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

[habernac]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics...634186-cp.html



Toronto MP Jim Karygiannis says the coalition idea is finished and is calling on Stephane Dion to resign the Liberal leadership sooner rather than later.
Dion is scheduled to step aside as Liberal leader once a successor is chosen May 2 but many Liberals remain uneasy about the prospect of ensconcing him in the prime minister's office even temporarily.
Newfoundland MP Scott Simms says all MPs need to give their heads' a collective shake and get back in touch with what their constituents want them to do: fix the faltering economy. Victoria MP Keith Martin says the two-month suspension of Parliament gives opposition parties a chance to open lines of communication with the government and work out a way to avert another crisis in the new year.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Holy F. The politician on the milk carton speaks! He is alive!

, while Calgary West Tory MP Rob Anders argued the opposition parties were determined to bring down the government."The sabotage was in effect," Anders said. "Trying to pull a coup d'etat, in a sense, I don't think will bode well for them."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...7-c07019797849

ummm hahahaha. i think i posted exactly the same article 2 days ago. It is kind of easy to overlook Anders.

I wonder if the interviewer could see the strings? That is the most diplomatic I have ever heard him. Kind of sad really. I'm sure he got a lot of extra interview coaching from the party before they set him loose. Sometimes indoctrination is a good thing I guess.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Actually. As tough as this is to admit, I agree that he does seem to be the one with the most sense in all of this.

Also, while I share the unwillingness to fault him for staying true to his stance, I do fault him for his willingness to poison this country to satisfy his goals.

He has not lied about his goals and ambitions here and he makes no bones about the fact that he is not a Federalist. He is totally upfront and says he is out to get the most and best for Quebec. Regarding the coalition accord, he also makes no bones about the fact that he will not back constitutional matters, only budgetary ones that benefit his province.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by habernac

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics...634186-cp.html

Wookie's e-mail..

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Wookie's e-mail..

With better font! That picture says it all for the Liberals and their supporters.

I'd thank you Wookie but i forgot what page your original post was.

You can't stop refreshing this thread. hammer time.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Well, the cheap answer is that political culture in Canada is a little different than in Europe. In Europe, it is common knowledge that parties have to coalesce, and they have certain "buddies" that they ally with. It is also established in precedence that "grand coalitions" between the two largest parties are encouraged. See: Germany: Merkel CDU/CSU-SDP Coalition. It is also incumbent on the party that wins to form a coalition to help them govern as a majority. Not the also-rans to overthrow the plurality. That typically leads to instability and a swift return to the polls.

Since we're used to Majority Governments, and we're used to seeing the US majority system and assume whoever gets the most votes is the government (until they fail and we get to vote for them again), we don't expect our parties to coalesce, as they were not voted in to do so.

For example, if the Liberals had made it clear that an NDP coalition was a real possibility, the odds are good the Blue Liberals would be scared into voting CPC.

There's a distinction between what is legal to do, and what is acceptable to do.

Personally, I wasn't surprised. I even predicted it 3 months ago:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...on#post1421801

Toot! Toot!

Interesting to read some of the replies to that post when it didn't seem like a big possibility.

I think people better get used to the idea because like the Economist article posted earlier alludes to, coalitions are likely going to become necessary in Canada which is already a 4 party system (almost 5).

Either that, or our system needs a massive change.

[malcolmk14]

Sort of off-topic but after all the Rob Anders hate I did a little reading and found this gem:

In 2003, he voted for a Bloc Québécois proposition which stated that the Québécois form a nation and could withdraw from any federal initiative. He was the only non-Québécois to vote for this proposition.

Kind of funny, he just said what the rest of us were thinking. Good on Mr. Anders.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Sort of off-topic but after all the Rob Anders hate I did a little reading and found this gem:

In 2003, he voted for a Bloc Québécois proposition which stated that the Québécois form a nation and could withdraw from any federal initiative. He was the only non-Québécois to vote for this proposition.

Kind of funny, he just said what the rest of us were thinking. Good on Mr. Anders.

Too bad he isn't one of us but a Conservative MP.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Personally, I wasn't surprised. I even predicted it 3 months ago:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...on#post1421801

Toot! Toot!

I think people better get used to the idea because like the Economist article posted earlier alludes to, coalitions are likely going to become necessary in Canada which is already a 4 party system (almost 5).

Either that, or our system needs a massive change.

I'd lean towards a change... but if this is the new reality... the CPCs need to find a buddy. That party is either the Liberals in a grand coalition (that will be less of a dirty thought as time goes on), or the Greens lead by someone more like Jim Harris.

I almost think the best thing for them to do is split again, but pull what the German right does. CSU is Bavaria only, CDU is everywhere else. Except in this case "West Conservative Party" is Manitoba west, and "Progressive Conservatives" are Ontario east.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Yup! That is like John Edwards becoming the Democratic nominee in the US because Clinton and Obama split the vote. haha.

Is this broken? Are the Conservative leaders elected the same way?

I cannot believe Dinning didn't say F this losing to a farmer and then jumping to the Liberal party. He would have been our next Premier.

Why is there a need to insult farmers around here all the time. I find it offensive. Insult Stelmach as an individual ... he deserves it. But that's no cause to take pot shots at all farmers. They're by and large good people, just as lawyers, engineers and ITs are by and large good people. I will omit politicians from that generalization though.

[Rerun]

Harper's best case scenario:

In the next 7 weeks Harper meets with all the provincial Premiers, world leaders, Obama, industry leaders, economists, and other experts to see what they think he should do about the economy.

He also meets with Layton to see what ridiculous ideas he has. Layton's first idea is to increase taxes on big business.

He then meets with Duceppe and tells him to go f*** himself.

He then meets with Dion to listen to his ideas about what to do to help the economy (turns out to be a short meeting... Dion has few ideas and for those he has, Harper (like the rest of us) can't understand what Dion is saying.

Harper then puts together a budget full of economic stimulus, government spending cuts, and help for the unemployed.

The budget is voted on by parliament and the "Unholy Coalition" which has remained intact, defeats it.

An election is called and Harper gets another kick at Dion and another chance to form a majority government before Ignatief becomes the new Liberal leader.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The most democratic action would be to dissolve the house and go to an immediate election. The Coalition taking power in terms of pure democracy would be the least democratic as the people wouldn't have had the opportunity to vote for this form of government.

Harper used the consititution and the house rules, its not any less democratic then the prospect of a coalition taking power if your going by the rules that are being used.

Interesting comments here.

I agree with you that an immediate election would be the most purely democratic result: Conservatives propose budget, non-confidence vote ensues, government falls, election takes place.

I disagree with you that the Coalition taking power is the least democratic option. Our parliamentary system contemplates coalition governments, so in that sense this is part of the democratic process. However its after-the-fact nature raises all sorts of issues, since the new government that would form wouldn't have strictly even been an option during the election.

The least democratic option is the Governor General having any say whatsoever in what happens. Thus Harper asking her for and getting a prorogue was among the least democratic possible results. It is, of course, within the constitution, but the GG's power lies outside of democracy. It is the power of the monarch which, by definition, is undemocratic.

This whole situation is a real test of our constitutional monarchy and our democracy. How this resolves could have long-standing consequences for the fundamental structures of our country.

Or it could all amount to nothing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Personally, I wasn't surprised. I even predicted it 3 months ago:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...on#post1421801

Toot! Toot!

Interesting to read some of the replies to that post when it didn't seem like a big possibility.

I think people better get used to the idea because like the Economist article posted earlier alludes to, coalitions are likely going to become necessary in Canada which is already a 4 party system (almost 5).

Either that, or our system needs a massive change.

"Almost 5" No, not really.

But yes, our system needs a massive change. If anything, the unbridled greed and self-serving attitude of the coalition has proven this.

It is one of the biggest reasons why Canada needs a real constitutional crisis.

[FlamesAddiction]

I wonder if it would be better to have 2 separate elections. Have one where we elect a senate and give that senate more legislative responsibility than the current one.

Then have a 2nd election where the 2 parties with the most votes have a runoff election to see how parliament will be allocated. That way parliament would be a guarenteed majority and people who voted for the "3rd parties" would at least have their voice heard in the senate.

[Flame On]

The stupidity and smugness of the minority leader changing would help too.

[Jason14h]

If the coalition decides to go forward with their plans, the best thing Ignatief could do would find 12 other Liberal MP's to vote it down. This would show Canadians thats not all Liberals are out to "destroy" the country.

Ignatief could then become the Liberal leader, and probably become the next PM.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Interesting comments here.

I agree with you that an immediate election would be the most purely democratic result: Conservatives propose budget, non-confidence vote ensues, government falls, election takes place.

I disagree with you that the Coalition taking power is the least democratic option. Our parliamentary system contemplates coalition governments, so in that sense this is part of the democratic process. However its after-the-fact nature raises all sorts of issues, since the new government that would form wouldn't have strictly even been an option during the election.

The least democratic option is the Governor General having any say whatsoever in what happens. Thus Harper asking her for and getting a prorogue was among the least democratic possible results. It is, of course, within the constitution, but the GG's power lies outside of democracy. It is the power of the monarch which, by definition, is undemocratic.

This whole situation is a real test of our constitutional monarchy and our democracy. How this resolves could have long-standing consequences for the fundamental structures of our country.

Or it could all amount to nothing.

Status quo is retained, nothing has changed, an appropriate comprimise must be sought with this time. The least democratic choice is allowing a coalition to form government. My ballot didn't have a check box for coalition.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Harper's best case scenario:

In the next 7 weeks Harper meets with all the provincial Premiers, world leaders, Obama, industry leaders, economists, and other experts to see what they think he should do about the economy.

He also meets with Layton to see what ridiculous ideas he has. Layton's first idea is to increase taxes on big business.

He then meets with Duceppe and tells him to go f*** himself.

He then meets with Dion to listen to his ideas about what to do to help the economy (turns out to be a short meeting... Dion has few ideas and for those he has, Harper (like the rest of us) can't understand what Dion is saying.

Harper then puts together a budget full of economic stimulus, government spending cuts, and help for the unemployed.

The budget is voted on by parliament and the "Unholy Coalition" which has remained intact, defeats it.

An election is called and Harper gets another kick at Dion and another chance to form a majority government before Ignatief becomes the new Liberal leader.

Best for the conservatives != best for the country.
The only way that your scenario is at all a decent one is if one party (even the liberals) comes out of that election with a majority. If the government falls and another election brings in another unstable government, they've done far more damage to the economy than any stimulus package (yes, even one crafted by Jack Layton) could fix for a long time.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

Status quo is retained, nothing has changed, an appropriate comprimise must be sought with this time. The least democratic choice is allowing a coalition to form government. My ballot didn't have a check box for coalition.

Irrelevant.

Spelling corrected.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

If the coalition decides to go forward with their plans, the best thing Ignatief could do would find 12 other Liberal MP's to vote it down. This would show Canadians thats not all Liberals are out to "destroy" the country.

Ignatief could then become the Liberal leader, and probably become the next PM.

That's the first thing I've heard that have me thinking this isn't a total disaster for the Liberal party.