WWWTT Posted March 25, 2011 Author Report Posted March 25, 2011 Well of course it was a proposal. And of course the budget was effected by it. We now know that the Governor General made it clear to the Prime Minister that when Parliament returned at the end of January 2009, that the budget must be palatable to the Opposition. There was no way that the Coalition could have known that, because the private discussions between the Governor General and Her Prime Minister are just that, private discussions. That's how I know you're full of crap. And this is where the revisionism came in. It wasn't meant to put fear into the hearts of the Tory government. It was meant to replace the Tory government. Even some of its proponents admitted after the fact that the failure was in actually stating publicly what they were trying to do. The folks who came up with the Coalition plan weren't trying to force the Tories' hands on the party funding issue or any other part of the budget, they were outright stating "We're going to have a no confidence vote and replace the Tories as the government." I have no idea where your version of events comes from. It certainly doesn't come from the events I observed in November and December 2008. Harper didn't go to the GG and prorogue Parliament because he was taking the Coalition's advice. He was doing it to prevent a confidence motion that would have seen his government defeated. Peter MacKay was even at pains at the time to explain why this wasn't going to be a precedent, despite the worry by a number of constitutional experts of just that, that Harper had introduced into Commonwealth constitutional nomenclature the notion that prorogation was now a tool to evade confidence votes. Of course now know that the Governor General had put some severe limitations on the Government in order for her to accede to the Prime Minister's request, which may have been what Mackay was indirectly referring to. I'm going to be blunt here. You're talking out of your a$$ and just plain making things up. The Coalition was a serious attempt, the first serious attempt in modern Commonwealth history of a coalition of opposition parties to attempt the defeat of a government and replace that government with themselves. Every other time the Sovereign or the Sovereign's representative in any Commonwealth country had dismissed a government and asked someone else to govern was due to constitutional crisis, and in each and every case the new Prime Minister viewed his role to be a caretaker one. That's how the King-Byng Affair was handled and that's how the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis was handled. This was a totally different beast, and while perfectly constitutional, it was not precipitated by a constitutional crisis, but by the desire to create a new government out of an existing Parliament that had every expectation of governing for an extended duration, and not just until a new election could be organized. You've convinced yourself that somehow the Coalition's blunder in raising the flag before they were in a position to actually form a government was somehow an intentional strategy. That's not what happened, this wasn't a clever plan that worked, it was a botched plan that didn't. Two things where you are wrong: First of all if the coalition wanted to topple the Harper government in the begining of 09 they would have done so already.Do you really think they would be stupid enough to do so right away without testing the waters first?Use your head buddy.You are not thoroughly thinking this through. Secondly you got a big mouth. There was nothing ever discussed between the GG and Harper that all parties were not ever aware of.The largest pool of occupations the government draws its MPs from is the law society(mainly lawyers)They are all aware of any possible scenario and every move is well calculated and any concievable outcomes are given a reasonable percentage of probability.And this is all weighed and mulled over long before anything is made public. Man you got a long way to go buddy Good luck WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Scotty Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Does anybody in this bloody country ever bother paying attention to the rest of the world. You're ignoring the fact the voters are basing their feelings based on OUR traditions. We don't bloody care what the Belgians or Germans do. And oh, btw, if I was to try and describe the European coalition governments over the past ten or twenty years, the words I'd use would be: weak, disorganized, incompetent, flustered, confused, and corrupt. The Europeans cant' do a goddam thing on their own. They wanted the Americans to get off their high horse and stop browbeating everyone, but they can't operate without them because no one in Europe can make a decision without appealing to forty seven different parties. Honestly, if the Russians decided to invade Europe, the war would be over before the Europeans managed to get all their meetings done to decide how or when or even if they ought to respond. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Harry Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) You don't think someone considering voting Liberal deserves to know that this party is strongly considering a coalition with separatists and socialists? You've pretty strongly inferred above that many of those who would vote Liberal would refuse if they knew a coalition was being considered, so what you're saying is that you believe the Liberals, and other parties, should lie to the voters about their intent. Did Harper tell voters before the election in 2004 what his plans were for working with the separatists and socialists as you refer to them, for after the 2004 election? Of course he didn't, so why would you suggest anyone else talk about their plans before this coming vote? Or are you suggesting Harper lied to Canadians? Edited March 25, 2011 by Harry Quote
wyly Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 You're ignoring the fact the voters are basing their feelings based on OUR traditions. We don't bloody care what the Belgians or Germans do. And oh, btw, if I was to try and describe the European coalition governments over the past ten or twenty years, the words I'd use would be: weak, disorganized, incompetent, flustered, confused, and corrupt.no one will ask you to describe european governments over the past 10, 20 yrs because you clearly know nothing about them... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Scotty Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Did Harper tell voters before the election in 2004 what his plans were for working with the separatists and socialists as you refer to them, for after the 2004 election? Of course he didn't, so why would you suggest anyone else talk about their plans before this coming vote? Or are you suggesting Harper lied to Canadians? Nobody asked Harper his plans in that regard. However, Ignatieff will be asked, and asked, and asked and asked again until he makes a firm denial or affirmative. And the more desperately he flounders in his efforts to not answer the more suspicious many voters will be of his intentions and honesty. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 no one will ask you to describe european governments over the past 10, 20 yrs because you clearly know nothing about them... I'm more than willing to have an impressive academic like you educate me. Would you like to draw on your own vast knowledge and expertise and delver up a brief lecture which will impress us all on YOUR knowledge? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Harry Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Nobody asked Harper his plans in that regard. However, Ignatieff will be asked, and asked, and asked and asked again until he makes a firm denial or affirmative. And the more desperately he flounders in his efforts to not answer the more suspicious many voters will be of his intentions and honesty. So its ok for Harper to deceive Canadians but it isn't ok for Ignatieff to do so. Give us a break. Coalitions are part of the Canadian political lingo now, and more and more Canadians are getting receptive to the idea every day. Ignatieff should not run from the issue, it's nothing to be ashamed about, is it, as even Harper when in opposition tried to make an arrangement with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004. Why should it be any different now for whoever ends up in opposition? Or are there 2 rules at play here for you - one for Canada's Tea Partiers, and one for the Liberals? If I was a reporter I would begin to start asking Harper about his history with his attempts to work with the Bloc and the NDP as Mcleans began to do today. Edited March 25, 2011 by Harry Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 You don't think someone considering voting Liberal deserves to know that this party is strongly considering a coalition with separatists and socialists? I'm saying coalitions after elections are by their very nature impossible to predict beforehand, and any leader who commits himself to a coalition or against one is, in a word, an idiot. You've pretty strongly inferred above that many of those who would vote Liberal would refuse if they knew a coalition was being considered, so what you're saying is that you believe the Liberals, and other parties, should lie to the voters about their intent. I'm sure many of those who voted Conservative in the UK would probably have switched their vote to UKIP if they had known that a deal was going to be cut with the Liberal Democrats. Whether or not a coalition is going to happen, and how it would be constituted is so heavily dependent on seat counts that it is, to say the least, irresponsible to discuss one. Besides, as I have said twice now, the most likely moment for a coalition, presuming the Tories don't get a majority, isn't after the election, but after a presumed defeat of the Throne Speech. Are you seriously asking Iggy to make declarations on an event that is weeks after an event that not he or anyone else can properly predict at this point? For all we know, and it would certainly be strategically possible, the Tories might try to save themselves from a defeat on the post-election Throne Speech by dangling the possibility of a Coalition in front of the NDP's eyes, but do you think Stephen Harper is going to announce that during an election? I realize that the Tories are going to make the coalition an issue, and so be it, but the way you, and doubtless every Tory that comes around here for the next month and a bit, are going to frame this question is duplicitous and leading to the extreme, considering there is the potential for Harper to try to reproduce his British counterpart's coalition to stave off a defeat weeks after winning a third minority that would, in fact, guarantee Iggy becomes Prime Minister, coalition or no coalition. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 You're ignoring the fact the voters are basing their feelings based on OUR traditions. We don't bloody care what the Belgians or Germans do. And oh, btw, if I was to try and describe the European coalition governments over the past ten or twenty years, the words I'd use would be: weak, disorganized, incompetent, flustered, confused, and corrupt. The Europeans wouldn't be the inspiration, the Brits would, and since, for the most part, their system is very close to ours, including first-past-the-post voting, I posit that there is at least the possibility of a Tory-NDP coalition here. If I were Harper I would have a post-election budget in hand with Jack Layton's name on it. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Two things where you are wrong: First of all if the coalition wanted to topple the Harper government in the begining of 09 they would have done so already.Do you really think they would be stupid enough to do so right away without testing the waters first?Use your head buddy.You are not thoroughly thinking this through. By January 2009 the coalition was dead. It was all but dead within hours of the Governor General of proroguing Parliament, but a month later it was definitely DOA. There was no coalition to speak of by the time Parliament returned at the end of January. Secondly you got a big mouth. There was nothing ever discussed between the GG and Harper that all parties were not ever aware of. B.S. again. No one knew the content of that conversation, and details were not revealed until Madame Jean was on the way out. No one knew the nature of the constraints that she had imposed on the prorogation. The only hint we had was Peter MacKay insisting that this was not going to be a precedent-setting and regular occurring means of evading a confidence motion. If you know of someone that knew, I challenge you openly now to provide a single citation from prior to the final months of Madame Jean's tenure that knew what the two had talked about. The largest pool of occupations the government draws its MPs from is the law society(mainly lawyers)They are all aware of any possible scenario and every move is well calculated and any concievable outcomes are given a reasonable percentage of probability.And this is all weighed and mulled over long before anything is made public. All the constitutional experts could guess at is that it was unlikely that Madame Jean would refuse the advice of a Prime Minister who had the confidence of the House. Man you got a long way to go buddy Good luck WWWTT I think I know more about our system of government in my sleep than you know at the brightest time of the day. It's clear you're just a partisan who has invented a story that satisfies your need for the Coalition not to have badly botched their attempt to replace the Tory government. Edited March 25, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
WWWTT Posted March 25, 2011 Author Report Posted March 25, 2011 So its ok for Harper to deceive Canadians but it isn't ok for Ignatieff to do so. Give us a break. Coalitions are part of the Canadian political lingo now, and more and more Canadians are getting receptive to the idea every day. Ignatieff should not run from the issue, it's nothing to be ashamed about, is it, as even Harper when in opposition tried to make an arrangement with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004. Why should it be any different now for whoever ends up in opposition? Or are there 2 rules at play here for you - one for Canada's Tea Partiers, and one for the Liberals? Harry I wouldn't pay any attention to Scotty.He is set in his ways and will vote conservative because that is all he knows.You can almost say he will take Harper to the grave.Sad really but predictable. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
ToadBrother Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Harry I wouldn't pay any attention to Scotty.He is set in his ways and will vote conservative because that is all he knows.You can almost say he will take Harper to the grave.Sad really but predictable. My irony meter just exploded. Quote
scouterjim Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Harper in the high 40s or over 50% public support? Never man! That's absolutely ridiculous The conservatives are lucky to even see the high 30s as is.I'll even put money on it. Not just that public opinion polls come to you,on election day you have to go to the poll.Big difference there. Everybody here also forgot about the greens.Allbeit they do not have a seat,there's still the possibility of picking some up and maybe in the future having a voice in the lower house. I am proposing that after the coalition topples the Harper minority,Harper will call it quits.The conservatives will pick up the pieces and put someone strong forward to replace him.But by this time the economy will be building steam and the coalition will be reaping in the rewards and the conservatives may be even publicly criticized for trying to oppose the best thing for Canada since the BNA act of 1867. WWWTT The economy will be building steam? Under a Liberal/NDP coalition? Are you serious? They both believe in spending. The NDP opposes balanced budgets. They will gut the military once again because they both believe "we should talk to our enemies over tea". This country's economy will head for the toilet once again under that coalition. Be prepared for higher unemployment as the NDP pushes through extremely high corporate taxes (after all, SOMEBODY has to pay for those higher welfare rates they will introduce). Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
ToadBrother Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 The economy will be building steam? Under a Liberal/NDP coalition? Are you serious? They both believe in spending. The NDP opposes balanced budgets. They will gut the military once again because they both believe "we should talk to our enemies over tea". This country's economy will head for the toilet once again under that coalition. Be prepared for higher unemployment as the NDP pushes through extremely high corporate taxes (after all, SOMEBODY has to pay for those higher welfare rates they will introduce). Because the Tories have been such skinflints over the last two years. Quote
WWWTT Posted March 25, 2011 Author Report Posted March 25, 2011 By January 2009 the coalition was dead. It was all but dead within hours of the Governor General of proroguing Parliament, but a month later it was definitely DOA. There was no coalition to speak of by the time Parliament returned at the end of January. B.S. again. No one knew the content of that conversation, and details were not revealed until Madame Jean was on the way out. No one knew the nature of the constraints that she had imposed on the prorogation. The only hint we had was Peter MacKay insisting that this was not going to be a precedent-setting and regular occurring means of evading a confidence motion. If you know of someone that knew, I challenge you openly now to provide a single citation from prior to the final months of Madame Jean's tenure that knew what the two had talked about. All the constitutional experts could guess at is that it was unlikely that Madame Jean would refuse the advice of a Prime Minister who had the confidence of the House. I think I know more about our system of government in my sleep than you know at the brightest time of the day. It's clear you're just a partisan who has invented a story that satisfies your need for the Coalition not to have badly botched their attempt to replace the Tory government. Two things you did wrong again(man I'm sounding like a broken record) First you have confused knowledge with intelligence required for insight.Ya you got alot of facts here I'll admit that.Still is not proof you have connected all the dots buddy.Nice try. Second you keep cherry picking buddy.You think I wouldn't notice man.Thats the dead giveaway of partisan behavior budy I'm not going to respond anymore to you here on this allright.You need a blanket or a friend or what I don't even want to go there man. To me you have lost all entertainment value and are starting to sound like some rambling street person trying to save everyone from the evil in our society.Actually no more like a lawyer rambling on and on about some stupid legal details that bores everyone to the point that they are looking for any excuse to end the conversation and get out of his office as soon as possible and never return,to only turn to one another to say"Wow I never thought that guy would shut up"."Its a good thing you came up with that excuse about having to meet up with a client this afternoon or we would still be there listening to him ramble on endlessly until the ends of time" Ya I would say you sound more like the lawyer senario,the homeless guy has much more entertainment value and would actually captivate me.Sorry homeless guy if I had implied you are like Toad. Good luck WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
buttercup Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 I don't think it's allowed on your first post... My first post was a new topic. Quote
dre Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 We will have minority governments for a long time. The Conservative and Liberals parties just arent majority material and I dont see that changing any time soon. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 We will have minority governments for a long time. The Conservative and Liberals parties just arent majority material and I dont see that changing any time soon. I'm not so sure that this particular election won't result in a Conservative majority. The idea of the Liberals forming a government is a very remote possibility. Right now the idea of a Conservative majority is far more plausible. Quote
wyly Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 The economy will be building steam? Under a Liberal/NDP coalition? Are you serious? They both believe in spending. The NDP opposes balanced budgets. They will gut the military once again because they both believe "we should talk to our enemies over tea". This country's economy will head for the toilet once again under that coalition. Be prepared for higher unemployment as the NDP pushes through extremely high corporate taxes (after all, SOMEBODY has to pay for those higher welfare rates they will introduce). and who do you think is going to pay for those 30 billion dollars military toys... our generous corporate benefactors?.... who is going to pay for our multi billon dollar expanded prison system for our falling crime rate the charitable corporate millionaires?...when you're sitting in your wheelchair wondering where your pension has gone and you can't afford private healthcare due to super planes and prisons we don't need, you may( if your brain hasn't completely failed by that time) recall who introduced canada to public healthcare that's covered your arse until now, the CCF/NDP... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
WWWTT Posted March 25, 2011 Author Report Posted March 25, 2011 My irony meter just exploded. Oh and where do you keep this so called "Irony meter",in your pants? . And now that your irony meter has exploded were will you take it to be repaired and how much will it cost to get repaired and how long will it take and will the parts to have it repaired need to be ordered in? Will you need to get three quotes on repair costs and does your insurance cover this so called irony meter. You know what buddy I'm starting to think that this irony meter doesn't actually exist. I'm starting to think your just trying to trick the taxpayer into paying for something that doesn't even really exist. Oh ya your smart buddy,real smart. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
ToadBrother Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 Two things you did wrong again(man I'm sounding like a broken record) First you have confused knowledge with intelligence required for insight.Ya you got alot of facts here I'll admit that.Still is not proof you have connected all the dots buddy.Nice try. Translation: You made your narrative of the Coalition having a Peewee Herman moment and announcing "We meant to do that!" up. Second you keep cherry picking buddy.You think I wouldn't notice man.Thats the dead giveaway of partisan behavior budy What is it exactly that I'm cherry picking? And what partisan behavior? You haven't been around here long enough to label people like that. You ask the regulars around here, I'm no partisan. I have no affiliation, no favorite party, no intention of ever putting on any party t-shirts. I'm not going to respond anymore to you here on this allright.You need a blanket or a friend or what I don't even want to go there man. That's right. Get cornered saying absurd and patently ludicrous things, so run away. To me you have lost all entertainment value and are starting to sound like some rambling street person trying to save everyone from the evil in our society.Actually no more like a lawyer rambling on and on about some stupid legal details that bores everyone to the point that they are looking for any excuse to end the conversation and get out of his office as soon as possible and never return,to only turn to one another to say"Wow I never thought that guy would shut up"."Its a good thing you came up with that excuse about having to meet up with a client this afternoon or we would still be there listening to him ramble on endlessly until the ends of time" Ya I would say you sound more like the lawyer senario,the homeless guy has much more entertainment value and would actually captivate me.Sorry homeless guy if I had implied you are like Toad. Good luck WWWTT What a lot of words, when all you had to say is "Yeah, you caught me talking crap." Quote
scouterjim Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 and who do you think is going to pay for those 30 billion dollars military toys... our generous corporate benefactors?.... who is going to pay for our multi billon dollar expanded prison system for our falling crime rate the charitable corporate millionaires?... when you're sitting in your wheelchair wondering where your pension has gone and you can't afford private healthcare due to super planes and prisons we don't need, you may( if your brain hasn't completely failed by that time) recall who introduced canada to public healthcare that's covered your arse until now, the CCF/NDP... I also recall which party three times put the BC economy into the toilet, one time put the Ontario economy into the toilet, and numerous times put the Manitoba economy into the toilet. "Whom" you ask? Why, the NDP is who. BTW, public healthcare is the ONLY real thing the CCF/NDP have created in all their years of existance. Oh...wait...easy welfare for lazy jerks is another. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
Harry Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 How did Harper manage to get any legislation passed as he did not and has never had a majority in the House of Commons? Just curious. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 How did Harper manage to get any legislation passed as he did not and has never had a majority in the House of Commons? Deal making. The opposition's fear of an election. Combinations thereof. That's how minority parliaments work. Quote
Harry Posted March 25, 2011 Report Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) You mean for example how Harper made a coalition/agreement, whatever, with the Bloc to get the last estimates passed in the current House. So what's this hullabaloo about? It all seems very bizarre. Edited March 25, 2011 by Harry Quote
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.