Someone in the Liberal Party is Lying

[WestViking]

I think he is referring to Count Ignatieff -

IMO there have been talks, and I'll bet Bob Rae is behind it. A merger would require a leadership convention, something the Liberals won't be having until after the next election (assuming the Count loses) so Bobby Rae has to cool his heels until then.

I understand that talks have been between Chretien, Romanow and Broadbent.

[nicky10013]

What part of the term "minority government" don't you understand? A coalition means slapping together a Cabinet with several parties, and giving those parties Cabinet posts in a position to influence policy. If you put a Dipper into Treasury you have, in part, a socialist government, even if the PM is a Liberal. Unless you expect the CPC to fall on the Throne Speech ever vote held in a minority government involves support of non-government parties.

Sorry to have to call you out on your _____.

Sorry to have to call you on your shit. In the last coalition agreement it was agreed that the NDP would get no where near ANY financial post in a coalition government.

[jbg]

Sorry to have to call you on your shit. In the last coalition agreement it was agreed that the NDP would get no where near ANY financial post in a coalition government.

O.K., humor me. What posts were they supposed to get? And what was the BQ supposed to get in return for not pulling the plug for two years?

[nicky10013]

O.K., humor me. What posts were they supposed to get? And what was the BQ supposed to get in return for not pulling the plug for two years?

I would assume labour and deputy PM. As for the rest, I couldn't be sure. However, I know for a fact that the two posts in the cabinet that were to be indisputably Liberal were clearly PM and Finance.

As for the Bloc, they get rid of Harper. If we're going to be completely honest, from the Bloc's perspective (which is a party on the left of the spectrum) they've got far more in common with the Liberals and NDP than they ever would with the CPC.

[WestViking]

Sorry to have to call you on your shit. In the last coalition agreement it was agreed that the NDP would get no where near ANY financial post in a coalition government.

I will call you on that one - the plan was to give the Finance portfolio to a Liberal, but nothing was said about the President of the Treasury Board or Canada Revenue. Edited June 14, 2010 by WestViking

[Keepitsimple]

BTW, tonight, the Tories got the NDP and the BLOC together to pass the immigration bill. So the Tories have nothing to talk about when it comes to a coalition!

Those pesky Conservatives - trying to pass legislation by working with other parties. It's just not fair.

[scribblet]

Those pesky Conservatives - trying to pass legislation by working with other parties. It's just not fair.

LOL

[jbg]

Those pesky Conservatives - trying to pass legislation by working with other parties. It's just not fair.

LOL

To sensible people that's a working minority government. They'd prefer a coup coalition of losers coalition to messy but democratic rule, unless by the "Natural Governing Party".

[nicky10013]

Lest we forget the coalition letter signed by Harper saying he was willing to form a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP if the Liberals won a minority. Funny, wonder what Harper today would call that.

[jbg]

Lest we forget the coalition letter signed by Harper saying he was willing to form a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP if the Liberals won a minority. Funny, wonder what Harper today would call that.

Please post a copy. I'd be most interested.

[nicky10013]

Please post a copy. I'd be most interested.

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,

C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.

Governor General

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the

Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister

to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons

fail to support some part of the government’s program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together

constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We

believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give

you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the

opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising

your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.

Leader of the New Democratic Party

That's the full text of the letter I've been able to glean off many websites.

The letter is mentioned and quoted in the Globe and CTV news

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/harper_undemocratic_081204/20081204?hub=Politics

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article724889.ece

[jbg]

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,

C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.

Governor General

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the

Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister

to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons

fail to support some part of the government’s program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together

constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We

believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give

you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the

opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising

your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.

Leader of the New Democratic Party

That's the full text of the letter I've been able to glean off many websites.

The letter is mentioned and quoted in the Globe and CTV news

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/harper_undemocratic_081204/20081204?hub=Politics

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article724889.ece

Any details?

[nicky10013]

Any details?

Details? are you not in the practice of reading?

[bloodyminded]

To sensible people that's a working minority government. They'd prefer a coup coalition of losers coalition to messy but democratic rule, unless by the "Natural Governing Party".

A coup would be illegal...and by definition, the coalition would not be a coup. At all.

Further, as nicky10013 has pointed out, Harper is not in any way, shape or manner opposed to the notion of coalitions. He is supportive of the idea.

[jbg]

Details? are you not in the practice of reading?

There are no durational limits, allocation of Cabinet portfolios, or other essential details of a coalition agreement.

Further, as nicky10013 has pointed out, Harper is not in any way, shape or manner opposed to the notion of coalitions. He is supportive of the idea.

The devil is always in the details. And asking to be approached to form a government is a far cry from going to the GG and saying, in effect, "we just pulled the plug, here's the new government". The quoted letter referenced the PM's going back for a second election within four (4) months of a prior writ drop, which is a far cry from the three losing parties, within two (2) months of an election, pulling the plug and demanding the keys, after those parties collectively lost ground in the election. That's something you'd expect in Nicaragua, not Canada. Edited June 15, 2010 by jbg

[BubberMiley]

There are no durational limits, allocation of Cabinet portfolios, or other essential details of a coalition agreement.

Yes, surely there must be something that jbg can use to distinguish Harper's attempt at a coup parliamentary democracy from the Liberals. Otherwise the CPC would once again look exactly the same as the Liberals.

[nicky10013]

There are no durational limits, allocation of Cabinet portfolios, or other essential details of a coalition agreement.

The devil is always in the details. And asking to be approached to form a government is a far cry from going to the GG and saying, in effect, "we just pulled the plug, here's the new government". The quoted letter referenced the PM's going back for a second election within four (4) months of a prior writ drop, which is a far cry from the three losing parties, within two (2) months of an election, pulling the plug and demanding the keys, after those parties collectively lost ground in the election. That's something you'd expect in Nicaragua, not Canada.

What?!?!?!?! First of all you're attempting to say that just because there isn't a specific list of who would be in cabinet implies that there was no coalition proposal when in fact, he was willing to form a government with the socialists and seperatists just like the Liberals were. He sent a letter to the GG saying all 3 parties could form a government. If that's not a coalition agreement, then your standards are incredibly high and highly hypocritical. The letter sent to the GG after the coalition agreement between parties was signed in 2008 was essentially the same document.

Furthermore, when it occurs during the election cycle does nothing to make it more or less constitutional. It's a legal mechanism of westminster parliament. The fact that you're willing to perpetrate lies about our system is sickening.

[M.Dancer]

Great call the CONSERVATIVE government in Sask who supports the crown corp and tell them.

Two points..I thought the government in Saskatchewan was made up of the Saskatchewan party...?

Portash was privatized in 1990...I highly doubt they support nationalizing what is one of canada's most successful publicly traded companies...

[punked]

Two points..I thought the government in Saskatchewan was made up of the Saskatchewan party...?

Portash was privatized in 1990...I highly doubt they support nationalizing what is one of canada's most successful publicly traded companies...

Yep the government bought it up when it was failing, turned it into a successful company and then the Conservatives sold it off. Sounds familiar.

[Molly]

When it was failing?

[M.Dancer]

Yep the government bought it up when it was failing, turned it into a successful company and then the Conservatives sold it off. Sounds familiar.

You don't know much about the company, do you...

In the early 1980s the company struggled and lost money for several years accumulating an $800 million debt. In 1989 the Conservative government decided to privatize it by selling the company to private investors. During the 1990s PotashCorp expanded by buying up a number of American potash companies including Potash Company of America, Florida Favorite Fertilizer, Texasgulf, and Arcadian Corporation. Today it owns assets across Canada, the United States, and also in Brazil and the Middle East. By March 2008, due to rising potash prices it had become one of the most valuable companies in Canada by market capitalization, valued at almost C$63 billion.

[punked]

You don't know much about the company, do you...

In the early 1980s the company struggled and lost money for several years accumulating an $800 million debt. In 1989 the Conservative government decided to privatize it by selling the company to private investors. During the 1990s PotashCorp expanded by buying up a number of American potash companies including Potash Company of America, Florida Favorite Fertilizer, Texasgulf, and Arcadian Corporation. Today it owns assets across Canada, the United States, and also in Brazil and the Middle East. By March 2008, due to rising potash prices it had become one of the most valuable companies in Canada by market capitalization, valued at almost C$63 billion.

Potash actually expanded in America before it was sold off. That is why the Conservative government sold it off because the US was complaining about the government of Sask owning interest in American companies. Why the government bought them up in the first place was to keep them from going under.

Potash goes through booms and busts that is all that happened in the 80s. It was turning around big time when in the infinite wisdom of the conservatives they sold it off.

[M.Dancer]

Potash actually expanded in America before it was sold off. That is why the Conservative government sold it off because the US was complaining about the government of Sask owning interest in American companies. Why the government bought them up in the first place was to keep them from going under.

Potash goes through booms and busts that is all that happened in the 80s. It was turning around big time when in the infinite wisdom of the conservatives they sold it off.

I'm sure that's what you would like to think...

In 1989, the decision was made to privatize PCS. The most significant event in the company's history came when the Province of Saskatchewan sold approximately 13 million shares in an initial public offering of company stock on the Toronto exchange. Over 11 million of the shares sold went to residents of Saskatchewan. The capital raised from the public offering helped the company upgrade its mining operations and expand its presence in foreign markets, especially Asia and Oceania.

http://www.answers.com/topic/potash-corp-saskatchewan-usa

Given you thought it was still a crown...

[jbg]

Furthermore, when it occurs during the election cycle does nothing to make it more or less constitutional. It's a legal mechanism of westminster parliament. The fact that you're willing to perpetrate lies about our system is sickening.

The distinction I was making was that the alleged NDP/CPC/BQ coalition was only to be triggered by the PM's pulling the plug shortly after the election, whereas the Liberal/NDP (with cooperation of Bloc) coalition was to have its genesis upon the Opposition spilling the government.

[Smallc]

The distinction I was making was that the alleged NDP/CPC/BQ coalition was only to be triggered by the PM's pulling the plug shortly after the election, whereas the Liberal/NDP (with cooperation of Bloc) coalition was to have its genesis upon the Opposition spilling the government.

And?