|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 19:01:42 GMT -5
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. At the risk of sounding supportive, this is what separates the Bloc from the other parties. They have a clearly defined agenda; what's good for Quebec period. They don't make any qualms about it and they lay it out every election. It remains their sole focus. They know what they want and where they're going with it. However, as BC pointed out, what happens to the coalition of they decide things aren't working for them? If they do, indeed, have a veto as Habernac says, we'll be back to the poles a lot sooner than the 2 1/2 years we've read about. Sigh!! |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 1, 2008 19:15:14 GMT -5
Well, there is a possibility that the Governor-General will decide that another election is needed, instead of giving the go-ahead for the Coalition.
Since we just had an election, it's highly unlikely.
--------------------
In terms of Harper's future....there are reports (or so I've seen reported on CTV) that there are many people in his party who would like him ousted.
Could someone please simplify what it is that Harper's government did to cause this scenario?
Is it hiding the $5.9 billion deficit coming up next year? Is it not delivering a solid economic plan last week in the House of Commons?
I'm usually UP on this stuff....but I've had severe bronchitis for 10 days...and my wife just had surgery.....we've been out of the loop...so to speak.
The Habs is all I could muster.....ha!
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 1, 2008 19:19:37 GMT -5
However, as BC pointed out, what happens to the coalition of they decide things aren't working for them? If they do, indeed, have a veto as Habernac says, we'll be back to the poles a lot sooner than the 2 1/2 years we've read about. Sigh!! I heard on CTV tonight that the Coalition would have an 18-month commitment to stay united. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 19:19:47 GMT -5
Well, there is a possibility that the Governor-General will decide that another election is needed, instead of giving the go-ahead for the Coalition. Since we just had an election, it's highly unlikely. -------------------- In terms of Harper's future....there are reports (or so I've seen reported on CTV) that there are many people in his party who would like him ousted. Could someone please simplify what it is that Harper's government did to cause this scenario? Is it hiding the $5.9 billion deficit coming up next year? Is it not delivering a solid economic plan last week in the House of Commons? I'm usually UP on this stuff....but I've had severe bronchitis for 10 days...and my wife just had surgery.....we've been out of the loop...so to speak. The Habs is all I could muster.....ha! I was going to ask Skilly to do the same thing, CH. I honestly don't know all of the ins and outs of the oil deal Harper reneged on and I know he's pretty much miffed a lot of Easterners during his tenure. Hope you and Mrs CH are feeling better. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 1, 2008 19:29:43 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. I didn't particularly say I'd believe the statement, just that it would've been a better way to go. It sounds more plausible than "we need to give them money to keep them from being corrupt". |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 1, 2008 19:41:54 GMT -5
Well, there is a possibility that the Governor-General will decide that another election is needed, instead of giving the go-ahead for the Coalition. Since we just had an election, it's highly unlikely. -------------------- In terms of Harper's future....there are reports (or so I've seen reported on CTV) that there are many people in his party who would like him ousted. Could someone please simplify what it is that Harper's government did to cause this scenario? Is it hiding the $5.9 billion deficit coming up next year? Is it not delivering a solid economic plan last week in the House of Commons? I'm usually UP on this stuff....but I've had severe bronchitis for 10 days...and my wife just had surgery.....we've been out of the loop...so to speak. The Habs is all I could muster.....ha! I was going to ask Skilly to do the same thing, CH. I honestly don't know all of the ins and outs of the oil deal Harper reneged on and I know he's pretty much miffed a lot of Easterners during his tenure. Hope you and Mrs CH are feeling better. Cheers. Everyone's on the mend now....thank for the wishes Dis. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2008 20:43:56 GMT -5
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. . It doesn't matter WHAT Harper did, they were going to topple the government. Harper KNEW this and that is why he called the election. Did you see both debates? It was FOUR against one. As if it wasn't obvious why. Do you know why Dion had a side deal with the Greens? Because he was afraid that the other two already had a deal and if his party came in close to the NDP, he would be marginalized. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2008 20:50:48 GMT -5
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. I bet my house and everythihng I own that if you called an election, not only ould Harper get a majority, the Fiberals would get wiped out. Let's see, we now have a far left party and a SEPARATIST demanding to control Canada. Not because they were elected to manifest that mandate but rather from back room deals engineered by Chretien and friends. This is beyond travesty. The ONLY hope is that there is another election or the some of the Western provinces declare that they will not recognize the government. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 20:54:32 GMT -5
It doesn't matter WHAT Harper did, they were going to topple the government. Harper KNEW this and that is why he called the election. Such are the perils (if you want to call them that, as I'm sure you would) of the Westminster system of parliament. Did you see both debates? It was FOUR against one. As if it wasn't obvious why. I only saw one (one was schedule during one of the US debates), but that's no surprise given there is only one right-leaning party, and 3 leftist ones (I exclude the Bloq). Do you know why Dion had a side deal with the Greens? Because he was afraid that the other two already had a deal and if his party came in close to the NDP, he would be marginalized. Okay. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2008 20:57:57 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding supportive, this is what separates the Bloc from the other parties. They have a clearly defined agenda; what's good for Quebec period. They don't make any qualms about it and they lay it out every election. It remains their sole focus. They know what they want and where they're going with it. . And this is what upsets me the most. This is going to cause a lot of anger wihtin Canada particularly in the West. Seperatist are playing Dummy Dion and Rooster Layton for everything their worth. As far as the seperatist are concerned, that's great. The more then can anger Canadains, the more backlash they create, the better for them. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 20:59:39 GMT -5
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. I bet my house and everythihng I own that if you called an election, not only ould Harper get a majority, the Fiberals would get wiped out. Let's see, we now have a far left party and a SEPARATIST demanding to control Canada. Not because they were elected to manifest that mandate but rather from back room deals engineered by Chretien and friends. This is beyond travesty. The ONLY hope is that there is another election or the some of the Western provinces declare that they will not recognize the government. I've heard some talk now that many in Alberta will dump the Conservatives over this and start another party that's Alberta-centric. Many of the current sitting Conservative MPs might even switch allegiance. The endgame I suppose would be to hold the CPC hostage as Alberta/Saskatchewan are their core, and in the end have the CPC solely represent Western interests. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2008 21:03:29 GMT -5
Do you know why Dion had a side deal with the Greens? Because he was afraid that the other two already had a deal and if his party came in close to the NDP, he would be marginalized. Okay. Okay? It doesn't bother you that the NDP went to bed with a seperatist party? A party who ONLY agenda is to break-up Canada? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2008 21:06:08 GMT -5
I've heard some talk now that many in Alberta will dump the Conservatives over this and start another party that's Alberta-centric. Many of the current sitting Conservative MPs might even switch allegiance. The endgame I suppose would be to hold the CPC hostage as Alberta/Saskatchewan are their core, and in the end have the CPC solely represent Western interests. This goes to EXACTLY what I am talking about in the previous thread. This is annoying to some but some are angry as hell. ...and the separatist are enjoying the damage and laughing their heads off. Call an election and let's see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2008 21:16:21 GMT -5
And the tax cuts will not be repealed. Can you spell deficit? Can you spell big deficit? Likeyou have no idea. These three Amigos are going to loot Canadians with their pet projects. How much does GM want? Let the NDP decide what their union buddies want. Of course, the speratist will cheer on while t50 billion go down the drain. Why not. It will piss off the rest of Canada and thatt is EXACTLY what they want. Meanwhile, tyhousands of companies that are on the brink will quietly lay off or go out of business. But wait, who cares, the NDP and Separatist have POWER...and that all that counts. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 21:17:23 GMT -5
Okay? It doesn't bother you that the NDP went to bed with a seperatist party? A party who ONLY agenda is to break-up Canada? No, I can't say it does. The Bloq, while having a separatist agenda, have no means of achieving it. Even with a partnership with the NDP. Their agenda is Quebec from what I've read. Sovereignty is an endgame that even they recognize isn't achievable. Besides, in every government someone panders to the Bloq in order to achieve something. The Conservatives have done it. The Liberals have done it. Now the NDP is doing it. I don't like it, per se, but it doesn't outrage me by any means. It's been going on for years. Frankly, we're all suckers (especially us Ontarians) for not forming parties to represent our specific provincial interests. Then again, maybe we'd need to threaten to separate to get our way, as well. edit: I read an interesting proposition on another board. Just treat the Bloq votes as non votes. Ignore the party and their representatives. The problem with that, is that Harper would have had to accept an effective Martin majority, and currently Dion/Layton would have to accept an effective Harper majority. Neither of which happened, obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 21:29:07 GMT -5
Okay? It doesn't bother you that the NDP went to bed with a seperatist party? A party who ONLY agenda is to break-up Canada? Well, it just became a lot clearer in this article. The Bloc will not be a part of the new coalition but it will support it until June 30th, 2010 at which time they are reserving the right to vote independently. Her Excellency, the Governor General, is now the authority. =============================================================== Opposition signs coalition dealBy Bruce Cheadle, THE CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA - This time, maybe the Tory-blue sky really is falling. A remarkably swift, cut-throat and unforeseen game of parliamentary chicken came to a head Monday when Liberal Leader Stephane Dion announced that the opposition parties had agreed to form a coalition government. It moved the extraordinary prospect of Canada changing governments without an election a big step closer to reality. Dion, flanked by his NDP and Bloc Quebecois counterparts, said he informed Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean of a formal, governing entente between the opposition, and called on her to let him form a new government. "I have respectfully recommended to Her Excellency that she should, at her first opportunity, exercise her constitutional authority and invite the leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government with the support of the two other opposition parties," said Dion. That first opportunity is set to arrive next Monday with a confidence vote in the House of Commons - unless Stephen Harper's minority government manages a last-minute tactical manoeuvre. The Conservatives hinted that something might be in the works, saying they are considering "all options" to stop the opposition. The Governor General is on a state visit to Europe, but a spokeswoman said she is following the events closely and is ready to return if needed. Should Harper's government be defeated - and should Jean accept a coalition agreement - Canada would see its first change of government without an election since 1926. Under the opposition pact, Dion - a leader his own party was ready to jettison after the Oct. 14 federal election when the Tories were re-elected with a strengthened minority - would serve as prime minister until spring when he is to be replaced as Liberal leader. The pact includes a multibillion-dollar stimulus package for the troubled economy, including support for the auto and forestry sectors. Any doubt of the seriousness of the unlikely opposition alliance was dispelled by the ashen features of Conservative MPs in the House of Commons. "I think he's about to play the biggest political game in Canadian history," an embattled Harper told the daily question period. The 77 Liberal MPs and 37 New Democrats - backed by 49 members of the Bloc Quebecois - reached a deal Monday to form a coalition for at least 18 months. "Canadians elected 308 members of Parliament in October, not just Stephen Harper," Dion said after signing the deal with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc chief Gilles Duceppe. "We are ready to form a new government that will address the best interests of the people instead of plunging Canadians into another election." In an open letter to Canadians, the three leaders wrote: "Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Mr. Harper has no plan, no competence and no will to effectively address this (economic) crisis. "Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and is resolved to form a new government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times." What became clear Monday is that the coalition has advanced to the point where Harper's government has very few options to keep this "three-headed Frankenstein monster" - in the words of one Tory MP - from coming to life. Shortly after the opposition news conference, Harper dispatched Environment Minister Jim Prentice to address the "serious" situation. Prentice called the opposition pact "irresponsible and undemocratic" and said the government will consider all options. He wouldn't rule out asking the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until late in January, when it has promised to introduce a new budget. "There is a need for calm, there is a need to step back, appraise the situation, examine the situation and consider what is in the best interests of our country at this point in time," Prentice said. Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn called the opposition move a "coup d'etat." Earlier, Harper told the Commons that Canadians will question "overturning the results of an election a few weeks later in order to form a coalition nobody voted for and everybody denied. "And to have a coalition like that that can govern only with the veto of the people who want to break up this country," Harper continued. "Do they really believe that is in the interests of this country?" It was total about-face for Harper who advised the Governor General in 2004 to let him govern - supported by the separatist Bloc - should the Liberal government of Paul Martin fall. Harper precipitated the crisis last Thursday with a provocative economic update that provided no economic stimulus for an ailing economy, slashed government spending, and included a poison-pill-proposal to gut public subsidies of political parties. Desperate government back-peddling over the weekend in the face of coalition talks did nothing to slow the oncoming train wreck. "Conservatives have given in on a few points but nothing can restore the confidence that Stephen Harper has violated," Duceppe said Monday. Others agreed that Harper has so poisoned the confidence of Parliament that any death-bed conversions he might offer now are worthless. "I think the credibility of such promises is virtually zero," said Liberal John McCallum. "If we pull back, they will once again feel safe to go back to their old ways." It's been a dizzying descent for a Conservative government that appeared comfortably in control just five short days ago. Thursday's fiscal update so incensed and threatened the combined majority opposition parties that the previously unimaginable coalition scenario suddenly became a subject of negotiation. After weekend-long talks, the key to breaking the logjam was an internal Liberal agreement Monday by MPs to hold their noses and keep Dion as interim leader - and thus prime-minister-in-waiting - until he can be replaced at a scheduled leadership convention in May. "The accord that was presented to us received unanimous support and the other issue which is very important is we decided the only person and the best person to lead and form a coalition government is the elected leader of our party, the leader of the opposition Stephane Dion," said Dominic LeBlanc, one of three Liberal MPs along with Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae who are in the race to replace Dion. If the coalition goes ahead, Dion would avoid joining Edward Blake as the only Liberal party leaders since Confederation to miss achieving the big prize. The agreement between the Liberals and the NDP is to last until June 2011. The Bloc has agreed to support the arrangement until June 2010, at which point their support could be extended. The Governor General's role becomes pivotal in the coming days. There is a precedent - the King-Byng affair of 1926 - for the vice-regal refusing to dissolve Parliament in the face of a confidence crisis. Constitutional experts suggest the current Governor General similarly may be reluctant to permit prorogation when it is such an obvious dodge of a clear lack of Commons confidence in the government. But Jean is working in uncharted waters. The opposition parties represent just over 54 per of the popular vote in the Oct. 14 federal election. Duceppe said the Bloc would not join the coalition government nor have any ministers in cabinet. A 24-member coalition cabinet would have six New Democrats and 18 Liberals, according to the deal. The Bloc would support all confidence votes until June 30, 2010, but would be free to vote as it wished on all other non-monetary measures. The Liberal-NDP pact lasts a year longer, until June 30, 2011. cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/12/01/7590456-cp.html (link) |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 1, 2008 21:37:49 GMT -5
What a mess. At a time when we need consensus and teamwork to get Canada through this, all 4 parties are thinking me me me. They should all be put in a boat, with no power, in the middle of the Pacific and told to not come back.
I blame them all. Harper for treating the other parties like crap, and the rest for putting themselves ahead of the country.
The obvious solution is for the Conservatives to quickly dump Harper, bring in a soft c Leader and wait for the coalition to fall apart, which will take no more than 3 months.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Dec 1, 2008 22:24:31 GMT -5
I was hoping for another minority government, but this is ridiculous. We're becoming Italy.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 1, 2008 22:26:29 GMT -5
I was hoping for another minority government, but this is ridiculous. We're becoming Italy. Does Dion own a majority stake in the Leafs and CTV? It would be perfect if he did. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2008 22:37:00 GMT -5
What a mess. At a time when we need consensus and teamwork to get Canada through this, all 4 parties are thinking me me me. They should all be put in a boat, with no power, in the middle of the Pacific and told to not come back. I blame them all. Harper for treating the other parties like crap, and the rest for putting themselves ahead of the country. The obvious solution is for the Conservatives to quickly dump Harper, bring in a soft c Leader and wait for the coalition to fall apart, which will take no more than 3 months. That's one strategy they can use. The other one is to recommend to the GG that parliament be dissolved and to call a general election. I also share your concerns as to who is to blame. Skilly pointed out that Harper basically brought it on himself, but I think you're also right in saying the other three are using the constitution to promote themselves before anything else. It's a mess, you're right, but it's more of a joke. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2008 23:15:31 GMT -5
I've heard some talk now that many in Alberta will dump the Conservatives over this and start another party that's Alberta-centric. Many of the current sitting Conservative MPs might even switch allegiance. Been there done that. it was called the Reform Party, and all that did was allow the Liberals to hold power for . . . how many years? If that happens we're back to thoughts of Western separation, and "it's my oil and I'm going home with it". Sigh . . . |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 2, 2008 0:15:08 GMT -5
What a mess. At a time when we need consensus and teamwork to get Canada through this, all 4 parties are thinking me me me. They should all be put in a boat, with no power, in the middle of the Pacific and told to not come back. I blame them all. Harper for treating the other parties like crap, and the rest for putting themselves ahead of the country. The obvious solution is for the Conservatives to quickly dump Harper, bring in a soft c Leader and wait for the coalition to fall apart, which will take no more than 3 months. That's one strategy they can use. The other one is to recommend to the GG that parliament be dissolved and to call a general election. I also share your concerns as to who is to blame. Skilly pointed out that Harper basically brought it on himself, but I think you're also right in saying the other three are using the constitution to promote themselves before anything else. It's a mess, you're right, but it's more of a joke. Cheers. A joke indeed. Will this become our "Florida/Hanging Chad"? The worst part is I see no way out of this for Harper and Company. Unless one of the three backs out (they've signed papers, but ask Skilly what a signed paper means to a politician) then it'll be either this a coalition of the worst kind, or a general election - neither of which is good for the country. Oh well. Maybe Obama will make the changes he keeps talking about south of the border and the end of the economic world won't come. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2008 0:19:00 GMT -5
I've heard some talk now that many in Alberta will dump the Conservatives over this and start another party that's Alberta-centric. Many of the current sitting Conservative MPs might even switch allegiance. Been there done that. it was called the Reform Party, and all that did was allow the Liberals to hold power for . . . how many years? If that happens we're back to thoughts of Western separation, and "it's my oil and I'm going home with it". Sigh . . . No...what allowed the Liberal Party to hold power for so long was the PC party being left with 2 seats after Mulroney left Kim Campbell holding the bag. The Reform Party, of which Stephen Harper was policy chief for a while, couldn't topple the Libs...so they morphed into the next phase: the Canadian Alliance (which Harper headed). Still no traction. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was then formed...and the familiar brand still didn't topple the Liberals. Aha....let's just call it the Conservative Party. That was the tonic, enough time had passed since Mulroney....then along came ADSCAM....THANK YOU MAAM.  Harper still has Alberta's interests foremost in mind.....ever heard of the "Alberta Agenda"? Co-authored by Mr. Stephen Harper in 2001. It's still alive and well....and noone was happier to see Harper become PM than co-author Ted Morton, who just happens to be Alberta's Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Oil anyone? Morton on Alberta AgendaNotice how the Maritimes and NL aren't even mentioned? Is it any wonder Harper's policies are despised in the East? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 2, 2008 2:17:23 GMT -5
Harper still has Alberta's interests foremost in mind.....ever heard of the "Alberta Agenda"? Co-authored by Mr. Stephen Harper in 2001. It's still alive and well....and noone was happier to see Harper become PM than co-author Ted Morton, who just happens to be Alberta's Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Oil anyone? Morton on Alberta AgendaNotice how the Maritimes and NL aren't even mentioned? Is it any wonder Harper's policies are despised in the East? Huh? Why exactly should the Maritimes be mentioned when they are talking about Alberta? It is an ALBERTA agenda that sections of which has already come to pass for Quebec. Let's look at that evil agenda. The Alberta Agenda, as promoted by the Alberta Residents League, is not about building firewalls although all Canadian provinces and territories should consider building a firewall around Ottawa. Nor is it about separation. To quote one of its originators (Conservative Provincial MLA Ted Morton), “The word has never passed our lips. We want to strengthen the federation, not weaken it. We want to go back to the original founding principle of provincial autonomy, with responsibilities within Confederation. We believe that these founding principles are so flexible that they will see us through the next century and beyond.”
The idea of the Alberta Agenda originated as an open letter to Ralph Klein by six prominent Albertans (Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan, Ted Morton, Rainer Knopff, Andrew Crooks and Ken Boessenkool) published in the National Post on January 27, 2001.
Under the Agenda, Albertans would fully exercise their constitutional responsibilities by repatriating certain powers to their provincial government. As a major province like others, Alberta would:
Create its own Alberta Pension Plan (APP) and huge pension fund. See www.app.ca
Collect its own revenue from personal provincial income tax as it already does corporate income tax
Establish its own provincial police force. RCMP will remain to police federal statutes
Albertans would be better served if they did these three things for themselves. They would also send a clear signal to Ottawa that they will no longer be treated as a colony of central Canada.Of course, a coalition party that completely and utterly freezes out Alberta will make them feel a lot less like a colony.  As for the oil, do you have any idea how much of it supports the Federal tax base? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 2, 2008 2:24:42 GMT -5
......it'll be either this a coalition of the worst kind, or a general election - neither of which is good for the country. . And you thought that I gave up on you and would revoke your right wing card.....  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 2, 2008 7:14:29 GMT -5
Been there done that. it was called the Reform Party, and all that did was allow the Liberals to hold power for . . . how many years? If that happens we're back to thoughts of Western separation, and "it's my oil and I'm going home with it". Sigh . . . No...what allowed the Liberal Party to hold power for so long was the PC party being left with 2 seats after Mulroney left Kim Campbell holding the bag. The Reform Party, of which Stephen Harper was policy chief for a while, couldn't topple the Libs...so they morphed into the next phase: the Canadian Alliance (which Harper headed). Still no traction. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was then formed...and the familiar brand still didn't topple the Liberals. Aha....let's just call it the Conservative Party. That was the tonic, enough time had passed since Mulroney....then along came ADSCAM....THANK YOU MAAM. And where did the the PC party lose seats to? To the Liberals, yes, but they lost Alberta -- Alberta! -- to the Reform Party. Yes, Mulroney was architect of the rout, but nature abhors a vacuum [almost as much as an Albertan abhors a Liberal] . . . and so it was "Welcome Mr. Manning". So bad was it that a year before the election my uncle, a sitting PC MP, turned down the offer to run again for the party [he ran from the offer!] -- everyone knew that the PCs had no hope. Actually, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had long been around -- it was the party of Diefenbaker, Clark, Mulroney, and Clark. The Reform/Alliance/Unite the Right party wanted to merge with the PCs but Clark and others said "no way Jose Stockwell Day, but in the end many PCs did join, the Conservative Party of Canada was formed, and there was enough unity to defeat the Liberals -- just. There still is a "PC" party -- the Progressive Canadians, which went nowhere [where is Joe Who anyway?]. It did indeed come from Western interests . . . we may be looking at the COR in the future! |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Dec 2, 2008 7:24:12 GMT -5
After watching and reading the news this is my take on the situation.
Before the election Harper knew that the NDP, Liberals and Bloc were planing to form a coalition government after the budget was released. (Which he has on tape) He's been wanting a 2 party system for years, announced the cut backs for the parties knowing that it would eleminate the Bloc, NDP and Green party leaving only them and the Liberals.
He knew they would freak and form their coalition government. He also knows the speaker will more than likely call a non confidence vote and call an election for February, instead of forming a coalition government. The voters are pissed that they have to go through an election all over again, take it out on the NDP, Liberals etc...and vote in a majority Conservative government. In turn Harper passes his bill and Canada has its 2 party system, which is all it should be to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 2, 2008 7:38:23 GMT -5
Good post mate. After watching and reading the news this is my take on the situation. Before the election Harper knew that the NDP, Liberals and Bloc were planing to form a coalition government after the budget was released. (Which he has on tape) He's been wanting a 2 party system for years, announced the cut backs for the parties knowing that it would eleminate the Bloc, NDP and Green party leaving only them and the Liberals. I have to reassess this whole thing, PI Reap. The desire for a 2-party system simply got by me. If this is so, then Harper probably envisions himself, as the pioneer for converting our current riding system into an Electoral College and changing the PM's office into the President's office. In the extreme, there would be no use for a Governor General any longer. One thing seems to be consistent; whether from the Coalition government or from within his own party, Harper is the target. Also, from what I understand, both Chretien and Broadbent were the behind-the-scenes engineers on this one. On the surfact it looks as if they're flogging "a-chicken-in-every-pot" kind of deal in order to sell it. Hard to know how I'll vote this time around. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 8:18:03 GMT -5
Wow ... so much I want to respond to , but I'll start with Dis ... 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. I often wonder why Canadians vote the way they vote ... some say they vote for the best man in their riding, some say they vote for the leader (and the opposite is true too, some say they vote against a man in their riding or against a leader)... but in truth EVERY Canadian when they vote casts their ballot for the party, whether they care to admit it or not. This past election I was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Under no circumstances could I vote for the PCs (and thereby tell Harper I support what he did to NL), and I just couldn't see myself voting NDP (I don't agree with most of their policies) or Liberal (did I want Dion as PM?) ..... I had my mind made up that I would have to look at the men in my riding and choose the "best man" , do not look at their political stripe ... and had my decision made, and unfortunately (or luckily, who knows) circumstances occured that prevented me from getting to the polling booth on time. But, no matter who I voted for, that vote is a de-facto support for the decisions of the leader of that party ... So when you voted NDP (and I will admit here I was going to vote NDP as well) you are supporting Layton's decisions and policies. You may not agree with them, but you through your support behind him. Layton decided that a coalition best serves the country. No one knows the intentions behind your vote in Canada, but a vote for NDP is a vote for Layton to run the country .... and that's what he is attempting to do, have a voice in how the government is run. The easy answer to this is because the country's economics are different now. The world finds itself at a cross-roads economically, and every major country has some sort of stimulus plan to keep their ecomonies afloat. When Harper delivered his economic update, he had no plan ... just let's wait and see, we aren't that bad off. But then he, as he always does, threatened to make the issue a confidence vote, and his Finance minister says "not one comma will be changed" .... but then as always, he ties other things into the legislation (right to strike, public subsidies) forcing the opposition to vote themselves out of existence (financially speaking). So it is up the the Governor General now .... does she feel spending hundreds of millions of dollars on another election is justified (seeing how we had an election 6 weeks ago) or does she feels that what Harper attempted is politics at its worst. To me, its no different than someone crossing the floor (ala Belinda Stronach) to get what they wanted and swing a Commons vote ... or Harper casting out Bill Casey (Nova Scotia voters voted for a PC candidate (not this election, but the last one) not an independent. Or conversely, some ridings elect independents only to see them cross and become a member of one of the other parties .... those voters didn't vote PC or Lib either.... it's all the same. Your vote in Canadian politics gives the elected members to make decisions on your behave .... that's what's happening now too. But this isnt the first time this has happened in Canada. Robert Borden was PM during the Union Coaltion government during WWI AND John A MacDonald , our founding father, led Liberal-Conservative coalitions...... and in fact, provincially, most coalitions come from Harper's Western Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 2, 2008 8:56:34 GMT -5
The Bloc will not be a part of the new coalition but it will support it until June 30th, 2010 at which time they are reserving the right to vote independently. Oh that's reassuring. Now that they've said they will support the government until 2010 they can't possibly go back on their word. I mean, if they did they would... um... well... uh... This is a perfect opportunity for the Bloc to relaunch the separtist movement; Look, we tried to work with them, we even formed a coalition government with them. We promised to support them for TWO years. TWO YEARS!! What more do they want from us? How much longer do we have to keep bending over for them?? All we asked for was <insert outrageous monetary amount and/or exclusive power for Quebec to protect identity and/or constitutional admendment and/or whatever> and they couldn't give it to us. Canada isn't working. We tried to help it, but the economy is in the tank, we're having elections every 8 months, nobody can figure out how to govern, the Prime Minister is the most detested leader in the country who promised to resign months ago and who is an embarrassment to Quebec... this is a sinking ship, and we need to get off it...And the worst part is... they'd be right! How can anyone argue "Canada" is working under this system?? |
|
