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

[Ronald Pagan]

Only if the opposition can maintain unity.

Even you have to be capable of seeing that.

Definitely. I don't think that it's a stretch to think that the opposition will at least present a united front on all legislation to the house. It's different from standing tough infront of proposed legislation in the house as to creating a coalition government. This will force his hand to consult with the opposition. Which, as everyone has been railing on about for about 60 pages is a democratic outcome. Certainly you could support that right?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

It's quite a stretch to say that Harper could come out of this unscathed.

Harper will be weakened in parliament no doubt. He will have to consult with opposition more than any time before as PM. As such, the Conservative agenda will be watered down. He'll do this out of political necessity and out of pandering to public opinion. No matter how much most of the people on this board seem to applaud his actions, lobbing a hand grenade down the underpants of the opposition parties has left a very bad taste in the average Canadian's mouth. It was boorish, partisan, and highly destructive. He'll need to rebuild that trust with the electorate. As such, power sharing to some degree is an inevitability.

Harper is also weakened within his party. Of that there can be no doubt. Right now they are doing what any political party does in a time of crisis, Protect the King. After this blows over, serious questions will be asked within the party. The foundations of his power are weakened. Can he rebuild it? Sure. Will he rebuild it? Who knows.

I hate to be the bearer of sanity here, but it should be painfully obvious (based on your comments here compared to the of the majority of Canadians in the media) that you have no clue what the average Canadian thinks.

Hint: The majority of Canadians approve of eliminating taxpayer-funded vote subsidies.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by opendoor

How did you feel about the $2.3 billion in extra spending for Quebec in the 2007 Conservative budget? It was put there to secure the Bloc's support of their budget and to curry favor among Quebec voters. In the end, the Liberals and NDP voted against it and it was only through the Bloc's support that their budget passed. In a sense, the Conservatives secured passage of their budget by spending taxpayers' money on Quebec.

Far different, Harper didn't give them the money and unprecidented power. Also if I recall, the conservatives were in government, and in a minority situation where the house could decide on this. It wasn't part of a back room negotiation which led to the overthrow of the elected government.

[transplant99]

This will force his hand to consult with the opposition

Absolutely....he will create a budget or measures to be included in a budget, then go over it with the opposition...something he simply has been not allowed to do with this giant jump to overthrow him.

thats why I have said all along when everyone was screaming that he wasn't compromising....where was the compromise from the Liberals....other than to compromise themselves to grab power?

[metallicat]

MP Jason Kenney said on CTV just now, that Harper will likely address the nation today.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Definitely. I don't think that it's a stretch to think that the opposition will at least present a united front on all legislation to the house. It's different from standing tough infront of proposed legislation in the house as to creating a coalition government. This will force his hand to consult with the opposition. Which, as everyone has been railing on about for about 60 pages is a democratic outcome. Certainly you could support that right?

Oh, absolutely.

But you are really showing your wishful thinking in your expectation that Harper's position is weakened. In truth, if the government survives this coup, it is unchanged. He will still require the support of at least one party to pass legislation.

Now, if this coup fails, it will do so because the parties break up. By the very nature of everything that has occured, if Harper is still Prime Minister when the House next sits, we will know for a fact that there are divisions within the coalition.

So no, a front of unity is not as sure a thing as you believe.

Especially if the Liberals get hammered for selling their soul to the separatists. At some point, the hypocrite Dion, or his successor, is going to have to deal with that mess.

[Ford Prefect]

Parizeau was a prophet. Who knew.

Michel David described how Jacques Parizeau - the former PQ premier who led the independence forces in the 1995 referendum - envisioned the Bloc's role at the time of its inception.

Parizeau predicted in 1991 that the Bloc would create a chaotic "Italian-style parliament" in Ottawa, a place so dysfunctional that it would help lead to the breakup of Canada.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...ZgMP3IqBKgJfSQ

It sounds like the universe is unfolding as planned for the separatists thanks to the Separatist Coalition traitors.

[Phaneuf3]

TSX starting off the day tanking again.

[driveway]

This is not a coup.

People seem to be forgetting the way parliamentary politics works. Only here in Calgary did anyone actually vote for Stephen Harper. Across the country people elected individual MP's. The Prime Minister is only as strong as his parliamentary support by those MP's.

The forming of a government by Members of Parliament who represent the majority of the seats therein is an entirely legitimate and legal action by said parliament.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by driveway

This is not a coup.

People seem to be forgetting the way parliamentary politics works. Only here in Calgary did anyone actually vote for Stephen Harper. Across the country people elected individual MP's. The Prime Minister is only as strong as his parliamentary support by those MP's.

The forming of a government by Members of Parliament who represent the majority of the seats therein is an entirely legitimate and legal action by said parliament.

You appear to have not been following this thread. We know this is a legal, constitutionally sanctioned action. Nobody has ever said it wasn't. When people say it's unconstitutional, they are talking about the "spirit" of our Constitution, not the legalities.

Every 5 or 6 pages someone has to brilliantly point out that the Constitution allows for hostile takeovers of our Government by opposition members of Parliament. We're aware of this.

Legal isn't always right, however. There are other things to consider too.

It's legal for a Ref to toss a player out of an NHL game. If a Ref throws Iginla out of a game for not handing him a puck, is that right? It's legal isn't it?

We (along with the majority of Canadians in media) are calling it a coup, because we don't believe this is the right thing to do and we do not think it is in our best interests at all.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

You appear to have not been following this thread. We know this is a legal, constitutionally sanctioned action. Nobody has ever said it wasn't. When people say it's unconstitutional, they are talking about the "spirit" of our Constitution, not the legalities.

Every 5 or 6 pages someone has to brilliantly point out that the Constitution allows for hostile takeovers of our Government by unelected members of Parliament. We're aware of this.

Legal isn't always right, however. There are other things to consider too.

It's legal for a Ref to toss a player out of an NHL game. If a Ref throws Iginla out of a game for not handing him a puck, is that right? It's legal isn't it?

We (along with the majority of Canadians in media) are calling it a coup, because we don't believe this is the right thing to do and we do not think it is in our best interests at all.

It's worth noting that the international media is using the "coup" word as well, and they would be less partisan on this matter than the domestic media.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

You appear to have not been following this thread. We know this is a legal, constitutionally sanctioned action. Nobody has ever said it wasn't. When people say it's unconstitutional, they are talking about the "spirit" of our Constitution, not the legalities.

I see. So, because Albertans have a chip on their shoulder about the Conservative party they feel it necessary to stretch and distort language in order to vilify a legitimate constitutional exercise.

If something is legal, it can't be 'unconstitutional', likewise calling this action a 'coup' is disingenuous, regardless of your feelings on its correctness.

Also, what exactly is an 'unelected member of parliament'?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by driveway

I see. So, because Albertans have a chip on their shoulder about the Conservative party they feel it necessary to stretch and distort language in order to vilify a legitimate constitutional exercise.

If something is legal, it can't be 'unconstitutional', likewise calling this action a 'coup' is disingenuous, regardless of your feelings on its correctness.

Also, what exactly is an 'unelected member of parliament'?

I see you only quoted the convenient parts of my post. Maybe you should focus on the parts where I've already explained myself.

..and there is no such thing as an unelected member of Parliament. I was trying to say "MPs not belonging to party currently elected to Govern" but I realized, after I posted it, how it looked (which is why I edited it 2 minutes before you posted).

Now. Care to share your thoughts on the parts of my post you decided to ignore? I only ask this because your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

It's worth noting that the international media is using the "coup" word as well, and they would be less partisan on this matter than the domestic media.

Have there been further articles, or does one article from Thailand constitute the international media?

Last time I checked BBC and a couple other european news outlets, there wasn't even a mention of this. Because it's not really significant enough to count as news. I'd say that lack of coverage is far more meaningful about what the international community thinks than an article from one country that's currently going through a political crisis themselves.

[transplant99]

I see. So, because Albertans have a chip on their shoulder about the Conservative party they feel it necessary to stretch and distort language in order to vilify a legitimate constitutional exercise.

Yup...its ONLY Albertans...get a grip man.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Have there been further articles, or does one article from Thailand constitute the international media?

Last time I checked BBC and a couple other european news outlets, there wasn't even a mention of this. Because it's not really significant enough to count as news. I'd say that lack of coverage is far more meaningful about what the international community thinks than an article from one country that's currently going through a political crisis themselves.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/W...ow/3782681.cms

http://commoniowan.blogspot.com/2008...adas-coup.html

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics...oup-in-canada/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-r..._b_147782.html

http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/world/ca...rper-8029.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Meanwhile the Liberal Party got strong international support

"You da man" Kim Jong Il
"Way to stick it to those s" - That guy fron Iran
"Stand tall baby" - Qhadaffi (sp?)

Dion - "Qhadaffi Gilles Qhadaffi"
Ducceppe - "I know, my toes are tingling"
Layton - "Anything there from Lenin?"

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by driveway

If something is legal, it can't be 'unconstitutional', likewise calling this action a 'coup' is disingenuous, regardless of your feelings on its correctness.

Calling a spade a spade in this case is no more disingenuous than the coalition members standing up and trying, with a straight face, to say they are doing what they are doing for Canadians.

I'm well aware of the legality of the attempts, thanks. I will continue to call it a coup, as will a great many others, because it best fits the sentiment of the moment.

This attempt at overthrowing the government is led by a traitor, a hypocrite and a communist. Not exactly something worthy of respect.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Every 5 or 6 pages someone has to brilliantly point out that the Constitution allows for hostile takeovers of our Government by opposition members of Parliament. We're aware of this.

This is only allowed in situations where the Opposition numbers more than the Government. In cases like this it behooves the government to remain aware of their precarious political situation and behave accordingly. Since coming into power the Conservatives have acted like a majority government - forcing the opposition to support, or at least not oppose their legislation or face election. Also, considering that the Conservatives do not have the support of a majority of Canadians, their removal from power cannot realistically be termed a 'hostile takeover'.

Legal isn't always right, however. There are other things to consider too.

This is absolutely true and should be considered by all parties in parliament. Concilliatory action by the Conservatives - specifically the resignation of Stephen Harper, would probably bring an end to this crisis.

It's legal for a Ref to toss a player out of an NHL game. If a Ref throws Iginla out of a game for not handing him a puck, is that right? It's legal isn't it?

This is gross hyperbole and you know it.

We (along with the majority of Canadians in media) are calling it a coup, because we don't believe this is the right thing to do and we do not think it is in our best interests at all.

As far as I know, the only polls thus far released are online and other polls where the respondants are self-selecting. Until such time as polling data from an actual pollster hits the media I will remain unconvinced that a significant majority of Canadians oppose this.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

and a communist.

I've been waiting for someone to start calling the NDP communist. What next? Accusing Dion of being ineligible to serve in Parliament because he hasn't released a birth certificate?