capricorn Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Then why the letter the GG?? You say you listened to the press conference. The reasons for the letter were clearly explained in the opening remarks. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Adressing the 'democratic defecit' from the most secretive,controlling PM ever!!! PRICELESS!!!! "Must...Dig...Historical...Hole...Deeper!!!" Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) I'm watching it right now... It sounds like they want to give the Governor General the heads up that the opposition party's are prepared to govern together if the minority Liberal gov't fell on a non-confidence motion... So,in other words (and in spite of all denials),a coaliton by another name... And Stephen Harper just said that it is PARLIAMENT that governs the country...NOT just the party with the most votes... PRICELESS!!!! There are other kinds of coalitions. The 2008 coalition is an example of a formal coalition, which have long been very rare in our system of government. There are informal coalitions, agreements between the governing party and other parties not to bring the government down whenever a confidence vote comes along. These are somewhat more common. For instance, I would say that between the 2009 and 2010 sittings of Parliament, whatever the two sides may say, we effectively had an informal Tory-Liberal coalition. Key votes were not contested with suspicious frequency, suggesting that there was at least an unspoken agreement between Harper and Iggy. It really depends on how you define coalition, I suppose. The 2004 letter could have hinted heavily at an informal coalition, and that would be my suspicion. I have my doubts there was ever the intent of any NDP or Bloc ministers in cabinet, which is what a formal coalition is all about. But clearly the three parties had in mind the notion of a vote agreement. The 2008 coalition was a formal-informal deal; in that the NDP would actually be in government, but the Bloc would stand outside it but agree not to topple the government on confidence motions. Iggy could certainly try for that, I suppose, and claim "When I said no coalitions, I mean a capital-C coalition!" I'm thinking he's going to go for a vote-by-vote minority, a harder beast in many respects, particularly as he's going to have to cut deals with the NDP and Bloc on a case by case basis, with an angry vengeful Tory opposition chomping at the bit to bring it down. A clear example would be the Wilson Labour government in the UK in 1974, where Labour managed to hold on to power despite having the second largest seat count (in part because our system always gives the incumbent governing party first kick at the cat in forming a new government, and in part because the Tories could get a coalition together with other parties). That doesn't exactly spell happy times for the Liberals, because 1974 is of course known as the year of two elections in the UK, the Wilson government lasting but nine months. But make no mistake, no matter whether it's a formal coalition, an informal coalition, a vote-by-vote minority, or any combination thereof, if any Tory here is thinking that deals won't be cut with the Bloc, that the Government will not be trying to get support where it can when critical votes come up, then they're deluding themselves. I can understand the lack of desire of a separatist party having direct cabinet influence on the Government, but the Bloc is a large chunk of seats, and they have and will continue to have, unless there is a majority government, have a large influence on policy and legislation. Edited March 28, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 You say you listened to the press conference. The reasons for the letter were clearly explained in the opening remarks. Yes.. To form a potential alternative to a Liberal minority falling on a non-confidence motion... That potential containing the CA,the socialist NDP,and,the seperatist Bloc Quebecois... But it's not a coalition...It's "cooperation"...er...What did Harper say??? Coaloperation?? Gimme a break...What a joke... I thought it was a bad joke then!!! It's nothing but a coalition by anther name.... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Yes.. To form a potential alternative to a Liberal minority falling on a non-confidence motion... That potential containing the CA,the socialist NDP,and,the seperatist Bloc Quebecois... But it's not a coalition...It's "cooperation"...er...What did Harper say??? Coaloperation?? Gimme a break...What a joke... I thought it was a bad joke then!!! It's nothing but a coalition by anther name.... I can understand why the Tories want 2004 not to have been about a coalition of some kind, but I think it's being disingenuous. Even if it was just an agreement by the Bloc and NDP not to topple a potential Tory government, that is a kind of coalition. Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 There are other kinds of coalitions. The 2008 coalition is an example of a formal coalition, which have long been very rare in our system of government. There are informal coalitions, agreements between the governing party and other parties not to bring the government down whenever a confidence vote comes along. These are somewhat more common. For instance, I would say that between the 2009 and 2010 sittings of Parliament, whatever the two sides may say, we effectively had an informal Tory-Liberal coalition. Key votes were not contested with suspicious frequency, suggesting that there was at least an unspoken agreement between Harper and Iggy. It really depends on how you define coalition, I suppose. The 2004 letter could have hinted heavily at an informal coalition, and that would be my suspicion. I have my doubts there was ever the intent of any NDP or Bloc ministers in cabinet, which is what a formal coalition is all about. But clearly the three parties had in mind the notion of a vote agreement. The 2008 coalition was a formal-informal deal; in that the NDP would actually be in government, but the Bloc would stand outside it but agree not to topple the government on confidence motions. Iggy could certainly try for that, I suppose, and claim "When I said no coalitions, I mean a capital-C coalition!" I'm thinking he's going to go for a vote-by-vote minority, a harder beast in many respects, particularly as he's going to have to cut deals with the NDP and Bloc on a case by case basis, with an angry vengeful Tory opposition chomping at the bit to bring it down. A clear example would be the Wilson Labour government in the UK in 1974, where Labour managed to hold on to power despite having the second largest seat count (in part because our system always gives the incumbent governing party first kick at the cat in forming a new government, and in part because the Tories could get a coalition together with other parties). That doesn't exactly spell happy times for the Liberals, because 1974 is of course known as the year of two elections in the UK, the Wilson government lasting but nine months. But make no mistake, no matter whether it's a formal coalition, an informal coalition, a vote-by-vote minority, or any combination thereof, if any Tory here is thinking that deals won't be cut with the Bloc, that the Government will not be trying to get support where it can when critical votes come up, then they're deluding themselves. I can understand the lack of desire of a separatist party having direct cabinet influence on the Government, but the Bloc is a large chunk of seats, and they have and will continue to have, unless there is a majority government, have a large influence on policy and legislation. Well... In a minority parliament the governing party must get the assistance of one(or more) of the opposition party's to pass legislation.And,you're right,on a case by case basis it IS a coalition... As it realtes to this 2004 situation,I have an extremely hard time believing that during the deliberations between the three party's (and don't think for a moment that this CA/NDP/Bloc coalition was cooked up in an afternoon),Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe...Particularily Mr. Layton...Would simply sit back and say.. "Ok Harper...You run the whole show if we get the chance!" Not a snowball's chance in Hell that that happened... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I can understand why the Tories want 2004 not to have been about a coalition of some kind, but I think it's being disingenuous. Even if it was just an agreement by the Bloc and NDP not to topple a potential Tory government, that is a kind of coalition. Of course... For the very same reason it was a bad idea in 2008... The Seperatist angle is untennable to anyone outside of Quebec.... That does not preclude,however,a coalition of federalist party's... Essentially,that's what happened with Trudeau's minority Parliament in the early '70's... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
August1991 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Liberals to lose Quebec...?Talk of coalition is what's killing the Liberals in Quebec. Some leftist/federalists are switching to the NDP believing that this would result in a Liberal-led coalition government. The practical effect however is that they will split the federalist vote and the Bloc may win the seat.The Liberals have about 15 seats in Quebec now and they could possibly lose, say, 4 or so to the Bloc in this way if their vote splits. The Bloc could possibly win 55 or more seats in Quebec and the Liberals (and Tories) fall to 9 or so. Based on the average polls since March 24th 2011 (the day before the confidence vote), I have the following:Con 39% Lib 25% NDP 18% Bloc 10% Greens 8% Ind 1% Others 1% which is a Con lead of 14%. Based on a national uniform swing this would see the following result: Con 150 (+7) Lib 73 (-4) Bloc 49 (n/c) NDP 34 (-3) Ind 2 (n/c) with the Conservatives five short of an overall majority. Any Lib led coalition would be 73 + 49 + 34 = 156. HH, you can't really do these calculations as you have. In Canada, you have to look at regional breakdowns.In addition, this is an election where the way votes split is going to be critical. In Ontario, several Tory MPs are going to win because the opposition will split between Libs/NDP and some Libs will go Tory. In Quebec, several Bloquistes will win because of th esame effect. In effect, all the parties are cannibalizing the Liberal vote. This is the effect of Harper's coalition strategy (which according to the G&M is Harper's own idea). ---- Ignatieff has to stop this hemorrhaging of Liberal votes to the NDP and Conservatives. The only way to do this is to attack Layton directly, and make it plain that a vote for the NDP is tantamount to a vote for the Tories or Bloc. He must also make it absolutely deadset clear that as long as he's PM, Jack Layton or another NDP member would never sit at a Liberal cabinet table. No, this is not the case for Hillary Clinton, who already had a high national profile as First Lady... BC, that was my point. In January 2008, her poll results reflected the higher profile/recognition of her name. One reason that Ignatieff is low now is because this is his first campaign. Unless you're in the biz, it's hard to understand how difficult it is to get name recognition. Edited March 28, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 And now he brings up patronage appointments in the senate(and other places).... Mike Duffy,Larry Smith,Pamela Wallen anyone??? Jack, we both know that until and unless the Senate is reformed to give the people the power to pick and elect their Senatators ANY PM will have to stack the Senate with his patronage! If he doesn't, he would be slitting his own throat! It would be a more stupid move than letting Stephane Dion run your campaign. So you might as well stop harping on it. Harper may be sly and he may be a bit of a bore but NOBODY is stupid enough to do anything else as far as appointing Senators! Might as well bitch at a man with no legs for not dancing for you! As I've said to others, I'm not super fond of Harper myself but let's stay within reality here... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
punked Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Posted March 28, 2011 Talk of coalition is what's killing the Liberals in Quebec. Some leftist/federalists are switching to the NDP believing that this would result in a Liberal-led coalition government. The practical effect however is that they will split the federalist vote and the Bloc may win the seat. The Liberals have about 15 seats in Quebec now and they could possibly lose, say, 4 or so to the Bloc in this way if their vote splits. The Bloc could possibly win 55 or more seats in Quebec and the Liberals (and Tories) fall to 9 or so. HH, you can't really do these calculations as you have. In Canada, you have to look at regional breakdowns. In addition, this is an election where the way votes split is going to be critical. In Ontario, several Tory MPs are going to win because the opposition will split between Libs/NDP and some Libs will go Tory. In Quebec, several Bloquistes will win because of th esame effect. In effect, all the parties are cannibalizing the Liberal vote. This is the effect of Harper's coalition strategy (which according to the G&M is Harper's own idea). BC, that was my point. In January 2008, her poll results reflected the higher profile/recognition of her name. One reason that Ignatieff is low now is because this is his first campaign. Unless your in the biz, it's hard to understand how dificult it is to get name recognition. I take issue with all your assertions. First would be "the Liberal vote" I will tell you one thing I would never vote Liberal. The NDP and other left wing parties are not "cannibalizing" the Liberal vote because the Liberals are a right of center party. The Liberals if anything are taking the Conservative vote which isn't a bad thing. Quote
August1991 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 First would be "the Liberal vote" I will tell you one thing I would never vote Liberal. The NDP and other left wing parties are not "cannibalizing" the Liberal vote because the Liberals are a right of center party.So pi=unked, I gather that you vote NDP. This coalition talk is not designed for you. It is designed specifically for two sets of Liberal voters: those who hesitate between the NDP/Liberals and those who hesitate between the Liberals/Conservatives. In the past, many leftish people sympathized with the NDP but voted Liberal to keep the Conservatives out of power. This idea of a coalition has legimitized these people voting NDP instead. Many centre-right people vote Liberal (because it is humane/practical) but will now vote Conservative to keep the NDP away from power. The Liberals used to have a big tent that sit astride the centre. The word coalition squeezes them on both sides. Quote
Bryan Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 So pi=unked, I gather that you vote NDP. This coalition talk is not designed for you. It is designed specifically for two sets of Liberal voters: those who hesitate between the NDP/Liberals and those who hesitate between the Liberals/Conservatives. In the past, many leftish people sympathized with the NDP but voted Liberal to keep the Conservatives out of power. This idea of a coalition has legimitized these people voting NDP instead. Many centre-right people vote Liberal (because it is humane/practical) but will now vote Conservative to keep the NDP away from power. The Liberals used to have a big tent that sit astride the centre. The word coalition squeezes them on both sides. Then there's that really confusing group: those who would vote NDP or Conservative, but never Liberal. That's most Manitoba voters (Federal and Provincial), and it's confusing as all heck. I wonder how Coalition talk affects them? Quote
Harry Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) HD C - 38% L - 24% N - 19% B - 10% G - 7% http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/conservatives-lead-liberals-38-24-in-latest-canadian-press-harris-decima-poll-118799299.html Gee I wonder what Harper got last election - he hasn't moved an inch, amazing. Edited March 28, 2011 by Harry Quote
August1991 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Then there's that really confusing group: those who would vote NDP or Conservative, but never Liberal. That's most Manitoba voters (Federal and Provincial), and it's confusing as all heck. I wonder how Coalition talk affects them?Good point.This coalition talk is designed primarily to influence Ontario Liberal voters. In Manitoba and further west, the strategy will at most galvanize the Conservative base but have no other practical effect. How many seats in the West could the Conservatives pick up if some Liberal votes went NDP or Conservative? 1? 2? Quote
Bryan Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 HD C - 38% L - 24% N - 19% B - 10% G - 7% http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/conservatives-lead-liberals-38-24-in-latest-canadian-press-harris-decima-poll-118799299.html Gee I wonder what Harper got last election - he hasn't moved an inch, amazing. That's actually an improvement for the CPC, and a drop for the LPC from the last HD poll (CPC 34%, LPC 28% NDP-17%, BQ-10%, GRN 9%) http://www.harrisdecima.ca/news/releases/201103/1075-conservatives-hold-six-point-lead-liberals It's at least consistently showing that the CPC are on an upward trajectory by anyone's measure. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) I wonder how or if the Sturgeon revalation will affect things. Again, the optics are horrible on this one. Tory candidate lobbied for firm selling F-35 jets A Conservative candidate in Ontario lobbied for a firm that is selling Canada a fleet of controversial fighter jets whose disputed cost helped spark the election, the Toronto Star has learned."]Tory candidate lobbied for firm selling F-35 jets contrast it against this guy... Tory candidate forced to resign 3 days after winning B.C. nomination Dale Saip, chosen as Tory candidate for Delta-Richmond East on Monday, says financial problems from his past were disclosed to the party before he was chosen.But after it was made public on Wednesday that Saip had twice sought creditor protection, he says the party told him he had to step down. He says the party likely believed his financial issues were "too much of a distraction," especially with a federal election pending. What exactly does this say to the average voter? Edited March 28, 2011 by Shakeyhands Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 That's actually an improvement for the CPC, and a drop for the LPC from the last HD poll (CPC 34%, LPC 28% NDP-17%, BQ-10%, GRN 9%) http://www.harrisdecima.ca/news/releases/201103/1075-conservatives-hold-six-point-lead-liberals It's at least consistently showing that the CPC are on an upward trajectory by anyone's measure. Harper will hang onto his minority government and still lose his job. So will Iggy, but not Jack or Liz. Quote
YEGmann Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Ignatieff has to stop this hemorrhaging of Liberal votes to the NDP and Conservatives. The only way to do this is to attack Layton directly, and make it plain that a vote for the NDP is tantamount to a vote for the Tories or Bloc. He must also make it absolutely deadset clear that as long as he's PM, Jack Layton or another NDP member would never sit at a Liberal cabinet table. I think this won't happen. If liberals and NDP are not idiots, they have already signed a deal. They should not attack each other. So far, they do not. They do not want competition between each other in a riding. It seems like Bloc is a part of this deal too. All three amigos fiercely attack Harper only. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 It seems like Bloc is a part of this deal too. All three amigos fiercely attack Harper only. 1) Do you follow politics much? 2) Ignatieff saying the a vote for the Greens, NDP or Bloc puts Harper back in kills your delusion. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I think this won't happen. If liberals and NDP are not idiots, they have already signed a deal. They should not attack each other. So far, they do not. They do not want competition between each other in a riding. It seems like Bloc is a part of this deal too. All three amigos fiercely attack Harper only. That would'nt have anything to do with the general regionalism,as it relates to who gets what votes where,in the country??? Or is it the "coalition conspiracy" that you believe in??? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Shakeyhands Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 shouldn't we at least confine the coalition talk to the coalition thread? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
fellowtraveller Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 He (Ignatieff)must also make it absolutely deadset clear that as long as he's PM, Jack Layton or another NDP member would never sit at a Liberal cabinet table. That will be a big problem, since it is pretty obvious that Ignatieff cannot possibly become PM without the help of both Layton and Duceppe. Quote The government should do something.
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 shouldn't we at least confine the coalition talk to the coalition thread? I agree... But it's all they want to talk about 'cause it's all they got... "Must...Turn...The...Channel..." Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Harry Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Harper is talking about this silly coalition stuff maybe because he don't want to talk about what Canadians are concerned about which is reflected in the polls C - 36% (2% less that 2008 GE - what's going on!) L - 27% N - 20% Poll: Tories lead, but have they topped out?“The Conservatives have no room to grow. Very few voters from other parties identify the Conservatives as their second choice,” Coletto said. “The issues of scandal and contempt have really polarized the electorate.” http://www.torontosun.com/news/decision2011/2011/03/28/17786031.html Edited March 28, 2011 by Harry Quote
Bryan Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Harper is talking about this silly coalition stuff maybe because he don't want to talk about what Canadians are concerned about which is reflected in the polls C - 36% (2% less that 2008 GE - what's going on!) L - 27% N - 20% Interesting. That makes Abacus as the only polling firm not showing CPC moving up. Their M/E is 3.3% though... Edited March 28, 2011 by Bryan Quote
.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.