|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 11:32:22 GMT -5
Thoughts on either Dion or Layton being our next PM? ================================================================ Liberal-NDP officials meet to resolve coalition snags
By THE CANADIAN PRESSOTTAWA - Liberal and New Democrat MPs were getting details today of a coalition agreement to replace Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government. The parties each called emergency caucus meetings to lay out the plan under which the Tories would lose power to Canada's first coalition government in 91 years. Negotiators from both parties were still finessing the deal in the early-morning hours, but the Liberals had agreed over the weekend to give the New Democrats 25 per cent of cabinet positions. Under the proposed deal, the Liberals would hold the key cabinet positions of finance, treasury board and deputy prime minister. What has not been agreed to as of yet is where NDP Leader Jack Layton - or other New Democrats - would sit around the cabinet table. Just who leads the Liberal party, and becomes prime minister, also remained far from resolved early Monday. The Liberals were split into four camps on the issue, although Stephane Dion has been overseeing the negotiations, a source told The Canadian Press. But there was concern in Liberal ranks about the public perception of installing Dion as prime minister. He was rejected by voters in a general election just six weeks ago and has said he will step down after the party chooses a new leader in May. Sources close to Liberal MP and presumed frontrunner Michael Ignatieff say he wants little to do with an agreement he did not oversee that may handcuff him for years if he is elected leader. There had been reports that Ignatieff had agreed to lead the coalition. But leadership contender Bob Rae, who met with Ignatieff over the weekend, said the reports were inaccurate. Saskatchewan MP Ralph Goodale suggested the coalition would be led by Dion. "It will be headed by the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada because that is obviously the party that is the biggest player," Goodale told The Canadian Press on Monday. "Mr. Dion is the leader of the Liberal party and he is the one that has been co-ordinating the discussions up to now with the other leaders." Rae said internal Liberal party issues could be resolved to ensure a workable coalition that would focus initially on providing the economy with much-needed stimulus as the country moves into recession. The Liberals and New Democrats had agreed to jointly govern for two-and-a-half years, said an NDP source involved in the talks. But the Bloc Quebecois, which would not officially be part of the coalition, was not prepared to give them that long a lease on life. The coalition government would depend on Bloc support because the Liberals and NDP together don't command a majority in the Commons. The developments came after a frantic weekend of closed-door talks and concessions from the Conservative government. The Tories announced Sunday they would bump up the federal budget date and scrap a second controversial element of their economic plan, while hinting at a stimulus plan in a frantic bid to save itself from defeat. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced the budget will be delivered Jan. 27 - "the earliest date in modern times" - while he simultaneously relented on a plan to ban public service strikes. Meanwhile, the Conservatives covertly recorded an NDP conference call in which Layton spoke of plotting with the Bloc Quebecois to bring down Harper's government even before the economic update. The Prime Minister's Office released the recording and pointed to it as proof of an NDP-Bloc conspiracy hatched long before the government produced its fall financial blueprint. The New Democrats - who apparently inadvertently provided the phone number to a Tory - responded by saying nothing in the NDP-BQ talks differs from the contingency planning Harper himself engaged in with the two parties during the last Liberal minority in 2004. And NDP MP Thomas Mulcair said his party will be "examining the possible application of the Criminal Code" in the Tories' clandestine recording and distribution of the private meeting. He said the extraordinary event "shows the desperation of the Conservatives." The Conservatives' frantic efforts to scupper their defeat will include a further release of secretly recorded conversations from a weekend NDP caucus meeting that outlines the New Democrats' wish list in any coalition government. The Conservative's claim that a coalition government would have no legitimacy does not accord with Harper's own position on the matter just four years ago. In September 2004, Harper wrote to then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson to argue that she should "consider all your options" if the Liberal minority of Paul Martin was to fall on a confidence vote. "We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation," Harper wrote. Harper co-signed the letter with Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe. cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/12/01/7590456-cp.html |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2008 12:20:21 GMT -5
This is a backroom deal of the WORST kind. It was already engineered BEFORE the election and the three Amigos where just waiting for the opportunity.
Banana Republic of Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 12:47:37 GMT -5
This is a backroom deal of the WORST kind. It was already engineered BEFORE the election and the three Amigos where just waiting for the opportunity. Banana Republic of Canada. You mean Harper trying to confidence-vote through the end of public funding for political parties? (The public service strikes is less of an issue to me) That's not an opportunity, it's a call to arms. That passing would be the end of the Bloq, NDP and Green party. It would likely bankrupt the Liberals, too. So then we're at an (at best) two party system, but more likely an oligarchy. This coming from a minority government? Gimme a break. Yes, it may have been plotted earlier, but Harper handed them the opportunity and clearly wasn't prepared for the response. Put the blame where you want, but it's shared pretty equally in my eyes. Besides, if the NDP and Liberals (and Bloq, I guess) can find common ground on which to have a platform that services the majority of Canadian voters, I don't see why I should object. As the article pointed out, it's not like the Cons and Bloq weren't going to team up to do same a while ago. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 1, 2008 13:23:35 GMT -5
The leaderless Libs make this whole process a joke.
I don't know the ins and outs of what's going on.....but the optics of installing "Prime Minster Dion" just weeks after the Canadian people said they don't want "Prime Minister Dion", just reeks of opportunism and arrogance.
It's got public relations disaster written all over it.
Now, if they could properly explain why Harper needs to be stopped in whatever it is he's planning to do.....(unlike the way the Libs explained their carbon tax).....then they might have a case.
Waste of more time and more money....
And do we really need this uncertainty on the world stage in the face of the economic situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 13:30:40 GMT -5
The leaderless Libs make this whole process a joke. I don't know the ins and outs of what's going on.....but the optics of installing "Prime Minster Dion" just weeks after the Canadian people said they don't want "Prime Minister Dion", just reeks of opportunism and arrogance. It's got public relations disaster written all over it. Now, if they could properly explain why Harper needs to be stopped in whatever it is he's planning to do.....(unlike the way the Libs explained their carbon tax).....then they might have a case. Waste of more time and more money.... And do we really need this uncertainty on the world stage in the face of the economic situation? One of the nuances about our electoral process is that we don't elect a prime minister, but a party. Technically speaking, if a coalition government is going to serve the interests of more voters than the Conservative minority will, it doesn't matter who's PM. That being said, I heard on the radio (CBC I believe) over the weekend that the deal is contingent upon Dion NOT being PM. Ignatieff seems out of the running, so what does PM Bob Rae sound like? haha Not sure why they wouldn't go with Layton, it's got to be his only shot at becoming PM and he's the most recognizable (and probably likeable) face they have, not to mention a chance for the NDP to gain considerable support if he does well. I suspect the Liberals would have issue with that, though. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 1, 2008 14:14:39 GMT -5
This is a backroom deal of the WORST kind. It was already engineered BEFORE the election and the three Amigos where just waiting for the opportunity. Banana Republic of Canada. My question to you would be "so what"? Don't get me wrong. I think this is a terrible idea. I think plunging a government into chaos (as this would) is not what you want to do whilst in the middle of an economic crisis. One crisis at a time, please and thank you - save the constitutional crisis for a better time. That said, it's legal, so why not? The Conservatives have certainly bent the rules enough of late. Calling an election despite their promises of fixed-date elections. Attaching confidence to everything to force unpopular motions through a house filled with an opposition lacking the cajones to actually force an issue (such as the whole funding issue - not that I really care much about the public funding of parties - frankly, if you can not raise the funds needed to carry on business as a political party in Canada, maybe you should think about what that says about your chances to actually win an election). Issuing written promises to a province, and then reneging on them. Harper's tories have a list a mile long. Frankly, I'm quickly becoming jaded by the whole process. The Tories lie, the Liberals lie even more, the NDP are crack-pots and the Greens haven't presented a platform that has made sense yet. What we need is wholesale reform. Ban political parties altogether (or put crushing limits on their power). Change the Senate so it's not just a bunch of washed up old fogies who happen to be friends with important people on the hill. In the meantime, to get back on topic, if the Liberal Democrats topple this government, I'm going to predict a very un-merry Christmas for all. Bah humbug. Sincerely, a jaded Canadian. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 1, 2008 14:15:34 GMT -5
How long before the Bloc Quebecois declares that the coalition isn't working, that "Canada isn't working" and pulls its support? I would say at the first budget delivered by the new government...
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2008 14:21:58 GMT -5
Harper miscalculated ... plain and simple. He figured there was no way the opposition would force another election, so he tried to play games. If people fear a coalition government in these uncertain times, than they should also fear a PM willingly to play petty party politics instead of acting in the best interests of the country. Just a few short weeks ago, Harper went on national tv and said he is willing to foster a government that will act in co-operation with the opposition to get Canada through this downturn. The very first piece of legislation he tries to pass exhibits the exact opposite of that promise ... and that's the real Steven Harper. When he thinks he has you where he wants you he will espouse his true western conservatism ideology ..... to the detriment of others. He tried to suggest that the savings garnered by taking away the public service right to strike and reducing the public subsidy (which I don't agree with) for political parties is necessary in these economic times .... yet those two initiatives would only save 1/20th of one per cent of the total government spending. In other words, less than a drop in the bucket. This had nothing to do with saving money and everything to do with kicking people when they are down .... Harper's words (both oral and written) arent worth the paper they are written on ... to him, promises were made to be broken .... Rumblings from the capital have suggested if Harper can't get out of this, that the Conservatives are ready to boot him (so his hold on power isn't that great either). So we get all this back-pedalling and people like John Baird suggesting they werent really serious  .... now they are suggesting that harper will perouque parliament before December 8th. Atta Boy Steve, Democracy at its finest!! |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 14:22:51 GMT -5
Seems that Dion will be interim PM until the LPC holds it's convention in May.
Interesting that the coalition is looking to reverse Harper's implemented trickle-down economics by repealing the $50B corporate tax cuts. Well, not so much interesting as predictable and, well, justified. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. They'd better implement something else, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2008 14:28:25 GMT -5
How long before the Bloc Quebecois declares that the coalition isn't working, that "Canada isn't working" and pulls its support? I would say at the first budget delivered by the new government... I think Gilles is a little (ok alot) smarter than that .... he will get to "view" the budget before it is delivered and comment on it too I bet. He'll hold the balance of power. So why topple the government, just threaten to topple it, and get what you want. The Liberals and NDP won't want to lose control so quickly. I will even go so far to suggest that Gilles has already told both of them his "terms" for his support. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 14:29:13 GMT -5
Well, I have a few problems with this.
Firstly, the opposition parties weren't voted into government in the first place. IMO, the new coalition government will not represent the majority of Canadians now matter which way the slice it. I voted NDP for three reasons:
* I liked the campaign the NDP put together. It was the first time they weren't talking about themselves as Canada's third choice.
* There was no way in hell I was going to consider the Liberals so long as they remain leaderless and until they purged their party of every politician that was around during ADSCAM. Finally,
* There was no way I was going to be part of a Tory majority. I think the Tories have done a pretty good job, but I don't want to see them with total control. There have been political posturing on both sides, but a cooperative government approach seemed to work alright.
So, now they're considering a coalition party!? They're telling me that my vote for the NDP is now a vote for the NDP/Liberal/Bloc coalition!?
I don't think so Tim!! I voted for the NDP not the Liberals or the Bloc. This coalition does not represent me in the slightest. In fact, as a voter, I will have been lied to.
If this goes through and the coalition is recognized, then next time my vote goes directly to the Conservatives no and's, if's or but's.
More money? More piss-off factors? Want to defer my vote without my permission? Can't call the election fast enough for me and it will be because of the coalition.
Oh well ... could always be worse ... back to work.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2008 14:29:34 GMT -5
Seems that Dion will be interim PM until the LPC holds it's convention in May. Interesting that the coalition is looking to reverse Harper's implemented trickle-down economics by repealing the $50B corporate tax cuts. Well, not so much interesting as predictable and, well, justified. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. They'd better implement something else, though. $50B you say ... voila la stimulus package I say.  |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 14:33:43 GMT -5
This is a backroom deal of the WORST kind. It was already engineered BEFORE the election and the three Amigos where just waiting for the opportunity. Banana Republic of Canada. such as the whole funding issue - not that I really care much about the public funding of parties - frankly, if you can not raise the funds needed to carry on business as a political party in Canada, maybe you should think about what that says about your chances to actually win an election The idea behind the funding is that so political parties aren't as beholden to special interests groups. I totally agree with it, and frankly for the small amount it costs (relatively) it's totally worth it. Unless we all of a sudden switch to a culture of supporting our political parties financially by donating our $1000, it's important to keep the public funding. Otherwise, the party in power will always have more means to outspend the other parties during election campaigns. They already do have greater means (the party in power usually has the most money in the bank, obviously) but it's lessened by the public funding. $3 per voter (so about $1.50 per Canadian) isn't a high price to pay for more equal representation. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Dec 1, 2008 14:50:12 GMT -5
Well, I have a few problems with this. Firstly, the opposition parties weren't voted into government in the first place. IMO, the new coalition government will not represent the majority of Canadians now matter which way the slice it. I voted NDP for three reasons: * I liked the campaign the NDP put together. It was the first time they weren't talking about themselves as Canada's third choice. * There was no way in hell I was going to consider the Liberals so long as they remain leaderless and until they purged their party of every politician that was around during ADSCAM. Finally, * There was no way I was going to be part of a Tory majority. I think the Tories have done a pretty good job, but I don't want to see them with total control. There have been political posturing on both sides, but a cooperative government approach seemed to work alright. So, now they're considering a coalition party!? They're telling me that my vote for the NDP is now a vote for the NDP/Liberal/Bloc coalition!? I don't think so Tim!! I voted for the NDP not the Liberals or the Bloc. This coalition does not represent me in the slightest. In fact, as a voter, I will have been lied to. If this goes through and the coalition is recognized, then next time my vote goes directly to the Conservatives no and's, if's or but's. More money? More piss-off factors? Want to defer my vote without my permission? Can't call the election fast enough for me and it will be because of the coalition. Oh well ... could always be worse ... back to work. Cheers. Completely agree Dis...I can see this blowing up and pissing everyone off. If we have another election over this I can see the Conservatives winning with a huge majority. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 14:55:52 GMT -5
How long before the Bloc Quebecois declares that the coalition isn't working, that "Canada isn't working" and pulls its support? I would say at the first budget delivered by the new government... You're not saying a Tory/Bloc coalition will topple the Democratic Liberal Party are you? Honestly, BC, at the risk of repeating myself, this very action might give the Tories the majority they wanted in the first place. What a flippin' circus! And all we can do is sit back and suck on it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 15:11:47 GMT -5
such as the whole funding issue - not that I really care much about the public funding of parties - frankly, if you can not raise the funds needed to carry on business as a political party in Canada, maybe you should think about what that says about your chances to actually win an election The idea behind the funding is that so political parties aren't as beholden to special interests groups. I totally agree with it, and frankly for the small amount it costs (relatively) it's totally worth it. Unless we all of a sudden switch to a culture of supporting our political parties financially by donating our $1000, it's important to keep the public funding. Otherwise, the party in power will always have more means to outspend the other parties during election campaigns. They already do have greater means (the party in power usually has the most money in the bank, obviously) but it's lessened by the public funding. $3 per voter (so about $1.50 per Canadian) isn't a high price to pay for more equal representation. The only thing I would ask, Red, is that those funds be properly accounted for. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have made a mockery of the way these funds have been handled. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2008 15:26:36 GMT -5
Collected assorted thoughts as I wait for the Maytag repairman [if he's so lonely and bored why is he taking so long?]:
The funniest thing I've heard so far: Harper received less that 40% of the vote, so most Canadians don't want him as Prime Minister. So we'll put Dion -- who received even fewer votes -- as PM? Logic, people, logic!
RS: are you nuts? The Libs will never have Layton leading -- it gives him instant credibility and will put the boots to the Liberal Party. Rae cannot be leader as he is fighting for the "official" PMship, as will Iggy. This is Dion's only hope -- that's why he's behind the scenes with this -- he sees blood.
And do you really think that a coalition government is going to serve the interests of anyone but themselves?
And the tax cuts will not be repealed. Can you spell deficit? Can you spell big deficit?
TNG: the Conservatives want to change the Senate -- or so they say. Can't see it happening ever, though.
Ending the party subsidies? It was the Liberals who brought that in years ago, when they were putting the boots to the Conservatives . . . then the Conservatives had people support them with bucks -- no one is giving money to the Libs [even the NDP raises more] -- no wonder there is such an outcry! Of course, it was the Liberals who lowered the limits [Chretien, actually, trying -- and succeeding -- to do Martin in].
Skilly's got it -- Harper miscalculated big time. As to the knives coming out for him, they've been out since he was elected party leader -- they are just more visible. It's the ay the Conservative Party works -- stab the leader at first opportunity.
Oh, and they are all idiots. I'm a political junkie, but man is this ever a waste!
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 15:43:13 GMT -5
Collected assorted thoughts as I wait for the Maytag repairman [if he's so lonely and bored why is he taking so long?]: The funniest thing I've heard so far: Harper received less that 40% of the vote, so most Canadians don't want him as Prime Minister. So we'll put Dion -- who received even fewer votes -- as PM? Logic, people, logic! We don't elect a PM. We elect our local representatives, who congregate in Ottawa and collectively form government. That's what's happening. Dion was elected in his riding, so he has as much right to be PM as anyone else who was elected. It's probably not what the public wants to happen, but it's the way our federation was built. RS: are you nuts? The Libs will never have Layton leading -- it gives him instant credibility and will put the boots to the Liberal Party. Rae cannot be leader as he is fighting for the "official" PMship, as will Iggy. This is Dion's only hope -- that's why he's behind the scenes with this -- he sees blood. Yes (I am nuts). I like Layton. Not so much the NDP, but him. Clear spoken, doesn't seem as agenda-driven. I truly believe he has Canada in his interests, not just his party. edit: believe is a strong word, but feel it relatively moreso than the Liberals, Cons or Bloq. Then again, the best of intentions can result in the worst of consequences. It's a sad time in Canada's political landscape. And do you really think that a coalition government is going to serve the interests of anyone but themselves? No. But "themselves" represents more Canadians than the current minority government, no? Oh, and they are all idiots. I'm a political junkie, but man is this ever a waste! I'm not sure anyone can argue with this. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 15:50:27 GMT -5
I have to say, I'm of two minds here.
1) it feels like the Conservatives are losing at their own game here. They seemed to play chicken, and lost.
2) the Conservatives will win in the long run, because no matter the outcome, some Liberal/NDP voters are going to feel eschewed.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2008 15:53:39 GMT -5
Dion’s the manand the Ottawa Citizen [used to be pro-pro Liberal] uses the shrug-the-shoulder picture . . . about the way most of us are feeling these days
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 1, 2008 16:03:01 GMT -5
such as the whole funding issue - not that I really care much about the public funding of parties - frankly, if you can not raise the funds needed to carry on business as a political party in Canada, maybe you should think about what that says about your chances to actually win an election The idea behind the funding is that so political parties aren't as beholden to special interests groups. I totally agree with it, and frankly for the small amount it costs (relatively) it's totally worth it. Unless we all of a sudden switch to a culture of supporting our political parties financially by donating our $1000, it's important to keep the public funding. Otherwise, the party in power will always have more means to outspend the other parties during election campaigns. They already do have greater means (the party in power usually has the most money in the bank, obviously) but it's lessened by the public funding. $3 per voter (so about $1.50 per Canadian) isn't a high price to pay for more equal representation. Yeah - I don't quite buy that as a reason. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the potential for abuse doesn't exist, but wouldn't it be better for Canadians to tighten the purse-strings of the political parties a little more and force the parties to work from a fixed budget. No more than 5-10-50k in any riding and no more than 100k nationally (no idea about the numbers, but whatever). Make it so that it's low enough that anyone and everyone can buy in and fight a marginal campaign at the least. You'd be better off going the bleeding heart route - Conservative supporters tend to be more wealthy than NDP supporters (the poor, under-privileged working class heroes they are) and consequently, the Conservative earn more money. Of course my response to that would be more colorful, but in the end neither here nor there. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2008 16:05:34 GMT -5
Well, in theory anyway. But I think more people voted anti-Dion than anti-Liberal, and anti-Harper than ant-Conservative. In fact it was Dion Dion Dion from the Conservative advertising, and Harper Harper Harper from the Libs [since he began to lead] But we also vote on the basis of the leader, who is placed as such by the party before an election. Though after there is a leadership convention of the party in power, an election is usually called because the leader needs a mandate from the people even though the party may already have one. I wasn't being anti-Layton, but looking at it merely form the Liberal perspective -- they'd never allow it. Yes . . . but even a majority government seldom gets a majority vote . . . plurality rules the day. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2008 16:13:34 GMT -5
Conservative supporters tend to be more wealthy than NDP supporters (the poor, under-privileged working class heroes they are) and consequently, the Conservative earn more money. Thanks . . . I needed a good laugh today. This is nothing but more stereotypical hogwash. [sorry -- gotta be blunt on this one]. I know poor non-wealthy conservatives and I know wealthy NDPers. I know NDPers who own their own well-run businesses who pay their workers minimum wage and I know struggling conservatives that pay their employees well [granted, not too many of them]. I know conservatives who believe in social justice as well as those who don't; I know non-conservatives who believe in social justice and those who just talk about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Dec 1, 2008 17:11:06 GMT -5
Some find this interesting, but I find this disturbing...As a voter, I casted my vote and even tough my selection didn't win his riding I am fine with that. The millions of people have voted the government that has been elected, wheter you except it or not. Now the decisions of less than 200 people can now justify the right to change the power to their favor because they are not getting what they wanted or is to their satisfaction? In other words they've pissed away millions of tax dollars to run campaigns and because they all can't play nice we have to accept back door deals? This is democracy? Makes me never want to vote again and somehow I feel the provincial elections are going to have the same results. To all the politicians, thanks for representing the peoples interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 17:32:55 GMT -5
No. But "themselves" represents more Canadians than the current minority government, no? In my humble opinion, no, they aren't. I voted NDP just as others voted for the Liberals and Bloc. I did not vote for a coalition government and I certainly didn't vote for a coalition government whose only agenda seems to be to get rid of the present government. If this coalition goes through I will have wasted my vote big time ... BIG TIME. This isn't necessarily directed at you, Red, but if the Tories were so bad before, why think of a coalition government now? The Tories (and previous governments) had broken many promises before now. A coalition government was always an option. And if this is all about Harper, then why didn't the opposition parties pull this off a while ago? Why would they allow Harper to threaten them with an election every time it came to a confidence vote? Even if it is about Harper I fear that the process is already too far advanced to be pulled off the table, which reveals another agenda for sure. But, it's a consistent process if nothing else. Let's not elect a new government (which hasn't happened by the way), let's kick the old bums out. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2008 18:01:28 GMT -5
[man I'm sounding like a conservative here, but . . . ]
The Conservatives [with Harper] gained seats in the election.
The Liberals [with Dion] lost seats in in the election.
And we are going to have Prime Minister Dion, who ran on policy that was soundly defeated?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 18:42:06 GMT -5
[man I'm sounding like a conservative here, but . . . ] The Conservatives [with Harper] gained seats in the election. The Liberals [with Dion] lost seats in in the election. And we are going to have Prime Minister Dion, who ran on policy that was soundly defeated? I feel it's all about Harper, Franko. It's personal now and I hope the voters understand that. I will admit, though, that I'm kind of curious to see how this coalition does. Not only how they govern, but how their dynamic develops. They're willing to usurp the current government, yet they're also willing to overlook the fact that a precedence has been set. Any of the conspiring parties could be usurped at any time in this process, or during the coalition tenure. It will be too late to cry foul if and when that happens. It's like a cheating spouse who finds another cheating spouse. What have you got? Two cheaters who ignore the fact they are who they are. But, more importantly, it ALWAYS comes around on them ... What a mess!! CYA. |
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Dec 1, 2008 18:44:15 GMT -5
No. But "themselves" represents more Canadians than the current minority government, no? In my humble opinion, no, they aren't. I voted NDP just as others voted for the Liberals and Bloc. I did not vote for a coalition government and I certainly didn't vote for a coalition government whose only agenda seems to be to get rid of the present government. If this coalition goes through I will have wasted my vote big time ... BIG TIME. This isn't necessarily directed at you, Red, but if the Tories were so bad before, why think of a coalition government now? The Tories (and previous governments) had broken many promises before now. A coalition government was always an option. And if this is all about Harper, then why didn't the opposition parties pull this off a while ago? Why would they allow Harper to threaten them with an election every time it came to a confidence vote? Even if it is about Harper I fear that the process is already too far advanced to be pulled off the table, which reveals another agenda for sure. But, it's a consistent process if nothing else. Let's not elect a new government (which hasn't happened by the way), let's kick the old bums out. Cheers. Lets have another election: The Conservatives vs the Three Headed Monster. I'd bet my house we'd see a majority there. My western brothers and sisters are very concerned right now. Thoughts of NEP running through our heads. This is a total travesty. I don't want any government in there that's basically giving a full veto to the separatist Bloc. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 1, 2008 18:45:42 GMT -5
Could this be Harper strategy in the name of getting a majority?
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 18:52:12 GMT -5
Not sure what kind of strategy it is if Harper ends up without a job in the process.
Not to single anyone out, but nobody has explained what, on the Bloq platform, would come to pass that is outrageous. I'm not terribly familiar with their politics aside from the faux separatist agenda.
|
|
.... now they are suggesting that harper will perouque parliament before December 8th. Atta Boy Steve, Democracy at its finest!! 
