Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[CaptainCrunch]

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...

I wasn't, I was responding back to the insinuation that the Conservatives were the only ones breaking promises.

With the deficit, I think you can agree that it would have been a lot less if Harper hadn't worked with the Liberals.

On Senate reform its been impossible for the Conservatives in a minority position to do it as the Liberals spent years stacking the senate and there's no way that they want to lose the ability to obstruct Conservative through the use of the Senate which they did fairly successfully on the crime bill last year.

As much as I would love to see patronage end, its never going to end its how the government works, and it is an effective way to shift power through non electorial means. All we can hope for . . . I can hope for is that one of those bad boys comes my way.

I'd be an awesome chief justice.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by starseed

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?

This is such a false argument in a party system and makes no sense. while 2/3 rds didn't vote for Harper, the 2/3 rds didn't vote for one party, they voted for different parties and had different ideas on how they wanted to see their voting power used. The bottom line is that the Liberal's NDP and Block were not given a mandate to govern . . . period. If you want to successfully argue this point then the first thing that has to happen is an amalgamation of the three party into one leftist party. However I'm not sure that a party like that would be successful, since your pulling in the crazy left (in the NDP) a somewhat centrist party in the (Liberal's) and a self interested in Quebec in the Bloc. I think if they ran in a single election with a fractured platform, you'd probably looking at a conservative Majority because there would be a great deal of fear in what that party actually stands for.

Originally Posted by starseed

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.

Your right, if the Conservatives lose a confidence vote they lose the mandate to govern. However the proper democratic way to do things would be for an election to happen where the Bloc, Libs and Dippers announce that they intend to vote as the Coalition party, but the numbers show that they would probably lose that election based on the factors about, and the Canadian unhappiness with the concept of a coalition government where the Bloc and the NDP get a seat at the governing table.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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?

No, its not completely unfair to raise at this juncture because when the markets started to fail and credit began to freeze the election was still ongoing. Harper is an economist and he ought to have seen that promising to never run a deficit paints him into a corner that gives him no breathing room. Frankly if he were a brick-layer by trade then he might have a pass...but as an economist that is hard to give him a freebie on!

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I wasn't, I was responding back to the insinuation that the Conservatives were the only ones breaking promises.

With the deficit, I think you can agree that it would have been a lot less if Harper hadn't worked with the Liberals.

On Senate reform its been impossible for the Conservatives in a minority position to do it as the Liberals spent years stacking the senate and there's no way that they want to lose the ability to obstruct Conservative through the use of the Senate which they did fairly successfully on the crime bill last year.

As much as I would love to see patronage end, its never going to end its how the government works, and it is an effective way to shift power through non electorial means. All we can hope for . . . I can hope for is that one of those bad boys comes my way.

I'd be an awesome chief justice.

So basically the CPC flip flops are OK because you can justify why they went back on these things. When the Liberals did this though they were just calculating and devious? I'm doing my best to view this in a non-partisan way...but honestly just call a spade a spade here. Harper said things and decided not to follow through, and the Liberals have done the same when they were in power. Unless the facts change from when you make the promise, or you made that commitment based on information you couldn't have known at that point in time then you have a duty to follow through.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, its not completely unfair to raise at this juncture because when the markets started to fail and credit began to freeze the election was still ongoing. Harper is an economist and he ought to have seen that promising to never run a deficit paints him into a corner that gives him no breathing room. Frankly if he were a brick-layer by trade then he might have a pass...but as an economist that is hard to give him a freebie on!




So basically the CPC flip flops are OK because you can justify why they went back on these things. When the Liberals did this though they were just calculating and devious? I'm doing my best to view this in a non-partisan way...but honestly just call a spade a spade here. Harper said things and decided not to follow through, and the Liberals have done the same when they were in power. Unless the facts change from when you make the promise, or you made that commitment based on information you couldn't have known at that point in time then you have a duty to follow through.

Sure, I'll agree with this, sadly at the end of the day, the first thing that you lose when you get into politics is your spine, the second thing is your integrity.

Especially in a minority setting.

Would the Conservatives run as big of a deficit in a majority setting? Who knows, but having the cushion of 4 years of unobstructed governing would probably be a big security blanket against making deals that don't really benefit the country.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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?



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.



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?

The NDP and Liberals combined for 44.44% of the vote, compared to Harper's 37.63%. Again, my point is that no party leader has the right to govern unless they have the confidence of the House. Harper lost that confidence when he tried to pass that partisan budget update after he got elected, he only had the right to keep power after pro-rogueing parliament because he got the support of the House when Ignatieff put him on 'probation'. If Liberals had let Dion follow through and lead until the May convention, and he had continued with the coalition plan, then Dion would have had the right to govern, and not Harper. Why? Because Dion had the confidence of the House.

This is the Canadian system.

And yes, obviously Harper has the confidence of the House today. Ignatieff made sure of that until now, and the Bloc is making sure of that at least for now. Since Harper has the confidence secured by the Bloc and possibly the NDP, he has the right to govern... otherwise he would not and we would have another election.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This is such a false argument in a party system and makes no sense. while 2/3 rds didn't vote for Harper, the 2/3 rds didn't vote for one party, they voted for different parties and had different ideas on how they wanted to see their voting power used. The bottom line is that the Liberal's NDP and Block were not given a mandate to govern . . . period. If you want to successfully argue this point then the first thing that has to happen is an amalgamation of the three party into one leftist party. However I'm not sure that a party like that would be successful, since your pulling in the crazy left (in the NDP) a somewhat centrist party in the (Liberal's) and a self interested in Quebec in the Bloc. I think if they ran in a single election with a fractured platform, you'd probably looking at a conservative Majority because there would be a great deal of fear in what that party actually stands for.



Your right, if the Conservatives lose a confidence vote they lose the mandate to govern. However the proper democratic way to do things would be for an election to happen where the Bloc, Libs and Dippers announce that they intend to vote as the Coalition party, but the numbers show that they would probably lose that election based on the factors about, and the Canadian unhappiness with the concept of a coalition government where the Bloc and the NDP get a seat at the governing table.

I should have used seats instead of votes, but nevertheless, you are not given a mandate to govern simply because you have the most seats. In our system, you are given a mandate to govern if you can secure the confidence of the House. The NDP and Liberals would not actually be merging, they would still be separate rival parties sharing power.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

The Bloc were never ever, under any circumstances, going to have cabinet positions.

I agree. They weren't going to have cabinet positions.

That said, they were going to support every single confidence motion regardless of conditions, so they still had a pretty strong position in the coalition.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by starseed

The NDP and Liberals combined for 44.44% of the vote, compared to Harper's 37.63%.

However... if I voted NDP, I wouldn't have voted for the Liberals or Conservatives. If I voted Liberal, I wouldn't have voted for the NDP or the Conservatives.

Nobody voted for a NDPLiberal MP. It didn't and doesn't exist. Neither does LiberalNDP, or LiNbeDraPl or any other combination. To insinuate that they have the "majority vote" of canadians is nothing but a fallacy, which has been pointed out zillions of times.. apparently to deaf ears.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by calculoso

However... if I voted NDP, I wouldn't have voted for the Liberals or Conservatives. If I voted Liberal, I wouldn't have voted for the NDP or the Conservatives.

Nobody voted for a NDPLiberal MP. It didn't and doesn't exist. Neither does LiberalNDP, or LiNbeDraPl or any other combination. To insinuate that they have the "majority vote" of canadians is nothing but a fallacy, which has been pointed out zillions of times.. apparently to deaf ears.

Except that under our system (and I personally hate this, but that's the way it is), you're voting for an individual, not for a party. Whatever that person chooses to do, whether it's cross the floor, join a coalition, or vote for or against some crazy measure, it's out of our control. (I'd prefer a system where you elect a party seat, and for the entire life of that government, the seat remains owned by that party.)

The most recent poll from Harris Decima (linked earlier in this thread) had a question about whether respondents think that whoever the next elected government is, they should form a coalition to prolong the life of the government. 55% of respondents agreed; 35% disagreed. I would have liked to see them also ask how they would feel about opposition parties forming a coalition (I would expect the results to be much lower), but the point is that Canadians on the whole aren't that anti-coalition.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Except that under our system (and I personally hate this, but that's the way it is), you're voting for an individual, not for a party. Whatever that person chooses to do, whether it's cross the floor, join a coalition, or vote for or against some crazy measure, it's out of our control. (I'd prefer a system where you elect a party seat, and for the entire life of that government, the seat remains owned by that party.)

I actually think that you give too many Canadian's too much credit. I think that a majority see the party name on the poll and don't even know who their MP is. They only learn about their MP when he does something stupid.

Originally Posted by octothorp

The most recent poll from Harris Decima (linked earlier in this thread) had a question about whether respondents think that whoever the next elected government is, they should form a coalition to prolong the life of the government. 55% of respondents agreed; 35% disagreed. I would have liked to see them also ask how they would feel about opposition parties forming a coalition (I would expect the results to be much lower), but the point is that Canadians on the whole aren't that anti-coalition.

Canadian's on the whole probably aren't that anti-coalition at the end of the day, however that coalition has to have the confidence of the people and not the house. People were angry about the coalition of the opposition because we feel that its our right to pick and choose our governing party.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I actually think that you give too many Canadian's too much credit. I think that a majority see the party name on the poll and don't even know who their MP is. They only learn about their MP when he does something stupid.

I think we're in agreement here. Yeah, Canadians tend to vote based on the party and ignore the candidate; I was talking about how our electoral system basically does the opposite, ignoring what party was voted for and giving the candidate power to switch at will.

[Azure]

Again, forming a coalition to pass a certain bill is very different from forming a coalition to govern the damn country.

A minority government has no choice but to get support from the opposition. Which usually means it needs to concede on certain things.

Like agreeing with the NDP on EI.

Its still not the same as 3 parties trying to form a coalition to knock the ruling government out of power and take over without an actual election.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by calculoso

However... if I voted NDP, I wouldn't have voted for the Liberals or Conservatives. If I voted Liberal, I wouldn't have voted for the NDP or the Conservatives.

Nobody voted for a NDPLiberal MP. It didn't and doesn't exist. Neither does LiberalNDP, or LiNbeDraPl or any other combination. To insinuate that they have the "majority vote" of canadians is nothing but a fallacy, which has been pointed out zillions of times.. apparently to deaf ears.

And nobody voted for a Conservative Prime Minister who said that he would run a $50 billion plus deficit. To insinuate that this PM has the "majority vote" of canadians is nothing but a fallacy.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

... because nobody wants to see Jack Layton actually having signatury authority over policy...

I, and a good chunk of Canadians that you dismiss, actually do....

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, forming a coalition to pass a certain bill is very different from forming a coalition to govern the damn country.

Isn't it more than just a "bill"? It's a non-confidence matter (budget bill).

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I, and a good chunk of Canadians that you dismiss, actually do....

then they should win somewhere north of 37 of 308 seats some time.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by troutman

Isn't it more than just a "bill"? It's a non-confidence matter (budget bill).

Its a ways and means bill actually...but it is still a bill and any minority government would need support of the opposition to pass it.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by John Doe

And nobody voted for a Conservative Prime Minister who said that he would run a $50 billion plus deficit. To insinuate that this PM has the "majority vote" of canadians is nothing but a fallacy.

Yes of course it would be a fallacy. The majority vote of Canadians is NOT to vote. Wasn't it the lowest voter turnout ever last one? Most of us think they are ALL a bunch of crap and we are no doubt right!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I, and a good chunk of Canadians that you dismiss, actually do....

Oh I'm not dismissing you, I'm just estatically happy that there aren't more of you.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh I'm not dismissing you, I'm just estatically happy that there aren't more of you.

And I'm similarly I'm glad there are not enough of you to give Harper free reign. So we're both happy.