|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 9:08:24 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?? The AT ISSUE panel last night on CBC, seemed to agree that this coalition is one of the worst things to happen to the separtist movement ..... I didn't catch all of it (and I am not familiar with Quebec politics enough to know if the lady is a separtist or not) but the gist of it was that Gilles Duceppe now can't blame anyone but himself if Canada doesn't work and the Bloq could lose votes in Quebec because of this if they play dirty politics ... something like that (did anyone else catch it?) |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 2, 2008 9:19:37 GMT -5
The AT ISSUE panel last night on CBC, seemed to agree that this coalition is one of the worst things to happen to the separtist movement ..... I didn't catch all of it (and I am not familiar with Quebec politics enough to know if the lady is a separtist or not) but the gist of it was that Gilles Duceppe now can't blame anyone but himself if Canada doesn't work and the Bloq could lose votes in Quebec because of this if they play dirty politics ... something like that (did anyone else catch it?) I didn't see the show, but I can't see that happening at all. It would be soooo easy for Duceppe to blame the others, that I can't see how he won't do it. Heck, all he has to do is demand extra from the economic stimulus to "protect Quebec's economy." And if he doesn't get extra, then he turns around and says "the Canadian government wouldn't help Quebec in this time of economic crisis - if we can't rely on them in our hour of need, even though we agreed to help them in their hour of need, then when can we rely on them??" |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2008 9:27:49 GMT -5
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. I was referring to Morton who, in the video, mentions Alberta's interests competing (in Ottawa) against the interests of Quebec and Ontario. Doesn't even mention the interests of the Maritimes and NL. Morton surely does. Which is he why he'd like to keep it. Another slam at have-not provinces. Wouldn't the country's economy be even worse without equalization payments? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 2, 2008 9:46:23 GMT -5
This past election I was stuck between a rock and a hard place. a rock? [sorry, couldn't let that one go] It is not up to the GG to decide if spending the money is justified or not, nor can see express her feelings if she believes Harper is an idiot attempted is politics at its worst -- her role is to act on behalf of the country [which may indeed mean that she thinks that Harper . . . well, you know]. The question she must answer: Can the coalition suggested govern the country or do the people of Canada need to go back to the polls? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 9:50:08 GMT -5
The AT ISSUE panel last night on CBC, seemed to agree that this coalition is one of the worst things to happen to the separtist movement ..... I didn't catch all of it (and I am not familiar with Quebec politics enough to know if the lady is a separtist or not) but the gist of it was that Gilles Duceppe now can't blame anyone but himself if Canada doesn't work and the Bloq could lose votes in Quebec because of this if they play dirty politics ... something like that (did anyone else catch it?) I didn't see the show, but I can't see that happening at all. It would be soooo easy for Duceppe to blame the others, that I can't see how he won't do it. Heck, all he has to do is demand extra from the economic stimulus to "protect Quebec's economy." And if he doesn't get extra, then he turns around and says "the Canadian government wouldn't help Quebec in this time of economic crisis - if we can't rely on them in our hour of need, even though we agreed to help them in their hour of need, then when can we rely on them??" I know this is a simplistic example ... but I have to believe that in the coalition agreement, Duceppe is well aware (and he accepts since he signed it) of the concessions the other two parties are willing to give Quebec and the amount Quebec will receive from the 30 Billion stimulus package. The panel also went through the concessions of the parties ..... Layton agreed to drop the 50 Billion corporate tax cuts, Dion agreed to scrap the carbon tax, and Duceppe agreed to something to. Sure Duceppe can come out and cry foul in the near future, but the other parties can also wave the agreement showing Duceppe what was agreed to. How will it look if Duceppe cries "we don't see Canada working because Quebec isn't getting it fair share" and the NDP and Libs come out saying "Gilles you agreed to this ... we are giving you what you said Quebec wanted, are you saying you are out of touch with Quebecers now?" ... ... both of our examples are too simplistic, but the coalition agreement will map out what the three leaders want and what they are giving up ... thats what coaltion agreements do. Now Duceppe can change his mind, thats well within his right, but it would be political suicide if it was over something in the agreement ... IMO anyway |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 2, 2008 10:04:15 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. You're right. When learning the Canadian political system in high school we were told that if you dislike the candidate in your riding, for goodness sake vote for the party. But, herein lies the problem. I voted for Layton and his policies, but those policies did not include those policies of the Liberals and Bloc. Hence, I feel I've been sold out. The coalition concept was in it's infancy stages well before they started flogging their "a-chicken-in-every-pot" bailout for the auto and forest industries. It's a short-term initiative designed to buy votes, IMO. I would rather they had come up with a long-term solution, even if it would have taken two years to implement. She's in one tough spot. For me it's not that easy. I voted NDP for a number of reasons, but supporting a coalition government was not one of them. I'd much rather see them defeat the government in a non-confidence vote, cite their reasoning for it and then go to the poles. My vote was for the NDP, not the Democratic Liberal Bloc of Canada Coalition. Hence, I do not support Mr Layton's decision to use my vote the way he sees fit. And Sir Julian Byng promptly approved it. Mind you there are some who feel this is the very essence of the democratic process. I'm really pulled in various directions on this one though. Harper is simply his own worst enemy. His smugness cost him my vote and I think it's this same quality that have caused the opposition parties to attempt to oust him from power. He has a minority government and he's acting as if he had a majority. Bluff called. Even his own party is internally split on his leadership capabilities, though I think this occurs more frequently in every party from time to time. We're just not privy to it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 2, 2008 10:15:49 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?? I'm not sure what you mean by "Canada is[n't] working" but government is certainly working the way it was intended. None of this is illegal, unconstitutional or even unprecedented. Can you elaborate? Also, as far as anyone knows Dion is still done in May 09, which was always his resignation date. I'm not going to defend the coalition, but "Canada" is working fine. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 2, 2008 10:24:14 GMT -5
But, herein lies the problem. I voted for Layton and his policies, but those policies did not include those policies of the Liberals and Bloc. Hence, I feel I've been sold out. Cheers. Except in a majority government, you couldn't have expected to achieve the extremes of those goals, could you? Layton is still using your vote to push his agenda, except it's on a common ground with the Liberals. In fact, he's realistically getting more done for the platform you voted for than if he'd just voted down a confidence vote. I'm still not understanding the problem. You don't want the Liberals or Bloc in power, but that wasn't what your vote represented. That's what the accumulation of votes across Canada represents. Your vote indicated to your representative (and by transferrence, Layton) that he should use the power you've given him as your representative to achieve as much of the party platform as they can while government is formed. Isn't that what's going on? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 2, 2008 10:38:41 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?? The ramifications of this are staggaring. You're right about the Bloc, bang on, but let's leave them out of it for now. Was talking to a young guy at work this morning. He's from Alberta. He was online with some folks from back home last night and in his own words, "very intelligent people are now discussing Albertan independance again, only very seriously this time." I can see how Albertans and folks from the West must feel like they're being ganged up on. Alberta has the same population as both Quebec and Ontario, but have approximately 10 fewer seats that either. This is an older concern but it's coming to the surface again now that the "Eastern Canada Coalition" is ousting the one party that finally represents their interests. This is the perception now. As I was saying, you're bang on about Quebec. I completely agree that Duceppe is the one that has the power to really make a mess of things, or at least a bigger mess than the one that is going on now. And consider this. Once this bailout fails, and I believe it will, the Liberals and NDP will drop like bags of wet cement. The Tories will probably have a strong majority government and they will have to say is, "... look at what the coalition has done to you and your country." Someone said it already, the coalition is nothing but a power grab meant on saving their own political hides. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Dec 2, 2008 10:50:59 GMT -5
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?? The ramifications of this are staggaring. You're right about the Bloc, bang on, but let's leave them out of it for now. Was talking to a young guy at work this morning. He's from Alberta. He was online with some folks from back home last night and in his own words, "very intelligent people are now discussing Albertan independance again, only very seriously this time." I can see how Albertans and folks from the West must feel like they're being ganged up on. Alberta has the same population as both Quebec and Ontario, but have approximately 10 fewer seats that either. This is an older concern but it's coming to the surface again now that the "Eastern Canada Coalition" is ousting the one party that finally represents their interests. This is the perception now. As I was saying, you're bang on about Quebec. I completely agree that Duceppe is the one that has the power to really make a mess of things, or at least a bigger mess than the one that is going on now. And consider this. Once this bailout fails, and I believe it will, the Liberals and NDP will drop like bags of wet cement. The Tories will probably have a strong majority government and they will have to say is, "... look at what the coalition has done to you and your country." Someone said it already, the coalition is nothing but a power grab meant on saving their own political hides. Cheers. actually, our population in Alberta is about 1/3 that of Ontario and half of Quebec's. And our biggest worry is that we've been left without a voice in this new government. alberta has one NDP candidate and Sakatchewan has one Liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 10:55:09 GMT -5
My vote was for the NDP, not the Democratic Liberal Bloc of Canada Coalition. Hence, I do not support Mr Layton's decision to use my vote the way he sees fit. Dis I feel your pain when you say you feel mislead ... I voted for Harper based on a 10 Billion dollar promise to this province (a promise we have in writing!!) and look what he did with my vote ..... but I still don't understand why you feel Layton is abusing your vote. He is furthering (or trying at the moment) his agenda, policies (which is what you voted for) and in a coalition certain concessions ahve to be made or it wont work. We do not know all the details yet, but it is very likely, that all the extreme party policies (separtism, carbon tax, corporate tax cuts, etc) that define each party will be put aside for the next 18 months (and written into the agreement) and they will focus on only issues that they agree on , such as the economy, infrastructure, energy , etc .... So even though it is a coalition it will be NDP policies that the Liberals happen to agree with, or Liberals policies that the NDP happen to agree with (however one wishes to take it , 6 to one half dozen to another as far as I am concerned) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 10:58:43 GMT -5
The ramifications of this are staggaring. You're right about the Bloc, bang on, but let's leave them out of it for now. Was talking to a young guy at work this morning. He's from Alberta. He was online with some folks from back home last night and in his own words, "very intelligent people are now discussing Albertan independance again, only very seriously this time." I can see how Albertans and folks from the West must feel like they're being ganged up on. Alberta has the same population as both Quebec and Ontario, but have approximately 10 fewer seats that either. This is an older concern but it's coming to the surface again now that the "Eastern Canada Coalition" is ousting the one party that finally represents their interests. This is the perception now. As I was saying, you're bang on about Quebec. I completely agree that Duceppe is the one that has the power to really make a mess of things, or at least a bigger mess than the one that is going on now. And consider this. Once this bailout fails, and I believe it will, the Liberals and NDP will drop like bags of wet cement. The Tories will probably have a strong majority government and they will have to say is, "... look at what the coalition has done to you and your country." Someone said it already, the coalition is nothing but a power grab meant on saving their own political hides. Cheers. actually, our population in Alberta is about 1/3 that of Ontario and half of Quebec's. And our biggest worry is that we've been left without a voice in this new government. alberta has one NDP candidate and Sakatchewan has one Liberal. Geez ... Newfoundland is represented by a Nova Scotian in this government. We were told "thats too bad, you should've voted Conservative if you wanted a voice" ..... can I use that one now?  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 11:23:06 GMT -5
I can see how Albertans and folks from the West must feel like they're being ganged up on. Alberta has the same population as both Quebec and Ontario, but have approximately 10 fewer seats that either. This is an older concern but it's coming to the surface again now that the "Eastern Canada Coalition" is ousting the one party that finally represents their interests. This is the perception now. There really is no fair way to divide the seats in the Commons ... doing it based on population is antiquated, but how to fix it? As long as we keep our current politic scheme, there will never be a PM east of Quebec ..... and IMO, that isn't fair either. However, Alberta does not have any room to complain about the current set up .... Under the Canadian Constitution Act (1867) there has to be a national quotient of seats per population per province. In 2001 that quotient was set at 107 220. It also sets out special clauses that each province must have a minimum of seats (For instance NL has to have a minimum of 7 seats, Alberta has to have a minimum of 21 seats). I believe the quotient in the last election was around 118000, but I digress there. If every province could only elect numbers based on proportionate population, than PEI would only have 1 seat (instead of the 4 minimum guaranteed under the Constitution), and Newfoundland 4 or 5 (if they rounded up or down). Alberta = 3,300,000 million people = 28 seats = a seat for every 117857 people Ontario = 12, 687,000 million people = 106 seats = a seat for every 119688 people Quebec = 7,500,000 million people = 64 seats (see note below) = a seat for every 117187 people ** note ... under the Constitution Quebec is guaranteed 75 seats in the House of Commons, (Ontario is guaranteed 95 seats). So when populations decline it takes a Constitution amendment to change it. This was once to Alberta benefit as well ... |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2008 11:48:48 GMT -5
Surprise, surprise. The Conservatives have fallen back into campaign mode. Radio ads....with the ending message: "Let the voters decide". Can the TV ads be far behind? Glad they have tons of money for that.
As I suggested earlier, it is very possible that Harper's strategy all along was to create a "crisis", then spin the Coalition as a "deal with the devil" in the minds of Canadians. They're already spending mega-bucks on such a message.
The sole intent: I'm gonna get my majority one way or the other. Dion is still leader and still perceived to be very weak...I have to act NOW before a strong leader takes his place.
A colossal waste of time and money X 2.
If there is another election, I hope the Canadian people see through this.
IMO, the best thing Harper could have done was to put partisan politics aside and come out with a strong economic plan upon his return from the summit. That would have gone far more toward securing a majority government next time around.
Let the spin begin.
And let's be reminded that Harper was all too willing to deal with the Bloc in an effort to topple Martin.
BTW: I am also aware that the seeds of joining forces (between the NDP and Bloc, initially) were planted well in advance of Harper's/Flaherty's economic plan last week. They were just waiting for the opportunity.
More spin....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 2, 2008 12:04:47 GMT -5
The ramifications of this are staggaring. You're right about the Bloc, bang on, but let's leave them out of it for now. Was talking to a young guy at work this morning. He's from Alberta. He was online with some folks from back home last night and in his own words, "very intelligent people are now discussing Albertan independance again, only very seriously this time." I can see how Albertans and folks from the West must feel like they're being ganged up on. Alberta has the same population as both Quebec and Ontario, but have approximately 10 fewer seats that either. This is an older concern but it's coming to the surface again now that the "Eastern Canada Coalition" is ousting the one party that finally represents their interests. This is the perception now. As I was saying, you're bang on about Quebec. I completely agree that Duceppe is the one that has the power to really make a mess of things, or at least a bigger mess than the one that is going on now. And consider this. Once this bailout fails, and I believe it will, the Liberals and NDP will drop like bags of wet cement. The Tories will probably have a strong majority government and they will have to say is, "... look at what the coalition has done to you and your country." Someone said it already, the coalition is nothing but a power grab meant on saving their own political hides. Cheers. actually, our population in Alberta is about 1/3 that of Ontario and half of Quebec's. And our biggest worry is that we've been left without a voice in this new government. alberta has one NDP candidate and Sakatchewan has one Liberal. Thanks for that, Habernac. I file this information in my back pocket (after checking Wikipediea) and keep it for future reference. I think the young guy here at work is more passionate than he thinks. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 2, 2008 12:07:25 GMT -5
The AT ISSUE panel last night on CBC, seemed to agree that this coalition is one of the worst things to happen to the separtist movement ..... I didn't catch all of it (and I am not familiar with Quebec politics enough to know if the lady is a separtist or not) but the gist of it was that Gilles Duceppe now can't blame anyone but himself if Canada doesn't work and the Bloq could lose votes in Quebec because of this if they play dirty politics ... something like that (did anyone else catch it?) I didn't see the show, but I can't see that happening at all. It would be soooo easy for Duceppe to blame the others, that I can't see how he won't do it. Heck, all he has to do is demand extra from the economic stimulus to "protect Quebec's economy." And if he doesn't get extra, then he turns around and says "the Canadian government wouldn't help Quebec in this time of economic crisis - if we can't rely on them in our hour of need, even though we agreed to help them in their hour of need, then when can we rely on them??" This is the same song and dance the Bloc has been using forever now. Only this time just about every province will have the same gripe. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 2, 2008 12:21:15 GMT -5
Surprise, surprise. The Conservatives have fallen back into campaign mode. Radio ads....with the ending message: "Let the voters decide". Can the TV ads be far behind? Glad they have tons of money for that. As I suggested earlier, it is very possible that Harper's strategy all along was to create a "crisis", then spin the Coalition as a "deal with the devil" in the minds of Canadians. They're already spending mega-bucks on such a message. The sole intent: I'm gonna get my majority one way or the other. Dion is still leader and still perceived to be very weak...I have to act NOW before a strong leader takes his place. A colossal waste of time and money X 2. If there is another election, I hope the Canadian people see through this. IMO, the best thing Harper could have done was to put partisan politics aside and come out with a strong economic plan upon his return from the summit. That would have gone far more toward securing a majority government next time around. Let the spin begin. And let's be reminded that Harper was all too willing to deal with the Bloc in an effort to topple Martin. BTW: I am also aware that the seeds of joining forces (between the NDP and Bloc, initially) were planted well in advance of Harper's/Flaherty's economic plan last week. They were just waiting for the opportunity. More spin.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I kind of buy into Skilly's suggestion that Harper finally pissed off the opposition too much, CH. Repeating myself, Harper felt he could smugly dictate things as if he had a majority. Well, he didn't have that majority. In fact, he had to work in a collaborative process with the other parties, so in effect, we were running the country with a coalition government of sorts anyway. But, he couldn't do it. Right now I think Harper is doing what he has to. He's been put on the defensive and now he's launching his attack out of fear of appearing weak. I'm not saying this is right, far from it. This is more about getting rid of the-bully-calledHarper and saving the oppositions' political hides, more than it is about saving an economic disaster. Trying to find an honest politician is a useless process, but none of these guys are worthy of my vote, buds. None. I said at the beginning of the last election that each of the four parties are leaderless. Well, I stand to be corrected. Only the Bloc has a leader who knows exactly what his agenda is. And I hope Canada sees through that as well. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 2, 2008 12:42:10 GMT -5
But, herein lies the problem. I voted for Layton and his policies, but those policies did not include those policies of the Liberals and Bloc. Hence, I feel I've been sold out. Cheers. Except in a majority government, you couldn't have expected to achieve the extremes of those goals, could you? Layton is still using your vote to push his agenda, except it's on a common ground with the Liberals. In fact, he's realistically getting more done for the platform you voted for than if he'd just voted down a confidence vote. I'm still not understanding the problem. You don't want the Liberals or Bloc in power, but that wasn't what your vote represented. That's what the accumulation of votes across Canada represents. Your vote indicated to your representative (and by transferrence, Layton) that he should use the power you've given him as your representative to achieve as much of the party platform as they can while government is formed. Isn't that what's going on? That's the way its supposed to work RedScull. You are supposed to cast your vote for the person you believe to be best able to represent your riding in the House of Commons. But the difference between theory and reality is a wide, wide margin. In reality, people vote for the party and the part platform. How many NDP supporters would be happy to know that their votes are now going to support the Liberal party platform (which they had many complaints about during the election)? How many Liberal supporters are happy to know their votes are now going to support the NDP platform? How many from both are going to be happy once they find out exactly what both had to sacrifice to the BQ to get their support? It is an outright disenfranchisement of the populace. A coalition of two unrelated (and often opposing) parties who will likely alienate a large number of their supporters, without a plurality in the Commons, who are also getting in bed with a party many (rightly or wrongly) believe to be little better than the devil himself in a vain grab at power. When the Conservatives suggested it years ago they suggested they do it by themselves, working on a bill by bill basis, not on the basis of a formal contract that unites parties that more often than not are diametrically opposed to one another. The more I think about it the more I despise this henious, near-treasonous act. I would prefer an election to this farce. I can only hope Mme. Jean agrees with me. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 2, 2008 12:45:01 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.....  Well, after that image I think I'm about ready to tear up yours. There's no hugging on the right. Just billy clubs we use to beat the hippies! (I was going to say no bears on the right, but then who do we feed the hippies to after we club 'em?) |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 2, 2008 12:59:19 GMT -5
Except in a majority government, you couldn't have expected to achieve the extremes of those goals, could you? Layton is still using your vote to push his agenda, except it's on a common ground with the Liberals. In fact, he's realistically getting more done for the platform you voted for than if he'd just voted down a confidence vote. I'm still not understanding the problem. You don't want the Liberals or Bloc in power, but that wasn't what your vote represented. That's what the accumulation of votes across Canada represents. Your vote indicated to your representative (and by transferrence, Layton) that he should use the power you've given him as your representative to achieve as much of the party platform as they can while government is formed. Isn't that what's going on? That's the way its supposed to work RedScull. You are supposed to cast your vote for the person you believe to be best able to represent your riding in the House of Commons. But the difference between theory and reality is a wide, wide margin. In reality, people vote for the party and the part platform. How many NDP supporters would be happy to know that their votes are now going to support the Liberal party platform (which they had many complaints about during the election)? How many Liberal supporters are happy to know their votes are now going to support the NDP platform? How many from both are going to be happy once they find out exactly what both had to sacrifice to the BQ to get their support? It is an outright disenfranchisement of the populace. A coalition of two unrelated (and often opposing) parties who will likely alienate a large number of their supporters, without a plurality in the Commons, who are also getting in bed with a party many (rightly or wrongly) believe to be little better than the devil himself in a vain grab at power. When the Conservatives suggested it years ago they suggested they do it by themselves, working on a bill by bill basis, not on the basis of a formal contract that unites parties that more often than not are diametrically opposed to one another. What you're saying is way over-simplified. The NDP supporters' votes aren't going to a Liberal platform. They're going to a moderate platform. A subset of the NDP's platform that's common to the Liberal platform, which platforms aren't diametrically opposed at all. And people pretend as though the Conservatives wouldn't have pandered to the Bloq to get their legislation through the House, which undoubtably would have happened. And despite an accord that says otherwise, it's still a bill-by-bill basis. That letter isn't worth the paper it's written on, it would take one disagreement from any of the three parties on a bill and we're back at the polls. Treasonous? Gimme a break. On what grounds it is anything near treason? I don't like the coalition particularly because I don't think their economic package is credible, but this is how our system is supposed to work when the governing party loses the confidence of the House of Commons. I have to think this is some kind of record though. 6 weeks? Well done, Mr. Harper. And if people don't understand the reality that their vote doesn't elect a PM, but instead entitles their MP to govern in the manner he sees as the best to accomplish the goals set out, then they need to get informed and vote accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 2, 2008 13:32:09 GMT -5
What you're saying is way over-simplified. The NDP supporters' votes aren't going to a Liberal platform. They're going to a moderate platform. A subset of the NDP's platform that's common to the Liberal platform, which platforms aren't diametrically opposed at all. Ideally, yes. But once again the ideal and real life are two very different birds. In truth, you'll get a few bills that both parties support. Then you're going to get some bills that pass through that the Liberals (except the very left leaning ones) don't like, some bills that pass through that the NDP (except the very right leaning ones) don't like, and some that pass through that both don't like, but have to to keep the Bloq on side. And people pretend as though the Conservatives wouldn't have pandered to the Bloq to get their legislation through the House, which undoubtably would have happened. Sure, but the cost is much cheaper when you can say "well Gilles, either you support me or I go and find a way to get the support of the NDP, or the Liberals". Because of seat numbers (and the way our Parliament is run) the Liberal-NDP "colaition" will have to have the support of the BQ (or the complicity at least) to get by. And despite an accord that says otherwise, it's still a bill-by-bill basis. That letter isn't worth the paper it's written on, it would take one disagreement from any of the three parties on a bill and we're back at the polls. Perhaps. Or perhaps the three parties are so desperate for power that they will put aside their disagreements for the betterment of their own parties (you pass this unpopular motion, we'll pass this and then we throw this to the BQ so they don't kill us). Treasonous? Gimme a break. On what grounds it is anything near treason? I direct you to Section 46 of the Canadian Criminal Code. Article 2(a) states: While what the government is doing is technically legal under the constitution, they are indeed overthrowing the duly elected government of Canada. I'm really stretching the definition here, of course, but it's not so far that I can't use it in my often polemic diatribes. (I also happen to think that mass disenfranchisement of the populace, which is indeed what is going on, is damn near close to treason on an ethical level, although there is nothing in the criminal code about disenfranchisement, so what do I know) I don't like the coalition particularly because I don't think their economic package is credible, but this is how our system is supposed to work when the governing party loses the confidence of the House of Commons. I have to think this is some kind of record though. 6 weeks? Well done, Mr. Harper. That would be true. If the loss of confidence was true (in fact, the government likely never had the confidence of the Commons, as the knives have been out but well hidden for awhile as evidenced by the phone conversation Mr. Layton had unknowingly with a tape recorder). However I think it is evident that Mr. Layton, M. Duceppe and M. Dion had no intention of attempting to govern by the will of the people, instead planning well in advance to overturn a government they had problems with (because they weren't in power). Had they announced their intentions to form a coalition when it first entered its planning stages (during the election) it would be far more palatable to me. But they have essentially decieved the Canadian populace by representing themselves as three distinct parties when in fact they were not. And if people can't deal with the reality that their vote doesn't elect a PM, but instead entitles their MP to govern in the manner he sees as the best to accomplish the goals set out, then they need to get informed and vote accordingly. Well see, you're not quite right there. Because the rules of the commons mean, regardless of who you vote for, you elect their party and their party alone. In our current system members are (regrettably) not permitted to vote for what is best for their riding. They have to vote with the party. And if they don't toe the party line they get kicked out real quick. And why that needs to change is a whole 'nother rant. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 2, 2008 14:11:36 GMT -5
Didn't even wait for the ink on the agreement to dry... PQ says Quebec can be 'winner' under new coalitionUpdated Tue. Dec. 2 2008 7:54 AM ET
The Canadian Press
MONTREAL -- Parti Quebecois Leader Pauline Marois is applauding the possibility Quebec could emerge as a winner and "get things" from Ottawa under a new coalition federal government.
Marois suggested on Monday the participation of her party's federal cousin - the sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois - in governing Canada might result in gains for Quebec.
She offered little indication of what benefits she envisioned but she has lambasted Liberal Premier Jean Charest in recent days for allegedly remaining silent while Ottawa revised its equalization formula in a way that would slash transfer payments to Quebec by $1 billion.
She appeared to be referring to that equalization change as she replied to a question about the coalition deal during a provincial election campaign stop Monday. But Marois stopped in mid-sentence, perhaps aware of the political sensitivity surrounding the issue.
"If the Bloc Quebecois can get things for Quebec while Jean Charest is on his knees. . ." Marois said, her voice trailing off.
"It's Quebec that will come out the winner," she continued. The rest |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2008 14:45:44 GMT -5
Ideally, yes. But once again the ideal and real life are two very different birds. In truth, you'll get a few bills that both parties support. Then you're going to get some bills that pass through that the Liberals (except the very left leaning ones) don't like, some bills that pass through that the NDP (except the very right leaning ones) don't like, and some that pass through that both don't like, but have to to keep the Bloq on side. I'm not sure how .... the ruling government decides what bills (monetary) come before the House. Sure there are opposition days, but they can be quashed as Harper has too often done. And when the session begins the government has to lay out what pieces of legislation is plans on discussing.... so the coalition can avoid any bills that the other two parties disagree on and focus on ones they all agree on (which there are many to fill a session of the House). Its only an 18 month pact with the Bloc and 2 years with the NDP .... But this is true for Harper as well ... he didn't have a majority. The Liberals and NDP virtually always vote against the Conservatives. When Dion wasn't propping up Harper's Boys to avoid an election he wasn't ready for, it was Duceppe propping him up ... There is no force here .... political gamesmanship (which all parties play) is not force .... if that was the case then everytime the opposition "forced" an election we could charge them with treason. I still dont see how the populace was disenfrachised .... your vote was for a party and its platform. Each party has a leader to fullfil the party's platform to the best of their abilities .... if they honestly feel that Harper's plan for Canada is not the best one, they have a DUTY as agents of the crown to stop him.... that's in the Criminal Code as well. I disagree with this ... parties continually talk to each other and make deals. Every had covert talks with the Bloc, little side deals made, since it became a party. That's politics. I see no evidence that a coalition was in the works prior to an election call. In fact, Dion and Layton were asked about a coalition and they both said there was no reason to consider it at that time.... I know, I know, not like a politician to tell the truth ... but if Harper didn't try this slap in the face tactic, the coalition (no matter how many talks went on prior to the election, during, or after the election) would not happen at this time. Harper was specifically asked to come up with an economic update, he appears to be lying about the surplus for this year, and most definitely lied about the huge deficit next year ... and his plan was to prevent strikes, not give women equal pay, and FORCE the opposition to slit their own wrists by reducing public subsidies ... it was all bad enough until he and Flaherty in unison decree the motion a confidence vote .... ... then hours later when they hear of this coalition they backpedal on all three motions??? So why make them a confidence vote (not just threathen it mind you) if as John Baird said on national TV "these measures arent worth going to an election over" .... isnt that PRECISELY what a confidence vote is?? ... the country does not need someone in power who only does what is right when it looks like he is going to lose power. I would consider it a disenfranchisement of my vote, if he gets his wish for another election. He doesn't deserve to rule this GREAT country with such frivolity (sp?).... we need co-operation in these tough economic times, and thats the definition of a coalition - a group co-operating to meet a common goal. And if that common goal is to oust one of the worst PMs ever ... so be it. He has the entire country at odds with each other.... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 2, 2008 15:28:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure how .... the ruling government decides what bills (monetary) come before the House. Sure there are opposition days, but they can be quashed as Harper has too often done. And when the session begins the government has to lay out what pieces of legislation is plans on discussing.... so the coalition can avoid any bills that the other two parties disagree on and focus on ones they all agree on (which there are many to fill a session of the House). Its only an 18 month pact with the Bloc and 2 years with the NDP.... I'm not sure I follow you. That may be because I'm a raving crackpot, or it may be because I'm a raving crackpot and consequently you did follow the wild tangent I was on. Are you suggesting that the Liberal-NDP-Bloq alliance will only push through policy that they both agree on? Do you really think that - in particular - Layton & Duceppe are that dumb that they won't ask for the other two to swallow a few bitter pills (I left Dion out because he already 'gets' something out of the bargain - the right to play PM)? I can almost promise you that Layton and Duceppe have hinged their agreement to this triple entente on the passage of some key, unpopular pieces of legislation through the house. Layton is probably getting massive funding for some pie-in-the-sky NDP projects (the kind that left Ontario and BC in economic ruins). Duceppe - all I can say is that I shudder every time I think of what he's getting out of the deal. But this is true for Harper as well ... he didn't have a majority. The Liberals and NDP virtually always vote against the Conservatives. When Dion wasn't propping up Harper's Boys to avoid an election he wasn't ready for, it was Duceppe propping him up... And yet he still managed to get business done without consistent help from either of the three opposition parties. Sounds to me like he did a good job, unlike what were apt to see come from this alliance. There is no force here .... political gamesmanship (which all parties play) is not force .... if that was the case then everytime the opposition "forced" an election we could charge them with treason. S'why I said near-treason. Also why I brought up the whole disenfranchisement thing. I still dont see how the populace was disenfrachised .... your vote was for a party and its platform. Each party has a leader to fullfil the party's platform to the best of their abilities .... if they honestly feel that Harper's plan for Canada is not the best one, they have a DUTY as agents of the crown to stop him.... that's in the Criminal Code as well. They also have a duty to work with him. As I mentioned (and will comment on more below) I don't think anyone came into Parliament looking to work together (yes, Harper as well). But Harper has, in the face of a house resolved to stand against him, made an attempt at reconciliation. Dion, Layton and Duceppe want no such thing, as they've been planning this for awhile. Anyways - disenfranchisement, right? Well see, I believe I am disenfranchised when my vote doesn't mean anything. Right now, thanks to back room politics my vote (which I virtually threw away anyways because I could not bring myself to vote for any of the Big Four)and the vote of many Canadians is rendered meaningless. Because the Liberal-NDP-BQ alliance has seen fit to override the will of Canadians and place themselves in a position of power. As I said - how many NDP are going to be happy with passing Liberal and Bloq policies. How many Liberals are going to be happy passing NDP and Bloq policies? How do you feel now that the BQ - the anti-Canada party - now holds a share of the reins of power? I disagree with this ... parties continually talk to each other and make deals. Every had covert talks with the Bloc, little side deals made, since it became a party. That's politics. I see no evidence that a coalition was in the works prior to an election call. In fact, Dion and Layton were asked about a coalition and they both said there was no reason to consider it at that time.... I know, I know, not like a politician to tell the truth ... but if Harper didn't try this slap in the face tactic, the coalition (no matter how many talks went on prior to the election, during, or after the election) would not happen at this time. Harper was specifically asked to come up with an economic update, he appears to be lying about the surplus for this year, and most definitely lied about the huge deficit next year ... and his plan was to prevent strikes, not give women equal pay, and FORCE the opposition to slit their own wrists by reducing public subsidies ... it was all bad enough until he and Flaherty in unison decree the motion a confidence vote .... ... then hours later when they hear of this coalition they backpedal on all three motions??? So why make them a confidence vote (not just threathen it mind you) if as John Baird said on national TV "these measures arent worth going to an election over" .... isnt that PRECISELY what a confidence vote is?? ... the country does not need someone in power who only does what is right when it looks like he is going to lose power. I would consider it a disenfranchisement of my vote, if he gets his wish for another election. He doesn't deserve to rule this GREAT country with such frivolity (sp?).... we need co-operation in these tough economic times, and thats the definition of a coalition - a group co-operating to meet a common goal. And if that common goal is to oust one of the worst PMs ever ... so be it. He has the entire country at odds with each other.... See, I disagree. I think Layton and the Liberals knew they would get in bed together to get Harper out of power, and Gilles knew Layton and Dion would sacrifice the Lamb of God to get him to hand it to them on a silver platter. Now they all get what they want, but what about what Canadians want. ? If Dion and Layton are so sure that Canada wants them in power, why in the name of God did they lose the bloody election (even together they don't have enough seats to perturb the Conservatives)? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2008 15:36:27 GMT -5
I wish the majority of Canadians could discuss the issues as intelligently as on this board.
Was it worth the shot? Harper knew what he was doing IMO. Get the majority while Dion is still at the helm. Don't let the country fall in love with Ignatieff, or (gulp) Justin Trudeau.
I still say, being forthright and working with the opposition on an economic plan would have done wonders for Harper and would likely have resulted in the majority he covets. Imagine being able to say, "We spearheaded the plan and steered the country through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."
That would be make for much more powerful radio and TV commercial copy, as it would be the truth.
Instead, the focus will be on "You didn't want Dion as PM...now he's going to take it. And he got into bed with the devil to do it."
If he pounds away with that message enough, and the GG decides to dissolve and call an election....it just may work for Harper. Enough of the populace will see the Libs/NDP/Bloc as sore losers/opportunists just waiting for the first chance for non-confidence. The public will want stability. Prime Minister Dion? No way. Prime Minister Layton? Nope.
Harper will get his majority in that scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 2, 2008 15:38:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure how .... the ruling government decides what bills (monetary) come before the House. Sure there are opposition days, but they can be quashed as Harper has too often done. And when the session begins the government has to lay out what pieces of legislation is plans on discussing.... so the coalition can avoid any bills that the other two parties disagree on and focus on ones they all agree on (which there are many to fill a session of the House). Its only an 18 month pact with the Bloc and 2 years with the NDP.... I'm not sure I follow you. That may be because I'm a raving crackpot, or it may be because I'm a raving crackpot and consequently you did follow the wild tangent I was on. Are you suggesting that the Liberal-NDP-Bloq alliance will only push through policy that they both agree on? Do you really think that - in particular - Layton & Duceppe are that dumb that they won't ask for the other two to swallow a few bitter pills (I left Dion out because he already 'gets' something out of the bargain - the right to play PM)? I can almost promise you that Layton and Duceppe have hinged their agreement to this triple entente on the passage of some key, unpopular pieces of legislation through the house. Layton is probably getting massive funding for some pie-in-the-sky NDP projects (the kind that left Ontario and BC in economic ruins). Duceppe - all I can say is that I shudder every time I think of what he's getting out of the deal. And yet he still managed to get business done without consistent help from either of the three opposition parties. Sounds to me like he did a good job, unlike what were apt to see come from this alliance. S'why I said near-treason. Also why I brought up the whole disenfranchisement thing. They also have a duty to work with him. As I mentioned (and will comment on more below) I don't think anyone came into Parliament looking to work together (yes, Harper as well). But Harper has, in the face of a house resolved to stand against him, made an attempt at reconciliation. Dion, Layton and Duceppe want no such thing, as they've been planning this for awhile. Anyways - disenfranchisement, right? Well see, I believe I am disenfranchised when my vote doesn't mean anything. Right now, thanks to back room politics my vote (which I virtually threw away anyways because I could not bring myself to vote for any of the Big Four)and the vote of many Canadians is rendered meaningless. Because the Liberal-NDP-BQ alliance has seen fit to override the will of Canadians and place themselves in a position of power. As I said - how many NDP are going to be happy with passing Liberal and Bloq policies. How many Liberals are going to be happy passing NDP and Bloq policies? How do you feel now that the BQ - the anti-Canada party - now holds a share of the reins of power? I disagree with this ... parties continually talk to each other and make deals. Every had covert talks with the Bloc, little side deals made, since it became a party. That's politics. I see no evidence that a coalition was in the works prior to an election call. In fact, Dion and Layton were asked about a coalition and they both said there was no reason to consider it at that time.... I know, I know, not like a politician to tell the truth ... but if Harper didn't try this slap in the face tactic, the coalition (no matter how many talks went on prior to the election, during, or after the election) would not happen at this time. Harper was specifically asked to come up with an economic update, he appears to be lying about the surplus for this year, and most definitely lied about the huge deficit next year ... and his plan was to prevent strikes, not give women equal pay, and FORCE the opposition to slit their own wrists by reducing public subsidies ... it was all bad enough until he and Flaherty in unison decree the motion a confidence vote .... ... then hours later when they hear of this coalition they backpedal on all three motions??? So why make them a confidence vote (not just threathen it mind you) if as John Baird said on national TV "these measures arent worth going to an election over" .... isnt that PRECISELY what a confidence vote is?? ... the country does not need someone in power who only does what is right when it looks like he is going to lose power. I would consider it a disenfranchisement of my vote, if he gets his wish for another election. He doesn't deserve to rule this GREAT country with such frivolity (sp?).... we need co-operation in these tough economic times, and thats the definition of a coalition - a group co-operating to meet a common goal. And if that common goal is to oust one of the worst PMs ever ... so be it. He has the entire country at odds with each other.... See, I disagree. I think Layton and the Liberals knew they would get in bed together to get Harper out of power, and Gilles knew Layton and Dion would sacrifice the Lamb of God to get him to hand it to them on a silver platter. Now they all get what they want, but what about what Canadians want. ? If Dion and Layton are so sure that Canada wants them in power, why in the name of God did they lose the bloody election (even together they don't have enough seats to perturb the Conservatives)? Your vote doesn't mean anything because your representative didn't get elected to a seat from which to govern. For what it's worth, neither did the representative I voted for. But on the other hand, the Liberals and NDP combined received well over 6 million votes, compared to the 5.2 million that the Conservatives collected. So if you're counting seats, your vote is meaningless and as such there's nothing to be disenfranchised about. If you're counting votes, then by all means be disenfranchised but at the same time you have to recognize that the two parties forming a coalition government indeed carry significant support from the electorate. Whether that support will wein from the legislation remains to be seen, and I'm certain it will be the topic of much polling data. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 2, 2008 15:53:52 GMT -5
As much as it pains me to say it, I think we need another election.
Let's put all the cards on the table, and have Canadians vote knowing what, exactly they are voting for. Regardless of how you feel about the coalition, the truth is nobody voted for it. You may have voted for a party, but you didn't vote for three of them (even if you now believe a coalition is the way to go). So lets follow the "spirit" of democracy, as opposed to the constitutional legality of it, and let the people decide;
Do you want a Conservative majority? Or a coalition government comprised of the Bloc, NDP and Liberals?
Simple question, and everyone will know what they are voting for. We'll also know what the backroom deals are; what does Duceppe get, what does Layton get, what does Dion get, and are we okay with all that? If part of this coalition agreement calls for Quebec to receive an extra $2 billion in transfer payments, are we okay with it? If the agreement calls for a 3% increase in the GST to pay for environmental programs, are we okay with it? Are we okay with Stephane Dion as Prime Minister? Would we be okay with a $5 billion deficit? $10 billion?
Right now we have no idea what this coalition government is going to do. They have no platform, or none that was ever presented to the people anyways. That's not democracy.
Put it to a vote. Yes, its a hassle and another $300 million spent, but that's what a democracy is - the people decide. Legally, constitutionally perhaps its allowed, but this is not the kind of democracy I want to live in.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 2, 2008 15:57:03 GMT -5
Your vote doesn't mean anything because your representative didn't get elected to a seat from which to govern. For what it's worth, neither did the representative I voted for. But on the other hand, the Liberals and NDP combined received well over 6 million votes, compared to the 5.2 million that the Conservatives collected. So if you're counting seats, your vote is meaningless and as such there's nothing to be disenfranchised about. If you're counting votes, then by all means be disenfranchised but at the same time you have to recognize that the two parties forming a coalition government indeed carry significant support from the electorate. Whether that support will wein from the legislation remains to be seen, and I'm certain it will be the topic of much polling data. The idea is that my vote had meaning. It had the chance to put the representative and the party I decided was the best (or rather, decided was the least worst) in power. My vote didn't amount to a row of beans. But that's besides the point. I have been disenfranchised because, even had I voted for the Liberals (who took my riding quite handily as they have done since, as close as I can tell, the dawn of time) my vote would not have counted. It would not have put the Liberals in power (again, I know that I should be voting for the representative, not the party, but that's not the way the system works in Canada) but instead it would have put a bastardized Liberal-NDP-Bloq coalition in power. If I voted to support the Liberal platform it does not follow that I voted to support parts of the NDP and it certainly does not follow that if I voted Liberal I support Bloq platform as well. In short, my vote is meaningless, because the parties have decided amongst themselves what the country wants. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2008 16:05:46 GMT -5
In short, my vote is meaningless, because the parties have decided amongst themselves what the country wants. But isn't that the case with any minority gov't when it faces a non-confidence vote? That's the Parliamentary procedure. Perhaps it's time for re-vamp of sorts. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 2, 2008 16:19:58 GMT -5
In short, my vote is meaningless, because the parties have decided amongst themselves what the country wants. But isn't that the case with any minority gov't when it faces a non-confidence vote? That's the Parliamentary procedure. Perhaps it's time for re-vamp of sorts. The difference being that when a minority government faces a non-confidence vote it will either fail the confidence vote, handing power back to the people in an election, or it will pass the confidence vote a move on it's merry way. That said, you wouldn't find objection from me if you wanted to start reforming Parliament. I have a list a mile long. |
|
