Well its an email from the PMO and then in the article it goes on to say that Olivia Chow tweeted the exact same thing. That is really the entire point of that article.
I know what you're driving at here....but the article you posted is actually talking about the two parties working together as its main theme?
He has denied it. Perhaps he is just angry at the federal liberals for uncovering a 'pork-barrel' scandal that implicates both his government, and the federal conservatives.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Well its an email from the PMO and then in the article it goes on to say that Olivia Chow tweeted the exact same thing. That is really the entire point of that article.
I know what you're driving at here....but the article you posted is actually talking about the two parties working together as its main theme?
I dont know if its two parties "working" together, or two parties responding to the same information about a party leader getting caught in a pickle...doesnt matter who is who in these cases as anytime Harper gets caught in something similar, the other 3 would all issue some sort of statement. Same all the way across the board.
However...i can see that there could be some communication between the two parties as the NDP will support the Cons tomorrow and needed something to help prop themselves up in the face of dwindling support and financing.
I dont know if its two parties "working" together, or two parties responding to the same information about a party leader getting caught in a pickle...doesnt matter who is who in these cases as anytime Harper gets caught in something similar, the other 3 would all issue some sort of statement. Same all the way across the board.
However...i can see that there could be some communication between the two parties as the NDP will support the Cons tomorrow and needed something to help prop themselves up in the face of dwindling support and financing.
And to be clear I hate when any politician from any party flip-flops on their positions that quickly. I do think that when the facts change you have to change your position and that is fine with me, but saying one thing and doing another is the lowest.
McGuinty issued a clarification saying that his office had been in contact with officials from the OLO and that was the impression he received. Nothing formal, nothing in writing. As many posters have been stating on this board, if there is not something in writing, it does not count. Nothing to see here.
Earlier today during a media availability, I indicated that Michael Ignatieff was supportive of the HST in Ontario. This is based on my understanding derived from a number of conversations between my office and Mr. Ignatieff's office," McGuinty said.
In fact, there has been no formal agreement. However, the clear impression I had was that the federal Liberal Party was supportive of the HST in Ontario."
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyBeers
McGuinty issued a clarification saying that his office had been in contact with officials from the OLO and that was the impression he received. Nothing formal, nothing in writing. As many posters have been stating on this board, if there is not something in writing, it does not count. Nothing to see here.
Where did I say its a bad thing and wont admit it?? Strange statement.
And what exactly does this "reveal" about me?
Pretending?? Wow. I sleep just fine though...thanks for your concern. And it is different...completely and entirely.
Finally you see the light!! Working WITH them...not AGAINST them... to topple them and usurp power.
Of course he needs support or gets toppled..as the left has been clamoring since last December..its how the system works. But sorry I dont see where the opposition was working WITH the government back then. No where and no how.
And you still claim its the same thing?
I should probably clarify that the "sleeping at night" comment was intended as tongue-in-cheek... really not trying to start a fight here.
In any case, I'm now even more puzzled. To wit, here are the facts of the situation as you and others have presented them.
The NDP, Liberals and Bloc "working together" amounts to a coup. This is because
a) there was a written agreement
b) it was six weeks after an election
c) some polls showed Canadians didn't like the idea.
The Tories and the Bloc or NDP "working together" is a good idea. This is because
a) this part confuses me. Something to do with "usurping power," which is a term that as I understand it has no applicability in a democracy.
b) some logic about how the tories are "the government" and so therefore others should "work with" them and not the other way around.
Really, the democratic principles that this argument rests on are pretty weak. Because Harper got a tiny plurality of the vote that means other parties have to let him wreak his will upon parliament, rather than attempting to exert some control over policy? I don't think so. Keep in mind that over 60% of Canadian voters chose somebody else.
If anything, that means it's incumbent on Harper to work with the opposition in order to keep his government in office. He may finally be realizing that--which is a good thing. I just think it's a little hypocritical for him to pretend that last fall was anything untoward when
a) he had made a similar (if informal) agreement with the Bloc when he was in opposition and
b) he shows willingness to work with "socialists and separatists" if it's to his own benefit.
Like CaptainCrunch said "a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth." Nothing unusual, really.
He has denied it. Perhaps he is just angry at the federal liberals for uncovering a 'pork-barrel' scandal that implicates both his government, and the federal conservatives.
Of course he denied it, just like the Liberal's denied the sponsership scandal at the start. Its just like Chretien swearing as an election platform that he would dump the GST, then denied that he ever said that later.
No politician is ever going to come out and say, "Yeah I said one thing and plan to do something totally different.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I should probably clarify that the "sleeping at night" comment was intended as tongue-in-cheek... really not trying to start a fight here.
In any case, I'm now even more puzzled. To wit, here are the facts of the situation as you and others have presented them.
The NDP, Liberals and Bloc "working together" amounts to a coup. This is because
a) there was a written agreement
b) it was six weeks after an election
c) some polls showed Canadians didn't like the idea.
The Tories and the Bloc or NDP "working together" is a good idea. This is because
a) this part confuses me. Something to do with "usurping power," which is a term that as I understand it has no applicability in a democracy.
b) some logic about how the tories are "the government" and so therefore others should "work with" them and not the other way around.
Really, the democratic principles that this argument rests on are pretty weak. Because Harper got a tiny plurality of the vote that means other parties have to let him wreak his will upon parliament, rather than attempting to exert some control over policy? I don't think so. Keep in mind that over 60% of Canadian voters chose somebody else.
If anything, that means it's incumbent on Harper to work with the opposition in order to keep his government in office. He may finally be realizing that--which is a good thing. I just think it's a little hypocritical for him to pretend that last fall was anything untoward when
a) he had made a similar (if informal) agreement with the Bloc when he was in opposition and
b) he shows willingness to work with "socialists and separatists" if it's to his own benefit.
Like CaptainCrunch said "a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth." Nothing unusual, really.
Its a good post, however to me, the biggest difference is that with the Bloc/NDP/Liberal coalition government it was going to be a true coalition which ment that Bloc and NDP members were going to be given ganking cabinet positions. I think that this is what angered Canadians and myself was because nobody wants to see Jack Layton actually having signatury authority over policy, nobody wants to see a regional seperatist party actually dictating policy.
In this current case, its nowhere near a coaltion government, the Harper government as elected remains very much in control of policy and cabinet positions. What its hopefully showing those is that Harper is going to lossen his neck and take some of the good or possibly needed suggestions and use them while avoiding an election.
But the NDP is in a position of suggesting, not formating policy, and the Bloc is in a position of suggesting, not dictating policy from an overtly strong position within cabinet.
At the end of the day, the government is still going to fall if the NDP or Bloc put what the conservatives think is a lousy or too self interested condition in place..
The Liberal's could have had a seat in this to, but as much as we bitch about Harper not being willing to work with parliment, the Liberal's behaviour really hasn't been much better, especially in the case of the reduction of hours for EI eligibility which Ignatieff put into place because it sounded sexy to reduce it to a stupid 300 and some odd hours of work, if passed it would really cripple the budget and EI, and he knew that if he dug in his heels on it that the Conservatives would walk away from it and the Liberal's would come out as the injured party.
To me, the Liberal's are going to do everything they can do to topple the government right now because as this recession fades to the past, there just won't be a good enough issue to topple this government in 6 or 8 months. The Liberal's also want to trigger an election right now because they are losing power in the senate, and eventually the big buggaboo of Senate reform which the Liberal's really dislike is going to get to a senate vote.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Its a good post, however to me, the biggest difference is that with the Bloc/NDP/Liberal coalition government it was going to be a true coalition which ment that Bloc and NDP members were going to be given ganking cabinet positions. I think that this is what angered Canadians and myself was because nobody wants to see Jack Layton actually having signatury authority over policy, nobody wants to see a regional seperatist party actually dictating policy.
In this current case, its nowhere near a coaltion government, the Harper government as elected remains very much in control of policy and cabinet positions. What its hopefully showing those is that Harper is going to lossen his neck and take some of the good or possibly needed suggestions and use them while avoiding an election.
But the NDP is in a position of suggesting, not formating policy, and the Bloc is in a position of suggesting, not dictating policy from an overtly strong position within cabinet.
At the end of the day, the government is still going to fall if the NDP or Bloc put what the conservatives think is a lousy or too self interested condition in place..
The Liberal's could have had a seat in this to, but as much as we bitch about Harper not being willing to work with parliment, the Liberal's behaviour really hasn't been much better, especially in the case of the reduction of hours for EI eligibility which Ignatieff put into place because it sounded sexy to reduce it to a stupid 300 and some odd hours of work, if passed it would really cripple the budget and EI, and he knew that if he dug in his heels on it that the Conservatives would walk away from it and the Liberal's would come out as the injured party.
To me, the Liberal's are going to do everything they can do to topple the government right now because as this recession fades to the past, there just won't be a good enough issue to topple this government in 6 or 8 months. The Liberal's also want to trigger an election right now because they are losing power in the senate, and eventually the big buggaboo of Senate reform which the Liberal's really dislike is going to get to a senate vote.
The Bloc were never ever, under any circumstances, going to have cabinet positions.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
The NDP, Liberals and Bloc "working together" amounts to a coup. This is because
a) there was a written agreement
b) it was six weeks after an election
c) some polls showed Canadians didn't like the idea.
d). Said opposition campaigned on NOT forming a coalition with the seperatists just 6 weeks earlier.
Kind of an important omission dont you think?
And "some polls"? Seriously...the majority of Canadians didnt want it...clear as a bell and i would love to hear the spin saying otherwise.
Quote:
The Tories and the Bloc or NDP "working together" is a good idea. This is because
a) this part confuses me. Something to do with "usurping power," which is a term that as I understand it has no applicability in a democracy.
yes...working WITH the elected government is a very good idea, no question about it. Working to topple them in a an effort to usurp power from them is a bad idea. Again, legally they were well within their rights to do so. It niether made it the right thing to do, not the moral thing to do when you consider all the country had just gone through. ( IE; election 6 weeks earlier.) Yet they all tried to do just that because they thought they knew better than the Canadian people. the arrogance was astounding to me.
Are you really going to keep suggesting the two things are in ANY way similar?
Quote:
If anything, that means it's incumbent on Harper to work with the opposition in order to keep his government in office. He may finally be realizing that--which is a good thing
Agreed....for the betterment of everyone.
Quote:
I just think it's a little hypocritical for him to pretend that last fall was anything untoward when
a) he had made a similar (if informal) agreement with the Bloc when he was in opposition and
b) he shows willingness to work with "socialists and separatists" if it's to his own benefit
Of course you do.
thing is...that agreement was never signed, paraded to the citizens of canada in a charade that TOLD them this is what they wanted, nor did it ever even come close to happening.
right now though...again as you so vehemently pointed out in December, that minority governments HAVE to work with the opposition, he is doing just that and is being called hypocritical for it.
its laughable at this point IMO. He has support for the ways and means bill that is a good one for Canadians...and the Liberals are crying foul because its not them supporting it.
Actually going back, your right, the Bloc wasn't going to have a cabinet position, but Ducceppe had stated that as part of the agreement that he was going to have a fairly significant say in policy, especially policy that benefited in Quebec.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyBeers
The Bloc were never ever, under any circumstances, going to have cabinet positions.
Said the lying liar Dion.
Why would you believe that?
And even if they didnt get a direct post...do you not believe they would of had a large voice in any policy? If not...why would they agree to it?
Lets not pretend that the Bloc are any different than any other party...its all about power and using it to their benefit. They had the hammer and would of wielded it at every turn they wanted.
Its a good post, however to me, the biggest difference is that with the Bloc/NDP/Liberal coalition government it was going to be a true coalition which ment that Bloc and NDP members were going to be given ganking cabinet positions. I think that this is what angered Canadians and myself was because nobody wants to see Jack Layton actually having signatury authority over policy, nobody wants to see a regional seperatist party actually dictating policy.
In this current case, its nowhere near a coaltion government, the Harper government as elected remains very much in control of policy and cabinet positions. What its hopefully showing those is that Harper is going to lossen his neck and take some of the good or possibly needed suggestions and use them while avoiding an election.
But the NDP is in a position of suggesting, not formating policy, and the Bloc is in a position of suggesting, not dictating policy from an overtly strong position within cabinet.
At the end of the day, the government is still going to fall if the NDP or Bloc put what the conservatives think is a lousy or too self interested condition in place..
The Liberal's could have had a seat in this to, but as much as we bitch about Harper not being willing to work with parliment, the Liberal's behaviour really hasn't been much better, especially in the case of the reduction of hours for EI eligibility which Ignatieff put into place because it sounded sexy to reduce it to a stupid 300 and some odd hours of work, if passed it would really cripple the budget and EI, and he knew that if he dug in his heels on it that the Conservatives would walk away from it and the Liberal's would come out as the injured party.
To me, the Liberal's are going to do everything they can do to topple the government right now because as this recession fades to the past, there just won't be a good enough issue to topple this government in 6 or 8 months. The Liberal's also want to trigger an election right now because they are losing power in the senate, and eventually the big buggaboo of Senate reform which the Liberal's really dislike is going to get to a senate vote.
Like Eddy said, the Bloc would not have been part of the Liberal/NDP coalition. The Liberals and NDP were to make up the government, and the bloc's role was signing an agreement not to vote against them in a confidence vote until after 18 months. The NDP were not to be given important cabinet posts like foreign affairs or finance.
The Liberals had been the only ones propping up the government until now, so it is unfair to blame the Liberals for not making parliament work... and it was the Liberals who walked away from the EI meetings. They claimed the conservatives were sabatoging negotiations and not bringing anything serious to the table.
its laughable at this point IMO. He has support for the ways and means bill that is a good one for Canadians...and the Liberals are crying foul because its not them supporting it.
Well, in fairness, it is not just the Liberals crying foul. Stephen Harper circa September 9, 2009 is crying foul as well:
Quote:
If we do not win a majority, this country will have a Conservative government propped up by the socialists and the separatists. That government may not last very long, but every day it's in office, it will do long-term real damage to this ...country. This country cannot afford a government like that.
- Steve Harper, September 9, 2009
And the Conservative Party twitter feed, circa September 12, 2009 is also crying foul
Quote:
cpcpcc: Canadians don't want an election. What they want even less is a coalition. What they need is a #cpcpcc majority. #roft
But today is September 16, 2009 and things have changed I suppose, but September 9, 2009 Steve Harper is not very happy with the September 16, 2009 version, and the September 12, 2009 Conservative Party is not very happy with the September 16, 2009 Conservative Party.
yes...working WITH the elected government is a very good idea, no question about it. Working to topple them in a an effort to usurp power from them is a bad idea. Again, legally they were well within their rights to do so. It niether made it the right thing to do, not the moral thing to do when you consider all the country had just gone through. ( IE; election 6 weeks earlier.) Yet they all tried to do just that because they thought they knew better than the Canadian people. the arrogance was astounding to me.
Knew better than the Canadian people? You do realize that Harper was rejected by two thirds of this nation? And yet somehow he is the only one with the right to govern?
If he does not have the confidence of the house, he has no right to govern. Its plain and simple. The only reason some think this is a bad idea is because Canada has not had to experience coalition governments outside extraordinary circumstances. Other parliamentary democracies have gotten used to the idea of coalition governments, and maybe Canada will get used to it in the future.
Of course he denied it, just like the Liberal's denied the sponsership scandal at the start. Its just like Chretien swearing as an election platform that he would dump the GST, then denied that he ever said that later.
No politician is ever going to come out and say, "Yeah I said one thing and plan to do something totally different.
Just like Harper said he would never run a deficit under any circumstances, was going to reform the senate and end the patronage appointments? Lets not just paint one party as the one who goes back on promises here...
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Knew better than the Canadian people? You do realize that Harper was rejected by two thirds of this nation?
Dion was rejected by more than 2/3
Layton was rejected by more than Dion.
Duceppe was rejected by more than Layton.
See how that works both ways?
Quote:
And yet somehow he is the only one with the right to govern?
Yes...he is. he garnered more support than any other leader to represent Canadians as PM...and dont give the the "canadians dont vote for the PM" nonsense...because if that was true, there would never be debates on who should lead a party to begin with. Yet somehow that often becomes a bigger story than elections themselves.
Quote:
If he does not have the confidence of the house, he has no right to govern.
Fine...then tomorrow i expect the ways and means bill to be defeated...dont you? And if he does get that vote through, you agree that he has the confidence of the house and should govern as such....yes?
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Just like Harper said he would never run a deficit under any circumstances, was going to reform the senate and end the patronage appointments? Lets not just paint one party as the one who goes back on promises here...
Agreed...but on the point of deficit...would you agree that a WHOLE bunch of the reasons this happened were so far out of whoever got elected, its a completely unfair point to raise at this juncture?
Actually going back, your right, the Bloc wasn't going to have a cabinet position, but Ducceppe had stated that as part of the agreement that he was going to have a fairly significant say in policy, especially policy that benefited in Quebec.
Yep I think that's right... but IIRC there were also some Senate positions for the Bloc in the deal.
