2011 Canadian Election Thread

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The Liberals and NDP never said anything about forming a coalition with the Bloc in 2008 either, which many people seem to forget. All Duceppe agreed to was that his party would not topple the government for a pre-defined period of time, but the Bloc was not a coalition member, contrary to CPC talking points.

To pass any legislation they would have needed Bloc support. Hard to imagine the Bloc wouldnt have any traction when it comes to their interests when they hold the final votes required.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

To pass any legislation they would have needed Bloc support. Hard to imagine the Bloc wouldnt have any traction when it comes to their interests when they hold the final votes required.

I'm still failing to see the differences between 2004 and 2008.

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Layton and Duceppe have both spoken on the record saying that Harper approached each of them about forming a coalition in 2004, a point Harper now denies. Someone is lying.

In politics, that's called "not letting the left hand know what the right buttock is doing." [/jockmcbile]

A coalition that would need the Bloc's support to survive is a coalition that would last about five minutes in Parliament. I know it, everyone knows it... Why doesn't the media know it?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

To pass any legislation they would have needed Bloc support. Hard to imagine the Bloc wouldnt have any traction when it comes to their interests when they hold the final votes required.

And how is that any different than Harper's minority governments where he needed the support of at least one other party to pass anything? If the Liberals and NDP voted against a CPC bill, but it passed because the Bloc supported it, would that make it illegitimate in your eyes because Harper formed a temporary alliance with the separatists?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by March Hare

And how is that any different than Harper's minority governments where he needed the support of at least one other party to pass anything? If the Liberals and DP voted against a PC bill, but it passed because the Bloc supported it, would that make it illegitimate in your eyes because Harper formed a temporary alliance with the separatists?

Maybe my memory is foggy, but I thought a lot of the bills passed because the Liberals abstained for voting, especially on things they actually supported.

I dont mind the Bloc supporting legistlation like crime bills. The issues comes when they are voting on things like the budget, and Quebec has a big hand in the cookie jar.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

So, it was contemptuous of parliament when the Liberals refused to produce economic data for the opposition, but the opposition didn't have the majority of votes to find them in contempt.

When the Conservatives refuse to produce economic data for the opposition, it is not a real issue.

You have to decide whether governments should be required to inform parliament of the cost of programs or not. It can't be one set of rules for the party that you don't like and one for the party that you do (although the rules are apparently different for majority governments than minority govs).

You are defending the Conservatives by saying that if they had a majority, they wouldn't get in trouble for denying parliament to perform its function. It may be true but it doesn't speak to the issue. They weren't a majority government and they were required to get the support of another party to go forward with their plans. Instead, they tried to work around the system and got burned for it.

They did give them the info, the opposition wasn't satisfied with what they received. The government gave the opposition boxes and boxes of financial data on what the costs of their law and order inititives would cost, they didn't believe it and wanted more. They can only provide what the bureaucrats give them.

[Mtt48]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I'm still failing to see the differences between 2004 and 2008.

I believe in 2004 the idea is that if the Martin government lost a confidence vote, the "coalition" would then ask the Governor General if the GG would allow the coalition to try to form a government as the Martin government had lost the confidence of the house.

In 2008 there had just been an election in which the Conservatives won the most seats, and as political history would indicate, had first crack at forming the government. The "coalition" that time tried to sneak in before that and grab power citing that more people voted for the coalition, if all the parties were taken together.

Basically in 2004 the coalition was after the government fell while in 2008 it was a desperate power grab immediately after the election.

[Savvy27]

Jolinar: They did not give them the info. They denied three requests for information on the basis of Cabinet confidence. Cabinet confidence does not actually exist in the sense that the government was using it.

"No exceptions are made for any category of government documents" - Speaker's ruling

The only limit that exists on what can be requested by a parliamentary committee is that the document in question actually exists. The Harper government was not claiming that the info did not exist, rather that it was protect by Cabinet confidence.

After the issue was brought to the Speaker, the government presented the committee with partial information:

"While initially Cabinet confidence was cited as a reason not to produce any of the documents, despite this, the government saw fit to partially comply with the Committee order, and a tabling of some material did eventually take place.Since then, no further reasons have been given as to why the balance of the documents should not or will not be tabled."

The committee was explicit in requesting information:

"The Chair was helped in this by the Committee’s order,which was quite explicit in the information it sought, even going so far as to list the bills for which information was required. While the Chair does not judge the quality of documents tabled in the House, it is clear from a cursory examination of the material tabled, that, on its face, it does not provide all the information ordered by the Committee."

The government had no basis to deny the information requested initially. Then they provided partial information withholding the rest without explanation.

I agree that the Conservatives were at a disadvantage due to the opposition holding more seats on the committee, but that just makes me wonder why they would refuse to comply with the rules of the House (knowing that they were outnumbered). I still have not seen a Conservative party member explain why they would not provide the rest of the information. I have only seen them accuse the committee of being biased.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50397233/S...on-of-Document

[redforever]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The Liberals and NDP never said anything about forming a coalition with the Bloc in 2008 either, which many people seem to forget. All Duceppe agreed to was that his party would not topple the government for a pre-defined period of time, but the Bloc was not a coalition member, contrary to CPC talking points.

Duceppe, Layton, and Dion called a press conference and produced a letter that all three of them had signed. What would you then call Duceppe, if not a coalition member? Check out the site at the link below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...ion-talks.html

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Mtt48

I believe in 2004 the idea is that if the Martin government lost a confidence vote, the "coalition" would then ask the Governor General if the GG would allow the coalition to try to form a government as the Martin government had lost the confidence of the house.

In 2008 there had just been an election in which the Conservatives won the most seats, and as political history would indicate, had first crack at forming the government. The "coalition" that time tried to sneak in before that and grab power citing that more people voted for the coalition, if all the parties were taken together.

Basically in 2004 the coalition was after the government fell while in 2008 it was a desperate power grab immediately after the election.

Umm, not at all what happened. The Conservatives formed the government well before there was any talk of coalition. Six weeks into the new government, the conservatives assumed that even though they only had a minority government, they would be able to ram through major changes to election financing rules (and other controversial economic policies, but the election financing was the big one), on the assumption that the opposition wouldn't dare trigger another election so soon.

The opposition parties realized that they had two choices: force another election, or threaten to form a coalition. So the Liberals and the NDP announced the intent to form a coalition with the support of the Bloc, and Harper prorogued parliament. During the break, the Conservatives revised the economic plans, including abandoning the election financing changes, and the Liberals, now under Ignatieff's leadership, voted along with the Conservatives once parliament resumed, distancing themselves from the coalition.

I'm not sure where you get the whole idea that the opposition tried to form a parliament without allowing the Conservatives to first do so. The entire coalition plan came about as a direct result of opposition to legislation that the Conservative government put forward.

You could argue that nobody should try to bring down a government only six weeks in; but if you believe that a minority government should get a grace period, then it also makes sense that no minority government should use that grace period to pass legislation aimed purely at undermining the funding of the other parties to gain political advantage.

[old-fart]

Even if that change in election financing rules was a clear and significant point throughout the entire election campaign? Basically what you've just said is governments should not be required to keep their campaign promises, which I suppose makes perfect sence for a Liberal.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by redforever

Duceppe, Layton, and Dion called a press conference and produced a letter that all three of them had signed. What would you then call Duceppe, if not a coalition member? Check out the site at the link below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...ion-talks.html

Marchhare is right in that the formal deal said it was a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support. The Bloc wouldn't have helped form the government, so in the strictest definition of the word were not a coalition partner.

It was nothing more than semantics, however, as the Bloc held the hammer either way. Either the Liberal-Commie coalition gave them what they wanted, or they killed the government. They didn't need a token cabinet minister as they were the power behind the throne.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by redforever

Duceppe, Layton, and Dion called a press conference and produced a letter that all three of them had signed. What would you then call Duceppe, if not a coalition member? Check out the site at the link below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...ion-talks.html

The letter that they signed was actually one that said they agreed on the economic stimulus plan. There is another document that is the more formal coaltion document and it was only signed by Layton and Dion.

I actually didn't know that until watching it on The National last night....but that is an enormous difference.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Marchhare is right in that the formal deal said it was a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support. The Bloc wouldn't have helped form the government, so in the strictest definition of the word were not a coalition partner.

It was nothing more than semantics, however, as the Bloc held the hammer either way. Either the Liberal-Commie coalition gave them what they wanted, or they killed the government. They didn't need a token cabinet minister as they were the power behind the throne.

yeah semantics.... Like in 2004. Why is it only a one way street with you guys? I'm pretty sure the Bloc and NDP has more evidence of that 'coalition' proposed by Harper. and they will release it at the right time.

So Harper if he was smart should start focusing on something else other than the 'coalition' propaganda. He said it 21 times in a speech yesterday.

[Knut]

Hey now...

Its all politics. You need to paint your past as rosy and theirs as horrible. You also have to make people beleive that the other party is going to destroy the economy, health care and that their leader is the anti-christ. Both the liberals and conservatives do it.

What is important to me is solid economic plans and paying down the deficit... to me the best chance at that is a Conservative Majority. All the Coalition/leader talk is just a big game.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Layton and Duceppe have both spoken on the record saying that Harper approached each of them about forming a coalition in 2004, a point Harper now denies. Someone is lying.

Looks like it's 3 to 1 now including his former top adviser. He really is backing himself into a hole.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ha...634/story.html

Among those who disagree with Harper on this point is one of his former top advisers and one-time chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political scientist and author of the 2007 book Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power.
Earlier this week, Flanagan contradicted his former boss — and largely confirmed statements by Layton and Duceppe — by telling Postmedia News that the 2004 "co-opposition" deal Harper negotiated was aimed, potentially, at forming a Harper-led minority government to replace Martin's Liberal minority in the months following the 2004 election.

[North East Goon]

I am surprised at how poorly the Conservatives have started this campaign. Seems like they arent taking it serious enough.

[Cscutch]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

I am surprised at how poorly the Conservatives have started this campaign. Seems like they arent taking it serious enough.

I don't think any off the parties have done anything of note, so far.

On the coalition, I am assuming the average Canadian, really dosen't care what Harper said back in the late 90's and early 2000's. But care more about the posibility of Lib/NDP/Bloc because they tried before, only a few years ago, and for most part the same players.

Chris

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

I am surprised at how poorly the Conservatives have started this campaign. Seems like they arent taking it serious enough.

the only thing of substance from any party so far is the $1000/grant for post secondary students by the liberals and even that is iffy because they are going to up corporate tax to fund the program

Also does no one find that Harper duet with that little girl cheesy? I just feel kinda bad for the guy now.

[Cscutch]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

the only thing of substance from any party so far is the $1000/grant for post secondary students by the liberals and even that is iffy because they are going to up corporate tax to fund the program

Also does no one find that Harper duet with that little girl cheesy? I just feel kinda bad for the guy now.

And it isn't a $1000 grant as they are cancelling two existing program's. I think on CBC last night they worked it out to about $450 more.

Chris