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

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'm as environmentally conscious as the next person but dear lord ........ NO!

I can see it now ..... The clay pigeon listed as a protected species.

I'll have great pleasure telling my local Liberal Rep. the next time he's at my door I'll never ... ever .. vote for them again.

I predicted that earlier in this thread. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. I normally vote Green but refused to last election because I can't stand May and refuse to give the Green's my vote while she's leader.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

Proroguing...was discussed earlier that the GG could not say no.....

This article says different:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/WBSteele/

....still interested in know the "truth" on this point

I could in no way say for certain what Jean can do, however the GG position is largely cermonial at this point, and heavily based on precedent. Precedent is that Porogue is not something a GG will deny.

Even if she could, Jean would be a fool to. If Harper goes to her and asks for a porogue, stating it is his desire to suspend parliament for a while to see if the opposition is willing to work with the government, why on earth wouldn't she? Especially given her own history, and the Liberal and separatist ties that dog her. Agreeing to this gives her a very easy way to show a neutral stance.

Once the porogue expires, then it becomes interesting again.

[Hemmer]

For a few years, we've been making fun of George Bush and US politics.. but now with how strong Obama and their gov't looks compared to our circus show up here.. the tables have turned.

I just can't stand the idea of Dion being our PM.. makes me wanna puke. In a global economic crisis.. this is not the right time to have an unstable gov't. I just don't see how any coalition with different views can get along and govern a country efficiently, especially during hard times like this. And on top of that, Alberta and the West will get shafted by this coalition. F'n horrible.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I don't have to read that to know that whatever option 10 is, it has to do with either getting rid of Harper or allowing the Coalition to plow through with without an election, or some form of bending over for a separatist/socialist agenda.

In other words, clicking that isn't worth my time or effort.

You've pretty much put yourself in Grain of Salt mode in this thread. (as I'm sure I have, as well)

such a little victim as if you're objective by any means Mr. I want to punch this person in the face or that person.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I could in no way say for certain what Jean can do, however the GG position is largely cermonial at this point, and heavily based on precedent. Precedent is that Porogue is not something a GG will deny.

Even if she could, Jean would be a fool to. If Harper goes to her and asks for a porogue, stating it is his desire to suspend parliament for a while to see if the opposition is willing to work with the government, why on earth wouldn't she? Especially given her own history, and the Liberal and separatist ties that dog her. Agreeing to this gives her a very easy way to show a neutral stance.

Once the porogue expires, then it becomes interesting again.

I think that you are right here. I think that Harper will ask her to shut things down and in the next month trot out a stimulus package to rival what the coalition would install.

Basically at that point if the coalition wants to force the issue he dissolves parliament and seeks an election. This puts Dion and Layton in the difficult position of campaigning against the same things that they propose.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Flame On

such a little victim as if you're objective by any means Mr. I want to punch this person in the face or that person.

Translation, please.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

But then how do we know or not know if Harper was working at setting up a Coalition government against Paul Martin's minority back in 2004. I like how everyone ignores the fact that Harper had to work with the Bloc back then.

Harper did that on purpose? He is going to bring down his own government with it. Kinda extreme don't you think?

Maybe I misunderstand you...but there is a BIG difference between working with the Bloc to bring down the government and working with the Bloc to form the government.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Maybe I misunderstand you...but there is a BIG difference between working with the Bloc to bring down the government and working with the Bloc to form the government.

I don't understand how everyone figures that the Bloc is forming government here. There are no cabinet roles for them, and they have only agreed not to vote against the government in terms of confidence measures. That is a far cry from governing!

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Translation, please.

I can't even look at Dion or Layton without wanting to punch them in the face.

Is this the statement of someone that does deserve some credibility or grain of salt as you put it?
Physical violence towards only one side of the political spectrum?
Oh you're being very objective with this sort of comment!

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I don't have to read that to know that whatever option 10 is, it has to do with either getting rid of Harper or allowing the Coalition to plow through with without an election, or some form of bending over for a separatist/socialist agenda.

In other words, clicking that isn't worth my time or effort.

You've pretty much put yourself in Grain of Salt mode in this thread. (as I'm sure I have, as well)

Its actually a very good article.

Personally, Option 1 is what I would do. I don't think she's unpartisan at all, (I think she was a terrible choice from the beginning) and I think HMTQ would side with the PM on that, especially to avoid a question of Monarchy relevance and potential uproar from other commonwealth nations. The Queen refusing to acquiesce to the PM of Canada makes it a Commonwealth-wide issue. Australia is looking for an excuse to dump the Queen... why risk it?

Options 7 and 8 have merit too. The GG would be very ill-advised to refuse an election with all the press this is getting. If she refuses, I think this brings our Constitutional Monarchy into severe question.

Option 8 with the prorogue is the likeliest though. Stall till January and launch scathing ads at the Separatist Coalition, while convincing 12 MPs to switch... 12 new cabinet posts may not even be necessary, just a shuffle with a few new ones.

Options 6 and 10 are the worst, frankly. Its too late to toss Flaherty, and tossing Harper is surrendering and admitting the coalition is right. It will more likely than not actually galzanize the coalition, proving in their minds to everyone their objection and need to govern is correct. Not surprised RP thinks its the best.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Maybe I misunderstand you...but there is a BIG difference between working with the Bloc to bring down the government and working with the Bloc to form the government.

Well it seems kind of unclear exactly what Harper was suggesting to the GG back in 2004 other than to consider all your options (including allowing a coalition to govern).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../politics/home

But the Liberals and NDP said those arguments were undercut by Mr. Harper's 2004 letter to then-governor-general Adrienne Clarkson, which requested that she turn to him if Paul Martin's newly elected government were defeated in the Commons.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority," the 2004 letter stated.

Essentially advising the GG to avoid an election.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I don't have to read that to know that whatever option 10 is, it has to do with either getting rid of Harper or allowing the Coalition to plow through with without an election, or some form of bending over for a separatist/socialist agenda.

In other words, clicking that isn't worth my time or effort.

You've pretty much put yourself in Grain of Salt mode in this thread. (as I'm sure I have, as well)

Whatever.

Stay ignorant, yo!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't understand how everyone figures that the Bloc is forming government here. There are no cabinet roles for them, and they have only agreed not to vote against the government in terms of confidence measures. That is a far cry from governing!

Because without the Bloc, there is no possible way Layton the First and Dion can convince the GG that it is better for them to govern. Even if the Bloc agrees that there will be no cabinet posts, and that they won't be a formal part of the government, it should be patently obvious to everyone that they will wield an enormous amount of power in determining policy.

Frankly, the Bloc becomes the puppet master.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Whatever.

Stay ignorant, yo!

And yet, he nailed you dead to rights.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Because without the Bloc, there is no possible way Layton the First and Dion can convince the GG that it is better for them to govern. Even if the Bloc agrees that there will be no cabinet posts, and that they won't be a formal part of the government, it should be patently obvious to everyone that they will wield an enormous amount of power in determining policy.

Frankly, the Bloc becomes the puppet master.

But exactly how will they be determining policy if they will not vote against the coalition on any confidence measures? They got already what they wanted from the coalition in terms of an auto and forestry bailout. They're only going to support it until June 2010, what else could they really ask for in that timeframe? The coalition has also agreed that any "Quebec Nation" talks are off the table.

EDIT: forgot to add that's there's also a manufacturing bailout. I mean they got everything that they wanted! Nothing is being hidden here. The Liberals and NDP have already caved to them.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Is this the statement of someone that does deserve some credibility or grain of salt as you put it?
Physical violence towards only one side of the political spectrum?
Oh you're being very objective with this sort of comment!

Weird. I count physical violence towards at least two sides of the political spectrum.

Also... I mentioned that I, myself, had already acquired the same "Grain of Salt" mode in the exact post you quoted.

I'm confused as to what the issue is.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Whatever.

Stay ignorant, yo!

Hahaha. You know what's awesome? I just read that article now.

I so rule. Option #10 was the first thing I guessed it was!

[Jade]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't understand how everyone figures that the Bloc is forming government here. There are no cabinet roles for them, and they have only agreed not to vote against the government in terms of confidence measures. That is a far cry from governing!

Of course. Because the Bloc just agreed to support the liberals out of the goodness of their hearts and the love of Canada.

They had to be promised something, and it had to be something big, to agree. And if at any point the liberals try to do something they don't like, they can get it changed by threatning to topple the coalition. The only reason they aren't getting cabinet posts is because if they were officially in the coalition, the GG would be much more likely to say no.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its actually a very good article.

Personally, Option 1 is what I would do. I don't think she's unpartisan at all, (I think she was a terrible choice from the beginning) and I think HMTQ would side with the PM on that, especially to avoid a question of Monarchy relevance and potential uproar from other commonwealth nations. The Queen refusing to acquiesce to the PM of Canada makes it a Commonwealth-wide issue. Australia is looking for an excuse to dump the Queen... why risk it?

Options 7 and 8 have merit too. The GG would be very ill-advised to refuse an election with all the press this is getting. If she refuses, I think this brings our Constitutional Monarchy into severe question.

Option 8 with the prorogue is the likeliest though. Stall till January and launch scathing ads at the Separatist Coalition, while convincing 12 MPs to switch... 12 new cabinet posts may not even be necessary, just a shuffle with a few new ones.

Options 6 and 10 are the worst, frankly. Its too late to toss Flaherty, and tossing Harper is surrendering and admitting the coalition is right. It will more likely than not actually galzanize the coalition, proving in their minds to everyone their objection and need to govern is correct. Not surprised RP thinks its the best.

Yes, after reading the article isn't nearly as bad as I suspected it would be.

I would agree that Option 1 is the best, and Option 8th is the likeliest. I also agree that (surprise, surprise) Option 10 is the worst one.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by browna

....Browna's trip report of parliament today....

Thanks browna!!!! Most usefull post of the thread.

An honest question from a staunch Conservative: There's obviously a bit of a CPC bias to your summary. Did Harper really "own" Dion as much as you make it out to be?