Harper taking to airwaves in bid to save government

[mjp]

Or a visit to Home Depot to pick up a sidegrinder for those chompers...

OH SNAP!!

she is the worst choice the green party made. she's like dion a policy advisor.

[Vancouver King]

OH SNAP!!

she is the worst choice the green party made. she's like dion a policy advisor.

It's written into the forum rules that Elizabeth May's chompers are off limits. That rule immediately precedes the one outlawing any reference to Jim Flaherty as a political skank.

[Long]

Just cause something is legal that don't make it right.

With the recent political events, my interests in Canadian Politics is increasing with each day. However, my knowledge of politics is fairly limited. With that disclaimer out of the way...

What makes the Liberal-NDP-BQ Coalition so wrong on a fundamental level? As I'm not bias towards any party, and I understand a bit about how forming a coalition with a separatist party is a bad idea. But could you please ignore that fact for a moment and focus how it is fundamentally wrong to remove a governing party that has lost the confidence of the parliament and has decided to join together to form an alternative government. I don't understand why that is so bad or is it that I'm missing the point completely?

[Slim MacSquinty]

That rule immediately precedes the one outlawing any reference to Jim Flaherty as a political skank

Funny thing about Flaherty, I've met him a few times and listened to him speak at a few luncheons, he is quite a speaker, I've seen him do over half hour detailed economic speech with no notes and no teleprompter. In person he seems like a pretty good guy, he listens to other people and had plenty of funny stories. On TV he looks like a pugnatous little leprechan.

[Vancouver King]

With the recent political events, my interests in Canadian Politics is increasing with each day. However, my knowledge of politics is fairly limited. With that disclaimer out of the way...

What makes the Liberal-NDP-BQ Coalition so wrong on a fundamental level? As I'm not bias towards any party, and I understand a bit about how forming a coalition with a separatist party is a bad idea. But could you please ignore that fact for a moment and focus how it is fundamentally wrong to remove a governing party that has lost the confidence of the parliament and has decided to join together to form an alternative government. I don't understand why that is so bad or is it that I'm missing the point completely?

The Bloc is not - repeat not - part of the coalition. They have agreed only to support the Liberal/NDP coalition for a period of 18 months on Commons confidence votes. This ensures the new govts stability without allowing sovereignists into cabinet or decision making.

[Shakeyhands]

If you're looking for someone to give a few speeches someone else wrote for her, to open supermarkets and greet foreign dignitaries, to hold a few parties and show the flag then sure.

If you're looking for someone to preside over a constitutional crisis then her excellent fashion sense and ability to memorize lines for the TV cameras might not be all you could hope for.

Dude.... chances are she'll do what Harper asks. Did the talking points from World HQ of CPC tell you to start the attacks already?

[Slim MacSquinty]

What makes the Liberal-NDP-BQ Coalition so wrong on a fundamental level? As I'm not bias towards any party, and I understand a bit about how forming a coalition with a separatist party is a bad idea. But could you please ignore that fact for a moment and focus how it is fundamentally wrong to remove a governing party that has lost the confidence of the parliament and has decided to join together to form an alternative government. I don't understand why that is so bad or is it that I'm missing the point completely?

I would say it depends on two things; the first is what are the rules and what are the precedents, our parlimentary system has basic rules but they are somewhat vague, therefore we often rely on precedent. In this regard it appear to be legal for the all the opposition parties to gang up and defeat the government, however precedent doesn't entirely support it as usually coalitions are formed by one much stronger party with one much less party in support, generally they then can follow one parties platform. So knowing that its legal but highly unusual. Also, never before has a separatist party been put in a position of government.

Then on the political front it comes down to politics and what you believe. If you believe that we had an election where the public picked their government, then does the coalition have the moral authority to take over the government? Do you believe that the standing government made a mistake so big and so counter to what they were elected on that it warrants the fall of the government? Or do you believe this is simply a power play, by those who see an opportunity?

The coalition is asking you to believe that the government did something very bad, counter to what the country wants and putting the country somehow in jeopardy, therefore they say they want the opportunity to take over the government, because they claim they have a better plan.

[Long]

The Bloc is not - repeat not - part of the coalition. They have agreed only to support the Liberal/NDP coalition for a period of 18 months on Commons confidence votes. This ensures the new govts stability without allowing sovereignists into cabinet or decision making.

Ah, what I meant was that the Liberal - NDP - Bloc will be working together and supporting each other on key issues. There are numerous ways to spin it but that fact remains.

[g_bambino]

Also, never before has a separatist party been put in a position of government.

And a change from that precedent has never been put forward.

[Slim MacSquinty]

The Bloc is not - repeat not - part of the coalition. They have agreed only to support the Liberal/NDP coalition for a period of 18 months on Commons confidence votes. This ensures the new govts stability without allowing sovereignists into cabinet or decision making.

That is pure semantics, as for the parliment to be in any way effective they have to pass bills, confidence and otherwise. How do you suppose the BQ signed on without conditions both for goodies for Quebec and significant impact on legislation? They are not a part of the coalition in name only, you can be assured and indeed have been based on Duceppe's own words that he got lots for Quebec.

[g_bambino]

That is pure semantics

Hardly. Government is the Governor-in-Council. As no Bloc MP is to be part of this potential coalition, there will be no separatists sworn into the Queen's Privy Council, and therefore no separatist in the Cabinet. Bloc support is supposed to come for confidence motions only; getting "goodies" in exchange for that is nothing like being admitted to the council.

_{[ed. for sp.]}

Edited December 4, 2008 by g_bambino

[Slim MacSquinty]

They have an effective cabinet post as "the agreement" specifically refers to permanent Quebec consultations on all legislation. Which clearly can be intrepreted in many ways however it gives Quebec a higher status than other provinces and it in theory could give the BQ an effective veto. That's better than a cabinet post by any measure.

[ThatGuy]

Remember, someone needs to vote with the conservatives in order to get things passed anyway. If the Bloc voted with them, is that not supporting a government?

technicalities...whatever

[Slim MacSquinty]

They have 49 seats, they get to vote, but do they form the policy and extort benefits?

[ThatGuy]

They have 49 seats, they get to vote, but do they form the policy and extort benefits?

That is yet to be seen right.

If they vote against matters that aren't of confidence it doesn't really matter.

I am thinking that they have to support the coalition 3 times, and that is it.

Edited December 4, 2008 by ThatGuy

[johhny]

Harpers speach was rather drab and boring must say Jack did a very good job

[Vancouver King]

They are not a part of the coalition in name only, you can be assured and indeed have been based on Duceppe's own words that he got lots for Quebec.

Sure he got lots. A stimulous package, an assurance that Harper-type transfers of wealth will continue unabated and most important of all, he's rid of PM whose hatred for all opposition borders on the pathological.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Don't be so naive:

He’d signed on, he said, because there were “very significant benefits” for Quebec. He’d only agreed to stick around for 18 months, during which he could continue to work solely on Quebec’s interests. The government, he said, would be trying to deal with the economic situation, “based on an agreement that meets the needs of Quebec.”