Smallc Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 The deal is done and now the tug of war for the PM's position is on.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/30/...-coalition.html This is an urgent matter and has to be determined before the GG is approached. Strange, not a peep from the three Liberal leadership candidates....yet. Mind you, it would be nice if the coalition government had a plan to save???? the economy, given that we're supposedly on the edge of the abyss. It would also be nice if Canadians were privy to that plan. I suppose we'll find out after the GG has had a gander at it. According to Boag, the candidates agree that if one of them is to be PM, it will be Ignatieff. The Liberal caucus will choose who will be PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim MacSquinty Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 OK. I will walk you through this. Who will be the PM? How many votes did their party get? Historically is that their party best or worse showing? Is the PM in Canada not the head of the Government? The PM is still the leader of the country unless you think that when the PM gets an invite to the White House he brings along Duceppe and Layton. When people vote in this country they do not vote for 3 parties to govern and then spin the wheel for who is the PM.... You don't quite have that right, we do not vote for a PM, we vote for our local representative, the PM is the leader of the party with the most representatives, unlike the US for example where the house representatives are elected separately and the President could technically from a different party. If the US had many parties, it could get far messier than Canadian politics. If a coalition is formed in Canadian parliment they effectively become one party, choosing their own leader, doesn't make it any prettier though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reasonoverpassion Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 The problem is it is a contrived crisis, premeditated to seize power, not at all cricket.Before the GG allows this she should force this coalition to show their hand, precisely what are they going to do, what is the deal and who gets what. The most irresponsible politics I have ever witnessed. Canada looks little better than a Banana Republic, watch for the dollar to fall off the scale and the stock market to fall even further if this actually happens. I doubt the dollar or the sky will fall. Nobody in the world equates the collaspe of a minority government with a "Banana Republic" The Liberals have a proven track record of prudent fiscal management and the world knows it. Throwing money around as stimulus will do only one thing with absolute certainty, send us into deficit and at some point cause taxes to rise, thereby potentially making us less competitive in the world market slowing down economic progress on the far side of this thing. Guess you never heard of Keynes eh? Governments need to stimulate the economy in times of recession. This is the time when governments need to spend money. Letting the crisis "run its course" and doing nothing only prolongs the crisis. Let the goverments tackle the deficit in good ecomonic time like Paul Martin did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easterner Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 What?? the lowest vote in Canadian history??For the record here are the facts on the popular vote for the last election: Conservative 37.65% Liberal 26.26% Bloc Québécois 9.98% New Democrats 18.18% Green 6.78% So the coalition would actually represent 44.44% of the votes cast. If the Liberals and New Democrats adopt the same platform I would agree but they are so far apart hence separate party. This is just plain the seizing of power. The GG should reject and send it back to an election and let the democratic process work. I am sure the liberal Party would not exist afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 The GG should reject and send it back to an election and let the democratic process work. No matter what she decides, the democratic process will have worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim MacSquinty Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 I doubt the dollar or the sky will fall. Nobody in the world equates the collaspe of a minority government with a "Banana Republic" The Liberals have a proven track record of prudent fiscal management and the world knows it. Governments that last only six to eight weeks are not viewed as a sign of stability and money runs from risk, the rest I suppose you can figure out yourself. Guess you never heard of Keynes eh? Governments need to stimulate the economy in times of recession. This is the time when governments need to spend money. Letting the crisis "run its course" and doing nothing only prolongs the crisis. Let the goverments tackle the deficit in good ecomonic time like Paul Martin did Indeed I've read Keynes, don't forget economics, like physics, is largely theoretical many other economist such as Smith and Schumpeter have theories of their own. Even John Kenneth Gailbraith was backing away from Keynes in his declining years. Read the article from William Watson in the post, it's not so simple as throw money at it and it'll go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 OK. I will walk you through this. Who will be the PM? How many votes did their party get? Historically is that their party best or worse showing? Is the PM in Canada not the head of the Government? The PM is still the leader of the country unless you think that when the PM gets an invite to the White House he brings along Duceppe and Layton.When people vote in this country they do not vote for 3 parties to govern and then spin the wheel for who is the PM.... I'd rather not be led by someone who doesn't know where they're going, thanks. Rather, it's you who should be walked through a quick refresher of the present situation and a lesson in Canadian civics: the House of Commons is made up of Members of Parliament who were each recently elected to represent a riding. The person who has the support of the most Members of Parliament is generally asked by the Governor General to form a government. If any person other than Stephen Harper can hold that confidence, they become PM, supported by the majority of the elected representatives in parliament, regardless of what party they belong to. That's called representative democracy, not random wheel-spinning, as you put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 So, are you suggesting that Winnipeg is bad because it isn't exactly like where you live? I'm really starting to see that between the lines. No, it's not bad, it's culturally different. That and a lot of anti-country snobs live there. You and dobbin don't fall in that category, but there is the saying about a few bad apples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easterner Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 OK. I will walk you through this. Who will be the PM? How many votes did their party get? Historically is that their party best or worse showing? Is the PM in Canada not the head of the Government? The PM is still the leader of the country unless you think that when the PM gets an invite to the White House he brings along Duceppe and Layton.When people vote in this country they do not vote for 3 parties to govern and then spin the wheel for who is the PM.... You don't quite have that right, we do not vote for a PM, we vote for our local representative, the PM is the leader of the party with the most representatives, unlike the US for example where the house representatives are elected separately and the President could technically from a different party. If the US had many parties, it could get far messier than Canadian politics. If a coalition is formed in Canadian parliment they effectively become one party, choosing their own leader, doesn't make it any prettier though. Yes you are quite right however I as well as alot of people voted against Dion as they had Zero confidence in his abilities. In doing this they voted for the person running in any party with the exception of the Liberal Party to ensure Dion was not the PM. This is all I was saying and here now he may just become the PM. I use to vote Liberal until he became the leader and doubt I will ever again with what is going on. I fought for this country and have certain beleifs and one of them is the hope that our Government and our Constitution would never be abused like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reasonoverpassion Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 If the Liberals and New Democrats adopt the same platform I would agree but they are so far apart hence separate party. This is just plain the seizing of power. The GG should reject and send it back to an election and let the democratic process work. I am sure the liberal Party would not exist afterwards. Sorry I can't agree with you. They don't need to adopt the same platform. The Liberals and NDP just need to find enough common ground to work together--thats all. Thats how coalition governments in democracies all over the world work. It is less common in Canada with our "first-past-the-post" system but the principles are the same. Example: Israel is current governed by a coalition of 3 political parties. All 3 do not share exactly the same platform but have enough common ground to form a government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Yes you are quite right however I as well as alot of people voted against Dion as they had Zero confidence in his abilities. In doing this they voted for the person running in any party with the exception of the Liberal Party to ensure Dion was not the PM. This is all I was saying and here now he may just become the PM. I use to vote Liberal until he became the leader and doubt I will ever again with what is going on. I fought for this country and have certain beleifs and one of them is the hope that our Government and our Constitution would never be abused like this. This assumes that Dion will be asked to be PM. Regardless, a lot of people also "voted" against Harper; hence, the composition of the parliament is the way it presently is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easterner Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 I'd rather not be led by someone who doesn't know where they're going, thanks. Rather, it's you who should be walked through a quick refresher of the present situation and a lesson in Canadian civics: the House of Commons is made up of Members of Parliament who were each recently elected to represent a riding. The person who has the support of the most Members of Parliament is generally asked by the Governor General to form a government. If any person other than Stephen Harper can hold that confidence, they become PM, supported by the majority of the elected representatives in parliament, regardless of what party they belong to. That's called representative democracy, not random wheel-spinning, as you put it. The majority of people in Canada voted for the Conserative Party to run the Government....period. Not for the three stooges to sit in a back room and plan the overthrow of the peoples wishes. Now you can say it is allowed for in the Constitution however most people in this country believe that the winner is the ONE Party with the most votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 The problem is it is a contrived crisis, premeditated to seize power, not at all cricket. Harper once planned the same thing. The only thing that prevented him was a dip in the polls and support for the Liberal government at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 The majority of people in Canada voted for the Conserative Party to run the Government....period. Not for the three stooges to sit in a back room and plan the overthrow of the peoples wishes. Now you can say it is allowed for in the Constitution however most people in this country believe that the winner is the ONE Party with the most votes. Really? What poll tells you that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 According to Boag, the candidates agree that if one of them is to be PM, it will be Ignatieff. The Liberal caucus will choose who will be PM. Ignatieff gave an interesting interview to the CBC earlier today. He often stresses he is not privy to the behind the scenes discussions on the coalition. Strange that the supposed front runner for the PM's job in this coalition is outside the loop. One would imagine that cabinet posts are being assigned in these talks. Wouldn't he have a vested interest in participating in these decisions or at least knowing who his ministers would be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 According to Boag, the candidates agree that if one of them is to be PM, it will be Ignatieff. The Liberal caucus will choose who will be PM. I think that might be a mistake if any of the leadership candidates are chosen. I think the PM has to be an acting PM until the leadership is decided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easterner Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 This assumes that Dion will be asked to be PM. Regardless, a lot of people also "voted" against Harper; hence, the composition of the parliament is the way it presently is. Exactly my point. If we look at it purely from that point....people had the opportunity to vote for or against a person they wanted to represent the country as PM. That may be taken away from them and have a unknown PM appointed for them without the vetting process. Is that democratic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johhny Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 NDP coalition tape can be heard here http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/200...30/7585901.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Exactly my point. If we look at it purely from that point....people had the opportunity to vote for or against a person they wanted to represent the country as PM. They voted for their own MP. That may be taken away from them and have a unknown PM appointed for them without the vetting process. Is that democratic? Our system is set up so that the PM can be decided without an election. If Harper was to die on office and the the Tories would appoint one of their own to be be acting PM and have a leadership convention. They are not compelled to go to an election. It is democratic because people choose MPs not PMs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDP4Montreal Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 The majority of people in Canada voted for the Conserative Party to run the Government....period. No, no they didn't. 37/100 is not a majority....period. You need to work on your math skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 I think that might be a mistake if any of the leadership candidates are chosen. Why? Wouldn't that be the best testing ground for a potential leader? Or would this give undue advantage to the candidate? Heck, why not rotate the 3 of them in the position every 30 days until the convention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reasonoverpassion Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Read the article in the Post by William Watson, Slim. Its a good article but it doesn't change by mind about what needs to be done. I was never a big fan of Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. Harper's reponse has "Chicago School" written all over it. We are now experiencing the consquences of monitarist policy on the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easterner Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 They voted for their own MP.Our system is set up so that the PM can be decided without an election. If Harper was to die on office and the the Tories would appoint one of their own to be be acting PM and have a leadership convention. They are not compelled to go to an election. It is democratic because people choose MPs not PMs. Previous post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 (edited) The majority of people in Canada voted for the Conserative Party to run the Government....period. Not for the three stooges to sit in a back room and plan the overthrow of the peoples wishes. Now you can say it is allowed for in the Constitution however most people in this country believe that the winner is the ONE Party with the most votes. Um, no, the majority of people in Canada did not vote for the Conservative Party; the Conservative Party was just that which won more seats in parliament than any other party alone; see my previous response to you r.e. the number of people who voted against Harper's party. But, as those other parties together constitute the majority of the seats in the House, it is they who make or break a government; whomever can hold the support of the most MPs is, by representation, the person the majority of Canadians put their support behind. people had the opportunity to vote for or against a person they wanted to represent the country as PM. That may be taken away from them and have a unknown PM appointed for them without the vetting process. Canadians don't vote for the PM. Is that democratic? Yes. [ed. to add] Edited December 1, 2008 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 No, no they didn't. 37/100 is not a majority....period. You need to work on your math skills. They didn't have a majority, but the had the right votes in the right areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.