2011 Canadian Election Thread

[spotthefan]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Asking the Governor General to consider all of her options before dissolving parliament does not constitute the Conservatives forming a coalition. If this were not the case, you might have a point.

Politiking at its finest. What alternative would their be? Harper and his team are masters of language and it's uses.

[MarchHare]

Not when there was specific information given to the voters that they woud NOT do that. If Dion or Ignatieff were to say they were open to the idea, then yes it would legitimate. Since both have said they would refuse to entertain such an idea, its isnt. People very well may have not voted for the NDP or the Liberals knowing they would use a seperatist party to steal away power.

So based on your logic, the CPC as a merged party is illegitimate. Delegates at the 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership convention very well may have not voted for Peter MacKay if they had known he was going to merge the party with the Canadian Alliance despite promising not to.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sorry, I don't follow Israeli politics either, so I'm not sure what promises (if any) Netanyahu made. Nonetheless, the fact remains that he is Israel's PM despite his party having won fewer seats than another

good for him. Its not the same thing we were facing here no matter how much you want to ignore that.

Also, do you recall Peter MacKay in 2003 promising (pointedly and specifically) that he would not merge the Progressive Conservatives with the Canadian Alliance Party if he was chosen as the PC leader? He, of course, did exactly what he said he wouldn't do less than a year later. Does it impact your opinion of the CPC because one of the leaders once promised that he would never form a coalition with the other?

When did Peter McKay lead a party into an election with promises not to do something only to then change his mind less than 2 months later in an effort to become Prime Minister? On top of all that, they (PC/CA) ran under the same banner and people had a choice as to whether they wanted to vote for them in that form or not. The fibs did no such thing....at least Layton was open and honest about the idea before hand.

You are completely (unsuccessfully I might add) trying to obfuscate what is being discussed.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So based on your logic, the CPC as a merged party is illegitimate. Delegates at the 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership convention very well may have not voted for Peter MacKay if they had known he was going to merge the party with the Canadian Alliance despite promising not to.

And he never led them into an election afterwards...did he? Beyond ALL that...that is a party leadership vote that has nothing to do with wrestling away governing rights from another elected group.

holy smokes.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I can't argue that point. You are right. However, the conservatives have been polling just under majority status before during and after Dion's coalition so people seem to be fine with how things went. I would be fine with a coalition if there was enough seats between the NDP and Liberals to make a majority. If they need even one Bloc seat, then I would want the conservatives to continue their minority.

Dion isn't around anymore for a reason. And as i said, if the Libs and NDP want to form a coalition with enough seats of their own, they should go right ahead.

Yes, but they were two fringe parties on par with the NDP, and decided to combine their forces to make them have a higher voting pool even though there are significant differences between the two groups.

Irrelevant. Completely. They merged and then ran under one banner giving voters a choice to go with them or someone else. Just no comparison.

The Liberals and NDP are actually closer in terms of ideologies than the two conservative parties were.

Then they should merge as I stated earlier in this thread. It would be a real force in politics moving forward as long as they find the right guy to lead them.

The conservatives were more than willing to do that very thing back in 04. Semantics about it not actually being written in the letter aside, the only possible thing that letter illustrates is a coalition of the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc back in 04. I thought it was a bad idea back then to include the bloc back then, and I think it is now.

I do not disagree. It was a bad idea in 08 and equally bad in 04. What REALLY wrankled me about teh Dion power grab though was his direct promise not to do sucha thinga week before the election and then 2 months later giving the symbloic middle finger to canadians and trying it anyhow.


[/quote]I think we're actually of the same opinion despite liking different parties. Go figure.[/QUOTE]

Everyone has their own reasons for liking one party over another and voting for who they wish. What everyone should agree on however is that we all should expect a nuch higher standard of effectiveness from all our representatives and much less of the flat out lying all leaders have been guilty of.

[MarchHare]

When did Peter McKay lead a party into an election with promises not to do something only to then change his mind less than 2 months later in an effort to become Prime Minister?

What's the difference? He promised voters (in this case delegates at a leadership convention) that he wouldn't do one thing (merge with the CA) and then did exactly that shortly afterwards. You claimed that the proposed 2008 coalition would be "illegitimate" and stated that voters may have chosen differently if they knew a coalition with another party was in the cards...well, that's also true about voters at the PC leadership convention in 2003, but it doesn't make the merged CPC illegitimate because MacKay broke a promise.

The fact is, forming coalition governments is perfectly allowable under our Westminster parliament system even if the member parties have less support than the party with more seats. I'm absolutely not a fan of a Liberal-NDP coalition, (particular one in which Stephane Dion would be PM), but there was nothing illegitimate about what they attempted to do in 2008.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by spotthefan

Politiking at its finest. What alternative would their be? Harper and his team are masters of language and it's uses.

What other alternatives? Seriously? Politics is a game. By the opposition parties even hinting that they might form a coalition and overthrow the Liberals, it gives them leverage which in turn leads to the Liberals making concessions in their policy making. Do you honestly think that Harper would have been able to convince his party that a joint government with the NDP would work? The two parties are diametrically opposed. There's no way he could have sold the newly formed CPC to join with a socialist party. Even more, do you think that Harper would have been stupid enough to form a coalition with the Bloc? That's political suicide.

No, there's no way that either the Conservatives would have agreed to enter into such a joint party. There was way too much to lose. Hinting at a coalition was simply the opposition parties' way of putting the heat on the Liberals and it worked.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What's the difference? He promised voters (in this case delegates at a leadership convention) that he wouldn't do one thing (merge with the CA) and then did exactly that shortly afterwards. You claimed that the proposed 2008 coalition would be "illegitimate" and stated that voters may have chosen differently if they knew a coalition with another party was in the cards...well, that's also true about voters at the PC leadership convention in 2003, but it doesn't make the merged CPC illegitimate because MacKay broke a promise.

The fact is, forming coalition governments is perfectly allowable under our Westminster parliament system even if the member parties have less support than the party with more seats. I'm absolutely not a fan of a Liberal-NDP coalition, (particular one in which Stephane Dion would be PM), but there was nothing illegitimate about what they attempted to do in 2008.

Your apples still taste like bananas.

Which Seperatist party did Peter MacKay bring in to support the new Prime Minister? Was the Western Seperatist Party a secret part of the merger that most people missed out on?

Which ratifications did Dion, Layton, and Duceppe give to the members of their parties, or their voters, to legitimize their Coalition? Im sure you are well aware that both the Alliance and PC's had over 90% of their members ratify their merger. What percentage of their members did the Coalition of losers have the support of?

What a strange route of argumentation.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

One party won more seats than any other party and therefore was mandated to govern. Period. Way it has always been in Canada except for once 120 years ago (that lasted any amount of time anyways)IIRC.

A mandate to govern comes from a majority. Period. Which the Conservatives do not have, despite your attempt to redefine "majority". Period. A plurality only gives you first crack at finding majority support in the House. Period.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What's the difference? He promised voters (in this case delegates at a leadership convention) that he wouldn't do one thing (merge with the CA) and then did exactly that shortly afterwards.

Are you serious? You dont see the difference between that and saying you wont wrestle control of a country away from the elected group only to attempt to do so using a seperatist party to accomplish it?

You claimed that the proposed 2008 coalition would be "illegitimate" and stated that voters may have chosen differently if they knew a coalition with another party was in the cards...well, that's also true about voters at the PC leadership convention in 2003, but it doesn't make the merged CPC illegitimate because MacKay broke a promise.

You are correct it doesnt...and since that merger they then ran under the SAME BANNER without McKay leading the charge and allowed the voters to choose, it was completely legitimate and nothing close to what Dion tried to pull.

Now if the NDP/Liberals were to merge and run as the New Democratic Liberals or some such thing with a leader who never said he wouldnt do that.. you would have a point. They didn't.

The fact is, forming coalition governments is perfectly allowable under our Westminster parliament system even if the member parties have less support than the party with more seats. I'm absolutely not a fan of a Liberal-NDP coalition, (particular one in which Stephane Dion would be PM), but there was nothing illegitimate about what they attempted to do in 2008.

Yes there was...Dion lied about it beforehand. Clearly. Unequivocally. Said he wouldn't do it...and that was talking about the NDP and had nothing to do with the Bloc at that point.

And I am quite aware that coalition governments are allowable under the Westminster system and I have nnot stated otherwise. Bit when that coalition is allowed to form under false pretenses and less than 2 months after an election which saw the governing party gain more seats, it is beyond reprehensible.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

A mandate to govern comes from a majority. Period. Which the Conservatives do not have, despite your attempt to redefine "majority". Period. A plurality only gives you first crack at finding majority support in the House. Period.

Ignoring, of course, the over a century of tradition that Canada has built up that the party who wins the election forms the government.

Also, the Queen has the right to overthrow the entire government? It IS the letter of the law, regardless of convention, right?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What other alternatives? Seriously? Politics is a game. By the opposition parties even hinting that they might form a coalition and overthrow the Liberals, it gives them leverage which in turn leads to the Liberals making concessions in their policy making. Do you honestly think that Harper would have been able to convince his party that a joint government with the NDP would work? The two parties are diametrically opposed. There's no way he could have sold the newly formed CPC to join with a socialist party. Even more, do you think that Harper would have been stupid enough to form a coalition with the Bloc? That's political suicide.

No, there's no way that either the Conservatives would have agreed to enter into such a joint party. There was way too much to lose. Hinting at a coalition was simply the opposition parties' way of putting the heat on the Liberals and it worked.

The concessions the Liberals made in the 2005 budget were to the NDP, so whilst your theory might explain why Layton signed the letter, it doesn't work for Harper. Try again.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by SebC

The concessions the Liberals made in the 2005 budget were to the NDP, so whilst your theory might explain why Layton signed the letter, it doesn't work for Harper. Try again.

It makes perfect sense to me. It gives all parties more leverage. Who the Liberals chose to make concessions to is out of the opposition's hands, but the strategy was one that potentially strengthened all of their positions. What you have been unable to explain is why Harper would wilfully want to enter into a coalition that would undoubtedly destroy his political career. Say what you want about the man, but he is not stupid.

The CPC was a new party at the time. They had just gained considerable ground against the Liberals and were on the rise. Why would he throw that all away simply for the slight chance that he would get to be prime minister for a couple of months until the most utterly absurd coalition inevitably came to collapse. Not only does your position on this matter lack proof ("consider all options" =/= "let's form a coalition") but it isn't backed by logic either.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Not to mention that Israel has over 20 federal parties and has been governed by Coalitions since the day it was born.

Nothing like comparing apples to bananas to prove a point, though.

Nothing like throwing out an idea because the place where we take it from isn't exactly like Canada and, as such, it couldn't possibly work here.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Ignoring, of course, the over a century of tradition that Canada has built up that the party who wins the election forms the government.

Also, the Queen has the right to overthrow the entire government? It IS the letter of the law, regardless of convention, right?

So tradition should come before functionality?

[MarchHare]

("consider all options" =/= "let's form a coalition")

Please answer this question: what options were available for the Governor General to consider should Paul Martin's Liberals lose the confidence of the House?

I'm only aware of two:
1) Dissolve parliament and call an election
2) Ask another party (or coalition of parties) to try to win the confidence of the House and form a new government

Is there another option? If not, then the Harper/Layton/Duceppe letter clearly implied that they were urging the GG to allow them to form a coalition government of some sort without an election.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Addick

Nothing like throwing out an idea because the place where we take it from isn't exactly like Canada and, as such, it couldn't possibly work here.

Right, I also think we should vote a president next election! I mean, if we are debating whether a coalition is valid the least we could do is try to examine similar political systems, or keep it within our own.

None of this changes the fact that a coalition in Canada is basically unheard of. And one born out of last minute desperation including a seperatist party and explicitly against election promises is fatally reprehensible.

So tradition should come before functionality?

How, exactly, would 100 years of tradition not excude functionality?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Addick

Nothing like throwing out an idea because the place where we take it from isn't exactly like Canada and, as such, it couldn't possibly work here.

Again this would apply if the Israeli example was requiring another party whose sole aim was to break up Israel AND whose leader had implicitly stated he would not for a coalition a week before the election that he lost. Then we have a comparison and can say it might work.

So tradition should come before functionality?

no...it should come as a package...like it has for the better part of 150 years.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Please answer this question: what options were available for the Governor General to consider should Paul Martin's Liberals lose the confidence of the House?

I'm only aware of two:
1) Dissolve parliament and call an election
2) Ask another party (or coalition of parties) to try to win the confidence of the House and form a new government

Is there another option? If not, then the Harper/Layton/Duceppe letter clearly implied that they were urging the GG to allow them to form a coalition government of some sort without an election.

Good grief, did you not read what I just posted? It was likely a tactic to put the heat on the Liberals. Before doing so, if the Liberals attempted to pass something that the other parties did not like, they would either have to suck it up and vote for it, or vote against it, defeat the government and go to an election that they perhaps weren't ready for. By introducing the threat of forming a coalition, they forced to Liberals to make concessions to at least one opposition party, which would get the bill passed, while the other opposition parties could vote against it and not tarnish their voting record. This gives fuel to both the CPC and the NDP because it allows the Conservatives to point to their voting record and say "we voted against these harmful policies that were passed by the Liberals" and the NDP are able to say "look at the concessions that we forced the Liberals to make. That's good leadership."

Again, you are attempting to argue that that CPC attempted to enter into a coalition government with the BLOC. That would be political suicide. The Liberals would demolish the CPC in the next election. Not even Dion was desperate enough to form a government with the Bloc, and he was already on the way out. Why would Harper, a man that was rising in Canadian politics, dive on that grenade? You haven't addressed this at all and simply saying "what else could that mean?" proves absolutely nothing.

[MarchHare]

Live streaming of the French-language debate with real-time English translation:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ge-debate.html

[MarchHare]

In a response to Duceppe asking why Ignatieff withdrew from the previous Dion/Layton agreement, Ignatieff said that he would be "willing to work with Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe, but not in the form of a coalition."