cybercoma Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 You're spinning like a top. How would the coalition gain the confidence of the house without the Bloc's active/direct support? Your "coalition" would be stillborn in Rideau Hall. Tell me how this is a lie. Tell me how the Liberals and NDP could march into the GG's office with fewer seats than the Conservatives and ask to form a government in place of the Tories?How do any other minority governments march into the GG's office without a coalition and do it? Quote
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 You're spinning like a top. How would the coalition gain the confidence of the house without the Bloc's active/direct support? Your "coalition" would be stillborn in Rideau Hall. Tell me how this is a lie. Tell me how the Liberals and NDP could march into the GG's office with fewer seats than the Conservatives and ask to form a government in place of the Tories? mission accomplished, hey Simple... you've taken the discussion away from the legitimacy of coalition government. Well done! you know... yet choose to play 'silly-buggar'! You know that the BQ support was nothing more than a commitment not to support any non-confidence pursuits undertaken by the Harper Conservatives. You know this. You also know that the BQ had no involvement in forming the structure/makeup of the workings of that planned coalition. You know this. This is you, as you say, "spinning like a top"! Quote
cybercoma Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 The BQ would not have had any cabinet ministers. Full stop. They would not be "forming" government or even "informing" government of anything. The NDP and Liberals would have shared cabinet positions with Dion as PM. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 How do any other minority governments march into the GG's office without a coalition and do it? When they can prove to the GG that they have the confidence of the house.......Waldo said the Bloc played no direct/active role in the coalition.....but without an active/direct role (and you saw the picture of Duceppe shaking hands with Layton), the NDP and Liberals would not have been able to show that they had the confidence of the house. All I'm saying - once again - is that Canadians did not - and still will not accept - having the Bloc anywhere near the levers of government. Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 Because the Prime Minister needs the support of the House when they're a minority government, as the LPC/NDP coalition would be. Don't play dumb. I have no problem with a coalition or even a coalition that has fewer sitting members than the opposition. I care about what the Bloc was promised for their signature in this particular case. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 mission accomplished, hey Simple... you've taken the discussion away from the legitimacy of coalition government. Well done! you know... yet choose to play 'silly-buggar'! You know that the BQ support was nothing more than a commitment not to support any non-confidence pursuits undertaken by the Harper Conservatives. You know this. You also know that the BQ had no involvement in forming the structure/makeup of the workings of that planned coalition. You know this. This is you, as you say, "spinning like a top"! I'm questioning - no, damning - the Dion/Layton/Duceppe "coalition". Your hatred of Harper - and love of JT - goes so far as to imply that such a farcical coalition would have been better for the country? Unbelievable. And as I've said, if the day comes that there is a minority situation - and the NDP, Liberals and Greens have more seats than the Tories - go ahead, go for it. Nothing wrong with that at all - that's democracy. So go ahead - keep blustering on about......nothing....because all three parties are trying to win the election outright - and it looks like we have a horse race. Stop being so cynical and enjoy it. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 I care about what the Bloc was promised for their signature in this particular case. in this case, you appear to be caring about what your imagination chooses to bring you personal solace... unless you have some real substantiated source/cite to speak to "promises". Quote
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 And as I've said, if the day comes that there is a minority situation - and the NDP, Liberals and Greens have more seats than the Tories - go ahead, go for it. Nothing wrong with that at all - that's democracy. this is the second time you've stated this in a few short posts... and now you're simply being dishonest with yourself! Aren't you the guy who repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of a post-election coalition? Aren't you the guy who adamantly stated the only legitimate coalition was one formed prior to an election... so as to, presumably, give voters a real chance/opportunity to vote for a known quantity... a known coalition "going in"? Wasn't that you? Talk about your wild spin cycle! Quote
Smallc Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 What other reason would the Bloc have to support the coalition for a year? Quote
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 What other reason would the Bloc have to support the coalition for a year? is this you saying you were just following your imagination? That you haven't any substance behind your "promises" suggestion? Quote
waldo Posted August 19, 2015 Report Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) I'm questioning - no, damning - the Dion/Layton/Duceppe "coalition". Your hatred of Harper - and love of JT - goes so far as to imply that such a farcical coalition would have been better for the country? Unbelievable. hey Simple! When your only resort is "hatred/love" personalized attachment, perhaps you should take a break from your keyboard! Your "farcical" assessment pales against the legitimacy of that coalition... regardless of how many lies Harper Conservatives chose to spread, regardless of how much you still insist on perpetuating those lies. Edited August 19, 2015 by waldo Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) this is the second time you've stated this in a few short posts... and now you're simply being dishonest with yourself! Aren't you the guy who repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of a post-election coalition? Aren't you the guy who adamantly stated the only legitimate coalition was one formed prior to an election... so as to, presumably, give voters a real chance/opportunity to vote for a known quantity... a known coalition "going in"? Wasn't that you? Talk about your wild spin cycle! Doubt it was me......but regardless, you're blustering on about hypothetical scenarios - just to try and perpetuate your anti-Harper rant. Hypothetical because in order for your coalition to take effect, these things have to occur: 1) There's no majority government 2) The party with the most seats cannot attain a working relationship with one of the other parties. 3) The government falls on a confidence vote where both/all opposition parties vote against it. 4) The Opposition parties must create a coalition partnership that gains the GG approval 5) The opposition parties must make their decisions knowing that they may be taken to task by the electorate. So in the end - who cares? Like I said - if the NDP, Liberals and Greens have the numbers - have at it! Edited August 20, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 Doubt it was me......but regardless, as your boy Harper likes to say, let me perfectly clear... are you now going to contest that you didn't previously discount, at large, post-election coalitions... because they weren't defined prior to the election and, accordingly, voters had no opportunity to properly evaluate their acceptance of the/that coalition. Let us be perfectly clear... . you're blustering on about hypothetical scenarios - just to try and perpetuate your anti-Harper rant. Hypothetical because in order for your coalition to take effect, these things have to occur: no bluster here... from me... that's your routine and you have it down pat! "Hypothetical"? Well duh!... thanks Captain Obvious! That's what is being discussed here; you know, the legitimacy of hypothetical coalitions! Oh wait, that's right... that's not what you wanted to discuss - that's why you deflected/distracted from the broader 'hypothetical' to settle in and perpetuate the Harper Conservative lies in regards that formative 2008 scenario. . So in the end - who cares? Like I said - if the NDP, Liberals and Greens have the numbers - have at it! apparently you care! Quite a bit. This has nothing to do with your collective nemisis, the "NDP, Liberals and Greens"... wait, correction! It has as much to do with the Harper Conservatives, NDP, Liberals, Greens, "and any other federal party". It has to do with the legitimacy of coalitions formed by any of those parties... including your favoured one! . Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 apparently you care! Quite a bit. This has nothing to do with your collective nemisis, the "NDP, Liberals and Greens"... wait, correction! It has as much to do with the Harper Conservatives, NDP, Liberals, Greens, "and any other federal party". It has to do with the legitimacy of coalitions formed by any of those parties... including your favoured one! Nope - I cared back then because of the Bloc participation. Don't care now - so now you're just arguing with yourself - which I think you can understand would be completely futile. If the Conservatives win a minority and the collective NDP, Liberals and Greens want to bring them down - that's their right......and if they can form a workable coalition that is acceptable to the GG, good for them. But there's always an eventual reckoning with the public in the follow-on election - so those decisions and actions have to be taken very carefully. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 Don't care now - so now you're just arguing with yourself I'm not arguing... I'm discussing... and not with myself - with you! Since you can't speak to the broader level of the legitimacy of coalition government within Canada, since you can't move beyond your deflecting/distracting 2008 focus, do you accept/did you sanction, the lies told by Harper Conservatives during that 2008 period? You know, again, the lies that the formative coalition was circumventing Canadian democracy... that the votes of Canadians were being stolen? Were you/are you still accepting of those Harper Conservative lies? . Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) I'm not arguing... I'm discussing... and not with myself - with you! Since you can't speak to the broader level of the legitimacy of coalition government within Canada, since you can't move beyond your deflecting/distracting 2008 focus, do you accept/did you sanction, the lies told by Harper Conservatives during that 2008 period? You know, again, the lies that the formative coalition was circumventing Canadian democracy... that the votes of Canadians were being stolen? Were you/are you still accepting of those Harper Conservative lies? . Let me be perfectly clear. I agreed with Harper back then - and so did the vast majority of Canadians. There's a technical argument - and then there's doing what's right for the country......and when the NDP and Liberals combined can't outnumber the Conservatives - and need to enlist the support of the separatist Bloc Quebecois.....that is indeed an affront to our democracy and in all reality, I doubt that the Governor General would have approved and instead, would have dissolved Parliament anyway. I would have had no problem whatsoever if the NDP and Liberals had the numbers - but they did not. And yes - if the ploy had worked, it would have meant that the two losers had stolen the election with the help of the Bloc. Now - how about you being perfectly clear. Would you seriously have wanted the Dion-led Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition to govern back then? Edited August 20, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
socialist Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 I'm not arguing... I'm discussing... Progressive silk stockinged socialist waldo, imagine if the Mainstream Media party ignored the real far left agendas of the NDP and Liberals, and essentially lied about the extent to which the leftist parties agendas would damage the economy of Canada to such a degree that enough Canadians were duped to embrace a touchy feely Mulcair regime. You can imagine the betrayal that many Canadians would soon feel toward the stenographers of the 4th Estate like yourself, when Carbon taxes kick in, a multi-multi billion tax pay dollar union run Day Care indoctrination behemoth spreads like cancer from coast to coast, and Canada plunges to the basement of the G8. Jobs will be lost, the middle class will be bankrupted trying to heat their homes and commute to work, interest rates and the debt will soar sky high, but you, waldo, will share a glass with your buddy Peter Mansbridge and pat each other on the back for having done whatever it took to defeat the Conservatives. You are not as clever as you think, waldo, since your bias has never been in doubt and Canadians other than your progressive brethren, will not be swayed by the propaganda of the Media party. Look Waldo! A squirrel! Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
cybercoma Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 When they can prove to the GG that they have the confidence of the house.......Waldo said the Bloc played no direct/active role in the coalition.....but without an active/direct role (and you saw the picture of Duceppe shaking hands with Layton), the NDP and Liberals would not have been able to show that they had the confidence of the house. All I'm saying - once again - is that Canadians did not - and still will not accept - having the Bloc anywhere near the levers of government. They weren't any closer to the "levers of government" with a Liberal/NDP coalition than they were with a Conservative minority government. That's the part you keep missing. The Conservatives needed the support of the house too and that included the Bloc and could have been the bloc exclusively with the number of seats they had. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 I have no problem with a coalition or even a coalition that has fewer sitting members than the opposition. I care about what the Bloc was promised for their signature in this particular case. What were they promised? Do you care about something that actually exists or just some wild assumptions you've cooked up in your mind? Quote
Smallc Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 They weren't any closer to the "levers of government" with a Liberal/NDP coalition than they were with a Conservative minority government. That's the part you keep missing. The Conservatives needed the support of the house too and that included the Bloc and could have been the bloc exclusively with the number of seats they had. The Conservatives didn't have a signature good for a year's support. We can only theorize what they got for that. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 What other reason would the Bloc have to support the coalition for a year? Opposition to the Harper Government™. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 We can only theorize what they got for that. I don't care about theories. You're just making a villain out of the BQ without substantiating claims about secret deals. The BQ is a party with a full platform that includes secession, but is not exclusive to secession. They're a left leaning party, pretty close to the NDP. There's lots of points of agreement they would have with an NDP/Liberal coalition. And honestly, if secession is your fear, do you really think a Liberal coalition, would be caught dead agreeing to any secessionist terms? The Liberal Party who was involved in AdScam. The Liberal Party who fought for nationalism in Québec. It would never happen. They would rather keep Harper at the helm. Quote
Smallc Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 That's not my fear, it's Quebec centric deals that are not uncommon for Canadian governments. The bloc was getting stuff they wanted out of Harper, so...someone offered them better. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 That's not my fear, it's Quebec centric deals that are not uncommon for Canadian governments. The bloc was getting stuff they wanted out of Harper, so...someone offered them better. Yet nobody every complains about Ontario-centric deals or Alberta-centric deals. Québec is just easy to Other and treat as fundamentally different than the rest of Canada. Yet when they claim it, despite being treated like that by the ROC, they're criticized for it. Quote
Smallc Posted August 20, 2015 Report Posted August 20, 2015 Yet nobody every complains about Ontario-centric deals or Alberta-centric deals. There aren't nearly as many of those, especially under the Conservatives. 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.