. It doesn't mean that a coalition agreement was in the making or even discussed with members of the party.

Personally it's all the same to me, I really don't trust any of them (Liberals included). I just think that everyone needs to recognize that there is a lot of politics going on without any substance (on all sides).

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

So just to review, there are documents that show:

Prove it

[Jade]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

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".

How is this the same. No signed 'you pat my back I'll pat yours' agreement was in place then. There was no official sanctioned agreement of working together with the separatists 'for the betterment of all canadians' (or at least of thier own pocketbooks). The Tories did not try to do the same thing in 2000, nor did they in 2004. It never even reached party leadership in 2000. In 2004 they did not form the government, so clearly they DID NOT do the exact same thing. And of course no statments promising not to form a coalition in either of the previously mentioned elections. I've said it before I'll say it again: show me the signed formal agreement from either 2000 or 2004 and we can talk about the situations as though they are the same. If you can't do that, perhaps you should stop pretending that they are the same.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Prove it

This letter?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics...621261-cp.html

The separatist Bloc Quebecois was courted by Stockwell Day's Canadian Alliance party eight years ago to form a coalition similar to what is being proposed today.

The proposal was contained in a letter from well-known Calgary lawyer Gerry Chipeur prior to the November 2000 election, in which Jean Chretien's Liberals won a majority government.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by troutman

This letter?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics...621261-cp.html

The separatist Bloc Quebecois was courted by Stockwell Day's Canadian Alliance party eight years ago to form a coalition similar to what is being proposed today.

The proposal was contained in a letter from well-known Calgary lawyer Gerry Chipeur prior to the November 2000 election, in which Jean Chretien's Liberals won a majority government.

"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."

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by ikaris

The numbers prove what you're saying is simply not true. The Conservatives won a minority so they got more votes, but to say the Liberals are a Toronto only party is just patently wrong.

I'm not saying they're a Toronto only party. I'm saying their parliamentary power base (number of MPs) is so strongly influenced by the Toronto data that if you take the Toronto data out of the equation the Liberals do not have strong enough representation across the rest of Canada to stake a credible claim to being a party that can speak for Canadians nationally with much authority or validation. Of course they are a national party to the degree that they run candidates nationally, and even a elect MPs from across the country ... just not enough for me to view them as having a high level of national support.

The Greens run candidates in every constituency in Canada too, and therefore draw voter support from across Canada, so to that degree the Greens are a national party too. But they don't have a claim to being a national party in the sense that they speak for Canadians with any great authority because their voice is weak. The Liberals have a stronger voice than the Greens of course because they garner more votes and elect more MPs, but, outside of Toronto, their level of support is not strong enough to give them a credible voice IMO.

I'm not sure if that explains my view any better or not. Perhaps our perspectives are too different to be able to see the other's POV clearly.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by calculoso

"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."

Okay, that's like the fifth time that's been quoted...

Would Gerald Chipeur reallly have sent a letter to the Bloc proposing a formal coalition without consulting anyone. I mean I think the guy's got a pretty big ego, but I also believe he's a pretty loyal party guy.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I'm not sure if that explains my view any better or not. Perhaps our perspectives are too different to be able to see the other's POV clearly.

No not at all, I completely understand what you're saying. It's very clear that as a result of the last election that the Conservative party has the highest representation in the country nationally and the Liberals lost big. The Liberals did lose their voice as a result of poor leadership (I would contend) and need to regroup.

I've never said that the Conservatives aren't a national party, I mean, just look at their history.

[Flames2007FIRE IT UP]

I personally think the conservatives missed the boat. The Canadian people clearly said (in multiple elections) we do not want single party control, that is why no one has won a majority. The people wanted each party to negotiate and form coalitions, that is why no one has a majority. None of the parties have shown enough to be trusted with the keys of power alone, that was the result of the elections.

The people clearly said: work together to solve problems. The Liberals and NDP seemed to have figured this out, the Conservatives could have reached out but seemed to have missed the boat. None of the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP actually won a mandate, all 3 were told to work together.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Okay, that's like the fifth time that's been quoted...

Would Gerald Chipeur reallly have sent a letter to the Bloc proposing a formal coalition without consulting anyone. I mean I think the guy's got a pretty big ego, but I also believe he's a pretty loyal party guy.

It's possible that leadership weren't consulted. I could believe that. However, I don't believe for a minute that back then they felt it was "making a deal with a devil," "un-Canadian," or "treasonous" like they are claiming the Liberal-NDP deal with the Bloc is. You'd think if the party thought it was so vile, that Chipeur would have faced some sort of censure for holding talks with "the devil" about some sort of coalition.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Okay, that's like the fifth time that's been quoted...

Would Gerald Chipeur reallly have sent a letter to the Bloc proposing a formal coalition without consulting anyone. I mean I think the guy's got a pretty big ego, but I also believe he's a pretty loyal party guy.

Uh, maybe I missed it, but do we know it was a formal coalition being arranged? There wasn't a single quote from the letter in the article. Do we even know what it said?

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Flames2007FIRE IT UP

The people clearly said: work together to solve problems. The Liberals and NDP seemed to have figured this out, the Conservatives could have reached out but seemed to have missed the boat. None of the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP actually won a mandate, all 3 were told to work together.

I would add that the best coalition would be a Conservative-Liberal one. Ideologically this shouldn't be impossible (especially with respect to budget votes).

[Jade]

Originally Posted by Flames2007FIRE IT UP

I personally think the conservatives missed the boat. The Canadian people clearly said (in multiple elections) we do not want single party control, that is why no one has won a majority. The people wanted each party to negotiate and form coalitions, that is why no one has a majority. None of the parties have shown enough to be trusted with the keys of power alone, that was the result of the elections.

The people clearly said: work together to solve problems. The Liberals and NDP seemed to have figured this out, the Conservatives could have reached out but seemed to have missed the boat. None of the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP actually won a mandate, all 3 were told to work together.

And while I agree with that, shutting the conservatives out in order to jump in bed with the bloc is not working with them. Since canadians said they wanted the parties to work together with the conservatives getting the biggest voice, I don't think shutting them out is doing what canadians wanted.

[metallicat]

Good speech by PM Harper.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

I would add that the best coalition would be a Conservative-Liberal one. Ideologically this shouldn't be impossible (especially with respect to budget votes).

Completely agree. Given that ideologically they are the closest to each other, this should be possible. And yet, since the formation of the conservative government in the previous election, the liberals have been more willing to vote against what they believe in than to do this. Too bad they couldn't get someone else in charge earlier. Maybe then they could have worked this out.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Jade

Uh, maybe I missed it, but do we know it was a formal coalition being arranged? There wasn't a single quote from the letter in the article. Do we even know what it said?

According to the canoe article linked above, Gilles Duceppe suggested that the Conservataives had proposed the same thing as was now being proposed. I'm sure the details were different, but it certainly sounds like he's talking about a formal coalition. Had it been an informal request for support on some issues, one would think that the Conservatives would have pointed it out.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Good speech by PM Harper.

I actually thought it was pretty weak.

[J pold]

I was really looking for more from that speech. I was hoping he was going too outline what the was going to do.