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

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

So... If I combine my net worth with Bill Gate's net worth, I should be able to get a loan to buy the Ferrari I've always wanted.

Come on, isn't that how it works? Just pick a couple numbers, add them together and then make my argument? Who cares about reality!

I see where your reasoning is here, but this is all a pretty shallow argument; Harper didn't have a majority either. So when you really look at things he has no more legitimacy to govern than a coalition that comprises a majority of seats.

You can make the "people elected him to be the PM" argument, but even that only gets you so far. First, the majority did not. Second, if the CPC changed leaders than that individual would then be the PM....and no one seems to take issue with that part of our political system.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Well then call him Sedin or something. Come on man, you're on a Calgary Flames message board. When people here see "Iggy" there's only one person we think of.

If the coalition was led by Jarome would you be in favour?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

WHAT?! clear choice of the majority of canadians?
Using this logic there are a number of combinations that would add up to being the 'clear choice' of the majority of canadians:
CPC + NDP
CPC + Liberal
CPC + Bloc
CPC + NDP + Liberal
CPC + Liberal + Bloc
CPC + Liberal + Bloc + NDP
NDP + Liberal + Bloc

You claim that the last one is the clear choice of the majority... why? All you did was add up some votes for different parties.
Wouldn't the 'clear choice' of the majority at least involve the party that won the most seats and got the highest % of the popular vote? Yet you chose the only option on the list that didn't included that party.

Well, I know you're raising a bit of a straw man here--but my response is, sure, why not? The Conservatives ought in particular to have been able to reach out to the Liberals in order to create a stronger coalition, or an effective governing majority. Why didn't they do that? Now the only party that can support them with sufficient political cover are the Bloc. Harper should have got his Master's degree in "Not pissing away his advantage."

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

So... If I combine my net worth with Bill Gate's net worth, I should be able to get a loan to buy the Ferrari I've always wanted.

Come on, isn't that how it works? Just pick a couple numbers, add them together and then make my argument? Who cares about reality!

??

Yes, if Bill Gates co-signed a loan for you to get a Ferrarri you'd get one.

Terrible, terrible analogy.

[Devils'Advocate]

Ignatieff has the support of 50 of 77 Liberals. So if he calls this thing off, so will the majority of Liberal MPs. However, he has been neither supportive or unsupportive of this maneuver thus far. He has said, however, that if they do this with Dion as leader, he may reconsider running for the party given that whomever is elected leader of the party will already have been handed a chalise of poison. Meaning Dion as PM will be seen as a farce and the electorate will reject it... you can't seize power and then name an already resigned leader as Prime Minister. On that point I agree with Ignatieff. The optics would be horrible.

After discussing this with some friends during lunch, I think the Liberals are best off backing off on this. They have made their point (don't try and run a minority government like a majority). If things still are not working 4 months from now and you have a new leader, reconsider your options. But taking control with no clear idea of who will be PM isn't the best laid plan.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All the Conservatives (upper and lower case "C") haven't given an option of how anything other than this coallition would work. Someone threw out "have a new election". The results will be the same. Unless the Conservatives have someone willing to dance with them, this government can't function. And none of the other parties wants anything to do with them now. The Conservatives had 3 potential dance partners and spat on them all. And they can't govern alone. Give me an option that will actually be able to pass legislation.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Ignatieff has the support of 50 of 77 Liberals. So if he calls this thing off, so will the majority of Liberal MPs. However, he has been neither supportive or unsupportive of this maneuver thus far. He has said, however, that if they do this with Dion as leader, he may reconsider running for the party given that whomever is elected leader of the party will already have been handed a chalise of poison. Meaning Dion as PM will be seen as a farce and the electorate will reject it... you can't seize power and then name an already resigned leader as Prime Minister. On that point I agree with Ignatieff. The optics would be horrible.

After discussing this with some friends during lunch, I think the Liberals are best off backing off on this. They have made their point (don't try and run a minority government like a majority). If things still are not working 4 months from now and you have a new leader, reconsider your options. But taking control with no clear idea of who will be PM isn't the best laid plan.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All the Conservatives (upper and lower case "C") haven't given an option of how anything other than this coallition would work. Someone threw out "have a new election". The results will be the same. Unless the Conservatives have someone willing to dance with them, this government can't function. And none of the other parties wants anything to do with them now. The Conservatives had 3 potential dance partners and spat on them all. And they can't govern alone. Give me an option that will actually be able to pass legislation.

The Blue Federalists in the Liberal Party. That'd be a match-up that the Conservatives could work with.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Such an argument could be made, but it would be a pretty stupid one to make.

44% of Canadians did not vote in favour of the NDP controlling economic portfiolios.

44% of Canadians did not support Dion or Ignatief as Prime Minister.

44% of Canadians did not vote in support of a Quebec-first policy.

And in the last election, 62% of the voting population didnt vote for harper or the policies of the CPC.

Just sayin'.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, I know you're raising a bit of a straw man here--but my response is, sure, why not? The Conservatives ought in particular to have been able to reach out to the Liberals in order to create a stronger coalition, or an effective governing majority. Why didn't they do that? Now the only party that can support them with sufficient political cover are the Bloc. Harper should have got his Master's degree in "Not pissing away his advantage."

Harper reaching out to the liberals would have been a good strategy - Probably the strongest and best choice out of the ones listed - but trying to call even that one the "clear choice of the majority of canadians" is asinine.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think people are worrying over nothing. Governments come and go, and for the most part, everything stays the same.

Jack Layton anywhere near the federal wallet or Minister of Industry position would not be the same.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

On the otherhand, I have been a little concerned about the Conservative governments plans (or lack thereof) for dealing with the recession and the looming potential social catastrophe. They seem to be insistant that we should just move along and that there is nothing to see... If the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc think that they have a better plan, then they should do something to try and get it through.

What lack of plans?!? Harper has said it will be addressed in the next budget and that he has been seeking input from the G20 Finance Ministers and leading economists. Flaherty has said it would not be wise to launch a stimulus package without knowing what the Americans are going to do first, and that everything will be addressed in the budget.

Sounds like they have a plan to me.

[C_Rush]

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Will Layton and "soon to be identified Liberal" have bunkbeds at 24 Sessux Dr?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

What lack of plans?!? Harper has said it will be addressed in the next budget and that he has been seeking input from the G20 Finance Ministers and leading economists. Flaherty has said it would not be wise to launch a stimulus package without knowing what the Americans are going to do first, and that everything will be addressed in the budget.

Sounds like they have a plan to me.

Pfftt waiting until you've had time to study and analyze the problem with the best and brightest minds? Hogwash! That's no plan. SPEND SPEND SPEND! Economic stimulus will come from taking away a corporate tax break and then... giving the money back to them. Now there's a plan we can all get behind!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Slava

I see where your reasoning is here, but this is all a pretty shallow argument; Harper didn't have a majority either. So when you really look at things he has no more legitimacy to govern than a coalition that comprises a majority of seats.

You can make the "people elected him to be the PM" argument, but even that only gets you so far. First, the majority did not. Second, if the CPC changed leaders than that individual would then be the PM....and no one seems to take issue with that part of our political system.

Right, but when you really get down to it...

100% of the people that voted for CPC are in favour of CPC running the country.

x% of the people that voted for Liberals are in favour of a Liberal/Socialist/Separatist Coalition running the country.
x% of the people that voted for NDP are in favour of a Liberal/Socialist/Separatist Coalition running the country.
x% of the people that voted for Separatists are in favour of a Liberal/Socialist/Separatist Coalition running the country.

So...

(100% of 38%) vs (x% of 26%) + (x% of 18%) + (x% of 10%)

My guess is that "x" would be 50% for the Liberals, 75% for the NDP and 100% for the Separatists.

Which means...

38% vs 37% (13% + 14% + 10%)

Since nobody likes to have their votes not counted, lets take those lost percentages from the coalition members and add them to the only other party to vote for (CPC).

55% (13% + 4% + 0%) vs 37% (13% + 14% + 10%).

Oh look... a majority. Imagine that.

(I can use numbers to prove my point too.)

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Blue Federalists in the Liberal Party. That'd be a match-up that the Conservatives could work with.

How is that? They are going to get 10 people to cross the floor? Good luck with that. Belinda Stronach x 10.

And think about what you are saying here. You want people elected on one platform supporting another. I thought you guys were against that and should someone do that, they should have the cahones to resign their seat and run a new byelection in their riding.

When I'm talking partnership, I'm referring to making legislation that is palatable to more than one party as a whole rather than steal individual members.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

How is that? They are going to get 10 people to cross the floor? Good luck with that. Belinda Stronach x 10.

And think about what you are saying here. You want people elected on one platform supporting another. I thought you guys were against that and should someone do that, they should have the cahones to resign their seat and run a new byelection in their riding.

When I'm talking partnership, I'm referring to making legislation that is palatable to more than one party as a whole rather than steal individual members.

I'm not talking an engineered majority, they are just good coalition partners. Like it actually makes sense.

[transplant99]

And think about what you are saying here. You want people elected on one platform supporting another. I thought you guys were against that and should someone do that, they should have the cahones to resign their seat and run a new byelection in their riding

Why?

It's perfectly legal and constitutional and part of parliamentary process afterall...you know...all those reasons why this coup de tat is being explained as something else.

Funny how it works both ways huh?

[C_Rush]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

How is that? They are going to get 10 people to cross the floor? Good luck with that. Belinda Stronach x 10.

And think about what you are saying here. You want people elected on one platform supporting another. I thought you guys were against that and should someone do that, they should have the cahones to resign their seat and run a new byelection in their riding.

When I'm talking partnership, I'm referring to making legislation that is palatable to more than one party as a whole rather than steal individual members.

I'm willing to bet there's 10 Liberals who are more comfortable with Conservative policy than a government that brings Bloc seperatists to the governing table of Canada...

[Ronald Pagan]

it's coup d'etat to our less french savvy users

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

it's coup d'etat to our less french savvy users

Are you just some jackass?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Not to mention that Harper's economic policy indicates that he does not remember anything from his economics degree.

Laughable point to bandy about. Harper has an economics degree. Oh yeah? Great, prove to me that he uses it because there's a steady stream of evidence indicating that most of his economic policies were misguided. Look no further than the GST cut which almost every economist was critical of.

The GST point I will give you 100%. The GST is a very efficient tax. But I do believe that he knew a GST cut was not the most economic way of going about things. It was a political move. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up for discussion, but I do think he knew what it meant for the economy.


However please back up your claim that his policies indicate he doesn't remember "anything from his economics degree" with more examples.