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

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Wouldn't happen.

Liberals and NDP are different beasts. Liberals are centrists and chase the votes. NDP (on the federal level) are to the left.

They were pushed together in this case due to the political funding issue and the union issue, but I doubt the coalition would have been formed voluntarily otherwise.

I have seen signs that a merger is possible. The Liberals aren't even competitive with the Conservatives anymore in fundraising. They need another money source which the NDP can provide with union dollars. The NDP is getting tired of being a marginalized opposition party. In fact, Jack Layton said he "looked forward to governing" during the last election campaign. If there was a time when these two parties would merge, now is the time.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

I have seen signs that a merger is possible. The Liberals aren't even competitive with the Conservatives anymore in fundraising. They need another money source which the NDP can provide with union dollars. The NDP is getting tired of being a marginalized opposition party. In fact, Jack Layton said he "looked forward to governing" during the last election campaign. If there was a time when these two parties would merge, now is the time.

I think they aren't competitive at fundraising because they have such a poor leader.

If they get a leader who people would be willing to pay to hear speak, then that will change.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by llama64

How is this so hard for people to understand? This was taught in High School for crying out loud. If you want to vote directly for your executive, become an American citizen.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that such a merged party would not have a mandate from the people until it's message was brought forth in an election?

What is constitutional is not necessarily what is right. Unless you can show me that a majority of Canadians support NDP fiscal policy, or an appeasement policy towards the Bloc Quebecois, your argument is without merit.

If these parties wish to unite under a coalition, fine. Have the courage to put your arguments to the people directly in an election.

Honestly, does anyone believe the Liberals and NDP are going to act in anything resembling a concilliative fashion? No... they will simply topple the government in January and force the GG to make a descision then. And the amount of anti-Bloc crap coming out of the Conservatives for the past week has done nothing to help sway their opinion of the whole mess.

Harper doesn't need to sway the Bloc. He needs to sway Liberals who are disgusted at their own party for selling out to separatists.

And honestly, why are you so convinced that the Liberals and NDP are going to act so cohesively, when just six weeks ago Dion bluntly said he could not work with the NDP?

You simply hope that they can work cohesively. For the sake of Canada, I hope that enough Liberal MPs stand up to their own party and say enough is enough. Whatever you want to say about what started this mess, the simple fact is, the Conservatives have responded to the opposition's complaints. Layton, Duceppe and Dion are the ones playing partisan politics now, and doing so to the detriment of this nation.

The question at this point is whether there are enough Liberal MPs who care about their country enough to stand up and put an end to this nonsense.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I disagree. I don't think another minority government would result in more damage to the economy.
Besides, if Harper failed to win a majority on his third kick at the cat, I believe he would step down as leader of the Conservatives, and I suspect that the eventual new leader would be McKay who would be much more palletable to a lot more Canadians.

After that, we'd have a showdown between Ignatief and McKay and your guess is as good as mine at to who would win that one.

The government being reasonably stable helps investor confidence. I think we can both agree on this point.

If after only a handful of weeks in office this government falls, the government that follows better be rock solid. Elections every 4-6 months because minority governments can't hold power will do no favors for investor confidence.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

I have seen signs that a merger is possible. The Liberals aren't even competitive with the Conservatives anymore in fundraising. They need another money source which the NDP can provide with union dollars. The NDP is getting tired of being a marginalized opposition party. In fact, Jack Layton said he "looked forward to governing" during the last election campaign. If there was a time when these two parties would merge, now is the time.

I think that if an election were to happen soon (in the next few months), the Liberals and NDP would agree to not run candidates against each other in strategic ridings, and attempt to earn a mandate as a coalition but not exactly merge. The Liberals would eventually want an out as having NDP anywhere near the budget is a dangerous proposition for the country.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

I have seen signs that a merger is possible. The Liberals aren't even competitive with the Conservatives anymore in fundraising. They need another money source which the NDP can provide with union dollars. The NDP is getting tired of being a marginalized opposition party. In fact, Jack Layton said he "looked forward to governing" during the last election campaign. If there was a time when these two parties would merge, now is the time.

The Jack Layton quote is, well, Layton being a bit "light headed". He seems to me like he's that irritating super positive guy who literally bounces around in a near prance singing "la la la la la" all day long while farting butterflies.

A Liberal-NDP merger -- interesting. A short term coalition I could see, but a merger is something I'd never even considered. Would they be called the "New Liberal Party"? Their colour scheme could be pink with orange highlights perhaps...

No merger will occur until after the Liberal leadership convention in May. And May cannot come soon enough for the Liberals.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by llama64

This is where I maintain that people aren't understanding how our government works.

Every single MP is elected. You do not vote for your Prime Minister. You vote for your MP. Those words next to "Conservative Party" are the MP's name... We do not, should not and never ever will vote specifically for a party. If you personally vote this way, that doesn't change the mechanics of the system and you shouldn't be shocked when it behaves differently then you thought it would.

If the Liberals and the NDP unite into a single party, that's a perfectly fair and democratic option. If that uniting leads to a house majority, that's still democratic, as every seat represents a defined group of Canadians.

How is this so hard for people to understand? This was taught in High School for crying out loud. If you want to vote directly for your executive, become an American citizen.

All Harper (and the GG) have done is delay action. Honestly, does anyone believe the Liberals and NDP are going to act in anything resembling a concilliative fashion? No... they will simply topple the government in January and force the GG to make a descision then. And the amount of anti-Bloc crap coming out of the Conservatives for the past week has done nothing to help sway their opinion of the whole mess.

Remember, the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc have to play nice with eachother for them to even hold onto power. If they fail, we're back at yet another election, more weeks of non-government during a turbulent period, and more wasted money.

Harper screwed up big time. If Conservatives are angry, they should be calling for his head.

Relax, take a breath...3,2,1... It was my intention to weed out the pretentious with that comment. Caught one!

I think what I fear is the lack of western representation in a coalition government. That is all.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

Thank you for your input, I think you meant:

ir⋅rel⋅e⋅vant   /ɪˈrɛləvənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-rel-uh-vuhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1.not relevant; not applicable or pertinent: His lectures often stray to interesting but irrelevant subjects. 2.Law. (of evidence) having no probative value upon any issue in the case.


What is it about my comment that you feel is irrelevant?

The retention of status quo, enabling a chance to save our country? Imagine Dion as Prime Minister? Laughable, least popular Liberal in history!

The least democratic choice for the GG, is to install a seperatist coalition?

My ballot not having a coalition choice?

Keep the above definition in mind when contemplating your responce.

Coalitions don't have to form solely within the context of an election. Hence it wouldn't be on a ballot.
As someone mentioned earlier, I don't see how they would.
Democratic weight doesn't matter either.
People are confuising right and wrong or fariness with rules.
Like I said earlier these politicians are a different breed.
One group wants to get in and uses the rules to their advantage in a way that seems very undemocratic (after using as an excuse another act that was at its base, undemocratic). The sitting group uses rules to its advantage to stop it in another way that some view as undemocratic.
So the ballot part was what i was getting at. None of us voted for any of this.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

I have seen signs that a merger is possible. The Liberals aren't even competitive with the Conservatives anymore in fundraising. They need another money source which the NDP can provide with union dollars. The NDP is getting tired of being a marginalized opposition party. In fact, Jack Layton said he "looked forward to governing" during the last election campaign. If there was a time when these two parties would merge, now is the time.

This will only happen if Bob Rae, former NDP Ontario Premier, wins the leadership convention.
If Ignatief wins, he will push the Liberals closer to the Conservatives in ideology. Frankly, I'm really surprised that Iggy isn't a member of the Conservative party. If the Progressive Conservative party still existed, I suspect he'd be a member.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by llama64

This is where I maintain that people aren't understanding how our government works.

Every single MP is elected. You do not vote for your Prime Minister. You vote for your MP. Those words next to "Conservative Party" are the MP's name... We do not, should not and never ever will vote specifically for a party. If you personally vote this way, that doesn't change the mechanics of the system and you shouldn't be shocked when it behaves differently then you thought it would.

If the Liberals and the NDP unite into a single party, that's a perfectly fair and democratic option. If that uniting leads to a house majority, that's still democratic, as every seat represents a defined group of Canadians.

How is this so hard for people to understand? This was taught in High School for crying out loud. If you want to vote directly for your executive, become an American citizen.

All Harper (and the GG) have done is delay action. Honestly, does anyone believe the Liberals and NDP are going to act in anything resembling a concilliative fashion? No... they will simply topple the government in January and force the GG to make a descision then. And the amount of anti-Bloc crap coming out of the Conservatives for the past week has done nothing to help sway their opinion of the whole mess.

Remember, the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc have to play nice with eachother for them to even hold onto power. If they fail, we're back at yet another election, more weeks of non-government during a turbulent period, and more wasted money.

Harper screwed up big time. If Conservatives are angry, they should be calling for his head.

I think that we all understand how it works and how it's legal. I think the problem that most people have with it is that they did not vote for or against the coalition, they voted for the party that most closely matches their own beliefs. If the coalition would have been formed BEFORE the election, then the public could have had the opportunity to look at the platform of the new party, and voted accordingly.

The platform for which a lot of people voted for in the last election is vastly different than the one that wants to run the country today. That is, IMO, sneaky and undemocratic...regardless of what Social Studied 10 says.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

I think what I fear is the lack of western representation in a coalition governement. That is all.

The reality is that there will be no western representation regardless of any government.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by llama64

The Jack Layton quote is, well, Layton being a bit "light headed". He seems to me like he's that irritating super positive guy who literally bounces around in a near prance singing "la la la la la" all day long while farting butterflies.

A Liberal-NDP merger -- interesting. A short term coalition I could see, but a merger is something I'd never even considered. Would they be called the "New Liberal Party"? Their colour scheme could be pink with orange highlights perhaps...

No merger will occur until after the Liberal leadership convention in May. And May cannot come soon enough for the Liberals.

I've rad that some people want them to speed up the process, but their party constitution has set periods required for delegate selection, etc. so it can't really be moved very easily.

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I think they aren't competitive at fundraising because they have such a poor leader.

If they get a leader who people would be willing to pay to hear speak, then that will change.

That's very true. I am a Liberal and wasn't thrilled with Dion as the party leader. But at the same time, I don't think the Liberals need a Barack Obama type inspirational leader. After all, the Conservative party is doing well financially despite Stephen Harper's lack of charisma.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Just to tie these two points together- talking to people in Manitoba it would appear that a lot of people are angry at the Liberals/NDP over this whole matter. Manitoba is an oddity in that they tend to vote either NDP or PC- and the Liberals sometimes get in as the 3rd party up the middle. This might strengthen Manitoba and perhaps NW Ontario.

I can't see the CPC losing too much of English Montreal, so with Manitoba making up what is lost in PQ, it may be a wash.

And I have to think that some of those close ridings in Ontario would swing CPC after all of this.

Are the NDP taking a large amount of heat over this? I can see the Liberals getting roasted, and not that I think the NDP are guilt free, but an NDP supporter would be more excited to be in a more powerful role for once, I would think.

And the BQ may not gain English Montreal, but in "non-separatist" ridings I can see it being the choice of a strong candidate as opposed to a specific political party.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Why is it so hard for you to understand that such a merged party would not have a mandate from the people until it's message was brought forth in an election?

Go read a book on Constitutional Monarchies. Read about the theory of how they function, why they function this way and why Canada adopted it as our system of government. They are the oldest, most stable and most durable form of democracy in the Western world.

Every individual MP was elected by their constituents. That's the mandate you're looking for. It's on a PER MP basis. In very socialist/communist countries, they elect parties, but in Canada, we elect individuals.

What is constitutional is not necessarily what is right. Unless you can show me that a majority of Canadians support NDP fiscal policy, or an appeasement policy towards the Bloc Quebecois, your argument is without merit.

If these parties wish to unite under a coalition, fine. Have the courage to put your arguments to the people directly in an election.

They will... in the next called election.

Harper doesn't need to sway the Bloc.He needs to sway Liberals who are disgusted at their own party for selling out to separatists.

And honestly, why are you so convinced that the Liberals and NDP are going to act so cohesively, when just six weeks ago Dion bluntly said he could not work with the NDP?

You simply hope that they can work cohesively. For the sake of Canada, I hope that enough Liberal MPs stand up to their own party and say enough is enough. Whatever you want to say about what started this mess, the simple fact is, the Conservatives have responded to the opposition's complaints. Layton, Duceppe and Dion are the ones playing partisan politics now, and doing so to the detriment of this nation.

The question at this point is whether there are enough Liberal MPs who care about their country enough to stand up and put an end to this nonsense.

Actually, I don't think a Liberal-NDP coalition with support from the Bloc will even last the 1.5 years that are on the table, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

The fundamental nature of democracy is a spirit of cooperation and compromise. Majority governments (especially as we see in Alberta) are at the polar opposite of this ideal. I am simply combating the misconception that the Liberals are some how railroading the "legitimate" government.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

Relax, take a breath...3,2,1... It was my intention to weed out the pretentious with that comment. Caught one!

I think what I fear is the lack of western representation in a coalition government. That is all.

You mean Alberta and Saskatchewan. BC and Manitoba are fairly well represented by the Liberals and NDP.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

That's very true. I am a Liberal and wasn't thrilled with Dion as the party leader. But at the same time, I don't think the Liberals need a Barack Obama type inspirational leader. After all, the Conservative party is doing well financially despite Stephen Harper's lack of charisma.

Yeah, but they are also the ones who formed the last 2 governments. It is always much easier to fundraise when you are in the seat of power, regardless of the charisma of the leader.

In the 2 "main" parties, I currently don't see any leaders (now, or on the horizon) that could rejuvenate the base like Obama was able to do.

[burn_this_city]

Can we recess this thread like Parliment until January??

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I've read that some people want them to speed up the process, but their party constitution has set periods required for delegate selection, etc. so it can't really be moved very easily.

Not to mention that it's a lot of planning and organizing to suddenly pull this off in a short amount of time. Try doing a large wedding in under 4 months

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by Rerun

This will only happen if Bob Rae, former NDP Ontario Premier, wins the leadership convention.
If Ignatief wins, he will push the Liberals closer to the Conservatives in ideology. Frankly, I'm really surprised that Iggy isn't a member of the Conservative party. If the Progressive Conservative party still existed, I suspect he'd be a member.

Your right! Bob Rae would push the Liberals closer with the NDP. But there have been signs that is already happening. For instance, union leader Buzz Hargrove urged people to vote Liberal in the election a couple years ago. The former NDP Premier of BC (Ujjal Dosanjh) is a Liberal member in Parliament. Also, the Liberals have moved to the left since Chretien departed as Prime Minister. Iniatives such as dealing with global warming have become a major part of their party platform.