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

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by redforever

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.

Anyone who says, "oh no, its a Trudeau" as a reason not to vote for him is an idiot. I tend to think most Canadians would vote for Trudeau based on current party policy rather than a failed energy program his father created thirty years ago.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by llama64

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.

If you want to lump yourself in with the so-called Experts... you know, those that study the theory of things and not the actual workings of things... then that is your perogative.

A lot of professors are very smart people, but they know how things should work and not how they do work. A lot of people have book smarts but don't have street smarts. Same analogy can work here.

I look at it this way. The biggest result that comes from an election is which party gets power. As a result of this, people vote for who they want to be in power. Only under special cases (like Ralph Goodale in SK) does the actual MP mean more than the party. Back bench MPs do very little for their constituency... and the theory would back this up.

Technically, you are correct. Vote for your local representative and the chips will lay where they may. In real life, the decision is very different.

[RougeUnderoos]

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.

"Trudeau" is still a dirty word for a hell of a lot of people, including people who were far too young to have ever voted for him.

All my life I've heard people in my family badmouthing Trudeau and I'm sure I'm not alone. Justin Trudeau will have a tough time overcoming all the negativity associated with his name.

On the other hand, many of those same people won't vote Liberal no matter who the leader of the party is, so it might not matter.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by opendoor

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.

Expected to take power or wanted to? Either way, they were voting for the party and not necessarily for the MP, which apparently flies in the face of the theory of our system.

Originally Posted by opendoor

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.

I agree with you, especially the bolded part. The theory on how things should work or how they were designed to work aren't true any more.

[Thunderball]

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.

Technically, of course, you are correct.

But I'm going to invoke the excuse the old British Privy Council used to protect provincial rights from zealous PMs pointing at the word of the law. The "Spirit" of the Constitution.

Despite what is written in specifics, there is an overriding spirit of the document. This is essentially what protects the liberal democratic aspects of the constitutional monarchy. There are a lot of provisions in that document that allow a PM/GG/party leader/etc. the ability to do some pretty shocking things... what stops them is the expectation that gain a mandate/elected majority to do these things.

As well, I believe what has protected our antiquated system of government for so long is ignorance. Most people tend to believe our system is the same as the US, with a few different names of titles and buildings. Most people think that their vote works the same way as in the US, which it doesn't, but pretends to in order to avoid the ire of the electorate. With rare exception, the MPs are voted by party brand name, and not their own merits. Ironically, in the US, individuals matter a lot more than party stripe.

Instances like this remind people that we have a pretty poor system of government. Regardless of political stripe, every major leader (and minor in May's case) have acted deplorably in some way, shape or form, or have had to act deplorably to protect the system and avoid being accountable to the voters... largely due to the way our system works.

It still remains to be seen if "the way it should be" will win over "the way it is written."

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

"Trudeau" is still a dirty word for a hell of a lot of people, including people who were far too young to have ever voted for him.

All my life I've heard people in my family badmouthing Trudeau and I'm sure I'm not alone. Justin Trudeau will have a tough time overcoming all the negativity associated with his name.

On the other hand, many of those same people won't vote Liberal no matter who the leader of the party is, so it might not matter.

Yeah, really. You could have the smartest and most charismatic person running, and those same people who hate Trudeau still won't vote for that person if they are a Liberal.

And for as unpopular as he is in Alberta, Trudeau was and still is extremely popular in other areas.

Having said that, Justin Trudeau lacks the credentials to lead a party. He'd just be using his name and I don't agree with that.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

Anyone who says, "oh no, its a Trudeau" as a reason not to vote for him is an idiot. I tend to think most Canadians would vote for Trudeau based on current party policy rather than a failed energy program his father created thirty years ago.

I wouldn't necessarily get on them for being 'idiots' for not wanting to vote for Trudeau. He only stands a chance in politics by milking his family name.Those who vote for him will be doing the same thing. As a result, he will be expected to follow the ideals of his father. As mentioned, those don't sit well out here, especially to those who worked in oil (or have family who do). Given how much they are already trotting him out more as Pierre Trudaues son than as Justin Trudeau, I don't blame anyone for going based on the name.

[FanIn80]

If anyone wants the full story on how everything transpired, for the Conservatives, I suggest reading this news article:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0..._crisis_harper

Before he could take to the airwaves to fight for his job, Stephen Harper first had to revive the morale of a dispirited team and rekindle his own combative streak.

Several sources close to the prime minister say he went from brooding to brawling in the span of a few key hours on Monday afternoon. Harper began Dec. 1 feeling miserably.

People close to him say he started the day sounding almost resigned to the defeat of his Conservative government.

He was exhausted. A bug he picked up a week earlier in Peru had morphed into a bronchial infection. The bags under his eyes and the room around his shirt collar attested to his lack of sleep and his failure to hold down much food.

A blunt exchange with his inner cabinet wasn't going to make him feel much better. He confessed to his senior ministers that he had made a serious political miscalculation.

He huddled individually with senior ministers, gave an emotional speech to his MPs, and was jolted by television images of his adversaries inking a pact to supplant him.

Watching his foes agree to usurp him appeared to have a salutary effect on Harper. His mood went from defeat to defiance as he made the 200-metre drive from his office to the Conservative party Christmas celebration at the Westin hotel.

"The moment he spoke to our Christmas party it was clear he had rallied - and was rallying the party and the caucus," said Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

The story of Harper's shift in temperament begins in Peru...

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

If anyone wants the full story on how everything transpired, for the Conservatives, I suggest reading this news article:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0..._crisis_harper

Fata, posted earlier in the thread

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

Anyone who says, "oh no, its a Trudeau" as a reason not to vote for him is an idiot. I tend to think most Canadians would vote for Trudeau based on current party policy rather than a failed energy program his father created thirty years ago.

The current policy looks enough like his dad's failed energy program I'm not sure there's a difference there either.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jade

I wouldn't necessarily get on them for being 'idiots' for not wanting to vote for Trudeau. He only stands a chance in politics by milking his family name.Those who vote for him will be doing the same thing. As a result, he will be expected to follow the ideals of his father. As mentioned, those don't sit well out here, especially to those who worked in oil (or have family who do). Given how much they are already trotting him out more as Pierre Trudaues son than as Justin Trudeau, I don't blame anyone for going based on the name.

Exactly. Trudeau is being sold based on his father's name already. He will be accepted or rejected based on Pierre's legacy.

Seriously, the kid wasn't even an elected MP and people were trotting his name out as a leadership hopeful some day. Don't tell me for a second that he wasn't being supported based exclusively on his father's name.

Not surprisingly, idiocy surrounds a Trudeau, no matter which side of the spectrum you sit.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Fata, posted earlier in the thread

Impossible!

[Resolute 14]

I generally hate Facebook, but this is funny.

In the group "Canadians for a Liberal-NDP coalition" there are 3076 members.

In the group "Canadians opposed to a Liberal-NDP coalition" there are 109,749 members.

Apparently there was a rally in support of the coalition tonight. Wonder if anyone went?

[old-fart]

According to the news, 50 to 70 people showed up at the rally at the Harry Hays building downtown. I wonder how many of them are volunteers for the Liberal and/or NDP parties locally.

Be interesting to see how many show up to the rallies on the weekend opposing this farce of a coalition.

[Resolute 14]

I'm planning on being there. My third ever protest. Cool!

Anyway, possibly a fata, but fun none the less:

CBC says Tory support has risen since the crisis began

The Liberals are already falling apart

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

Anyone who says, "oh no, its a Trudeau" as a reason not to vote for him is an idiot. I tend to think most Canadians would vote for Trudeau based on current party policy rather than a failed energy program his father created thirty years ago.

What exactly qualifies him as being a leadership candidate, other than having had his life handed to him on a silver platter? Where, exactly, has he put in his time to earn this position, and where has he proven himself to be fit and capable for the job? What, on his resume, qualifies him for this position... his brief stint as a school teacher, his acting career, or the fact that he is studying Geography currently? What wild and manic career changes! I just hope he's more like his dad than his bipolar mom.

[SebC]

On voting systems:

Originally Posted by browna

Nice work, but it is a pipe dream.

Perhaps, but the very fact that I've got a few people thinking about it has made it just a little bit closer to becoming a reality, and it may still be closer than we imagine.

British Columbia actually came within 3% of the 60% threshold necessary to implement a similar voting system (wiki link here) by referendum. If it gets implemented in BC (and there will be another referendum in 2009), I think more Canadians will become aware the possibilities.

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I've been reflecting on the old saying that voters get the government they deserve. Wow ... what did we do to deserve this?

According to the political science theories I've described on Page 91, third parties should not exist in Canada. Therefore, my answer to your question is that the ultimate root cause is of this crisis is that our voting patterns are unsuitable for our voting system. That stems from the failure of those who vote for third parties to vote strategically, and therefore I blame them.

================================================== =

On prorogue:

Originally Posted by driveway

Interesting. I did not expect the GG to agree to prorogue and I don't think I like the precedent it sets, ie: that a Prime Minister can suspend parliament when facing a non-confidence vote.

I agree here, that is rather undemocratic and sets a terrible precedent... the next possibility is that a PM asks for to prorogue parliament for a year (the maximum allowed) to avoid a non-confidence vote, and cites this as precedent.

Originally Posted by old-fart

His basic point was that once there is a PM the GG has to listen to the advice of that PM. To not do so would take us back to a state where the crown (the monarchy) is exerting its will on the country.

I also agree that an unelected official overriding and elected official is also bad news.

Which means that there was no "good" choice for Jean. Harper should not have put her in the position where whichever choice she makes sets a bad precedent. He should not have asked for prorogue.

Now, given that he did, the more I think about it, the more I think that Jean failed to choose the lesser of two evils. Yes, the PM is elected and therefore an unelected governor-general should accept his advice. However, Harper has clearly lost the confidence of the house. Accepting Harper's advice against the will of the house contradicts one of the most basic principles of our constitution, the supremacy of the legislature over the executive. By granting prorogue, that has been violated, if not by letter then in spirit.

Likewise, giving Harper an election when the will of the house is to form a government would also violate the supremacy of the legislature, but in this case the precedent is already established. Harper will not get his election unless the coalition fails. I suspect he knows this: otherwise, he would have asked for an election rather than prorogue.

================================================== =

On giving power to the Bloc:

Originally Posted by Gozer

Seats:
Conservatives > Liberals + NDP
Conservatives < Liberals + NDP + Bloc

Seems pretty simple to me.

Bloc < Liberals + NDP + Conservatives

Whilst that may seem irrelevant, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Jade

And yet they are still just as necessary for the coalition to work. The liberals can spin this all they like, but they still need the bloc on board just as much as they do the NDP. Anyone who doesn't see that is drinking a little too much red kool-aid.

Not entirely. If the Liberal-NDP coalition is supported by the Conservatives, then they don't need the Bloc.

Clearly, the Liberals and the NDP have demonstrated here that they would rather give power to the Bloc than support the Conservatives.

However, as far-fetched as it seems, the possibility exists for the Conservatives to give the Liberal-NDP coalition their assurances that they would not vote against the government in a non-confidence measure.

That would remove the Bloc from the equation.

By not doing so, the Conservatives demonstrate that they would rather give power to the Bloc than support the Liberals.

They are just as willing to "jump in bed with the seperatists" as the Liberals.

Of course, we already knew that. Well, except for those who are drinking too much blue kool-aid.

And whilst it is certainly counter-intuitive for the Conservatives to support the Liberal-NDP coalition, it is the logical action for them to take if the the Bloc are truly as bad as they are saying (well, at least in English - more here).

================================================== =

On farmers:

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Why is there a need to insult farmers around here all the time?

People dislike farmers for pretty much the same reason they dislike unions: because they whine a lot, and because they think they're worth more than the market says they are. How many times do we hear "if the government doesn't support me, I can't make a living and will have to sell my farm"? Well boo fricken hoo. If you can't make a living doing something, that's a pretty good indication that you should be doing something else. I don't care that your farm has been a family business for generations, and neither should the government. Furthermore, you often hear them whining about not getting the same levels of services as cities. Well of course you don't! It's far more expensive for the government to provide those services to you in your rural area on a per capita basis than it is for them to be provided to city dwellers. Asking for equal service levels is asking for a massive subsidization from the cities. Adding to the resentment is the fact that their electoral ridings have smaller populations, and therefore they have a disproportioate amount of power over governmental affairs. (And also, they're all uneducated redneck hicks. )

[evman150]

With all the talk of this coalition being undemocratic, the only thing that has actually been undemocratic through this whole issue is Robert Mug...I mean Stephen Harper snaking out of facing his comeuppance by the ELECTED OFFICIALS OF CANADA by appealing to the Crown who makes a terrible decision that as far as I know has no precedent in parliamentary law.

Disgusting decision, disgusting politics and a disgusting anti-democratic precedent set by Her Excellency.

Today is a terrible day to be Canadian, a terrible day for Canada and a terrible day for democracy.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by evman150

With all the talk of this coalition being undemocratic, the only thing that has actually been undemocratic through this whole issue is Robert Mug...I mean Stephen Harper snaking out of facing his comeuppance by the ELECTED OFFICIALS OF CANADA by appealing to the Crown who makes a terrible decision that as far as I know has no precedent in parliamentary law.

Disgusting decision, disgusting politics and a disgusting anti-democratic precedent set by Her Excellency.

Today is a terrible day to be Canadian, a terrible day for Canada and a terrible day for democracy.

start a seperation thread. The peoples republic of evman

[Jade]

Originally Posted by SebC

On prorogue:

I agree here, that is rather undemocratic and sets a terrible precedent... the next possibility is that a PM asks for to prorogue parliament for a year (the maximum allowed) to avoid a non-confidence vote, and cites this as precedent.

So you consider it undemocratic for canadians to get their say? I tend to disagree. It isn't like he's magically making the vote of confidence go away. He's just forcing those involved to take some time, think about it, and give the constituents of the NDP and the liberals a chance to get their say. Vote's still going to happen, just not in the panic that the liberals want it to happen in. Why are they trying to rush it so much anyway? Maybe because they know it isn't what a large portion of their voters want, but if they don't hear it, they didn't purposely go against those that voted for them.

Not entirely. If the Liberal-NDP coalition is supported by the Conservatives, then they don't need the Bloc.

Clearly, the Liberals and the NDP have demonstrated here that they would rather give power to the Bloc than support the Conservatives.

However, as far-fetched as it seems, the possibility exists for the Conservatives to give the Liberal-NDP coalition their assurances that they would not vote against the government in a non-confidence measure.

That would remove the Bloc from the equation.

By not doing so, the Conservatives demonstrate that they would rather give power to the Bloc than support the Liberals.

They are just as willing to "jump in bed with the seperatists" as the Liberals.

Of course, we already knew that. Well, except for those who are drinking too much blue kool-aid.

And whilst it is certainly counter-intuitive for the Conservatives to support the Liberal-NDP coalition, it is the logical action for them to take if the the Bloc are truly as bad as they are saying (well, at least in English - more here).

There is a signed document preventing the removal of the bloc from the equation. They are in there, and the promises made to them are going to happen. And given that the conservatives have more seats in the house than the liberals and NDP combined, if they were involved, it stands to reason they would be leading. That is the reasoning why the liberals get 'control' of the coalition, even though it started with the NDP and bloc. Kind of like how we voted it. You know, the structure being overthrown right now.
Sure the conservatives could support the coalition. But since the separatists have already been promised whatever they want to keep them involved, its kind of irrelevent. And given that they are the elected government, why do they have a duty to lying down for the liberal agenda. Should they bend, yes, and they have. Too bad the NDP and liberals are hell bent on ignoring it. At this point it no longer has anything to do with policy for either the liberals or the NDP. It's about prooving to themselves and anyone ignorant enough to believe it that they beat the conservatives in this election.

Besides no one has said that the conservatives have never made aggrements with the bloc. We've just mentioned that making concessions on a case by case basis is different than handing them the keys.