Coalition Government

cybercoma · December 2, 2008

what happens if Iggy wins the leadership? He is considerably to the right of Dion, and will not likely agree on much of anything Layton or Duceppe want. How's that going to go over with the other two amigos?

Wasn't Michael Ignatieff originally against this coalition, up until two or three days ago?

Vancouver King · December 2, 2008

Yes, as a matter of fact. I do think he's learned his lesson and would henceforth be considerably less arrogant and confrontational.

This statement is the funniest post of the year, next, of course, to your claim of not being a partisan.

daniel · December 2, 2008

This statement is the funniest post of the year, next, of course, to your claim of not being a partisan.

Actually, he did say something like that right after the election. So now you know how good his word is.

myata · December 2, 2008

Must be a very different view of "reason" on that right wing conservative side. The simple truth is, again:

1. CPC won a minority mandate.

2. With a minority mandate, CPC has to governm with the confidence of the House.

3. Economic difficulties only emphasized the need for non-partisan, inclusive leadership to provide good governance in the interests of the entire country.

4. But, apparently short of understanding that (i.e.#3), - or why else?? I'm puzzled as can be - Harper continued to play his little macheavellian tricks aimed to diminish and put down the opposition.

5. Which lost him the confidence of the House, without which he cannot govern (see #1 and #2).

Ergo: if Harpers party cannot governm as required by the situation and their mandate, somebody else has to do it.

What's really funny about this is that by Harper's own, and nobody else's brilliant (from some point of view at least) design, Dion may get to avoid two unpleasant entries in the history books, one as the only Liberal leader to not become a PM, and the other, as the shortest serving PM (if the deal goes through, he'll get to serve till May, when the a new leader will be chosen).

Wilber · December 2, 2008

I can't express how disappointed I am in this bunch of juvenile delinquents in Ottawa putting this country into a state of chaos at one of the most crucial times in our history, over nothing more than their own mean spiritedness and pique. In a perfect world, I would throw every one of their sorry asses out on the street and start over with totally new blood.

"YOU HAVE BEEN SAT TO LONG HERE FOR ANY GOOD YOU HAVE BEEN DOING. DEPART, I SAY, AND LET US HAVE DONE WITH YOU. IN THE NAME OF GOD, GO!."

Oliver Cromwell

Vancouver King · December 2, 2008

Tit for tat! If the Liberals succeed would you care to place a bet on how many decades it will be before the Liberals get more than a handful of seats in Western Canada?

Obtaining only a handful of seats in Western Canada is a given for Liberals just as winning zero seats in the nation's major cities is part of the equation for Tories. My point is Harper risks what is possibly the penultimate nightmare for any govt - attempting to govern without represenation from Quebec.

How about a bet on how long it will take before an Alberta separatist party gets enough seats in their provincial parliament to take a shot at it?

This perennial threat is hollow. We have a permanent separatist fact of life in Quebec, one based on a legitimate foundation of a founding people working to protect their culture and influence in a sea of English.

Somehow blue-eyed Arabs, full of themselves through an accident of geography, just can't be taken too seriously.

It's obvious that you're one of those western Canadians who likes either the Liberals or the NDP. That's your right of course but I would find it hard to believe that you have a lot of company.

The NDP is doing just fine in this city. My riding passed judgement on Conservative David Emerson and found him and his party wanting.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Vancouver King

normanchateau · December 2, 2008

I can't express how disappointed I am in this bunch of juvenile delinquents in Ottawa putting this country into a state of chaos at one of the most crucial times in our history, over nothing more than their own mean spiritedness and pique.

So had the Liberals, NDP and BQ formed a coalition of the majority two months after the 2006 election when the economy was strong and Harper had not yet had an opportunity to demonstrate his strategic blunders, out-of-control spending, financial mismanagement and multibillion dollar handouts to Quebec, you would favour such a coalition? <_<

Wilber · December 2, 2008

So had the Liberals, NDP and BQ formed a coalition of the majority two months after the 2006 election when the economy was strong and Harper had not yet had an opportunity to demonstrate his strategic blunders, out-of-control spending, financial mismanagement and multibillion dollar handouts to Quebec, you would favour such a coalition?

Went right over your head. I see you are of the same mentality as the other 308 juvenile delinquents. When I said all their sorry asses, I meant all their sorry asses.

normanchateau · December 2, 2008

Went right over your head. I see you are of the same mentality as the other 308 juvenile delinquents. When I said all their sorry asses, I meant all their sorry asses.

Went right over your head. My point was that the economy was irrelevant to the MPs' positions. :rolleyes:

Wilber · December 2, 2008

Went right over your head. My point was that the economy was irrelevant to the MPs' positions.

You're right, this is really bad. What ever sense of humour I had regarding government is dissapearing fast. :angry:

Moonbox · December 2, 2008

Obtaining only a handful of seats in Western Canada is a given for Liberals just as winning zero seats in the nation's major cities is part of the equation for Tories. My point is Harper risks what is possibly the penultimate nightmare for any govt - attempting to govern without represenation from Quebec.

Zero seats in 3 major cities is a bit more significant than practically zero seats in 4 provinces. The Tories don't do well in the cities because 'cities' are where the vast majority of money towards social programs go. The Liberals and ESPECIALLY the NDP don't typically do well outside these areas because anyone living outside don't receive any benefit from all the money doled out there. News flash: The tories don't campaign on social welfare.

This perennial threat is hollow. We have a permanent separatist fact of life in Quebec, one based on a legitimate foundation of a founding people working to protect their culture and influence in a sea of English.

The threat is that Quebecquers will continue to spoil parliament by voting Bloc. We'll continue to have regular elections that will cost tax payers billions due to minority governments. The funny part is that this is all going to happen to the detriment of the Liberals.

The NDP is doing just fine in this city. My riding passed judgement on Conservative David Emerson and found him and his party wanting.

Lucky for you. Gotta make sure those welfare cheques keep coming!

normanchateau · December 2, 2008

You're right, this is really bad. What ever sense of humour I had regarding government is dissapearing fast. :angry:

Thanks for acknowledging my point. This is such a rarity on a political discussion board given our earnest but juvenile desire to "score points" .

It almost makes me want to start posting again. :huh:

madmax · December 2, 2008

Thanks for acknowledging my point. This is such a rarity on a political discussion board given our earnest but juvenile desire to "score points" .
It almost makes me want to start posting again.

I hope you voted in this valueable poll. He, you are posting.... :huh:

normanchateau · December 2, 2008

The Tories don't do well in the cities because 'cities' are where the vast majority of money towards social programs go.

That's one hypothesis and here's yet another. The Conservatives do not do well in ridings with universities and a high percentage of voters with university degrees. The more prestigious universities tend to be in cities. Note the location of the University of Alberta. It's in the only Alberta riding which failed to elect a Conservative MP in the 2008 election.

Now let's examine your hypothesis with respect to my own riding of Vancouver Quadra. In this riding, 57% of adult residents have a university degree and the average family income is $145,000:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/302/

The NDP did very poorly in this riding coming fourth after the third place Greens. But the Liberals came first with 46% of the votes, the largest Liberal percentage in BC in 2008. Do you really believe that some of the wealthiest ridings in Canada, many of them located in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, rejected Harper because poor people funded by social programs were determining the outcome?

normanchateau · December 2, 2008

I hope you voted in this valueable poll. He, you are posting....

It's addictive! Let me out of here.

Argus · December 2, 2008

Your guys want an election in the next months anyway

No one in the world is saying that other than you. It's paranoid nonsense.

The obsession with the complete destruction of Liberals at all costs is bad for the country

So you've decided to commit political suicide?

Fortunata · December 2, 2008

The coalition will not form government. Why? Nobody can out-devious (sorry grammar guru's) Harper. No-one else thinks that way.

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

No one in the world is saying that other than you. It's paranoid nonsense.

Harper promised just this weekend not to call an election for two years because of the suspicion that he was going to call it anyway. His word is absolutely no good. I said last election that he would be the one to call the election and that was called paranoid. It isn't. It is cold blooded politics which Harper practices.

He isn't about to wait for the Liberals to get a new leader. Does that make any sense to you?

So you've decided to commit political suicide?

Harper was determined to kill the Liberals off regardless with one confidence measure after another hoping they would fold each time. Many said that wasn't going to happen this time but Harper threw caution to the wind.

Edited December 2, 2008 by jdobbin

Argus · December 2, 2008

What if this Liberal/NDP cozying up leads to every left of center politico's dream - amalgamation of the two parties? A permanent coalition. How many generations of wandering the wasteland would that spell for the CPC?

Not going to happen. What is much more likely to happen is that the Liberal party will go the way of the Liberal party in the UK with the advent of Labour. It will become an unimportant, minor party while the NDP moves up to be the main contendor for power with the Tories. Most of the centre will then vote Tory because the Liberals will be a wasted vote, much as many left of centre today vote Liberal because the NDP is a wasted vote. Both NDP and Tory parties will benefit while the Liberals become... irrelevent. The problem with this is that it quite possibly leaves both main parties without the support necessary to form majority governments - which means they'd be beholden to whichever self serving whore holds the Quebec seats at any given moment. Because thanks to the Liberals the BQ will be getting most Quebec seats from now on. I see no possible downside for the BQ in this, nothing but clear skies ahead.

whowhere · December 2, 2008

The coalition will not form government. Why? Nobody can out-devious (sorry grammar guru's) Harper. No-one else thinks that way.

Harper has been called out, he is defeated. Tell him and his ministers to pack up their shite and get out of their cabinet offices and harper to get out sussex drive before dion calls in the sherriff to evict him.

Argus · December 2, 2008

Harper promised just this weekend not to call an election for two years because his word is absolutely no good.

Stephan Dion promised not to enter a coallition with the socialists, and to fight seperatists. Now he's in bed with both.

But we're not talking about promises here, but common sense. I see no likelihood, barring wildly intransigent opposition insanity, where Harper could have justified calling an election in the next six months without drawing enormous public wrath. We saw some grumbling last election. Were he to fold parliament again in six months just to take advantage of the Liberals' lack of leadership the media would be merciless.

Harper was determined to kill the Liberals off regardless with one confidence measure after another hoping they would fold each time. Many said that wasn't going to happen this time but Harper through caution to the wind.

Phtt, the chance of that was very slight. Now you guys are taking the biggest chance in your party's history. Stephan Dion could well be the last Liberal prime minister in Canadian history. Edited December 2, 2008 by Argus

Oleg Bach · December 2, 2008

He's a risk taker...it's about time someone was tough enough to put it all on the line. Liberalism and Frenchism along with Laytonism, would eventually lead us to living in a nation like Holland - where a poor attractive girl in dire straights will be told "You can work - you are attractive..there are many good jobs in the sex industry." This brave new world of moral neutrality is the utopha that Layton hopes for...and as we know - the second rate French culture will gladly pimp all of us off...except for their own Catholic princess daughters..The BLOCK mindset is one of racism and contempt for all that are not of their tradtion and tribe. Those who want to grab power at this point are those that see the potential in turning Canada into a slave state that they and their friends will be master off. I don't see social benevolence in the action that is the coalition.

Vancouver King · December 2, 2008

Do you really believe that some of the wealthiest ridings in Canada, many of them located in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, rejected Harper because poor people funded by social programs were determining the outcome?

Moonbox, Argus etc. display usual neo-con ignorance by assuming all who favor the NDP are drawing welfare. We recently received an unsolicited offer of $1.2 million for our East Vancouver home and after I finish this little rant, will go to wholesalers to place orders for a retail operation that total more than those two will see in the next year.

They are experts though at hurling insults from their bureaucratic perches all the while insulated from the real world, never having to meet a payroll and never losing sleep over the coming economic/retail storm.

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

Stephan Dion promised not to enter a coallition with the socialists, and to fight seperatists. Now he's in bed with both.

Layton promised to bring the troops back home and end the corporate tax. Now he is not.

This deal would not have happened without compromise.

But we're not talking about promises here, but common sense. I see no likelihood, barring wildly intransigent opposition insanity, where Harper could have justified calling an election in the next six months without drawing enormous public wrath. We saw some grumbling last election. Were he to fold parliament again in six months just to take advantage of the Liberals' lack of leadership the media would be merciless.

Harper was going to blame the Liberals even if he agreed with him or backed down. He figured if he hamstring the party financially and on confidence votes, he would be able to push past with a tame media/

johhny · December 2, 2008

Some RETARD knocked on the door this morning asking me to sign a petition for the Harper. To bad the STupid fawk couldn't take a second to see the huge UNION logo I have present on my door. Next onse getting the baseball bat. Man are Torie suporters RETARDED or what