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

[llama64]

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.

Pretentiousness? Knowing stuff is now called being pretentious? I'm confused... Am I being made fun of for attempting to correct certain assumptions?

And yes, there would be a serious lack of Western representation in the coalition government -- basically highlights the drawbacks of a majority government system eh?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by llama64

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

Yeah, but I'm sure they may have been able to figure something out - phone ballots from riding offices or something.

I've always wanted to go to a big political leadership convention sometime.

But I'm not a Liberal (contrary to how I may have been perceived in this thread), but don't really relate to the current CPC party, either. Politically speaking, I'm stuck somewhere in between.

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

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.

On the Liberal side, I think Justin Trudeau could emerge as a leadership contender in the next ten years.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

On the Liberal side, I think Justin Trudeau could emerge as a leadership contender in the next ten years.

Trudeau has the charisma, but lacks the substance.

If you could combine Dion's intelligence with Trudeau's charisma the Liberals would have something.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by opendoor

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

I'll give you Manitoba, BC not so much, 22 seats out of 35 seats are CPC. Further, out of the 4 provinces you mentioned, 68 seats out of 91 seats are CPC. 74.7%

[calculoso]

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.

Technically or practically?

Technically, you are correct.

Practically, what happens is VERY different. Practically, people are voting for the party they want to be in power. Practically, people are voting for who they do or do not want as Prime Minister. Practically, in most cases, the person running as the MP does not matter much.

This is the problem that occurs when Experts (ie: book worms who have no real-world experience) speak on issues. They know the technical side but have little grasp on what is happening in the real world.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Does anyone really think Stephen Harper, about as meticulously calculating as you can get in politics, hasn't carefully planned all of this out?

I'll stick to my position that Harper saw this coming, knew exactly how it would play out, and took the lowest-risk possible route to destroying the Liberals and getting his way.

Call him self-serving, call him an ideologe, but you certainly can't call him an idiot.

I think its a stretch to suggest that everything is playing out as he anticipated. He has made critical mistakes before. For example, the arts funding fiasco in Quebec that may have cost him his majority government.

Sure one could conjecture that in the long run the Liberals may pay a price for the coalition, but I think Harper's recent moves may really hurt him also, especially in Quebec.

I think it's time for Harper to start showing that he has the character and ability to lead the nation, by hopefully mending some fences and presenting a budget that his party and enough members in the Opposition can accept.

[calculoso]

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.

With Bob Rae as leader, wouldn't the Liberals be NDP-right? It would be two left-wing parties, much like the Reform/PC days.

With Ignatieff as leader, the Liberals would be standing on their own.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Yeah, but I'm sure they may have been able to figure something out - phone ballots from riding offices or something.

I've always wanted to go to a big political leadership convention sometime.

But I'm not a Liberal (contrary to how I may have been perceived in this thread), but don't really relate to the current CPC party, either. Politically speaking, I'm stuck somewhere in between.

Pretty much where I am now.

For the most part I'm old school Tory. Ever since Clark left the scene, the party representing my views has been destroyed, resurrected and twisted into a bizarre monstrosity that I cannot relate to. And well, the Liberals are just plain weird.

The only think I like about the Conservatives is that they seem to pander to the West, but that is quickly eroded based on their conceptions of human rights and the constitution itself. A party that followed the Bloc's lead in representing the West would be something I would be very much in favor for.

You can guess my opinion of the NDP by my description of their fearless leader.

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

I'll give you Manitoba, BC not so much, 22 seats out of 35 seats are CPC. Further, out of the 4 provinces you mentioned, 68 seats out of 91 seats are CPC. 74.7%

.

The Conservatives better not take BC for granted. It is the one province where all three major parties have a shot. For instance, my hometown of Victoria has three federal MP's who each represent a different political party.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by llama64

Pretentiousness? Knowing stuff is now called being pretentious? I'm confused... Am I being made fun of for attempting to correct certain assumptions?

And yes, there would be a serious lack of Western representation in the coalition government -- basically highlights the drawbacks of a majority government system eh?

Wow, what I highlighted must not have shown up? Stay confused, it will serve you better.

Possibly, it has been mentioned that if the coalition had of been a mandate of the Lib's and NDP's during the election it would be more palatable. Conversely, if Harper had of run on what he was trying to pass it would be more palatable...they are all idiots.

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Trudeau has the charisma, but lacks the substance.

If you could combine Dion's intelligence with Trudeau's charisma the Liberals would have something.

That's why I said Trudeau could be leader in the next ten years. He needs to get to work on policy and legislation for a while before he can run for the leadership.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Technically or practically?

Technically, you are correct.

Practically, what happens is VERY different. Practically, people are voting for the party they want to be in power. Practically, people are voting for who they do or do not want as Prime Minister. Practically, in most cases, the person running as the MP does not matter much.

This is the problem that occurs when Experts (ie: book worms who have no real-world experience) speak on issues. They know the technical side but have little grasp on what is happening in the real world.

Please expand on your definition of the "real world". They way you phrase it, it is insinuating that some how I'm out of touch with reality and don't know what I'm talking about. As far as I know, there is only one "world" and we all live in it.

And in the end, it's the technical part that governs our lives. What do you think Law is based on? Opinion?

I'm no expert. I happen to have studied our base government system and believe people are voting one way expecting something that in reality (or as I call it, the "real world") doesn't exist.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

That's why I said Trudeau could be leader in the next ten years. He needs to get to work on policy and legislation for a while before he run for the leadership.

I understand that but ultimately I don't think he has the smarts to be a leader even with more experience.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

On the Liberal side, I think Justin Trudeau could emerge as a leadership contender in the next ten years.

Where his father's legacy would kill him in the west, especially Alberta, and Quebec.

Trudeau is a great choice for the media, but a terrible choice for Canada. Too many old wounds would be reopened.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

On the Liberal side, I think Justin Trudeau could emerge as a leadership contender in the next ten years.

Less than that. I predict that unless the Liberals get a dynamite leader at their May convention, Justin is the next leader of the Liberal party of Canada.

[browna]

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.

Wow, talk about talking down to people.
I live in Calgary SW, does that mean I get to become an American citizen?
Harper has delayed action, yes, and that's a great thing because the proof will be in the pudding how much the other parties REALLY want to act in the best interests for the country as they propose they are with the coalition, in working with the conservaitves to strategize on the econonmy. Let be honest, when Obama starts filtering money around, the Canadian government will follow closely with that plan, and really, all 3 parties really should be in fairly close agreement to what is to be done, and where money is to be put, based on that.

Of course, there will be disagreements based on party ideologies, the NDP will want money ofr union workers, the Bloc anyone emplyed in Quebec etc etc

But other then some details here and there, the basic framework for a budget should have enough common sense, practical ideas, shared among parties as showing that it helps the country, and that voting it down will be strictly stubborn partisan politics. In that case we go to the polls.

Of course, the Conservatives have to play fair too, that said, by delaying Parliment by 6 weeks instead of asking for an election, its giving the other parties (reported not to really be able to afford an election) a chance to regroup and discuss and analyze with cooler heads. And, with the Liberal leadership in such turmoil, there could be a (welcome) change with a person more reasonable and recognizing the dangers that jumping into bed with the socialists and seperatists would mean for the Liberal party for years to come.

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Where his father's legacy would kill him in the west, especially Alberta, and Quebec.

Trudeau is a great choice for the media, but a terrible choice for Canada. Too many old wounds would be reopened.

I don't think people are going to hold him accountable for his father's mistakes. He may have work to do in getting the support of those in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but I think Trudeau could do well in eastern Canada. If he wasn't popular in Quebec, he wouldn't have beaten the Bloq MP in the 2008 election.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

I don't think people are going to hold him accountable for his father's mistakes. He may have work to do in getting the support of those in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but I think Trudeau could do well in eastern Canada. If he wasn't popular in Quebec, he wouldn't have beaten the Bloq MP in the 2008 election.

Oh those still in the oil patch from NEP days will. Justin, Pierre, they won't hear that, they will just hear Trudeau.

It is not right, but they will.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Technically or practically?

Technically, you are correct.

Practically, what happens is VERY different. Practically, people are voting for the party they want to be in power. Practically, people are voting for who they do or do not want as Prime Minister. Practically, in most cases, the person running as the MP does not matter much.

This is the problem that occurs when Experts (ie: book worms who have no real-world experience) speak on issues. They know the technical side but have little grasp on what is happening in the real world.

Do you think people who voted NDP, Bloc Quebecois, or Green (or Reform/Canadian Alliance in the '90s for that matter) were voting for a party they expected to take power or someone they thought could be Prime Minister? The answer is no. They voted for an MP or a party that represented their ideals or their wishes.

Much of the rhetoric being bandied about in the last few days bears little relevance to the Canadian political system. We live under a parliamentary system, not a republic, and if people don't understand that, then they need to learn. Our laws and political system are what they are and they've been that way since our country was founded almost 150 years ago.