To me with the lack of popularity of Dion in the Liberal party it just makes me believe that somebody in his party destroyed him on national T.V. on purpose.
Rae (giggling) - "Dude, I put the ultimate book on the book shelf right behind Stephane"
Iggy - "Damn the camera's in focus let me just take it slightly out of focus and aim it about a foot to high"
The Joker - "Man, I can't even top this"
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
"To me, even if ProRogue doesn't work, I'm betting that there are at least 10 Liberal/NDP MP's that flat out to set their alarm clock on Monday and don't show up if there's a vote"
I kept expecting Dion to yell out "Live from my office its Saturday Night!!" at the end of his speech.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
This is a perfect storm. Our system works on the assumption that regardless of whether we have a minority government or not we will always be guaranteed that there will be a clear and decisive majority of rational men and women who will in times of crisis put nation over personal or party interests. It operates on the assumption that our leaders will put country before party.
Somehow we lucked out here. Our bad.
And so as we come down to the wire, and both leaders are digging in, we can only hope that this unprecedented bizarre week gets just a little stranger.
Because in a week where every day we have seen things never before predicted there is a simple solution.
We need one more historic press conference attended by two political enemies. A joint press conference between Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion.
A historic event where they both apologise to their country and their parties, in that order, and then they resign immediately – no questions please.
Because quite frankly they deserve one another and Canada deserves better.
My apologies, I missed these speeches tonight and am wondering if there is anywhere to view them online? I checked back a few pages and on ctv.ca but couldn't find them.
Good read. I liked this analysis of the viability of the coalition...
"In theory a coalition could work. If aliens from outer space landed and were running roughshod over the country perhaps a Liberal, a socialist and a separatist could put their differences aside and work together to defeat the alien overlords. A global economic crisis, however, is probably not enough for these three wildly divergent visions of Canada to gel."
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Ruskies would have flown over from the other direction, what's wrong with apple pie and who's Pat Boone? And thanks for calling me old and/or a flaming redneck.
Personally, I think it's a sign that the Coalition is on the wrong track if the communist party supports them, and that has nothing to do with Cold War diplomacy.
It was all just internets hyperbole my friend. Exaggeration for the exaggerated mood.
"We missed our deadline," Moreau said. "The shot was not all that professional. It was soft-focused."
CTV received angry emails within minutes of signing off. Some viewers thought CTV was ignoring the Liberal leader, while others thought Dion was purposely snubbing the network.
Dion's coalition partners were both angry and embarrassed by the Liberal address.The NDP said Wednesday's fiasco undermined the credibility of the coalition, CTV's Robert Fife reported.
"I'm told that (Bloc Quebecois Leader) Gilles Duceppe ran into Mr. Dion in the elevator and asked 'What the hell happened?' and Mr. Dion said, 'We're not used to being in opposition," Fife said.
Jean Lapierre, broadcast journalist and former Liberal MP, mocked the party's video address.
"This was the cheapest video. I don't know if the Liberal party has financial problems, but they didn't have to go to a high school kid to get their video made," he said on CTV's Mike Duffy Live. "You ask people to forget about their normal TV show tonight. We did that on TVA. We had a million people waiting for a show call 'Le Poulet' -- 'The Chicken.' We didn't even get the egg!"
The blogsphere was quick to pounce on Dion's bumbling performance.
"Stephane Dion was late for the show, looked kind of red faced, and seemed to be getting a couple of bucks for the bankrupt Liberal Party for the product placement of a book entitled, and I kid you not, "Hot Air," wrote the Alberta Ardvark blog Wednesday.
After getting through the last 20+ pages since yesterday, I have to wonder something.
What if the real coalition is between the NDP and Bloc and they are using the Liberals as the fall guy? Think about it. The NDP has to be tired of being the little brother that nobody wants to hang around with. They come up with this "fake" coalition and convince Dion that he needs to be a part of it. Dion eagerly joins as he is gullible. The NDP and Bloc then secretly release little snippets all week that show that the coalition is coming apart, culminating with tonights tv address by Dion. Harper goes to Jean on Thursday and she sends the people back to the polls. The NDP trounce on the Liberals sad state of affairs and get enough seats to become the opposition. The Bloc trounces the Liberals out of Quebec. The Cons win a majority and there is stability for the next 4 years.
The NDP do this because they finally realize that they can't go from bottom of the pack to the PM's chair in one move. The Bloc does this because it gives them more support in Quebec. Duceppe comes across as the leader who is looking out for Quebecors interests. The Liberals are reduced to less than 10 seats and are forced to start rebuilding from the ground up with a stronger leader.
Heh, maybe I should just stop dreaming. What are the chances Layton and Duceppe are smart enough to pull something like that off?
Man alive....never mind Dion's content, this is the party and the support staff that we want running the country? The one shot, one stage the party has to try and convince all Canadians that this debacle is a good idea, and they botch up the presentation and miss out on half the network audience in the country?
What happens when we're not playing "grainy interview" TV Show and timely international issues are at stake?
I can see it now, somehow hanging up on the other G7 leaders in a conference call decided how to proceed against a real threat, or disconnecting the cable for the "Red Phone" because it keeps ringing and ringing.
Beyond embarassing, a disgrace in this day and age and in this situation. Glad CTV cut them off, and I'm sort of upset now that I didn't get to see that first half of Wheel of Fortune on CBC....I'll solve the puzzle Pat, it's "Mickey Mouse".
Guys, we have nothing to worry about. After watching that little performance, it is clear that these coaltion buffoons, even if they get power, won't be able to hang onto it for long. We'll be back to the polls by summer. And we'll end up with a Conservative majority. Bring it on.
Yeah I don't know if it's just the CP Liberal's who have no problem with this but I've talked to a bunch of Liberal/NDP supporters that are not happy with this move at all.
Umm what? I've been saying that I'm a Liberal supporter against this since the Conservatives backed off on the campaign finance issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy
A coalition being formed where it involves the largest seatholder in the House of Commons, sure. A coalition of secondary seatholders, no way.
Largest seatholder is honestly irrelevant. The problem here is that the Liberals are completely betraying their election platform (and IMO, a significant chunk of their supporters and membership), and thus don't have a mandate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Lady
Really? In the last few days I have seen that Harper caved to a cap and trade program and he also backed down on the two issues the other parties had a problem with..... yet the coalition went ahead.
Sorry, what? I've been following all the CP headlines that come through on my phone and I missed that. If that's true Alberta's completely boned no matter who's in power... (like I've been saying all along the CPC does not represent Albertan influence nationally).
Quote:
Originally Posted by North East Goon
Jim Prentice - anyone?
Hell no.
Quote:
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.
Just for you:
It's not quite the nuclear option, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrns
They should've let Jack do the address, at least he can form logical sentences.
Not quite... he can form coherent sentences, but nothing he says is logical.
For those who are saying the Bloq have a veto: if the Conservatives vote with the NDP-Liberal coalition doesn't need Bloc support. And if they are willing to topple the NDP-Liberal coalition with the Bloc, then it is them who are getting in bed with the seperatists!
Unless the Conservatives are willing to align with the Bloc on a non-confidence measure, the Bloc has no leverage whatsoever in this deal.
Sadly, I doubt anyone will point this out to Harper. I'd love to see him try to weasel his way out of it. It's also too bad... because that argument leads us back to where I'd really like to see us: a Conservative-Liberal coalition!
Now moving on to what I really want to discuss (which I think might be new thread worthy so it doesn't get lost in here).
Octothorp touched on it briefly, so I'll let you re-read that first:
Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
Yeah, I found it an interesting point. Really, our system favours having more parties, not less. For example, an Albertan party that will form a coalition with other Conservative parties when appropriate, but which will also have the autonomy to break with such a coalition, should it turn unfavourable. Perhaps we, as voters and participators in democracy, would be better served by 10 regional parties. There would be the potential, for example, for an Albertan and Quebec party to join together for the purposes of passing legislation regarding provincial rights, for example, and then for the Albertan party to join with Saskatchewan and Newfoundland for the purposes of an energy policy.
I take it by the setence I've bolded, you've meant to say something along the lines of what you've said in the sentence I've underlined. And I completely agree with that. The thing is, the voting system (which is a single-winner voting system and a plurality voting system i.e. first past the post) we have in place promotes the exact opposite of that i.e. the exact opposite of what you've literally said in the bold sentance. This is Duverger's law, that a voting system like favours a two-party system (which is almost entirely the case in the US which is a voting system like ours in this context - not to be confused with division of powers vs. legislative supremacy). So in a way, the very existence of the "third parties" in Canada is somewhat of a paradox. Rationally, they shouldn't be here. We'd have two parties, and whichever one is more popular would have a majority. Which means we certainly wouldn't be having this kind of debate today.
To me, the solution to that paradox (or the answer to the question, why do we have third parties in Canada?) is the failure of idealistic left-wing voters to vote strategically. Voting NDP, in the vast majority of cases, takes away votes from the Liberals and ultimately helps the Conservatives win. Voting Green does the same only it's even more conterproductive to the goals of the voter, as at least the NDP can put members of parliament in place. I believe that the real root cause of this crisis is that Canada's voting system and Canada's voting patterns are mismatched, due to the irrationality of this voting segment.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, have provided ample evidence of the forces behind Duverger's law at work. There is no doubt in my mind that having two conservative parties was inherently better for democracy, as it allowed right-leaning voters to provide more refined input into the formation of parliament. They could distinguish between socially progressive fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives. You can relate this to building the parliament with more information, if you will.
Things is, the conservatives realised that because they were splitting votes, the number of seats they were winning as two parties was less than the number of seats they would win was greater if they merged. And so, being more Machiavellian (sorry, couldn't resist and I don't really want to say pragmatic when they are also very dogmatic) than the left, that was what they did. And it's worked... they have the biggest chunk of the house. But that's also why I keep saying that "largest chunk" isn't really significant if they don't have a majority. It is not undemocratic for a bunch of small parties to gang up on a big one. (It is undemocratic to form a government by blatantly disregarding the content of your own party's platform.)
Personally, I'd like to see a system in which small parties and coalitions can prosper. Where perhaps today there'd be a PC party which the Liberals could ally with, rather a united Conservative party that forces them to go to the Bloq and NDP to form a government.
One way to achieve that is proportion representation, a.k.a. rep. by pop. But the downside to that system is that it doesn't allow for good regional representation (though it might with the formation of regional parties - I haven't completely thought it through where that would lead). Moving forward on that basis though, and rejecting proportional representation as being unsuitable for Canada because of our regional diversity, there are still other systems that would work well.
Instant running-off voting would ensure that all MPs are elected with a majority. The way it works is that instead of one vote, you rank all (or some) candidates. If no candidate has a majority, you eliminate the last place candidate and the people who voted for that candidate are now voting for their second choice. This continues until someone achieves a majority. This allows distinct but similar parties to compete against each other without having to worry about vote splitting. One criticism is that candidates who are liked by many people as a third or fourth choice can be eliminated in the second round an lose, but there are modern algorithms (which would have to be computer counted) that can deal with that problem.
Even better IMO, to produce results that more closely reflect the popular vote whilst maintaining regional representation is the single transferable vote system. This is similar to automatic run-off, except that you have more than one seat for each (presumably larger) consituency. Each party has multiple candidates running for that riding. When a candidate has enough votes to be elected the extras get distributed proportionately amongst the next choices of those who voted for him. If no candidate reaches the threshold, the last place candidate is eliminated and those votes get distributed proportionately amongst the next choices of those who voted for him.
Ultimately, that's the system I'd like to see in Canada, but it's probably a pipe dream.
What I actually see happening is GG prorogues parliament until the budget, budget gets defeated and the coalition is allowed to stand. I don't think we can go to an election when there is an alternative coalition waiting in the wings. Once again, the fact that that coalition does not include the largest party does not make it undemocratic in any way, shape or form. And again, that doesn't mean I support it, because I think ethically they should go back to the electorate for a mandate having deviated so far from their election platforms.
PS the Wikipedia articles I've linked to are all fantastic reads.
The Dion tape has either got to be the funniest or most embarrassing thing I've seen in a long time as a Canadian.
I'm leaning towards funniest.
If you watch it at the 3:00 mark on the CBC's video you'll notice someone in the background prompts him to better his posture. He pops up like a gopher.
Ultimately, that's the system I'd like to see in Canada, but it's probably a pipe dream.
What I actually see happening is GG prorogues parliament until the budget, budget gets defeated and the coalition is allowed to stand. I don't think we can go to an election when there is an alternative coalition waiting in the wings. Once again, the fact that that coalition does not include the largest party does not make it undemocratic in any way, shape or form. And again, that doesn't mean I support it, because I think ethically they should go back to the electorate for a mandate having deviated so far from their election platforms.
Nice work, but it is a pipe dream. Far too much thought for the voters to rank x number of candidates when they barely recognize the names of the candidates for the 3 major parties. There would be far too many independants in each riding, who will be unknowns and really a waste of time to knock them off one at a time. And if you don't rank all candidates on your card...is it a spoiled ballot?
And as for the multiple MP's per area...I assume that area would be larger (say all of Calgary as one region).
In both cases, would results be any different? Possibly in some areas where races were tight, you'd get 4 Conservatives and 1 Liberal in an area as opposed to 5 Conservatives in 5 nearby ridings as it is currently, an area, but on the whole I don't think the overall results would be that different.
The major parties don't want this...the whole issue that put this mess on the front burner was the Conservatives pulling the $ per vote scheme. Further fractionalizing the vote to basically independant people will mean less $ for the major parties.
As for your second part, the fact that the Liberals and Dion blew thier big shot tonight may have more dramatic effects then the tight rope walking they were trying to carry out the last few days...with infighting already started, can they last another 6 weeks without internal party, or coalition, bickering, tearing this all wide open? If it goes until budget time, can they really deliver a budget/stimulus package (which is clearly the root of the argument and should be unvield to compare apples with apples) that is clearly head and shoulders above the Conservatives, in every way? If not, peple will stick with the current government then go with the coaltion made up of backroom deals....but I really don't think it even gets to that...somehow, and rightfully so, it gets tossed back to the Canadian people to decide.
It was all just internets hyperbole my friend. Exaggeration for the exaggerated mood.
