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

[old-fart]

As I posted earlier, the more I think about it the more I believe that the GG can't do anything but what the PM recommends. If the budget is defeated in January, we'll go to an election. This separatist coalition will never get an opportunity to govern.

If the GG does anything other than what the PM recommends, there will be a constitutional crisis.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

*hits head against wall as well* lol. At that stage of the game, they could have negotiated with the Liberals (or even the Bloc!). There was no signed accord. Who's to say this didn't occur? My suggestion was the only time they did try to negotiate was when they realized their power was in jeopardy. It was too late anyways, confidence was lost because of the blatant partisanship displayed by Harper.

Couldn't negotiate with liberals: they were the offical opposition, playing the rold perfectly by opposing everything put out by the conservatives (in last parliment even those that they had wanted)

Bloc already had an agreement to go against conservatives with NDP

NDP already had an agreement to go against conservatives with Bloc.

Could they have shook one of those parties loose from the agreement? Maybe, but at what cost? Besides maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but I thought this fiscal update was to give an idea of what the conservatives wanted in the budget, so the other parties knew, and could try to make changes before the final budget. Maybe that's just how it should be but politics got in the way.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by old-fart

As I posted earlier, the more I think about it the more I believe that the GG can't do anything but what the PM recommends

PM: We're invading England.

GG: You're the boss!

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Jade

Couldn't negotiate with liberals: they were the offical opposition, playing the rold perfectly by opposing everything put out by the conservatives (in last parliment even those that they had wanted)

In the last minority government, the Liberals were often absent effectively giving the Conservatives a majority when it came to votes. This was because a lot of the bills they could agree with and offer no opposition.

Originally Posted by Jade

Besides maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but I thought this fiscal update was to give an idea of what the conservatives wanted in the budget, so the other parties knew, and could try to make changes before the final budget. Maybe that's just how it should be but politics got in the way.

The issue is that this update gets put to a confidence vote. So you would have thought the Conservatives would have been mindful of the consequences.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by ikaris

So initially when the coalition produces an outline which gives Quebec money it's absolutely outrageous buying votes and making deals with separatists. Now that it seems the Conservatives will offer a budget that will essentially mirror exactly what the coalition wanted that it's compromise?

That's not what I said... and not what happened.

The initial coalition outline had $30B in spending... it wasn't until much later that this $1.2B (or whatever it is) for Quebec came out. It was secretive, it was slimy, and it was attempted to be hid.

If this $1.2B is in the Conservatives budget, I'll be upset. There is no way that Quebec should get any more money than the formula allows for.

The rest of the $30B in stimulus spending is open for debate. Some of it is needed. Some of it was already going to happen (see discussions with the Province of Ontario). Some of it is extra waste and fluff that should be rightfully excluded. This balance is where the compromise comes in. They will have to spend more than they (and I) want, but it should still be no where close to what the NDP and Liberals are demanding... and if the NDP/Liberals truly want to compromise, they need to move from their position too.

[FanIn80]

Here's an interesting thought: why is it only the Conservatives that have to compromise?

I realize they are a minority Government, as people love to point out... but they are STILL the Government. Minority or not, they are the party that Canadians elected to lead this country.

So why is it so upsetting for a Liberal or a Socialist to compromise? The way people love to throw this "minority Government" thing around makes it sound like they think they're the ones that actually won the election.

News flash: The Liberal "right to power" doesn't exist. Liberals are part of the Parliamentary Democracy too, and in the last election, they were told to sit down and stfu just as loudly as the NDP and BQ were. 6 weeks ago, they suffered their worst defeat ever... their party is in internal chaos and they don't even have a leader. Yet, in true Liberal fashion, they still cling tightly that that self-imposed Liberal Right to Govern.

Here's a novel idea: get your own house in order before you start trying to run my house.


Edit: I'm not, for one second, suggesting that a minority Government should be allowed to govern like it's a majority... I'm simply stating that all I hear from Liberal/Socialist supporters is that "Harper failed to compromise." Well, he IS the ELECTED Prime Minister of Canada, after all. We didn't elect Dion or Layton. Why aren't these same supporters asking why Layton and Dion aren't compromising by backing down after Harper has conceded to their wishes with the fiscal update?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ernie

The stuff with the poor video quality, missing the deadline etc is just gravy for Harper and the conservatives.
.

Something like that shouldn't matter to any reasonable preson. Harper had all day to make his video and likely took every measure he could to make it look nice. Dion and Layton had to wait to hear what Harper was going to say before they could make a rebuttle.

I agree that Harper is a better public speaker, but he isn't that great either. Anyone who judges them on anything but their message is just being petty.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

So initially when the coalition produces an outline which gives Quebec money it's absolutely outrageous buying votes and making deals with separatists. Now that it seems the Conservatives will offer a budget that will essentially mirror exactly what the coalition wanted that it's compromise?

A true Conservative should be outraged at this soon-to-be buying of votes out east. This is just preposterous and it really outlines the lack of partiality that many people seem to display here. I think that all the politicians are all liars and self-serving.

Not really. Conservatives are trying to get parlimentary votes, not population votes. And they only need one party to bite, not all of them. Many of the same general ideas will be in it, but it won't necessarily be identical. Conservatives are generally more cautious, wheras NDP (and lately liberals) seem to panic and throw away money without planning. As you've said many times: the conservatives need to compromise. But a compromise with one party to get one document passed generally is different that a party needing to give something in return for full loyalty of two other parties. Maybe in the end it will be exactly the same. But I doubt it. As far as the trusting politicians issue goes, I choose to trust the party that hasn't shown that they feel entitled to keep my money for themselves (both officially and by stealing).

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by calculoso

The initial coalition outline had $30B in spending... it wasn't until much later that this $1.2B (or whatever it is) for Quebec came out. It was secretive, it was slimy, and it was attempted to be hid.

If this $1.2B is in the Conservatives budget, I'll be upset. There is no way that Quebec should get any more money than the formula allows for.

It will be in the budget in the form of stimulus. Just like it would have been in the coalition budget.

Originally Posted by calculoso

The rest of the $30B in stimulus spending is open for debate. Some of it is needed. Some of it was already going to happen (see discussions with the Province of Ontario). Some of it is extra waste and fluff that should be rightfully excluded. This balance is where the compromise comes in. They will have to spend more than they (and I) want, but it should still be no where close to what the NDP and Liberals are demanding... and if the NDP/Liberals truly want to compromise, they need to move from their position too.

I really do hope to see the NDP/Liberals compromise too, infrastructure spending makes sense, but I really don't see how an auto bailout has any sort of logic.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Dion and Layton had to wait to hear what Harper was going to say before they could make a rebuttle.

Why?

They want to run the country, that can't keep doing the political equivalent of trolling.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Something like that shouldn't matter to any reasonable preson. Harper had all day to make his video and likely took every measure he could to make it look nice. Dion and Layton had to wait to hear what Harper was going to say before they could make a rebuttle.

I agree that Harper is a better public speaker, but he isn't that great either. Anyone who judges them on anything but their message is just being petty.

Wasn't supposed to be a rebuttal. Was supposed to be their stance. Media was supposed to have it before Harpers address went on the air. He was supposed to get it in at the same time as Harpers. He didn't. He got it in well after the Harper adress, and it was in the wrong format when he did. And he only had one instead of two. And he messed it up and tripped over his words. He had two days to get it together, and he couldn't even do it right. Shows his ability to act quickly, and I don't think canadians liked what they saw.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

So why is it so upsetting for a Liberal or a Socialist to compromise? The way people love to throw this "minority Government" thing around makes it sound like they think they're the ones that actually won the election.

Who was upset at this? This is the nature of a parliamentary government. Compromise. No one has said just the Conservatives need to compromise.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

News flash: The Liberal "right to power" doesn't exist. Liberals are part of the Parliamentary Democracy too, and in the last election, they were told to sit down and stfu just as loudly as the NDP and BQ were. 6 weeks ago, they suffered their worst defeat ever... their party is in internal chaos and they don't even have a leader. Yet, in true Liberal fashion, they still cling tightly that that self-imposed Liberal Right to Govern.

This "right to power" argument just sounds like an inferiority complex.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Here's a novel idea: get your own house in order before you start trying to run my house.

As has been said many times over, this crisis wouldn't have happened until the Conservatives tried to bankrupt the other parties. Maybe if somebody didn't decide to have such a bright idea, we'd all be focusing on what's important, the economy.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Something like that shouldn't matter to any reasonable preson. Harper had all day to make his video and likely took every measure he could to make it look nice. Dion and Layton had to wait to hear what Harper was going to say before they could make a rebuttle.

Except for the problem of the Liberals promising a statement by a certain time and missing it badly.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Dion and Layton had to wait to hear what Harper was going to say before they could make a rebuttle.

I agree that Harper is a better public speaker, but he isn't that great either. Anyone who judges them on anything but their message is just being petty.

They did not have to wait for Harper to finish so they could rebut it, as it wasn't a debate. They were simply issuing their statement, not responding to anyone else's.

...and the exact timeline of events, as reported by CBC and CTV, have already been posted here in this thread. The delay was 100% entirely about their own incompetence. This is not supposition; it is documented, proven fact.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'm still wondering how it matters right now? Giving answers at this particular time with no idea of what kind of plan the United States is going to look at seems pretty dangerous.
.

It's this thinking that makes Canada a second rate country on the global stage - ie. wait to see what the U.S. does. We don't always have to be their puppy and once in a while we need to take a proactive approach to our own destiny.

Canada is in an enviable position right now. Our economy and banking system hasn't been hit as hard as some other countries, but make no mistake, we are in a slow burn right now and as slow as a burn as it has been (relative to say Britain and the States), our economy will also probably recover more slowly when the recession is already over for Britain and the U.S. That is why action is needed sooner rather than later. There is no reason to wait for things to get worse, and in fact, it would be much more preferrable to nip it before hand.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ikaris

On the flip side, I refuse to trust the Conservatives with a majority government. It really has to do with the Reform party more than anything. Looking back, how many different former Reform MPs can we see that have been quoted with racist remarks, or radical right wing social ideologies? Even recently, you hear the same garbage coming from a certain Calgary MP.

Ok but you seem to be willing to forgive the Liberals and some of their outright racial and diversive comments, we don't hear any mention of that. Unless its true that for example crosses were burning in Kelowna that night, while the Jews were warning their friends not to go to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11, while telling the Americans that they hate them and stomping on a George Bush doll. C'mon be fair Ikaris, both parties have their share of outright nut jobs that have to be controlled by the masses. Don't paint one party as having a radical fringe element without doing the same to the others.

Originally Posted by ikaris

A minority is good because they can be kept in check and you would assume that they would negotiate with other parties (as we've learned, they didn't in their first major confidence vote until after they were threatened with losing their power).

One can hope, however I don't have a lot of faith that the opposition is going to work with the government. If the Conservatives have to extend that hand of cooperation, then the Liberals and NDP and Bloc have to do the same. However planning to topple the government two days after the election and not backing off on this coaltion after Harper backed off on points of his update tells me that the opposition has really never been willing to work with this government.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Jade

Not really. Conservatives are trying to get parlimentary votes, not population votes. And they only need one party to bite, not all of them. Many of the same general ideas will be in it, but it won't necessarily be identical. Conservatives are generally more cautious, wheras NDP (and lately liberals) seem to panic and throw away money without planning. As you've said many times: the conservatives need to compromise. But a compromise with one party to get one document passed generally is different that a party needing to give something in return for full loyalty of two other parties. Maybe in the end it will be exactly the same. But I doubt it. As far as the trusting politicians issue goes, I choose to trust the party that hasn't shown that they feel entitled to keep my money for themselves (both officially and by stealing).

The hypocrisy that I was trying to show was that everyone was criticizing the coalition because they were making deals with separatists. What we will likely see is the Conservatives making the same deal with the separatists to prop up their government.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

It will be in the budget in the form of stimulus. Just like it would have been in the coalition budget.



I really do hope to see the NDP/Liberals compromise too, infrastructure spending makes sense, but I really don't see how an auto bailout has any sort of logic.

Yeah, there will be some money to Quebec in the conservative budget too. But I just don't believe that the Bloc would join this unless there is something in it that they absolutely could not have gotten from the conservatives. And until the final coalition budget is out, we don't know what that is.

Agreed on the auto bailout. If the UAW union doesn't want to do anything to preserve their jobs, why should we. The way things are run right now, domestic cars are not profitable. If the buisness isn't profitable, major changes need to be made in its own system before the government should step in. Otherwise the cycle will repeat.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ikaris

The hypocrisy that I was trying to show was that everyone was criticizing the coalition because they were making deals with separatists. What we will likely see is the Conservatives making the same deal with the separatists to prop up their government.

And my point is while I still don't really like it, it's a different kind of deal. And given the way the NDP and liberals get going against the big bad, scary conservatives, it's probably the cheapest one out there for taxpayers. Although I may be different. My issue isn't primarily the separatists being involved. It's more the question of the payoffs to both the bloc and the NDP, which could really hurt our currently fragile economy.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Who was upset at this? This is the nature of a parliamentary government. Compromise. No one has said just the Conservatives need to compromise.

Actually, quite a few people have said that, including the Three Stooges themselves. Maybe not with their words, but most certainly with their actions.

Originally Posted by ikaris

This "right to power" argument just sounds like an inferiority complex.

I didn't invent the term. It's not like I pulled it out of my ass. It's been a widely used term for decades, and where there's smoke there's usually fire.

Originally Posted by ikaris

As has been said many times over, this crisis wouldn't have happened until the Conservatives tried to bankrupt the other parties. Maybe if somebody didn't decide to have such a bright idea, we'd all be focusing on what's important, the economy.

This is not even a valid point anymore. The subsidies issue has been taken off the table, so what's the excuse for continuing with the charade? It should also be noted, however, that all the opinion votes (admittedly not scientific) that I have seen are overwhelmingly in favour of dropping the vote subsidies for political parties. So, even though the timing of it was ridiculous, it's not like it's something that Canadians wouldn't support.