Scotty

Big oil and gas are not the most irresponsible industries in the world.... probably. They'll do for a start, though. I trust neither. I haven't followed Alberta provincial politics much, but it strikes me the new Wildrose bunch are more populist oriented, and there seems to be a lot of rural types in Alberta who despise the notion of unions, especially government unions. Doesn't really matter, though, since the SC will strike down anti union type laws.

Mediator? I don't think he'd need to mediate much between Layton and Duceppe. Those two are pretty much on the same page. It would be, on most issues, a weak, conciliatory Ignatieff against two ideologues determined to get their way. And I don't see that ending well for the taxpayers.

It's actually the opposite, if you want the truth. I am far too tempted to respond with snotty, insulting retorts of my own. But I know two things. One, I'd likely get a vacation similar to the one you just returned from. Two, if everyone did that the place would descend into the blithering idiocy of the old usenet newsgroups where I used to argue politics, like can.politics.

There is no party in Canada which has a platform which I can fully support In fact, I doubt I like even half of anyone's platform. I'm leery of a Conservative majority, yes. I don't think I would like some of the things they'd do. On the other hand, they seem to provide reasonably adequate government as a minority. And I deeply dislike the present senior caucus of the Liberal Party. As to labour, the right to unions is enshrined in the constitution, so even if the Tories did want to reign in unions, there's no way they could go the route of the US RTW states. And frankly, I doubt there's much enthusiasm for that anyway. There might be some 'NCC' types in the party, as you say, but there's also an awful lot of more centrist people with little enthusiasm for that sort of thing.

Whatever, Jack. I'm pretty sure I've made myself clear in my public posts that I will report infractions of the rules.

Different posters evidently have different desires of how this site will function. That's perfectly normal, of course. My own desire is for discussion on a somewhat adult basis without snide, petty, stupid, childish insults thrown back and forth. To that end, I do report violations of the site rules. And will continue to do so. "Adult" to me doesn't involve calling people names.

I have to admit that Harper has become a lot more of a pragmatist than I'm comfortable with. I am not, in case you're wondering, comfortable with a Conservative-BQ coalition either. But I still think Harper would fare better than Dion. Harper is more of a brinksman, and his rank and file are fare less forgiving of special accommodations for Quebec.

I think I was the one who told you. Hey, at least I don't hide it.

Except I didn't say doing business with them was bad. You did, actually. I said that people were offended by the idea of a troika which consisted of a strong separatist, a strong socialist, and a weak, inept Liberal - or words to that effect. As you (I believe) pointed out, you can't ignore them since the Quebec people continue to send them to Ottawa, so you have to deal with them on some level. But I deal with my dog on some level, too. That doesn't mean the dog sleeps in my bed while I sleep on the floor, however. There's dealing and then there's dealing.

Well then call me lame. But I don't want the place degenerating into insults, and inflammatory language doesn't help. YOU might well just be using it as shorthand but clearly, others are not. And with an election in the offing I think you can expect a closer policing of this site by the moderators...

Do you really think Dion and the BQ would have the same dynamics as Harper and the BQ?

I'm not being thin-skinned. I'm pointing out what the rules say. I realize it can be used as short-hand without intending insult, but it has also been used in a very obviously pejorative manner and so it is against the rules. Simple as that. Calling Ignatieff 'iggy' is similarly against the rules. So is misspelling Liberals as 'lieberals'. The use of 'separatist' or 'socialist' on the other hand, is perfectly valid. As is Tories, if your fingers are lazy.

I disagree. You have to remember that the US system was set up by paranoids desperately afraid of a dictatorship. It was deliberately designed with opposing centers of power. That has led to a godawful mess in terms of getting legislation through, and a massive pork barrel type government where every vote has to include deals with this or that group or senator or congressman. When you add in the fact that most of those politicians are in the pockets of various lobby and corporate groups you have an idea of why that country is heading so rapidly downhill.

It was different. It was also different in that I think most people would have trusted Harper in 2004 to stand up to the BQ a lot more than they trusted Dion in 2008, or than they'd trust Ignatieff today. And as I said, you'll hear a lot about it now as strategic rhetoric, to force Ignatieff to deny that he will go into any such coalition. That will make the Tories safer after another minority win.

Okay, I'm not a 'facilitator' of any kind, but I'm getting tired of the use of that word. Things are bound to become more heated here as the election begins, and I think I should remind everyone that the use of 'cons' to describe the Conservative Party is against the rules.

There is a difference between doing business with them on a case by case basis, and putting them in the cabinet and giving them veto power over legislation.

I don't know how to break it to you, but they call themselves separatists. In fact, separatism is their only reason for existence. On the other hand, the so-called Tea Partiers, are on the far right side of the Republican Party, whereas the Conservatives under Harper are to the Left of the Democrats.

I don't think anyone here really cares about what you think of that term. It's an official term used by all organizations in Canada and will continue to be used on this site. Given your political preferences in the US it seems odd you'd care about anyone not White and Christian anyway. Certainly your preferred political party doesn't.

I think you miscounted. From that list, the highest Whites could be, depending on how many in the "Canadian" category are whites, is 40%

For one thing, there wouldn't have been socialists or separatists in the cabinet. What would the separatists have been demanding back then? More money for Quebec, recognition of its unique status? They've already got that. So what will they want now? In addition, let's not forget one of the problems people had with the Lib-NDP-BQ coalition was that the putative leader, the Liberal Party leader, was considered to be weak and ineffective. To many people that meant a coalition between the socialists and the separatists, with a wimpy, hand-wringing Liberal PM being smacked around by both of them. I put it to you that people would see the same situation now. Whatever his faults, no one ever accused Harper of being weak.

Except they weren't. And either you don't know anything about the tea party or you don't know anything about the Conservatives. Or perhaps, you don't know anything about either group.

Funny. That's kinda my attitude towards the Liberals. As long as the same group of liars, weasels and crooks are holding down senior portfolios, and likely to get back into cabinet again, I have no intention of voting for them.

Good luck with that! Remember that Ignatieff's problem with Harper's 'incentive spending' was that it wasn't enough. The Liberals even tried to get them to put in a second big incentive spending boost. And everything I've seen of Ignatieff's economic promises seem to indicate a guy more than willing to spend whatever it took to buy popularity be it more money for a humongous child care, program, more money for masses of 'affordable' urban housing, or more money for hockey rinks in Quebec city.

It's hard to find anything given the amount of coalition stuff which concerns the three amigos, and today. But I did find this, by an individual, not an organization, appears to be a tory blogger. The letter you reference was written on Sept. 9, 2004, two months after the June 28 election, in which the Liberals’ majority was reduced to 135 seats, a loss of 37 seats. The letter simply pointed out to the GG an alternative to another election: an alliance or agreement among the opposition to govern, should Paul Martin ask for dissolution. The opposition agreed to work together on a case-by-case basis on different pieces of legislation. It was essentially a move to avoid another election. However: • There was NO mention of forming a coalition. • The 3 opposition leaders did NOT dictate to the GG what her options were. • The Bloc did NOT formally agree in a signed document to vote with the other two parties for a specified length of time. • The Bloc did NOT effectively receive a veto power by virtue of that general unspecific 2004 agreement, whereas in 2008 it did. • And most importantly, there were NO Cabinet seats assigned to the NDP as a result of that 2004 letter, nor the possibility of the Green Party leader being given a senate seat, as it was in 2008. The true definition of a coalition: (usually) two parties which, when combined, hold the majority of seats AND share the cabinet table. That was definitely not the plan in 2004, whereas it was in 2008. Without Bloc votes, the Liberals and NDP combined did not constitute a majority in 2008. Nor did the Conservatives together with the NDP in 2004 have a majority to govern without Bloc support. The difference, though, is that in 2004, it was a case-by-case agreement, not a specific legislative agenda, as in 2008.

I think the times were somewhat different then. There was a sense that the Alliance was very strongly in favour of provincial rights, and so would be be able to find some natural accommodation with the BQ desire for more provincial power for Quebec without selling their souls. Also the Tories were a known quantity in government. But the Liberals hate the BQ and always have. Likewise, the notion of "socialists' in power today is hard for a lot of people, even Liberals, to stomach. Add in separatists with the socialists, and a bad taste develops in most people's mouths. Quebec's desire for recognition etc. has already been satisfied and most people think the demands the BQ make now are simply out and out greed.