scribblet Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Coalition confirmed - Today’s NP says that Mr. Ignatieff has said things he probably would like to take back – notably the admission in an interview with the paper that he would not support an unchanged Conservative budget, which suggests we may have to do this all over again soon, if the Tories are returned with a minority - so this has been the plan all along, another election so they can form a coalition. The plot thickens :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) Coalition confirmed - Today’s NP says that Mr. Ignatieff has said things he probably would like to take back – notably the admission in an interview with the paper that he would not support an unchanged Conservative budget, which suggests we may have to do this all over again soon, if the Tories are returned with a minority - so this has been the plan all along, another election so they can form a coalition. The plot thickens :lol: Or, alternatively, you're knowledge of the Westminster system and previous precedent is probably on a level with my dog's understanding of it. Iggy does not need to form a formal coalition to govern. There are precedents in Canada and elsewhere in the Commonwealth (which I think I've mentioned about five times since last week) for the second-largest party forming a government without a coalition. A lot of knowledge is useful. A little knowledge makes you look even sillier than if you had none at all. Edited April 1, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Coalition confirmed - Today’s NP says that Mr. Ignatieff has said things he probably would like to take back – notably the admission in an interview with the paper that he would not support an unchanged Conservative budget, which suggests we may have to do this all over again soon, if the Tories are returned with a minority - so this has been the plan all along, another election so they can form a coalition. The plot thickens :lol: Whatever you say... Does this mean that Mr. Harper's coalition of 2004 was equally invalid?? Y'know...Because it involved those awful socialists and seperatists??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Whatever you say... Does this mean that Mr. Harper's coalition of 2004 was equally invalid?? Y'know...Because it involved those awful socialists and seperatists??? He kind of reminds me of those breathless CNN reports in Japan who announce, after intro by dramatic music, that radiation levels are now ten million billion bazillion times normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Yawn.... ZZZZ the coalition of losers has been plotting all along to overthrow the gov't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 He kind of reminds me of those breathless CNN reports in Japan who announce, after intro by dramatic music, that radiation levels are now ten million billion bazillion times normal. I see that Mr. Harper has found new,and innovative, ways of getting "The coalition is evil" message out... Part of this entails saying that he would debate Ignatieff one-on-one because he's the defacto leader of "The Evil Coalition!!!"... The other part is to simply only take four (4) questions at any presserAND only ones that have been pre-screened before... Because the Dear Leader must stay on message... Did I mention "The Evil Coalition"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Or, alternatively, you're knowledge of the Westminster system and previous precedent is probably on a level with my dog's understanding of it. Iggy does not need to form a formal coalition to govern. There are precedents in Canada and elsewhere in the Commonwealth (which I think I've mentioned about five times since last week) for the second-largest party forming a government without a coalition. A lot of knowledge is useful. A little knowledge makes you look even sillier than if you had none at all. Ignatieff would need one maybe two opposition parties to pass legislation. He would need their support otherwise the GG makes another decision. The next election would be interesting to say the least Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Yawn.... ZZZZ the coalition of losers has been plotting all along to overthrow the gov't. Coalition of losers.... Hmmm.... Like the losers in 2004??? Why was that "coaliton" A-OK but this one is total crap??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) Iggy does not need to form a formal coalition to govern. There are precedents in Canada and elsewhere in the Commonwealth (which I think I've mentioned about five times since last week) for the second-largest party forming a government without a coalition. While true, such a government would be very unstable. Depending on exact seat counts, they would probably need the support of every opposition party but one on each confidence vote. Specifically, if either the bloc or NDP voted against the Liberals (in addition to the Conservatives also voting against them, which we can take as a given), the government would fall. Without a coalition, and knowing the precarious stance of such a government, the bloc or NDP could demand ridiculous concessions, and Ignatieff would have no choice but to grant them if he wanted to remain in power, which he obviously would. This is much less stable than the current larger conservative minority, which needs support (or abstention) from just one of the opposition parties. Edited April 1, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Yawn.... ZZZZ the coalition of losers has been plotting all along to overthrow the gov't. It's absolute pathetic and more than a little disturbing to see how breathless ignoramuses run around here saying every manner of false or misleading thing, not because they're deceitful and clever, but because they're stupid and gullible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 It's absolute pathetic and more than a little disturbing to see how breathless ignoramuses run around here saying every manner of false or misleading thing, not because they're deceitful and clever, but because they're stupid and gullible. What does anyone expect from partisan hacks?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) While true, such a government would be very unstable. The 1974 Labour government in the UK survived nine months, as long as Joe Clark's Tory minority. Nine months is significantly better than back-to-back elections, no? Depending on exact seat counts, they would probably need the support of every opposition party but one on each confidence vote. Specifically, if either the bloc or NDP voted against the Liberals (in addition to the Conservatives alsovoting against them, which we can take as a given), the government would fall. Without a coalition, and knowing the precarious stance of such a government, the bloc or NDP could demand ridiculous concessions, and Ignatieff would have no choice but to grant them if he wanted to remain in power, which he obviously would. This is much less stable than the current larger conservative minority, which needs support (or abstention) from just one of the opposition parties. I'm not saying it's optimum, but I am saying it's a path available to Iggy, and he's declared he'll be seeking no coalition, so it would appear that it is the only course available to him. The larger point is that there is no way in hell that within weeks of one election the GG would call another one. It would be expensive, onerous and there's the reasonable chance that we would get the same Parliament again. Edited April 1, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 The 1974 Labour government in the UK survived nine months, as long as Joe Clark's Tory minority. Nine months is significantly better than back-to-back elections, no? Well, it is longer. I don't know about "better" necessarily, that is a very subjective term. I think such a government would have adverse effects because Ignatieff may well make many unconscionable concessions to the bloc and/or NDP to stay in power for as long as he can. A formal coalition between them, even including the bloc, could well be less destructive, because at least there would be some formalized agreement as to what the bloc and NDP get, rather than them getting to milk Ignatieff for all he's worth at every vote. I'm not saying it's optimum, but I am saying it's a path available to Iggy, and he's declared he'll be seeking no coalition, so it would appear that it is the only course available to him. The only likely path available to Ignatieff is to continue to serve as leader of the opposition, and the only thing up in the air is whether he will be opposing a minority government or a majority government. Right now I am betting on another Conservative minority, with probably a couple more seats than they have now, but not enough for a majority. I do not think Ignatieff would want to be seen triggering another election immediately after this one, the ridiculousness of it would reflect very badly for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Well, it is longer. I don't know about "better" necessarily, that is a very subjective term. I think such a government would have adverse effects because Ignatieff may well make many unconscionable concessions to the bloc and/or NDP to stay in power for as long as he can. A formal coalition between them, even including the bloc, could well be less destructive, because at least there would be some formalized agreement as to what the bloc and NDP get, rather than them getting to milk Ignatieff for all he's worth at every vote. The only likely path available to Ignatieff is to continue to serve as leader of the opposition, and the only thing up in the air is whether he will be opposing a minority government or a majority government. Right now I am betting on another Conservative minority, with probably a couple more seats than they have now, but not enough for a majority. I do not think Ignatieff would want to be seen triggering another election immediately after this one, the ridiculousness of it would reflect very badly for him. I think it is a tory majority. Barring a catostrophic meltdown and harper running the boring campaign, I think voters will cry uncle at the polling booth and vote to stop the gong show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 It's absolute pathetic and more than a little disturbing to see how breathless ignoramuses run around here saying every manner of false or misleading thing, not because they're deceitful and clever, but because they're stupid and gullible. I shouldn't give your rants and hyperbolic malicious verbal diarrhea - which is not in keeping with the forum rules - credibility by replying, but I will. Too bad you can't see anything other than your own hyper partisan ideology, it's people like you who only see through the prism of their own left wing lenses who can't accept that their are other opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 What does anyone expect from partisan hacks?? Maybe the same as what we get from you liberal partisan hacks !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 I shouldn't give your rants and hyperbolic malicious verbal diarrhea - which is not in keeping with the forum rules - credibility by replying, but I will. Too bad you can't see anything other than your own hyper partisan ideology, it's people like you who only see through the prism of their own left wing lenses who can't accept that their are other opinions. Erm..yeah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Maybe the same as what we get from you liberal partisan hacks !! Please describe my "liberal partisanship" for everyone... Please be specific... Thanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) I shouldn't give your rants and hyperbolic malicious verbal diarrhea - which is not in keeping with the forum rules - credibility by replying, but I will. Too bad you can't see anything other than your own hyper partisan ideology, it's people like you who only see through the prism of their own left wing lenses who can't accept that their are other opinions. You think I'm partisan? Let's play a game. You guess at what parties I voted for the last six Federal elections and we'll see how close you get. What is it with you hyper-partisan types? Is it that you can't imagine that someone might actually not have a particular horse in this race? Edited April 1, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Like the losers in 2004??? Why was that "coaliton" A-OK but this one is total crap??? It wasn't ok. Which is why it wasn't acted upon. Unlike the 3 amigos from a couple of years ago. Count Michael Ignatieff still hasn't rejected the coalition possibility if the Conservatives win another minority government. Why won't he? What's he hiding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 You think I'm partisan? Let's play a game. You guess at what parties I voted for the last six Federal elections and we'll see how close you get. What is it with you hyper-partisan types? Is it that you can't imagine that someone might actually not have a particular horse in this race? It's because all ideologues are two-dimensional fools... Everything is an either/or proposition... If you're against something,you must be for the opposite... There's never any shades of gray with these people...Just black and white... It's pathetic and it ruins true political discourse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) It wasn't ok. Which is why it wasn't acted upon. Unlike the 3 amigos from a couple of years ago. Count Michael Ignatieff still hasn't rejected the coalition possibility if the Conservatives win another minority government. Why won't he? What's he hiding? Really??? It was'nt acted upon because Mr.Layton backed out once he realized what Mr.Harper was really up to... Essentially becoming PM... I agree that both "co-opaltions" are untennable because of the seperatist issue,however... Why is it bad for anyone other than Mr. Harper??? Edited April 1, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 It wasn't ok. Which is why it wasn't acted upon. Unlike the 3 amigos from a couple of years ago. Count Michael Ignatieff still hasn't rejected the coalition possibility if the Conservatives win another minority government. Why won't he? What's he hiding? I don't know. When did you stop beating your wife? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 It wasn't ok. Which is why it wasn't acted upon. Unlike the 3 amigos from a couple of years ago. Count Michael Ignatieff still hasn't rejected the coalition possibility if the Conservatives win another minority government. Why won't he? What's he hiding? He's hiding the fact that this election was contrived in order for them to do this, and has now admitted it after saying no coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 One only has to listen to Harper to see that at least he already KNOWS that Ignatieff and the Liberals will have the support of the NDP and BLOC should EITHER the CONS or the Liberals win with a minority... Harper himself has taken any other outcome off the table with his statements that Ignatieff has the support of the NDP and BLOC regardless of outcome... More importantly, with a representation that reflects what some 60% (certainly more than 50%) of voters voted for, how in actuality is that so bad? I'm ready and waiting for Ignatieff's "right cross" to follow up his working well "left jab" come the debates to be then followed by a devestating "upper cut" to knock Harper out... What's more I'm actually starting to like Ignatieff more and more each TIME I hear him speak, as I did Wednesday night in Winnipeg, so I'm actually "upping" my support for the Liberals in meaningful "real TIME" effort... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
.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.