Summary: Only 54 days after the last Federal Election, the Conservative government of Canada on Nov. 27 put forward a motion that would strip the opposition parties of their public funding, crippling them, and that did little to address the economic anxiety that is gathering steam across the country. Following this, in a moment of unprecedented and historical portent, an agreement has been reached between all 3 opposition parties to kick out the Conservative government and in it's stead have 2 of the opposition parties form a new, coalition government.
The opposition parties consist of the left-leaning New Democratic Party, the centre-left Liberal Party (the largest of the three opposition parties), and the separatist Bloc Quebecois Party. The proposed coalition would consist of a Liberal-NDP government, which would survive Budget votes with the promised tacit support of the Bloc.
Update: PM Stephen Harper has suspended Parliament until January 26, 2009, to avoid being toppled by the Liberal-NDP coalition.
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a rare suspension of Parliament on Thursday, managing to avoid being ousted by opposition parties angry over the minority Conservative government's economic plans and an attempt to cut off party financing.
Governor General Michaelle Jean -- the representative of Queen Elizabeth, Canada's head of state -- agreed to Harper's request to shut down Parliament until Jan 26. Parliament was reconvened just weeks ago after the October 14 election.
Harper's request for suspension was unprecedented. No prime minister had asked for Parliament to be suspended to avoid a confidence vote in the House of Commons.
Such a vote had been set for Monday and the Conservatives almost certainly would have lost it, and faced the possibility of being replaced by a coalition of opposition parties.
After a two-hour meeting with the governor general, Harper reaffirmed his promise to present a budget on Jan 27 and called on the opposition to work with the government over the next few weeks to tackle the effects of the global financial crisis.
"Today's decision will give us an opportunity -- and I'm talking about all the parties -- to focus on the economy and to work together," he told reporters.
The opposition Liberals, New Democrats and the separatist Bloc Quebecois -- all to the left of the Conservatives -- had signed a deal to defeat the Conservatives and put forward a Liberal-New Democrat coalition to form a new government.
The Bloc, which wants to take French-speaking Quebec out of Canada, pledged to back the coalition's budgets and general policy direction.
The governor general's role in government, as representative of the Crown, is largely ceremonial, though she has the final word on constitutional matters. Should the government be defeated in a confidence vote, she would decide whether to call a new election or allow the opposition to form a coalition government.
CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE
Harper's gambit was the latest development in a constitutional battle that erupted last week after he tried to eliminate direct subsidies of political parties, a move that would have hit the opposition particularly hard.
He backed down on that, but the opposition parties also say they are upset that the government has not dealt adequately with the economic crisis and said it had lost the confidence of the House of Commons.
Liberal leader Stephane Dion, who would have become prime minister under the opposition's coalition plan, said nothing he heard from Harper on Thursday had changed his mind about trying to bring down the government.
However, he did appear to open the door a crack to not proceeding with such a plan.
"This is about replacing Stephen Harper unless he made a monumental change," he told a news conference. "It means a recovery plan, a real recovery plan."
The New Democrats and Bloc maintained their insistence that Harper could not be trusted and must be removed, as did some members of Dion's Liberal caucus.
"You can run but you can't hide," said Bob Rae, who is looking to become Liberal leader when Dion steps down early in May. He predicted the opposition would topple Harper early next year.
However the front-runner in the Liberal leadership race, Michael Ignatieff, said he imagined Jean may have told Harper "to have a think" and that would be good advice for all politicians on both sides of the dispute.
Liberal legislator Keith Martin told reporters after a caucus meeting that bringing the Conservatives down was "not at all" a done deal.
In the back of their minds may be the fact that in much of the country the idea of a formal agreement with the separatists did not go down well.
An Ekos opinion poll taken as the crisis reached its peak showed the Conservatives had shot up in popularity to 44 percent, enough to get a parliamentary majority if an election were held today, up from the 37.6 percent they received in the October 14 vote.
Liberal support dropped to 24.1 percent from 26.2 percent, the New Democrats fell to 14.5 percent from 18.2 percent and the Bloc edged down to 9.2 percent from 10.0 percent.
The poll, released late on Thursday by CBC television, covered 2,536 respondents from December 2-3 and carried a 1.9 point margin of error, 19 times out of 20.
When I heard about this last night I was shocked at how retarded the tories are being about this. It's as if they don't understand their own situation; the liberal party clearly stated it was no longer going to support the tory government and then they (the tories) respond by proposing a "fiscal" update that is clearly engineered to piss the opposition off. I suppose the conservatives believe they can either force the liberals to back down or force a snap election that will result in a majority government, but it seems apparent that neither of these things will happen and for a year or two we'll be stuck with a coalitian government. I doubt any of these things will happen though, the conservatives (I hope) are atleast smart enough to realize that this is one issue where they'll have to be the ones who back down.
EDIT: And if they don't, atleast we won't have harper as a prime minister anymore.
note, i don't expect the americans or europeans to care much about this event, this is pretty much a thread that only canadians will care about
@humblezealot: i agree the conservatives will probably back down, but with jean chretien and ed broadbent already negotiating the coalition, it seems like it will be hard to stop this ball now that it's started rolling. what do you think
what i mean to say is, i think the situation may just be out of the conservatives hands now, unless they can turn this into a public relations disaster for the opposition
I'm really quite surprised at this. I mean, the conservatives would theoretically suffer as well, unless I missed something about a clause exempting the government in power. Not to mention that they've basically shot themselves in the foot with a Siege Tank by proposing this in the first place.
On November 29 2008 04:54 Shadowfury333 wrote: I'm really quite surprised at this. I mean, the conservatives would theoretically suffer as well, unless I missed something about a clause exempting the government in power. Not to mention that they've basically shot themselves in the foot with a Siege Tank by proposing this in the first place.
the conservatives don't rely on public funding at all actually, their fund raising prowess massively outshadows that of the opposition parties. they're kind of the canadian version of barack obama when it comes to their fundraising advantage over the other parties haha.
the opposition parties, on the other hand, have essentially no fundraising at all. they rely almost exclusively upon public funding for their survival, that's why this thing blew up so fast
This is retarded. The conservatives think their cut to GST will increase public spending enough to cover the current economic crisis? I'm pretty sure msot people are going to be saving that money instead of spending it. Worst fiscal policy I've ever seen.
This seems ridiculous but, alas, I don't know much of the situation up north. However, I have to say, it's pretty funny that the party is known as the Tories.
Do keep the thread updated with what happens, though. I'm interested to know/see the process.
It is true that Canada is not hurting as badly as America. At least not yet. And I just don't like the idea of a coalition government. Especially with the Bloc as part of it.
To be completely honest, I wouldnt mind not having to fund parties full of dumbass politicians like Dion, but I think that motion was just to try to get yet another re-election with a shot at majority. Just give it up, Harper, it's not gonna happen. Canada doesn't trust you that much yet.
Anyways, I hope there's no big upheaval. I don't think that's what Canada needs right now.
This doesn't really surprise me. After I heard what they were planning on the news last night. I just knew shit was going to hit the fan. I just can't wait to see how it unfolds.
1) How will this effect hockey? 2) Public funding? All this nonsense over cut backs on their free maple syrup and Canadian bacon? 3) How the hell do parties receive public funding, and how can the group in power vote to suspend that funding for everyone but them?
On November 29 2008 05:06 GGQ wrote: I think that motion was just to try to get yet another re-election with a shot at majority. Just give it up, Harper, it's not gonna happen. Canada doesn't trust you that much yet.
they were saying this on the cbc too, that this could be a plot by harper to give the reigns of government to the coalition and then watch as they bicker and tear themselves apart, then the conservatives can ride in to save the day and win a majority in a new election.
that's quite a lot of far fetched extrapolation from the facts we've got so far, but then again harper doesn't seem like the kind of guy who screws up very often. we'll just have to see how this all unfolds i guess!
On November 29 2008 05:11 Hawk wrote: Important Questions:
1) How will this effect hockey? 2) Public funding? All this nonsense over cut backs on their free maple syrup and Canadian bacon? 3) How the hell do parties receive public funding, and how can the group in power vote to suspend that funding for everyone but them?
haha
1) if the canadian dollar takes a dive then the canadian teams could go into cardiac arrest, thus rendering 90% of the nhl's revenues to dust and dooming hockey... or something
3) similar to how in the US election, john mccain received public funding to conduct his campaign. in this case, the group in power is not suspending funding for everyone but them, they are voting to suspend public financing for all the parties, it just so happens that the governing party has barack obama-like fundraising powers and doesn't need public money, so they can afford this move, while the other parties cannot.
Oh, I thought you meant public funding, like it's taken from taxes and divided up or something, haha.
I don't even see how suspending it would do anything but benefit the dominating party. When they're up for reelection, they'll have name recogniztion, and the other guys will have nada. It's a pretty overt attempt to put a strangle hold on politics.
And when they say get rid of the conservatives, I assume they just mean forming that coalition and just voting every single thing down that passes through the Canadian house or whatever?? They can't have them removed any way, right?
complicated question, let me give you a primer first. think of canada's government like the US congress, except in canada, speaker nancy pelosi would be the "president" (prime minister), of the entire country, not just congress.
currently, the conservatives control canada's "congress", and thusly, the leader of their party is the prime minister of canada. however, if the opposition parties form a coalition, then they would control congress, and consequently the leader of the coalition would become prime minister.
if they did this, the current leader of canada, would be removed from power and he would become the equivalent of american minority leader john boehner, someone with a paycheque and a stool in congress, but no particular say in what happens going forward.
And when they say get rid of the conservatives, I assume they just mean forming that coalition and just voting every single thing down that passes through the Canadian house or whatever?? They can't have them removed any way, right?
If they form a coalition, they intend to vote down the first thing that the government tries to pass, then then can call for a vote of no confidence, and yes they will remove the conservatives and form their own government
They can only obtain a vote of no-confidence if the failed vote is a confidence matter. Budgets are confidence matters, and thus this 'mini-budget' prompts a vote of confidence if its shot down.
On November 29 2008 06:11 L wrote: They can only obtain a vote of no-confidence if the failed vote is a confidence matter. Budgets are confidence matters, and thus this 'mini-budget' prompts a vote of confidence if its shot down.
well, monday is opposition day so all the opposition has to do is table a non-confidence motion on monday and voila~ the government will be brought down
On November 29 2008 04:49 a-game wrote: note, i don't expect the americans or europeans to care much about this event, this is pretty much a thread that only canadians will care about
@humblezealot: i agree the conservatives will probably back down, but with jean chretien and ed broadbent already negotiating the coalition, it seems like it will be hard to stop this ball now that it's started rolling. what do you think
what i mean to say is, i think the situation may just be out of the conservatives hands now, unless they can turn this into a public relations disaster for the opposition
Thats true, and its also part of the reason why I think the Conservatives are such retards. They should have realized that they can't keep on calling votes of confidence and getting their legislation passed with these, quite frankly, undemocratic methods. That's why I'd love to see the Harper government fall, I'm tired of their (and the opposition's) immature behaviour in parliament.
On November 29 2008 05:11 Hawk wrote: Important Questions:
1) How will this effect hockey? 2) Public funding? All this nonsense over cut backs on their free maple syrup and Canadian bacon? 3) How the hell do parties receive public funding, and how can the group in power vote to suspend that funding for everyone but them?
1) As stated in an earlier post, a low Canadian dollar is bad for sports teams. 2) Stop trying to bash Canada at every conceivable opportunity, I've seen u post retarded shit like this several times before and it throughly demostrates your lack of knowledge. 3) Thats not exactly whats happening, why don't you try doing what 99.9% of Americans don't and actually learn about the rest of the world?
Conservatives are seriously retarded -.- I want to go live as a recluse somewhere where I won't have to worry about a majority population of morons making decisions that affect me personally.
On November 29 2008 05:11 Hawk wrote: Important Questions:
1) How will this effect hockey? 2) Public funding? All this nonsense over cut backs on their free maple syrup and Canadian bacon? 3) How the hell do parties receive public funding, and how can the group in power vote to suspend that funding for everyone but them?
1) As stated in an earlier post, a low Canadian dollar is bad for sports teams. 2) Stop trying to bash Canada at every conceivable opportunity, I've seen u post retarded shit like this several times before and it throughly demostrates your lack of knowledge. 3) Thats not exactly whats happening, why don't you try doing what 99.9% of Americans don't and actually learn about the rest of the world?
1) I'll have you know that my concern was a very serious one. If the Canadian teams go under, I won't have any good teams to laugh at when they choke. 2) I'd never. And I'd also like to point out that I'm a model poster here. 3) I'm too busy stuffing my face with cheeseburgers. Silly canuck.
I would be so happy if Harper was taken down. I hate that man, but I would not want the liberals to team up with the NDP or the Bloc. Those 2 parties are such a joke and would seriously ruin the image of the liberals and cause a lot of swing voters to move over to the conservative camp, allowing them to possibly secure a majority if another election was triggered. Its quite possible this whole thing is just some genius politicking by the evil stephen harper.
No it isn't. They won't topple the government unless Harper goes ahead with his plan, and does so without something ridiculous like 80% national approval in the polls, which won't happen. The Non-confidence motion would be enacted after voting down this bill, not as a preventative measure.
On November 29 2008 07:35 Showtime! wrote: What did I say? Stephen Harper is a tool. I didn't think he would sink down to this low, but he finally did.
I'm glad he's getting his swan song earlier than expected.
Now, if only the Liberals had a true leader *cough*. My inside sources tell me it's going to be Bob Rae.
Bob Rae? No fucking way. That would be a fucking disaster. I would no longer support the Liberals if they chose that fucking joke of a man to lead the party. Bob Rae is a an ex-premiere of Ontario. He was part of the ndp and his government was a complete disaster. I sure hope your sources have no idea what they are talking about. I have my money on Michael Ignatieff. I met the guy at a political convention in BC in 2007, and although I did feel he was as much of a phony as any other politician, he was a great speaker, which is something the Liberals are in desperate need of after being lead by Dion.
On November 29 2008 05:11 Hawk wrote: Important Questions:
1) How will this effect hockey? 2) Public funding? All this nonsense over cut backs on their free maple syrup and Canadian bacon? 3) How the hell do parties receive public funding, and how can the group in power vote to suspend that funding for everyone but them?
1) As stated in an earlier post, a low Canadian dollar is bad for sports teams. 2) Stop trying to bash Canada at every conceivable opportunity, I've seen u post retarded shit like this several times before and it throughly demostrates your lack of knowledge. 3) Thats not exactly whats happening, why don't you try doing what 99.9% of Americans don't and actually learn about the rest of the world?
1) I'll have you know that my concern was a very serious one. If the Canadian teams go under, I won't have any good teams to laugh at when they choke. 2) I'd never. And I'd also like to point out that I'm a model poster here. 3) I'm too busy stuffing my face with cheeseburgers. Silly canuck.
lols
Ok, calling for a vote now is about the stupidest things the opposition parties can do; they have jack shit. The liberals are still looking for their new leader, nobody outside of quebec is gonna vote for the Bloc (I don't think Bloc runs outside of Quebec anyways), and nobody is serious enough to vote Layton in to deal with the friggan economy. There is a reason why the conservatives raised twice as much money than all the other opp. parties combined during the last election. Also note that the decrease in public funding was only a part of the fiscal package that Flaherty proposed. The general Canadian populace will not vote for a loosely-knit coalition, especially when this coalition is placed in contrast to the conservatives much better established government. Calling another vote just 6 weeks after the last one will piss off everybody and make them all vote conservatives.
Right now I say the media is blowing everything out of proportion, they are being way too sensationalistic. When the real political and economic experts come out with their own opinions you'll see that most of them will agree that a election right now would not only piss off previous liberal, ndp and bloc supporters, but really damage the country as less time is spent on managing the struggling economy.
On November 29 2008 07:35 Showtime! wrote: What did I say? Stephen Harper is a tool. I didn't think he would sink down to this low, but he finally did.
I'm glad he's getting his swan song earlier than expected.
Now, if only the Liberals had a true leader *cough*. My inside sources tell me it's going to be Bob Rae.
Bob Rae? No fucking way. That would be a fucking disaster. I would no longer support the Liberals if they chose that fucking joke of a man to lead the party. Bob Rae is a an ex-premiere of Ontario. He was part of the ndp and his government was a complete disaster. I sure hope your sources have no idea what they are talking about. I have my money on Michael Ignatieff. I met the guy at a political convention in BC in 2007, and although I did feel he was as much of a phony as any other politician, he was a great speaker, which is something the Liberals are in desperate need of after being lead by Dion.
lol yeah, i always thought ignatieff would have been the best party leader for the libs... didn't he teach at harvard or something? back when they voted for a new leader after martin, i was like WTF when they voted Dion.
On November 29 2008 08:04 blue_arrow wrote: Ok, calling for a vote now is about the stupidest things the opposition parties can do
they're not calling for a vote. they're considering bringing the government down, and then asking the governor-general to invite the opposition parties to form a coalition government.
there would be no election necessary, the opposition parties already have enough seats in parliament to form a majority government.
Well from the part I do understand (about killing public funding) that IS a big deal, cuz it dicks the minority. They're funding gets neutered, then they can only spend so much on campaigning. Who needs campaigning more: The party in power or the party who has half as many reps?? That's how you dominate an election
Cut public funding to parties imo = good. Fuck them politicians make your own cash. I'm sick seeing my hard earned cash going away. Conservatives cut gst more also. You kids will understand when you start working.
On November 29 2008 07:35 Showtime! wrote: What did I say? Stephen Harper is a tool. I didn't think he would sink down to this low, but he finally did.
I'm glad he's getting his swan song earlier than expected.
Now, if only the Liberals had a true leader *cough*. My inside sources tell me it's going to be Bob Rae.
Bob Rae? No fucking way. That would be a fucking disaster. I would no longer support the Liberals if they chose that fucking joke of a man to lead the party. Bob Rae is a an ex-premiere of Ontario. He was part of the ndp and his government was a complete disaster. I sure hope your sources have no idea what they are talking about. I have my money on Michael Ignatieff. I met the guy at a political convention in BC in 2007, and although I did feel he was as much of a phony as any other politician, he was a great speaker, which is something the Liberals are in desperate need of after being lead by Dion.
lol yeah, i always thought ignatieff would have been the best party leader for the libs... didn't he teach at harvard or something? back when they voted for a new leader after martin, i was like WTF when they voted Dion.
Yes, he taught at Harvard, and the only reason he stopped teaching at Harvard was because he was brought up to Canada to be the next leader of the Liberals, but that didn't work out for him. I actually believe he was the head of a department at Harvard, not just a professor. Clearly he is a smart man, but with him living in the US for so long I question if he is in touch with Canadians and our values. When I met him he seemed to be a bit of an elitist and tried to avoid talking with everyone who was at the convention I was attending. He gave a couple great speeches though.
@Showtime, I also have some connections in Ottawa who I am trying to get a hold of now. I have 2 friends who work for the liberal party, one even has a office in parliament. Hopefully I will be able to get some inside info on what the hell is going on. If I can, I will post in this thread.
On November 29 2008 08:04 blue_arrow wrote: Ok, calling for a vote now is about the stupidest things the opposition parties can do
they're not calling for a vote. they're considering bringing the government down, and then asking the governor-general to invite the opposition parties to form a coalition government.
there would be no election necessary, the opposition parties already have enough seats in parliament to form a majority government.
Which, frankly, is bullshit. I can't imagine too many Canadians being happy that the government they JUST elected got replaced with the people they DIDNT elect.
On November 29 2008 08:04 blue_arrow wrote: Ok, calling for a vote now is about the stupidest things the opposition parties can do
they're not calling for a vote. they're considering bringing the government down, and then asking the governor-general to invite the opposition parties to form a coalition government.
there would be no election necessary, the opposition parties already have enough seats in parliament to form a majority government.
Which, frankly, is bullshit. I can't imagine too many Canadians being happy that the government they JUST elected got replaced with the people they DIDNT elect.
i disagree, 63% of voters voted for the coalition parties, so in actuality a coalition government would represent a stronger mandate of the canadian people than the current conservative government.
only 37% of voters supported harper.
it'll be interesting to see the polls in the coming days to see how the canadian people feel about this situation. there's going to be a fierce PR battle waged on the airwaves to shape that opinion, that's for sure.
Edit: this kind of thing happens in europe all the time, it's completely democratic, us canadians just aren't used to having parties that actually cooperate. the opposition parties have had a mandate to govern from the very beginning, they just never had the cooperation to turn that potential into a reality.
On November 29 2008 08:04 blue_arrow wrote: Ok, calling for a vote now is about the stupidest things the opposition parties can do
they're not calling for a vote. they're considering bringing the government down, and then asking the governor-general to invite the opposition parties to form a coalition government.
there would be no election necessary, the opposition parties already have enough seats in parliament to form a majority government.
Which, frankly, is bullshit. I can't imagine too many Canadians being happy that the government they JUST elected got replaced with the people they DIDNT elect.
I can. The people aren't happy. Not like we haven't been down a similar route before.
On November 29 2008 07:35 Showtime! wrote: What did I say? Stephen Harper is a tool. I didn't think he would sink down to this low, but he finally did.
I'm glad he's getting his swan song earlier than expected.
Now, if only the Liberals had a true leader *cough*. My inside sources tell me it's going to be Bob Rae.
Bob Rae? No fucking way. That would be a fucking disaster. I would no longer support the Liberals if they chose that fucking joke of a man to lead the party. Bob Rae is a an ex-premiere of Ontario. He was part of the ndp and his government was a complete disaster. I sure hope your sources have no idea what they are talking about. I have my money on Michael Ignatieff. I met the guy at a political convention in BC in 2007, and although I did feel he was as much of a phony as any other politician, he was a great speaker, which is something the Liberals are in desperate need of after being lead by Dion.
lol yeah, i always thought ignatieff would have been the best party leader for the libs... didn't he teach at harvard or something? back when they voted for a new leader after martin, i was like WTF when they voted Dion.
Yes, he taught at Harvard, and the only reason he stopped teaching at Harvard was because he was brought up to Canada to be the next leader of the Liberals, but that didn't work out for him. I actually believe he was the head of a department at Harvard, not just a professor. Clearly he is a smart man, but with him living in the US for so long I question if he is in touch with Canadians and our values. When I met him he seemed to be a bit of an elitist and tried to avoid talking with everyone who was at the convention I was attending. He gave a couple great speeches though.
@Showtime, I also have some connections in Ottawa who I am trying to get a hold of now. I have 2 friends who work for the liberal party, one even has a office in parliament. Hopefully I will be able to get some inside info on what the hell is going on. If I can, I will post in this thread.
I know too many people in the inside as well and I'm pretty sure they will tell you the same thing.
Hell after, Dion made his announcement there were a few leaks to the news agencies, i.e. Globa l and CTV went over to question Bob Rae about Dion's announcement and they were trying to get more info about his candidacy.
Well, I asked my friend in the liberal party what he knew and this was his response
NDP and Liberals have generally agreed upon the formation of a coalition. Dion will be PM, bloc will support the coalition if we aid the forestry sector in Quebec.
Harper freaked out and moved the vote back a week, so we are expecting an intense public relations campaign to try and discredit the coalition. There is a chance the vote may be on Monday, but most likely it will go down on Dec 8.
Apparently Harper is experiencing a revolt from his own caucus right now, because his strategic mistake may have cost them the government.
edit: He also says that the Liberals have see a 400 percent increase in donations in the last 48 hours.
Yeah, the people aren't happy with the opposition governments.
But....we'll see when somebody starts putting up polls.
Also I say Canadians are slowly leaning towards the political right. Although, the right end of the spectrum in canada is still way left of the US, even with obama right now.
wow thats really bad.....if something like that happened in the usa and mccain won, the government would be such a richer place.......because obama raised so much money
Hey, Canada's southern neighbor here, sucks that you guys have to go through this right after an election. Here there would be riots everywhere if a national election was under threat of being overturned, and I imagine that Canada is experiencing a similar, albeit less intense situation (due to there being more than two reasonably powerful parties for you guys).
Here's to hoping things don't get too out of hand.
Dion was a disaster, Steve Murphy owned him in what people said was uncalled for. Just to clear where I stand on the matter, if the leader of our nation can't effectively complete an interview given by Steve Murphy then he shouldn't be leading a country. In this last election I had voted for Harper, and I think that given the chance with a majority he would have made some decent changes - however, there are certain things, like every party, that I have mixed feelings about.
I really dislike the Canadian system at the moment, I majored in Political Science in University and the more I learned, the less I wanted to have anything to do with it. I think Canadians need a leader who's in your face and honest, similar to Trudeau. I know he's used as the poster boy when referring to past prime ministers, but it's the truth. I also found it very funny that a lot of people I talked to were voting based on the party and not on the candidate. I know a lot of the older generations are very set in their ways and vote the same way there family has voted for years.
Now, the last federal election that passed was very funny, in my opinion. I thought that Jack Layton running for Prime Minister was a joke. When the NDP was founded, it was never intended to be a governing body, only an opposition that was meant to keep the governing party in check and I would never want the NDP to lead the country.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, I'll post more when I have a few more minutes and do some reading.
Honestly man. He wouldn't. You can never make the changes you want without majority, but there is a reason why he never got that in the first place. He is pissed off way too many people. The WRONG people.
His way of thinking is so backwards it makes me want to puke.
On November 29 2008 08:58 Cobalt wrote: Hey, Canada's southern neighbor here, sucks that you guys have to go through this right after an election. Here there would be riots everywhere if a national election was under threat of being overturned, and I imagine that Canada is experiencing a similar, albeit less intense situation (due to there being more than two reasonably powerful parties for you guys).
Here's to hoping things don't get too out of hand.
Are you sure about that? I dont remember any riots when the supreme court decided to ignore the florida recount in 2000.
There are in fact only 2 powerful parties in Canada. The other 2 parties would NEVER form a government. The Bloc is a separatist party that only exists within Quebec, and the ndp is a socialist party that is mainly supported by the unions, but have never come close to being the main opposition party, let alone the actual party in power.
As was stated before, the results of the election actually would support a coalition of the 3 opposition parties. The conservatives have a minority government because the other parties decided not to form a coalition. No results would be over turned. The coalition has the votes to form a government if they choose to do so. Democracy is not being threatened. This sort of thing happens in Europe all the time.
On November 29 2008 08:58 Cobalt wrote: Hey, Canada's southern neighbor here, sucks that you guys have to go through this right after an election. Here there would be riots everywhere if a national election was under threat of being overturned, and I imagine that Canada is experiencing a similar, albeit less intense situation (due to there being more than two reasonably powerful parties for you guys).
Here's to hoping things don't get too out of hand.
They're two very different systems, so you shouldn't compare them as such.
In a two-party system, the party with the most votes always has more than 50%. Having more than two major political parties automatically gives you the possibility of a minority government, because having the most votes doesn't nessessarily mean you have most of the votes. The system is designed such that these minority governments are kept in check, because them having less than the majority of votes means that all of the opposition parties put together have the majority. Because of this, minority governments tend to be short lived, transitionary governments that exist only until either of the political parties gathers enough credibility from the electorate to form a majority government (which is what happends in a normal situation). What we're seeing here isn't anything particularly unusual - it's just the system correcting itself, which is exactly what it's supposed to do.
Its ridiculous how the recession has not even hit Canada yet, at least not in any major way, and the opposition parties are fucking screaming bloody murder because we haven't wasted billions in tax dollars to prop up already declining economies. It's not as if throwing money at it has solved the problem anywhere else, and its not as if the Conservatives ruled out the possibility of a bailout, if the economy was getting in rough shape.
Though to be honest, a coalition government is a pretty ridiculous thought. The Liberals are in terrible shape, and due to their moderate [though left leaning] nature, are actually closer ideologically to the Conservatives, than they are to the far left-ndp. Not to mention, an alliance with secessionists?
Any kind of coalition would invariably blow up in their faces, and would sway independents and others to vote for the Conservatives en masse. We should not be having petty political squabbles in this time, I understand that if the opposition disagrees with the Conservatives that they should state it, but toppling a Government is idiotic at this point.
On November 29 2008 09:55 Dazed_Spy wrote: Its ridiculous how the recession has not even hit Canada yet, at least not in any major way, and the opposition parties are fucking screaming bloody murder because we haven't wasted billions in tax dollars to prop up already declining economies. It's not as if throwing money at it has solved the problem anywhere else, and its not as if the Conservatives ruled out the possibility of a bailout, if the economy was getting in rough shape.
Though to be honest, a coalition government is a pretty ridiculous thought. The Liberals are in terrible shape, and due to their moderate [though left leaning] nature, are actually closer ideologically to the Conservatives, than they are to the far left-ndp. Not to mention, an alliance with secessionists?
Any kind of coalition would invariably blow up in their faces, and would sway independents and others to vote for the Conservatives en masse. We should not be having petty political squabbles in this time, I understand that if the opposition disagrees with the Conservatives that they should state it, but toppling a Government is idiotic at this point.
The opposition parties aren't "screaming bloody murder" because of the Conservatives management of the economy (which has been sub-par), they're pissed because Harper is deliberately attempting to provoke them by introducing a new "fiscal" policy that will bleed them dry of their finances. He is intentionally trying to stir shit up in parliament with this legislation, which is the same shit he's done ever since his party formed the government in 2006 and now its exploding in his face.
As for the coalition government, the opposition parties aren't quite as stupid and as stubborn as you may think. They are obvouisly well aware that they cannot allow another election and thats why they've already begun to plan a coalition government that will last more then just two weeks. Not that I think its shelf life will be particularly long (if it happens), but I assure you there won't be an election THAT soon.
And as for your comments about petty political squabbles and bringing down the government, I couldn't agree more, but the opposition parties aren't the ones who initially forced this situation, it was Harper and his irresponsible actions. Did he not promise Canadians that he'd work with parliament to get Canada through these tough economic times? Isn't the economy supposed to be the main issue right now, not spiteful political legislation? I would very much like too see what explanation he has for this shitstorm he's created, although I doubt he'll take responsibility. Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens; Canadian politics usually don't have this much drama...
On November 29 2008 08:16 BatTheMan wrote: Cut public funding to parties imo = good. Fuck them politicians make your own cash. I'm sick seeing my hard earned cash going away. Conservatives cut gst more also. You kids will understand when you start working.
Public funding for politicians is good is because politicians who rely primarily on private funding become PUPPETS to the companies that fund them.
If you'd rather have politicians who are working for the companies rather than the public, then feel free to move to the US: you won't be missed.
On November 30 2008 03:12 a-game wrote: obama's donations largely consisted of small donor donations, IE regular folk donating in mass
the conservatives donations come mostly from companies.
Where do you guys get your news from? CBC?
"Although an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama's funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less (see Table 3), only 26% of his money through August 31 (and 24% of his funds through October 15, according to the most recent FEC reports) came from donors whose total contributions aggregated to $200 or less. Obama's 26% compares to 25% for George W. Bush in 2004, 20% for John Kerry in 2004, 21% for John McCain in 2008, 13% for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and 38% for Howard Dean in 2004."
On November 29 2008 08:16 BatTheMan wrote: Cut public funding to parties imo = good. Fuck them politicians make your own cash. I'm sick seeing my hard earned cash going away. Conservatives cut gst more also. You kids will understand when you start working.
Yeah, let's just get rid of taxes altogether so everything is privately owned by the rich, and they can charge whatever they want for people to use their services, which will now be based on profit instead of service, because they're no longer publically funded.
When will you donkeys learn that taxes are good, and make your lives better. Do you seriously want to live in a world where you have to pay some rich guy to use his road? The beauty of public programs is that they aren't supposed to make a profit, which means it's cheaper overall for everyone who uses the service. The only people who see any benefit from lowered taxes are people with incomes that exceed 200k per year, where that 2 or 3% means thousands of more dollars for them. For poor people, it's like 100 dollars saved per year, which is killed off and thensome immediately by any privatized services they might need to use thruout the year.
What the hell is more ideal about privatized services for the lower to middle income classes than public services that can operate with no motive whatsoever to gauge you for you cash? If you're rich, maybe the services will get to be of much better quality, but then nobody else can use them, which is what you see in the United States, and why Canada needs to learn from the USA's mistakes, not repeat them like retarded torries.
Harper is counting on the Liberal Party to yield once more, like they did over and over during his previous mandate. But that won't happen this time, if only because Stephane Dion has resigned and only keeps the seat warm for his successor.
The other opposition parties are theoretically buyable but the conservatives won't yield on their demands.
Since every party involved is stubborn like a mule, there will be a vote, and the government will be overthrown.
The Governor General won't accept that the country returns to the voting booths just a couple months after the previous election, unless there is no other option.
I don't see the possibility of any opposition party accepting to form a coalition with the Conservative Party.
Which leaves us with two likely possibilities:
Either all three opposition parties form a coalition,
--or--
The Governor General will ask the official opposition party (the Liberal Party) to form a government.
Both options would install a very volatile government, bound to be overthrown within a year. Then we would have new elections.
Canada is such a great country that our government is the world's most unstable, uncharismatic, and impotent, save for Iraq's.
On November 30 2008 03:12 a-game wrote: obama's donations largely consisted of small donor donations, IE regular folk donating in mass
the conservatives donations come mostly from companies.
Where do you guys get your news from? CBC?
"Although an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama's funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less (see Table 3), only 26% of his money through August 31 (and 24% of his funds through October 15, according to the most recent FEC reports) came from donors whose total contributions aggregated to $200 or less. Obama's 26% compares to 25% for George W. Bush in 2004, 20% for John Kerry in 2004, 21% for John McCain in 2008, 13% for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and 38% for Howard Dean in 2004."
49% of his donations were under 200, that's the only point i was trying to make.
that was the whole strategy of the obama campaign, over the course of 2 years regular folk could continually make small donations to his campaign, he could keep coming back a few months later and ask for more, that was the whole point of his small donor strategy.
that kind of donation enthusiasm does not exist among small donors in canada, so public financing is more important here. (otherwise the only place to get money would be businesses and unions)
it's kind of complicated. if the opposition parties vote to throw the government out, then the Governor General (representative of the queen of england) has two choices. she can either call an election, or she can invite the opposition parties to become the new government.
seeing as we just had an election 5 weeks ago, the Governor General is highly unlikely to call an election. so it's most likely she'd invite the opposition to become the new government.
Edit: to an outsider, that might sound undemocratic, but combined the opposition parties got 63% of the vote in the last election, and they have the majority of the seats in the canadian 'congress', so it's completely democratic
****UPDATE**** http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/11/29/coalition.html It seems the conservatives have decided to not go forward with their plan to cut government subsidies to political parties. Its not quite clear what is going to happen though. The opposition parties still seem pissed off at the lack of a stimulus package for the economy and with Harper's refusal to work with the other parties on any issue.
well, the opposition parties could yet chicken out.
the next week is going to consist of the conservatives launching a blistering PR attack to smear the coalition. plus, the liberals are divided as heck, i mean do you think ignatieff or rae want to sign off on dion as pm?
at this point, backing down would make the coalition look about as ridiculous as john mccain looked after the 'suspending my campaign' gaffe. but it may still end up happening. it's gonna be an interesting next 8 days
On November 29 2008 08:16 BatTheMan wrote: Cut public funding to parties imo = good. Fuck them politicians make your own cash. I'm sick seeing my hard earned cash going away. Conservatives cut gst more also. You kids will understand when you start working.
Public funding for politicians is good is because politicians who rely primarily on private funding become PUPPETS to the companies that fund them.
If you'd rather have politicians who are working for the companies rather than the public, then feel free to move to the US: you won't be missed.
not to mention, if we cut down public funding, we would go down to a 2 party system pretty damn quick, and I don't think that would be good
On November 30 2008 08:44 a-game wrote: well, the opposition parties could yet chicken out.
Why? Without the threat of elections, what reason do they have to chicken out? They won't.
if they don't have the popular opinion on their side, which is exactly what the conservatives are trying to engineer.
there's no benefit in governing a country that has turned on you and will vote you into anonymity the next chance they get
Edit: i'm not saying they will chicken out, i think it would be terribly embarrassing if they did, but if public opinion tacks against this move then they're going to be in a very awkward position, so it just seems to me like chickening out may yet end up being a possibility
On December 02 2008 04:53 Flaccid wrote: I voted conservative and yet I can't wait to see them booted from power.
That's Canadian politics in a nutshell...
Nevermind. I just read that Dion has been elected to lead a Lib-NDP coalition. Fuck that. He's the reason I didn't vote Liberal in the first place. Give me any of the other leadership candidates and I'll be happy.
smartest move they can do politically right now, economy is gonna start to get hammered soon as the rest of the world is, then will be the coalition gov, or newly elected(if another election is called) that has to deal with it, they will most likely fail to do a good job keeping the economy where it should be, election pops up, conservatives raise the issue of how the ndp and liberals pushed them out of government, screwed the economy, and then sneak back into power when the economy has turned around a bit, or is on the verge of doing so.
It is a risky move, but potentially gets them a majority next election.
On December 02 2008 04:53 Flaccid wrote: I voted conservative and yet I can't wait to see them booted from power.
That's Canadian politics in a nutshell...
Wait. What?!?!? What the hell were you thinking when you voted them if you weren't happy with them to begin with?
People need to educate themselves better.
'happy' is somewhat of a relative term. And when it's relative to groups led by the likes of Dion and Layton, it all gets a little fuzzy =[
Like so many elections, unfortunately it came down to choosing the lesser of many evils.
edit: To be honest, I looked for every reason not to vote Conservative this time around. I wanted to vote Liberal but it all came down to Dion. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and read his entire Green Shift plan from cover to cover and found it to be one of the most poorly disguised wealth-transfer programs we've had since the NEP. A coalition led by the likes of Ignatieff would be alright with me, given that the Liberals would have gotten my vote anyways if he were in charge at election-time. But now that Dion is back in the picture, I can't be enthusiastic. Add to that Jack Layton's closer proximity to a position of power and the enthusiasm level drops further. Oh, and then there's the Bloc...
Hopefully that explains my convoluted view a bit better.
On December 02 2008 04:53 Flaccid wrote: I voted conservative and yet I can't wait to see them booted from power.
That's Canadian politics in a nutshell...
Wait. What?!?!? What the hell were you thinking when you voted them if you weren't happy with them to begin with?
People need to educate themselves better.
'happy' is somewhat of a relative term. And when it's relative to groups led by the likes of Dion and Layton, it all gets a little fuzzy =[
Like so many elections, unfortunately it came down to choosing the lesser of many evils.
edit: To be honest, I looked for every reason not to vote Conservative this time around. I wanted to vote Liberal but it all came down to Dion. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and read his entire Green Shift plan from cover to cover and found it to be one of the most poorly disguised wealth-transfer programs we've had since the NEP. A coalition led by the likes of Ignatieff would be alright with me, given that the Liberals would have gotten my vote anyways if he were in charge at election-time. But now that Dion is back in the picture, I can't be enthusiastic. Add to that Jack Layton's closer proximity to a position of power and the enthusiasm level drops further. Oh, and then there's the Bloc...
Hopefully that explains my convoluted view a bit better.
As said before, Dion is merely an interm, he'll only be there for about 5-6 months and will then be replaced, most likely, by either Rae or Ignatieff. As bad as it may seem, please don't tell me you think Stephen "Hitler" Harper and his plan to financially cripple all other parties is actually a better choice.
The thing that makes me really sick about this is that the bloc is going to have undeserved power in the house since this collection of table scraps they call a coalition will need their seats to govern.
If you Americans want a good measuring stick for what that means, imagine there was a national party based in Iowa called the "Fuck the USA, Every State Can Eat Shit Except Iowa!" Party, and they had the 4% of congressional seats to break the tie of any democratic or republican policy.
Only in a nation of passive cows like Canada does this shit go on uncontested. It makes me want to puke.
I'm just curious; I thought Quebec wanted to secede not too long ago. I thought Canadian's outside of Quebec strongly opposed this. If you guys want them around so bad, why resent their political participation?
On December 02 2008 09:49 ManaBlue wrote: The thing that makes me really sick about this is that the bloc is going to have undeserved power in the house since this collection of table scraps they call a coalition will need their seats to govern.
If you Americans want a good measuring stick for what that means, imagine there was a national party based in Iowa called the "Fuck the USA, Every State Can Eat Shit Except Iowa!" Party, and they had the 4% of congressional seats to break the tie of any democratic or republican policy.
Only in a nation of passive cows like Canada does this shit go on uncontested. It makes me want to puke.
eh
theyre not going to get any cabinet positions. Bloc isnt going to really be involved in the government, and I don't think they really want to be.
With the bloc, its more like, look nicely at the quebec lumber industry, and we'll make sure to help pass any votes of non-confidence.
The coalition government would be Liberal-NDP with tacit Bloc support
On December 02 2008 09:55 HeadBangaa wrote: You mean Louisiana?
I'm just curious; I thought Quebec wanted to secede not too long ago. I thought Canadian's outside of Quebec strongly opposed this. If you guys want them around so bad, why resent their political participation?
It's a bit more complicated than that, I suppose.
To over-simplify the whole thing, Quebec politicians have for some time garnished support by playing to the fear that english Canada wants to assimilate the french-Canadian culture. So many Quebecers, whether in support of separation or not, vote for the Bloc party because they understand that their regional concerns will be dealt with. This party will fight entirely on their behalf.
The sick part is that this could only really work in Quebec. In a country as large and diverse as Canada (much like the US), you are going to have a large variance in ideology from region to region. But whereas something like a 'western' separatist party would never work, it still holds water in Quebec due to our way of allotting parliamentary seats by population - Quebec gets a lot of seats.
The end result is that Quebecers elect representatives that do not concern themselves with Canada as a whole. No one resents Quebec political participation - be it a Quebec Liberal or Quebec NDP, or Quebec whatever, but the resent the idea of the Bloc party. They blind themselves towards what is best for Canada as a whole while only looking out for their own interests. It's counter-productive and doesn't make for good national government.
Nobody with any sense resents Quebec. Nobody resents their political participation. Though we may resent their representatives for being separatist, closed-minded, jerk-faces.
On December 02 2008 09:55 HeadBangaa wrote: You mean Louisiana?
I'm just curious; I thought Quebec wanted to secede not too long ago. I thought Canadian's outside of Quebec strongly opposed this. If you guys want them around so bad, why resent their political participation?
No, they voted to stay a part of Canada. The awesome part of Quebec (non-separatist), decided to stay a part of the country and maintain our national identity. The lame part of Quebec (separatist) voted to stop paying taxes to the fed and announce international independence while continuing to take national transfer payments and use our currency. (ie. move out of your parents house but insist they still pay you an allowance)
It's a good thing the awesome Quebecers voted it down, otherwise what followed would have been an embarrassing international incident as the separatists would claim they had a mandate from the people and the Canadian national government would tell them to stop their nonsense or actually be an independent nation, which they claimed to want but never intended from the beginning.
And now those same assholes that Quebecers already showed they do not ideologically support are pushing their agenda nationally and have become the swing vote in a mishmash coalition government.
is anyone watching cbc right now? i'm admittedly biased towards wanting harper out, but even i have to say don newman seems to be hammering the conservative ministers on his program tonight.
curious if anyone else feels the same way! that last interview the conservative minister looked like he was going to cry lol
Eh, Quebec is not similar to the rest of canada. We have a different legal system, different official language, different history, etc. Quebec fights for provincial rights because of the fact that they have to to ensure that they aren't demographically swamped.
That said, I'm an english speaking guy and I'm getting the fuck outta here asap so i can get paid twice as much for my services in new york.
On December 02 2008 09:49 ManaBlue wrote: The thing that makes me really sick about this is that the bloc is going to have undeserved power in the house since this collection of table scraps they call a coalition will need their seats to govern.
If you Americans want a good measuring stick for what that means, imagine there was a national party based in Iowa called the "Fuck the USA, Every State Can Eat Shit Except Iowa!" Party, and they had the 4% of congressional seats to break the tie of any democratic or republican policy.
Only in a nation of passive cows like Canada does this shit go on uncontested. It makes me want to puke.
eh
theyre not going to get any cabinet positions. Bloc isnt going to really be involved in the government, and I don't think they really want to be.
With the bloc, its more like, look nicely at the Quebec lumber industry, and we'll make sure to help pass any votes of non-confidence.
The coalition government would be Liberal-NDP with tacit Bloc support
K, there is a difference between Government positions being filled by bloc members- and they wont be- and the Government not being made up by the bloc. The only way the coalition can, not just win the vote of no confidence, but hold a majority, is if the bloc forms the coalition as well. It gives them every bit of leverage on what already would be an incredibly unstable coalition, during an already incredibly unstable time. It's fucking ridiculous. Its insulting to patriots to have the Bloc part of the house of commons, let alone a coalition, and its fucking insulting to Canada's intelligence to even think this government has a remote chance of succeeding at anything.
There are two possibilities right now:
1) The Coalition is formed
2) The Coalition breaks down and is not formed.
If number 1 happens, there a few possibilities:
1) The Coalition collapses in a few months because of random bloc/liberal/ndp bickering
2) The Coalition is unable to decide on any real policies, unable to really do anything competently, and survives for a year or two and completly mismanages the country
End result of both? Conservative majority.
Possibilities if the coalition breaks down:
1) Harper runs the country well and the economy holds together
2) Harper runs the country well and the economy doesn't hold together
3) Harper doesn't run the country well and the economy doesn't hold together
In this frame, Conservative support could fluctuate from a majority, to a thin minority, or even a categorical defeat. The country will have at least, a stable Government that can actually at least attempt to run the country. Cant be said for the Coalition. When it gets down to it, only the most fervent supporters of the Left parties, or the stupid, actually thinks what Dion is doing is a good idea. Thats it.
It makes it even worse that Dion is the leader that's trying to make this fly. Forget about the liberals, I can't remember a time when any party had a leader that inept.
He loses the election and then thinks he can pervert his party politics by pandering to an overtly socialist party that can barely maintain official party status due to a lack of support and a group of separatists who's sole function is to break down federalism in Canada. That's a fucking irony sandwich for ya.
yes, but the indication is that the blox will have little to do with the government outside of helping it pass votes of non-confidence
they wont be making policy, and its unclear whether they will have a bigger role under a coalition government than they have under the current government
so far they havent asked for any concessions other than a possible bail-out/aid for quebec lumber industries as far as I know
And I find it unlikely the coalition will fail, because a) liberals and ndp tend to agree on many points, b) its too politically expensive to fail. If the coalition collapses within a month, it will force a new election and both NDP and Liberals will get raped. It would be political suicide for the coalition to collapse, and neither party is suicidal.
The more the Bloc associates themselves with the government, the worse off they are as far as support. Which is why youve heard no cabinet positions being offered or wanted by the bloc.
Granted, some are saying the bloc might sabotage the coalition because they lose the least, but they dont exactly want harper back either, and if the coalition fails, it could easily lead to a harper majority. That is not something any of the three parties want, and why I predict a fairly moderate coalition government with some minor concessions to quebec in the form of lumber/manufacturing/culture programs
the coalition wont fail? Do you know the average time a minority Government lasts in Canada? Under ANY party? One year. That aint a Conservative-Liberal hatred. Canadian politics are unstable. The NDP bitches at the Liberals, the Liberals bitch at the NDP, The Bloc bitches at everyone and anyone. You would be *incredibly* naive to assume Bloc is not going to hold the Government hostage, in order to gain...oh I dont know, billions of dollars to bail out the now-nearly-bankrupt province of theirs. Anything. A regional party in power will do what it was designed to do; look out for its region.
Edit: The Liberals and NDP do not agree on shit all. They agree on nominal ideological grounds; help the poor, help the environment, hate the Conservatives. In terms of actual interpretation of getting these things done, they differ hugely. The NDP are far left socialists. The Liberals are moderate, leaning to the left. There is a BIG fucking difference. Even with Dion in power.
On December 02 2008 11:09 fusionsdf wrote: yes, but the indication is that the blox will have little to do with the government outside of helping it pass votes of non-confidence
they wont be making policy, and its unclear whether they will have a bigger role under a coalition government than they have under the current government
so far they havent asked for any concessions other than a possible bail-out/aid for quebec lumber industries as far as I know
And I find it unlikely the coalition will fail, because a) liberals and ndp tend to agree on many points, b) its too politically expensive to fail. If the coalition collapses within a month, it will force a new election and both NDP and Liberals will get raped. It would be political suicide for the coalition to collapse, and neither party is suicidal.
The more the Bloc associates themselves with the government, the worse off they are as far as support. Which is why youve heard no cabinet positions being offered or wanted by the bloc.
Granted, some are saying the bloc might sabotage the coalition because they lose the least, but they dont exactly want harper back either, and if the coalition fails, it could easily lead to a harper majority. That is not something any of the three parties want, and why I predict a fairly moderate coalition government with some minor concessions to quebec in the form of lumber/manufacturing/culture programs
Don't tell me you're naive enough to think that the bloc will have such a minor role when their seats complete the majority. They won't scream it from the rooftops, just flex their muscles behind closed doors. To me, that's even worse than being up front and admitting their true role in this "coalition".
On December 02 2008 11:09 fusionsdf wrote: yes, but the indication is that the blox will have little to do with the government outside of helping it pass votes of non-confidence
they wont be making policy, and its unclear whether they will have a bigger role under a coalition government than they have under the current government
so far they havent asked for any concessions other than a possible bail-out/aid for quebec lumber industries as far as I know
And I find it unlikely the coalition will fail, because a) liberals and ndp tend to agree on many points, b) its too politically expensive to fail. If the coalition collapses within a month, it will force a new election and both NDP and Liberals will get raped. It would be political suicide for the coalition to collapse, and neither party is suicidal.
The more the Bloc associates themselves with the government, the worse off they are as far as support. Which is why youve heard no cabinet positions being offered or wanted by the bloc.
Granted, some are saying the bloc might sabotage the coalition because they lose the least, but they dont exactly want harper back either, and if the coalition fails, it could easily lead to a harper majority. That is not something any of the three parties want, and why I predict a fairly moderate coalition government with some minor concessions to quebec in the form of lumber/manufacturing/culture programs
Don't tell me you're naive enough to think that the bloc will have such a minor role when their seats complete the majority. They won't scream it from the rooftops, just flex their muscles behind closed doors. To me, that's even worse than being up front and admitting their true role in this "coalition".
I'm not naive. I'm just saying involving themselves in government would hurt them politically. And any sabotage of the coalition would likely bring a conservative majority and new election that they would be blamed for...and following the culture cuts, quebec isnt going to be too happy if the bloc brings in a conservative majority.
I'm not saying its guaranteed going to work, but the NDP and liberals are considering this, hence the negotiations.
And don't call me naive, I've probably read more about this than either of you
On December 02 2008 11:09 fusionsdf wrote: yes, but the indication is that the blox will have little to do with the government outside of helping it pass votes of non-confidence
they wont be making policy, and its unclear whether they will have a bigger role under a coalition government than they have under the current government
so far they havent asked for any concessions other than a possible bail-out/aid for quebec lumber industries as far as I know
And I find it unlikely the coalition will fail, because a) liberals and ndp tend to agree on many points, b) its too politically expensive to fail. If the coalition collapses within a month, it will force a new election and both NDP and Liberals will get raped. It would be political suicide for the coalition to collapse, and neither party is suicidal.
The more the Bloc associates themselves with the government, the worse off they are as far as support. Which is why youve heard no cabinet positions being offered or wanted by the bloc.
Granted, some are saying the bloc might sabotage the coalition because they lose the least, but they dont exactly want harper back either, and if the coalition fails, it could easily lead to a harper majority. That is not something any of the three parties want, and why I predict a fairly moderate coalition government with some minor concessions to quebec in the form of lumber/manufacturing/culture programs
Don't tell me you're naive enough to think that the bloc will have such a minor role when their seats complete the majority. They won't scream it from the rooftops, just flex their muscles behind closed doors. To me, that's even worse than being up front and admitting their true role in this "coalition".
well, the bloc signed an agreement to support all confidence votes for the coalition for 18 months.
now, i'm not sure how binding that agreement is (it seemed to me to be pretty binding), but it would seem as though the bloc has already gone past the point of no return.
their hands are now tied to support all confidence motions, which means they don't really have that much leverage. this really does seem to be a leap of faith by all the parties involved, i think harper just broke the last straw and got all the parties enraged enough to sign a 'ABC' pact (anything but conservative).
i'm actually a little surprised by all the anti-bloc hysteria, they aren't even real separatists imo, they're from a province just like any other MP and they're going to try to bring home the bacon to their constituents, just like any other MP. like fusion said, throw quebec a couple of bones and the bloc will be happy.
Edit: the policy of throwing quebec a couple of bones to keep them happy was the way the liberals governed for 15 years anyways. how is this new?
Edit: the policy of throwing quebec a couple of bones to keep them happy was the way the liberals governed for 15 years anyways. how is this new?
Haha. Except seperatists are gaining a bit strength again in Canada (once they figure out how to send non-conflicting message from their own party members). You should come to St-Jean Baptiste sometimes and see all the anti-Liberal chant going on there. I was right beside Gilles Duceppe (I was working there as security) and he was smiling for the short time he was there.
Seperatist movement is still strong and realistic- just not AS realistic as 1995.
No, they voted to stay a part of Canada. The awesome part of Quebec (non-separatist), decided to stay a part of the country and maintain our national identity. The lame part of Quebec (separatist) voted to stop paying taxes to the fed and announce international independence while continuing to take national transfer payments and use our currency. (ie. move out of your parents house but insist they still pay you an allowance)
It's a good thing the awesome Quebecers voted it down, otherwise what followed would have been an embarrassing international incident as the separatists would claim they had a mandate from the people and the Canadian national government would tell them to stop their nonsense or actually be an independent nation, which they claimed to want but never intended from the beginning.
And now those same assholes that Quebecers already showed they do not ideologically support are pushing their agenda nationally and have become the swing vote in a mishmash coalition government.
It's fucking insanity.
I think Quebec wants to become an independent nation because of people like you. I don't see why you call the part of Quebec that wants to stay as "awesome" and the one that wants to separate as "lame". Its kind of shows a poor understanding as to why Quebec wanted to separate in the first place. I think threatening to become independent is definitely helping the Quebec cause.
just to be clear, because flaccid said this in another thread, the Bloc will not play a formal role in the government. they won't sit on the government side of the house, they won't hold cabinet positions or any other government positions.
their support will be purely tacit, they've agreed to support all confidence motions for 18 months and will be occasionally consulted but other than that they won't be apart of the coalition.
On December 03 2008 06:15 a-game wrote: just to be clear, because flaccid said this in another thread, the Bloc will not play a formal role in the government. they won't sit on the government side of the house, they won't hold cabinet positions or any other government positions.
their support will be purely tacit, they've agreed to support all confidence motions for 18 months and will be occasionally consulted but other than that they won't be apart of the coalition.
Again, they have to be part of the coalition, the ndp and the liberals do not have enough seats. They HAVE to sit on the Government side of the house, because they will be part of the GOVERNMENT.
I just find the current state of Canadian politics... hilarious. There is just no way in hell anything will get done with a 3-party coalition. 2 party, maybe but 3 is just impossible. So we're going to have a prime minister that the majority do not want in power working together with separatists and a guy who just wants to spend money. They will argue for 6 months (I'm hoping less) and then dissolve. I don't know what this is going to accomplish other than pissing off a lot of people.
On December 03 2008 06:15 a-game wrote: just to be clear, because flaccid said this in another thread, the Bloc will not play a formal role in the government. they won't sit on the government side of the house, they won't hold cabinet positions or any other government positions.
their support will be purely tacit, they've agreed to support all confidence motions for 18 months and will be occasionally consulted but other than that they won't be apart of the coalition.
Again, they have to be part of the coalition, the ndp and the liberals do not have enough seats. They HAVE to sit on the Government side of the house, because they will be part of the GOVERNMENT.
Yeah.. but they wont take part of the "decision".
Yes, the bloc have sign for a 18month of "acceptence" with the Liberal and NPD.
Yes, in my opinion, this is the best thing for the country. I just F**kcing hate the <Conservateur>, Harper is jus tpalin stupid and arrogant. When the people are too stupid to do a correct vote (i'm not a liberal 100% but I do think it was the best choice), those kind of thing shoudl append to turn the ligh on for some ppl.
The US had the same problems IMO, they had 4 year of misary with Bush... then the stupid (not general to everyone) ppl in the US voted AGAIN for this retard governement and got4 more years that was even WORST then the 4 past one. If we don't want the same thnig append here.. they gota do this.
(btw, there is also all the finance problem that Harper doesn't work on but I'm bored to write for now..)
On December 03 2008 06:15 a-game wrote: just to be clear, because flaccid said this in another thread, the Bloc will not play a formal role in the government. they won't sit on the government side of the house, they won't hold cabinet positions or any other government positions.
their support will be purely tacit, they've agreed to support all confidence motions for 18 months and will be occasionally consulted but other than that they won't be apart of the coalition.
Again, they have to be part of the coalition, the ndp and the liberals do not have enough seats. They HAVE to sit on the Government side of the house, because they will be part of the GOVERNMENT.
they are not apart of the coalition, they are only agreeing to support the liberal-ndp coalition. it was reported on cbc news that the liberals and the ndp will sit together on the government side of the house, and split the cabinet positions 18 liberal 6 ndp. the bloc won't be apart of the government though.
please stop posting as if you know what you are talking about.
Edit: wow, just saw your latest post, seriously you have no idea how a minority government works. currently the conservatives have about 140 out of the 308 seats of parliament, and yet they are the only party sitting on the government side of the house. you don't need a majority of the seats to be the government, if you don't have a majority you are simply called a minority government, ie, you are the government despite not having enough seats to pass any votes by yourself.
the upcoming coalition government will have roughly 115 seats out of 308, and would be a minority government, except the bloc has signed an agreement to lend it's 50 seats to all confidence votes until june 2010. they will, however, remain in the opposition benches, as they are not apart of the government, they are just supporting it, like all minority governments need support of at least one opposition party.
On December 03 2008 06:15 a-game wrote: just to be clear, because flaccid said this in another thread, the Bloc will not play a formal role in the government. they won't sit on the government side of the house, they won't hold cabinet positions or any other government positions.
their support will be purely tacit, they've agreed to support all confidence motions for 18 months and will be occasionally consulted but other than that they won't be apart of the coalition.
Again, they have to be part of the coalition, the ndp and the liberals do not have enough seats. They HAVE to sit on the Government side of the house, because they will be part of the GOVERNMENT.
they are not apart of the coalition, they are only agreeing to support the liberal-ndp coalition. it was reported on cbc news that the liberals and the ndp will sit together on the government side of the house, and split the cabinet positions 18 liberal 6 ndp. the bloc won't be apart of the government though.
please stop posting as if you know what you are talking about.
The difference is mostly semantical. Even though the Bloc pledged not to oppose the coalition, it isn't binding. The Bloc will be consulted over everything, or the new government will sink down the drain.
On December 03 2008 06:15 a-game wrote: just to be clear, because flaccid said this in another thread, the Bloc will not play a formal role in the government. they won't sit on the government side of the house, they won't hold cabinet positions or any other government positions.
their support will be purely tacit, they've agreed to support all confidence motions for 18 months and will be occasionally consulted but other than that they won't be apart of the coalition.
Again, they have to be part of the coalition, the ndp and the liberals do not have enough seats. They HAVE to sit on the Government side of the house, because they will be part of the GOVERNMENT.
they are not apart of the coalition, they are only agreeing to support the liberal-ndp coalition. it was reported on cbc news that the liberals and the ndp will sit together on the government side of the house, and split the cabinet positions 18 liberal 6 ndp. the bloc won't be apart of the government though.
please stop posting as if you know what you are talking about.
Edit: wow, just saw your latest post, seriously you have no idea how a minority government works. currently the conservatives have about 140 out of the 308 seats of parliament, and yet they are the only party sitting on the government side of the house. you don't need a majority of the seats to be the government, if you don't have a majority you are simply called a minority government, ie, you are the government despite not having enough seats to pass any votes by yourself.
the upcoming coalition government will have roughly 115 seats out of 308, and would be a minority government, except the bloc has signed an agreement to lend it's 50 seats to all confidence votes until june 2010. they will, however, remain in the opposition benches, as they are not apart of the government, they are just supporting it, like all minority governments need support of at least one opposition party.
I said you have to be the biggest party. I.e, your party must have the most seats. NDP+Liberals< Conservatives, therefore the Bloc must sit on the Government side, even if they have no members as ministers in Government, even if they support no confidence motions, it doesn't fuckin matter.
On December 03 2008 10:31 fusionsdf wrote: hey guess what
you know that conservative minority?
they required the exact same support from the bloc as this coalition does
Hey guess what?
To be a minority government, a party [in this case coalition] requires the most seats in the house of parliament.
Guess which party outnumbers which coalition without the blocs support?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
how is that relevant at all?
its just like the conservative talking point (canada elected us) vs the liberal talking point (more people voted against you then for you)
whether its coalition or conservative, both parties rely on the bloc to support them on confidence motions. And its not like the bloc needs a big carrot either, since they would rather hold up a coalition government than a conservative government.
I mean if you want to complain about ndp go for it, since they will actually have a hand in government.
On December 02 2008 11:45 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: what a bunch of fools we have running our country
Don't we have the leaders that we deserve?
no
stephen harper is far and away the smallest evil, but he is not a great prime minister
canadians really don't have a 'good' choice for government. all i can say is that if these fucking retards from the opposition parties force another election after we JUST HAD ONE FOUR WEEKS AGO, I and all the people I know will vote Conservative just to keep those leeches out of power.
On December 03 2008 06:15 a-game wrote: just to be clear, because flaccid said this in another thread, the Bloc will not play a formal role in the government. they won't sit on the government side of the house, they won't hold cabinet positions or any other government positions.
their support will be purely tacit, they've agreed to support all confidence motions for 18 months and will be occasionally consulted but other than that they won't be apart of the coalition.
Again, they have to be part of the coalition, the ndp and the liberals do not have enough seats. They HAVE to sit on the Government side of the house, because they will be part of the GOVERNMENT.
they are not apart of the coalition, they are only agreeing to support the liberal-ndp coalition. it was reported on cbc news that the liberals and the ndp will sit together on the government side of the house, and split the cabinet positions 18 liberal 6 ndp. the bloc won't be apart of the government though.
please stop posting as if you know what you are talking about.
The difference is mostly semantical. Even though the Bloc pledged not to oppose the coalition, it isn't binding. The Bloc will be consulted over everything, or the new government will sink down the drain.
no it wont
if the bloc makes demands that brings down the coalition, or even just makes the coalition look bad, that will lead to a conservative majority next election. The Bloc does not want that for obvious reasons (how well would quebec treat them if they were seen as bringing the conservatives to power?)
This wont lead to quebec seperating
I'm pretty neutral on the coalition, but its harpers own fucking fault for continuously acting like an idiot.
The above post is an example of why the three parties can not afford to let the coalition fail. If it fails, it will lead almost certainly to a conservative majority. The liberals/NDP know that will happen, and arent so suicidal to let the coalition to easily fail.
let's just put some clarifications to bed here. firstly, i specifically saw cbc report that the bloc will remain on the opposition benches, so let's just stop arguing about that one. the only mention of the bloc in the entire coalition agreement
I think this is an overall bad decision because of the main fact that Canadians will not take to this change lightly, we voted them in. Just because the opposition is pissed shouldn't force something like this. They are only hurting themselves with this no confidence motion and will hurt their future chance of getting re-elected.
I personally like Harper, and for someone who doesn't follow every little thing of politics, but I see things getting done.
On December 03 2008 11:48 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: a-game do you not find this whole scenario disgraceful?
me personally? not really lol
but i'm a closet progressive so that really shouldn't come as a surprise
i think most people just want the government to f*ck off, so i can understand why a lot of people are ticked off about this, even if i personally am of a different opinion.
the only thing i would say is that the peak of an economic crisis is the worst time for this kind of instability, but my own personal view is that leaving the conservatives in power would do even greater harm.
No, they voted to stay a part of Canada. The awesome part of Quebec (non-separatist), decided to stay a part of the country and maintain our national identity. The lame part of Quebec (separatist) voted to stop paying taxes to the fed and announce international independence while continuing to take national transfer payments and use our currency. (ie. move out of your parents house but insist they still pay you an allowance)
It's a good thing the awesome Quebecers voted it down, otherwise what followed would have been an embarrassing international incident as the separatists would claim they had a mandate from the people and the Canadian national government would tell them to stop their nonsense or actually be an independent nation, which they claimed to want but never intended from the beginning.
And now those same assholes that Quebecers already showed they do not ideologically support are pushing their agenda nationally and have become the swing vote in a mishmash coalition government.
It's fucking insanity.
I think Quebec wants to become an independent nation because of people like you. I don't see why you call the part of Quebec that wants to stay as "awesome" and the one that wants to separate as "lame". Its kind of shows a poor understanding as to why Quebec wanted to separate in the first place. I think threatening to become independent is definitely helping the Quebec cause.
Quebec doesn't want to become an independent nation. A small segment of assholes who happen to live there want to and the intelligent part of your province already told you to fuck off.
Do you think Ontarians are anything like people from the East Coast, who are anything like people from the Prairies, who are anything like people from BC?
Quebec is no more or less special than any other part of this country. Get over yourself.
man, and i just wrote like an essay in one of the blogs talking about this crap. -_____-;;
anyways, i need an explanation as to why people are so bent on voting for tories.
Dion is not prime minister material? or people hate liberals just because of Dion? or people think Dion is incapable of fixing the economy? or people are afraid of tax? or are people too lazy to go re-vote?
On December 04 2008 00:52 karbon wrote: man, and i just wrote like an essay in one of the blogs talking about this crap. -_____-;;
anyways, i need an explanation as to why people are so bent on voting for tories.
Dion is not prime minister material? or people hate liberals just because of Dion? or people think Dion is incapable of fixing the economy? or people are afraid of tax? or are people too lazy to go re-vote?
do explain.
you can probably deduce my position.
Either Canadians vote for: a) Change b) The lesser evil c) Nobody Nowadays most go either a) or c), hence the abnormally high conservative vote. Some voted conservative, even though they hate them, because they're sick of minority governments!
On December 04 2008 00:52 karbon wrote: man, and i just wrote like an essay in one of the blogs talking about this crap. -_____-;;
anyways, i need an explanation as to why people are so bent on voting for tories.
Dion is not prime minister material? - Not really. he his just not charismatic and don't look like behing able to hold power over things. He isn't really good to get his message over other people (other thing too..) or people hate liberals just because of Dion? - It's a reason but, I think, one of the main reason is all the "scandale des commendites" that the Liberals did under Chretien. or people think Dion is incapable of fixing the economy? - I personally thing he could do better the Harper about this (well.. a 6 grade could do better then Harper about economy) or people are afraid of tax? - Yes, people hate taz raise, duh! or are people too lazy to go re-vote? - Not lazy but it's cost so much to start an election, we don't want to re-enter into a costly election. We are already in a economic failure around the world and we, in Canada, instead of finding solution to reduce the cost of lots of thing, start multiple election lol O.o
On December 03 2008 06:15 a-game wrote: just to be clear, because flaccid said this in another thread, the Bloc will not play a formal role in the government. they won't sit on the government side of the house, they won't hold cabinet positions or any other government positions.
their support will be purely tacit, they've agreed to support all confidence motions for 18 months and will be occasionally consulted but other than that they won't be apart of the coalition.
Again, they have to be part of the coalition, the ndp and the liberals do not have enough seats. They HAVE to sit on the Government side of the house, because they will be part of the GOVERNMENT.
they are not apart of the coalition, they are only agreeing to support the liberal-ndp coalition. it was reported on cbc news that the liberals and the ndp will sit together on the government side of the house, and split the cabinet positions 18 liberal 6 ndp. the bloc won't be apart of the government though.
please stop posting as if you know what you are talking about.
The difference is mostly semantical. Even though the Bloc pledged not to oppose the coalition, it isn't binding. The Bloc will be consulted over everything, or the new government will sink down the drain.
no it wont
if the bloc makes demands that brings down the coalition, or even just makes the coalition look bad, that will lead to a conservative majority next election. The Bloc does not want that for obvious reasons (how well would quebec treat them if they were seen as bringing the conservatives to power?)
This wont lead to quebec seperating
I'm pretty neutral on the coalition, but its harpers own fucking fault for continuously acting like an idiot.
The above post is an example of why the three parties can not afford to let the coalition fail. If it fails, it will lead almost certainly to a conservative majority. The liberals/NDP know that will happen, and arent so suicidal to let the coalition to easily fail.
You're wrong.
First, elections wouldn't lead to a conservative majority, especially right after this mess, which is the conservatives' doing. Many swing voters must have changed their minds by now. As for the other opposition parties, they look better than before the elections, that is for certain.
Second, the Bloc has the least to lose in calling for new elections. The federal government is so pathetic right now that it might convince more Quebeckers to vote Bloc after all.
Third, the Bloc isn't actively promoting sovereignty at the moment. The Party Quebecois is just too impotent these days to be worth the effort.
In short, the Bloc has chosen the lesser evil, for the moment. But that coalition won't last long, if at all, should it ignore the party that holds the balance of power. Trust me, there will be many backroom deals from this point on, and the backroom is where real politics are decided.
[sarcasm] Let's have an election every week! [/sarcasm]
I hope they do call another election and Harper wins majority. Then I won't have to listen to the Liberals and NDP fight about power and how they're being to stuck up and power-mongering to actually do their jobs. Just because a party wants to win, doesn't mean the people want them to win. We live in a democracy, suck it up princess(s).
On December 04 2008 00:52 karbon wrote: man, and i just wrote like an essay in one of the blogs talking about this crap. -_____-;;
anyways, i need an explanation as to why people are so bent on voting for tories.
Dion is not prime minister material? or people hate liberals just because of Dion? or people think Dion is incapable of fixing the economy? or people are afraid of tax? or are people too lazy to go re-vote?
do explain.
you can probably deduce my position.
Either Canadians vote for: a) Change b) The lesser evil c) Nobody Nowadays most go either a) or c), hence the abnormally high conservative vote. Some voted conservative, even though they hate them, because they're sick of minority governments!
that's really too bad they decided to choose the wrong ones...
a) Change: yes change is good, but not when a new group of people come in without any clue as to what they're doing c) Nobody: which is as bad as the previous one, because they aren't stopping the new group of people who have no clue what they're doing to come into power
the most important choice is discarded.
b) The lesser of two evil: which would benefit Canada MUCH MORE than having the greater of two evil in power....
i felt angry about canadian voters who chose a or c, but now i just feel sorry for them.
On December 04 2008 01:17 GiTM.Dante wrote: [sarcasm] Let's have an election every week! [/sarcasm]
I hope they do call another election and Harper wins majority. Then I won't have to listen to the Liberals and NDP fight about power and how they're being to stuck up and power-mongering to actually do their jobs. Just because a party wants to win, doesn't mean the people want them to win. We live in a democracy, suck it up princess(s).
it's not about power. in fact, that couldn't be farther from the truth.
it's about two things:
1) fixing the economy, which harper is doing a terrible job at it 2) saving their skins from bankruptcy, because if they disappear, the conservatives will rule forever, and Canada would then become a dictatorship country.
On December 04 2008 01:17 GiTM.Dante wrote: [sarcasm] Let's have an election every week! [/sarcasm]
I hope they do call another election and Harper wins majority. Then I won't have to listen to the Liberals and NDP fight about power and how they're being to stuck up and power-mongering to actually do their jobs. Just because a party wants to win, doesn't mean the people want them to win. We live in a democracy, suck it up princess(s).
The fact we live in a democracy is exactly the reason why the opposition has every moral and legal right to vote out the opposition. The Liberals/NDP/Bloc represent the majority of the nation and thus are entitled to replace the government as they see fit. This is not power-mongering; Stephen Harper forced this situation when he attempted to financially cripple the opposition parties, its obvious that they're going to vote him out if he tries provocative shit like this and coalition governments happen ALL the fucking time in Europe. And I'm sorry to dissappoint you, but there won't be another election; it would be political suicide if the GG actually called one and as a result we will have a coalition that will probably be more effective that the conservatives have been thus far.
In general, it would appear a lot of people here are convinced, with little justification, that this coalition won't get anything done or will fall apart quickly. I would usually take the time to explain why it won't, but since other posters have already tried to explain it and are just being ignored/disregarded, I think I'll just remember to say "I told you so" when the coalition lasts 2+ years.
On December 04 2008 01:46 HumbleZealot wrote:In general, it would appear a lot of people here are convinced, with little justification, that this coalition won't get anything done or will fall apart quickly.
i agree with everything you mentioned.
i believe the perspective of the tory voters are as such:
there are three types of tory voters; those from the prairies (the die-hard supporters), those who want change as mentioned above, and those who choose from their asses and vote randomly.
from the perspective of the prairies population, it's quite understandable as to why they would vote conservatives. the conservatives support them. they fear that if a liberal, or otherwise, party were to come into power, the funding would be focused towards Ontario, which is the heart of Canadian economy. they fear they would be neglected. very understandable.
those who vote for change, unfortunately, are not aware of the tory policies, and way of handling things. they are not aware of all the gaffs that have been made by a tory government in history, which trumps all other gaffs by the liberals.
an example: brian mulroney took money from Canada to fund his shit that is IRRELEVANT to the interest of Canada. (wiki it, too long to write). harper also ignored the interest of Canada. instead of fixing the economy, he worries about losing power, and tries to rid the Hill of these parties. the liberals have had scandals, yes, but they were of a personal nature, and by that i mean that even though the scandals occurred, it did NOT affect the efficiency and productivity of the Canadian economy growth. the economy was still in good shape.
and then we come to those who vote conservatives just because they were sick of voting.
I will be blunt. This is the group comprised of ignorant, stupid, selfish, self-centered and most of all, LAZY motherfuckers.
They are ignorant because they are not aware that by granting the conservatives a vote, which would lead to a majority, harper has the white card to do WHAT EVER HE WANTS. which would DESTROY Canada.
They are stupid because of the same reason.
They are selfish and self-centered because they are LAZY. they don't want to re-vote because of their LAZINESS. Too much energy. Too tired to re-vote. Afraid of losing money, they are losing money anyways as long as the Tories are in power. Absolutely useless and lazy.
On December 04 2008 01:17 GiTM.Dante wrote: [sarcasm] Let's have an election every week! [/sarcasm]
I hope they do call another election and Harper wins majority. Then I won't have to listen to the Liberals and NDP fight about power and how they're being to stuck up and power-mongering to actually do their jobs. Just because a party wants to win, doesn't mean the people want them to win. We live in a democracy, suck it up princess(s).
The fact we live in a democracy is exactly the reason why the opposition has every moral and legal right to vote out the opposition. The Liberals/NDP/Bloc represent the majority of the nation and thus are entitled to replace the government as they see fit. This is not power-mongering; Stephen Harper forced this situation when he attempted to financially cripple the opposition parties, its obvious that they're going to vote him out if he tries provocative shit like this and coalition governments happen ALL the fucking time in Europe. And I'm sorry to dissappoint you, but there won't be another election; it would be political suicide if the GG actually called one and as a result we will have a coalition that will probably be more effective that the conservatives have been thus far.
In general, it would appear a lot of people here are convinced, with little justification, that this coalition won't get anything done or will fall apart quickly. I would usually take the time to explain why it won't, but since other posters have already tried to explain it and are just being ignored/disregarded, I think I'll just remember to say "I told you so" when the coalition lasts 2+ years.
Edit: atleast karbon understands the situation
I think a coalition government could work, and be successful. Until they release some kind of platform as to what they actually plan on doing, did I miss it?, I'll stick behind my decision. The fact is that in a first past the post electoral system, coalition governments dont tend to fair that well. I'm not going against a coalition just to spite them, I just don't believe it will be overly successful, despite them having the popular vote when added together, they are still seperate entities and have different opinions on different matters. Political parties dont seem to reach middle ground that easily and I don't think we should be in a state of flux with our government during a time of global economic cooldown.
I'm interested to see how the Govenor General reacts, I think it will be interesting.
On December 04 2008 01:46 HumbleZealot wrote:In general, it would appear a lot of people here are convinced, with little justification, that this coalition won't get anything done or will fall apart quickly.
i agree with everything you mentioned.
i believe the perspective of the tory voters are as such:
there are three types of tory voters; those from the prairies (the die-hard supporters), those who want change as mentioned above, and those who choose from their asses and vote randomly.
from the perspective of the prairies population, it's quite understandable as to why they would vote conservatives. the conservatives support them. they fear that if a liberal, or otherwise, party were to come into power, the funding would be focused towards Ontario, which is the heart of Canadian economy. they fear they would be neglected. very understandable.
those who vote for change, unfortunately, are not aware of the tory policies, and way of handling things. they are not aware of all the gaffs that have been made by a tory government in history, which trumps all other gaffs by the liberals.
an example: brian mulroney took money from Canada to fund his shit that is IRRELEVANT to the interest of Canada. (wiki it, too long to write). harper also ignored the interest of Canada. instead of fixing the economy, he worries about losing power, and tries to rid the Hill of these parties. the liberals have had scandals, yes, but they were of a personal nature, and by that i mean that even though the scandals occurred, it did NOT affect the efficiency and productivity of the Canadian economy growth. the economy was still in good shape.
and then we come to those who vote conservatives just because they were sick of voting.
I will be blunt. This is the group comprised of ignorant, stupid, selfish, self-centered and most of all, LAZY motherfuckers.
They are ignorant because they are not aware that by granting the conservatives a vote, which would lead to a majority, harper has the white card to do WHAT EVER HE WANTS. which would DESTROY Canada.
They are stupid because of the same reason.
They are selfish and self-centered because they are LAZY. they don't want to re-vote because of their LAZINESS. Too much energy. Too tired to re-vote. Afraid of losing money, they are losing money anyways as long as the Tories are in power. Absolutely useless and lazy.
Ontario is in for hard times with this economic cooldown and many factories seem to be closing. I also think you're confusing the Conservative party with the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance parties. Mulroney was a member of the PC. This conservative party was founded in 2003, which incorporated some of the PC/CA. You can't attribute one parties disaster to a new party. Only time will tell us.
On December 04 2008 01:46 HumbleZealot wrote:In general, it would appear a lot of people here are convinced, with little justification, that this coalition won't get anything done or will fall apart quickly.
i agree with everything you mentioned.
i believe the perspective of the tory voters are as such:
there are three types of tory voters; those from the prairies (the die-hard supporters), those who want change as mentioned above, and those who choose from their asses and vote randomly.
from the perspective of the prairies population, it's quite understandable as to why they would vote conservatives. the conservatives support them. they fear that if a liberal, or otherwise, party were to come into power, the funding would be focused towards Ontario, which is the heart of Canadian economy. they fear they would be neglected. very understandable.
those who vote for change, unfortunately, are not aware of the tory policies, and way of handling things. they are not aware of all the gaffs that have been made by a tory government in history, which trumps all other gaffs by the liberals.
an example: brian mulroney took money from Canada to fund his shit that is IRRELEVANT to the interest of Canada. (wiki it, too long to write). harper also ignored the interest of Canada. instead of fixing the economy, he worries about losing power, and tries to rid the Hill of these parties. the liberals have had scandals, yes, but they were of a personal nature, and by that i mean that even though the scandals occurred, it did NOT affect the efficiency and productivity of the Canadian economy growth. the economy was still in good shape.
and then we come to those who vote conservatives just because they were sick of voting.
I will be blunt. This is the group comprised of ignorant, stupid, selfish, self-centered and most of all, LAZY motherfuckers.
They are ignorant because they are not aware that by granting the conservatives a vote, which would lead to a majority, harper has the white card to do WHAT EVER HE WANTS. which would DESTROY Canada.
They are stupid because of the same reason.
They are selfish and self-centered because they are LAZY. they don't want to re-vote because of their LAZINESS. Too much energy. Too tired to re-vote. Afraid of losing money, they are losing money anyways as long as the Tories are in power. Absolutely useless and lazy.
Ontario is in for hard times with this economic cooldown and many factories seem to be closing. I also think you're confusing the Conservative party with the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance parties. Mulroney was a member of the PC. This conservative party was founded in 2003, which incorporated some of the PC/CA. You can't attribute one parties disaster to a new party. Only time will tell us.
you're right. i shouldn't attribute past disasters to new party.
but i'm under the impression that even with the new party, old tendencies do come back. the backbone of the philosophy still remains, despite its modification.
On December 04 2008 01:46 HumbleZealot wrote:In general, it would appear a lot of people here are convinced, with little justification, that this coalition won't get anything done or will fall apart quickly.
i agree with everything you mentioned.
i believe the perspective of the tory voters are as such:
there are three types of tory voters; those from the prairies (the die-hard supporters), those who want change as mentioned above, and those who choose from their asses and vote randomly.
from the perspective of the prairies population, it's quite understandable as to why they would vote conservatives. the conservatives support them. they fear that if a liberal, or otherwise, party were to come into power, the funding would be focused towards Ontario, which is the heart of Canadian economy. they fear they would be neglected. very understandable.
those who vote for change, unfortunately, are not aware of the tory policies, and way of handling things. they are not aware of all the gaffs that have been made by a tory government in history, which trumps all other gaffs by the liberals.
an example: brian mulroney took money from Canada to fund his shit that is IRRELEVANT to the interest of Canada. (wiki it, too long to write). harper also ignored the interest of Canada. instead of fixing the economy, he worries about losing power, and tries to rid the Hill of these parties. the liberals have had scandals, yes, but they were of a personal nature, and by that i mean that even though the scandals occurred, it did NOT affect the efficiency and productivity of the Canadian economy growth. the economy was still in good shape.
and then we come to those who vote conservatives just because they were sick of voting.
I will be blunt. This is the group comprised of ignorant, stupid, selfish, self-centered and most of all, LAZY motherfuckers.
They are ignorant because they are not aware that by granting the conservatives a vote, which would lead to a majority, harper has the white card to do WHAT EVER HE WANTS. which would DESTROY Canada.
They are stupid because of the same reason.
They are selfish and self-centered because they are LAZY. they don't want to re-vote because of their LAZINESS. Too much energy. Too tired to re-vote. Afraid of losing money, they are losing money anyways as long as the Tories are in power. Absolutely useless and lazy.
Ontario is in for hard times with this economic cooldown and many factories seem to be closing. I also think you're confusing the Conservative party with the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance parties. Mulroney was a member of the PC. This conservative party was founded in 2003, which incorporated some of the PC/CA. You can't attribute one parties disaster to a new party. Only time will tell us.
you're right. i shouldn't attribute past disasters to new party.
but i'm under the impression that even with the new party, old tendencies do come back. the backbone of the philosophy still remains, despite its modification.
I agree to an extent, but I'm still willing to give them a chance. I would actually like to see Ignatieff run for the liberals and release his platform. I've read one of his books, very smart man, knows whats going on.
Ideologies
Progressive Conservative: Conservatism, Liberal conservatism, Neoliberalism.
Canadian Alliance: Conservatism, Neoconservatism, Social conservatism
Conservative Party: Conservatism, Liberal Conservatism, Provincial devolution
Provincial devolution: Canadian federalism[1] is one of the three pillars of the constitutional order, along with responsible government and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It means that Canada has two distinct jurisdictions of political authority: on the one hand, the central Canadian Parliament and, on the other hand, legislative assemblies in ten provinces and three northern territories. The Federal Parliament and the Legislatures of the Provinces are sovereign with respect to certain areas of legislative authority A few subjects are shared (agriculture and immigration).The three territories are creations of the Federal Parliament and exercise delegated power and not sovereign power. The United Kingdom did not follow this model when Confederation was realized, making Canada different from its mother country in this respect.
I thought that was pretty interesting to put an emphasis on.
The BQ- The BQ is an integral part of the Canadian political landscape, and apart from a general revulsion at the platform of separatism, I don't see any good reason NOT to engage them in a coalition, as parties on both sides have for decades. I am more than puzzled why it has become an issue only now.
Economy- Ironically, the economic pressures on the Conservatives in Canada are parallel to those on the present government of Germany- to resort to the image of "taking action," by which they mean deficit spending, and inflationary monetary policies to conform to the global standards set by Britain and America. I am of the opinion that the path taken by the German and Canadian governments is the more stable option, calculated in the long-term, but it cannot be claimed that a cut to public funding of political parties- as part of a broader programme to reduce excess spending- is an implausible move, or either constitutionally or morally invalid. There are arguments at least as valid against the entire system of public funding.
Democratic Mandate- It would be perfectly legitimate for an opposition coalition to topple the Prime Minister's government, since the government is selected by parliament, and not through direct suffrage under the constitution.
In general, I think that this wrathful partisanship spilling over into general society is the consequence of the hysteria of political mobilization, and not reflective of the importance of the issues truly at stake. The downside of this political enviornment, apart from the antipathies therein generated, is that inflation of opinion rarely elevates the quality of debate. Compared to the American, the Canadian voter may be seen as pragmatic, elastic, unideological, and, yes, indifferent. However, it does not follow that a greater ideological mobilization (or "education," as some still have the gall to utter) will dramatically improve the quality of political life in Canada, as we are presently seeing.
On November 29 2008 08:16 BatTheMan wrote: Cut public funding to parties imo = good. Fuck them politicians make your own cash. I'm sick seeing my hard earned cash going away. Conservatives cut gst more also. You kids will understand when you start working.
Public funding for politicians is good is because politicians who rely primarily on private funding become PUPPETS to the companies that fund them.
If you'd rather have politicians who are working for the companies rather than the public, then feel free to move to the US: you won't be missed.
Corporate donations aren't allowed in Canada like they are in the US. Individuals can make contributions but its capped at a reasonable level to avoid this sort of problem.
Jacques Parizeau (a founder of the bloc and the premiere during the separtist vote of 95) apparently predicted this sort of thing would happen back in 1991 and is probably laughing now that there is another spark for separatism again.
wow, harper lied and said the coalition signing ceremony was not conducted in front of a canadian flag, he's trying to split the country apart with the inflammatory quebec bashing, despite the fact that in 2000 his current minister of international trade stockwell day made plans to form a coalition government with the bloc quebecois, and in 2004 stephen harper himself was ready to form a government with the support of the bloc quebecois.
why don't canadians realize this asshole is our very own george bush? are we trying to prove we are as dumb as texas too? my god
Edit: oh and i forgot to mention he offered dying chuck cadman a $1million dollar life insurance policy if he could buy his vote, and also likes to wiretap opposition parties' caucus meetings. seriously i wish canadians would stop bragging about how we're smarter than americans because apparently most of the country has it's head in the sand.
>>: seriously this whole thing reminds me of when sarah palin was campaigning about 'real america' and 'true americans', except at least in the US sarah palin got fucking trashed in the election, whereas apparently here that kind of behaviour will do you just fine
You do realize that the Conservative party we have in power now was founded in 2003 right? and that you're referring to Stockwell Days Canadian Alliance party. (Just saying, incase you were unaware).
"in 2000 his current minister of international trade stockwell day made plans to form a coalition government with the bloc quebecois, and in 2004 stephen harper himself was ready to form a government with the support of the bloc quebecois."
Good things he's the minister of international trade then, huh?
On December 04 2008 14:50 GiTM.Dante wrote: You do realize that the Conservative party we have in power now was founded in 2003 right? and that you're referring to Stockwell Days Canadian Alliance party.
Yeah I know that, I don't see how it's relevant to my point though?
Good things he's the minister of international trade then, huh?
I beleive that all the points I have thought of over the last few days have been made. Honestly you could win seats with the slogan "Were not Conservatives, not Liberals or Socialists, also our leader isn't a tree hugger"
On December 04 2008 14:50 GiTM.Dante wrote: hey a-game,
You do realize that the Conservative party we have in power now was founded in 2003 right? and that you're referring to Stockwell Days Canadian Alliance party. (Just saying, incase you were unaware).
"in 2000 his current minister of international trade stockwell day made plans to form a coalition government with the bloc quebecois, and in 2004 stephen harper himself was ready to form a government with the support of the bloc quebecois."
Good things he's the minister of international trade then, huh?
thats cool, because in 2000 harper and flaherty proposed basically the same thing in a paper
Can somebody translate Dion? I don't speak frenglish.
We will govern through corporation? Orly? I thought it was cooperation you downie Liberal.
God dion rages me. I dont give a damn about the separatists joining a coalition or even fucking layton being PM but Dion I CANNOT SMELL.
And I'm a Quebecquer. Goes to show.
It'll be a sad day for Canada when the leader of the Bloc has a better command of english than the prime minister of the country.
Just because he can't speak english properly, how is that remotely relevant to his party's policies about leading the government? Oh he can't speak properly, so i hate him and don't want him to be PM. genial mon ami. pas mal genial.
On December 04 2008 16:38 TearsOfTheSun wrote: being from canada, i don't want stephan dion to be the PM! hes trying to take quebec from canada! whats going to happen to Newfoundland!?
what the fuck are you talking about? see, it's comments like these that i can't stand. if you hate Dion, at least come up with a valid reason.
i will give you an example:
I hate Stephen Harper, because his backward economy fix has kicked everyone in the balls. by taking 30 million dollars from the other parties to try and fix the economy withOUT a stimulus package, he is bankrupting them, leading them to disappear, hence leaving him in power for a very long time. in the mean time, he has 800M in surplus up his ass he isn't touching.
OR
I hate Stephen Harper because he is a hypocrite. He claims he would not have done a coalition like the Liberals are doing with NDP. Yet, he attempted to with the Bloc and the NDP back in 2004 with the Martin government still in power.
On December 04 2008 16:38 TearsOfTheSun wrote: being from canada, i don't want stephan dion to be the PM! hes trying to take quebec from canada! whats going to happen to Newfoundland!?
if you hate Dion, at least come up with a valid reason.
i will give you an example:
I hate Stephen Harper, because his backward economy fix has kicked everyone in the balls. by taking 30 million dollars from the other parties to try and fix the economy withOUT a stimulus package, he is bankrupting them, leading them to disappear, hence leaving him in power for a very long time. in the mean time, he has 800M in surplus up his ass he isn't touching.
now it's your turn. do it right.
You forgot his broken promises from the last election, and to just mention one of them, how about we wont have another election for another 4 years
we lasted what, year and a half?
Look at the current news, he is bashing the coalition for working with the bloc, which is something he was prepared to do in 2004 which just goes to show hes a hypocrite.
The coalition has already given a plan on how to attempt to fix the economy, which is alot better than a PM who has been in office 7 weeks and has failed to do this, and is asking the country waits on it? He should of had it before being elected.
On December 04 2008 16:38 TearsOfTheSun wrote: being from canada, i don't want stephan dion to be the PM! hes trying to take quebec from canada! whats going to happen to Newfoundland!?
if you hate Dion, at least come up with a valid reason.
i will give you an example:
I hate Stephen Harper, because his backward economy fix has kicked everyone in the balls. by taking 30 million dollars from the other parties to try and fix the economy withOUT a stimulus package, he is bankrupting them, leading them to disappear, hence leaving him in power for a very long time. in the mean time, he has 800M in surplus up his ass he isn't touching.
now it's your turn. do it right.
You forgot his broken promises from the last election, and to just mention one of them, how about we wont have another election for another 4 years
we lasted what, year and a half?
Look at the current news, he is bashing the coalition for working with the bloc, which is something he was prepared to do in 2004 which just goes to show hes a hypocrite.
The coalition has already given a plan on how to attempt to fix the economy, which is alot better than a PM who has been in office 7 weeks and has failed to do this, and is asking the country waits on it? He should of had it before being elected.
lol i'm sorry
i edited my post, and included all the stuff you said
On December 04 2008 16:38 TearsOfTheSun wrote: being from canada, i don't want stephan dion to be the PM! hes trying to take quebec from canada! whats going to happen to Newfoundland!?
if you hate Dion, at least come up with a valid reason.
i will give you an example:
I hate Stephen Harper, because his backward economy fix has kicked everyone in the balls. by taking 30 million dollars from the other parties to try and fix the economy withOUT a stimulus package, he is bankrupting them, leading them to disappear, hence leaving him in power for a very long time. in the mean time, he has 800M in surplus up his ass he isn't touching.
now it's your turn. do it right.
You forgot his broken promises from the last election, and to just mention one of them, how about we wont have another election for another 4 years
we lasted what, year and a half?
Look at the current news, he is bashing the coalition for working with the bloc, which is something he was prepared to do in 2004 which just goes to show hes a hypocrite.
The coalition has already given a plan on how to attempt to fix the economy, which is alot better than a PM who has been in office 7 weeks and has failed to do this, and is asking the country waits on it? He should of had it before being elected.
lol i'm sorry
i edited my post, and included all the stuff you said
On December 04 2008 15:03 BloodyC0bbler wrote: why is no one talking about how rae or Ignatieff will be leading this coalition when the liberals decide which of them is replacing dion.
I can`t speak for Rae since he still loves the NDP and leftist policies, but real liberals like Ignatieff realize that this type of coalition can only hurt the liberal party and hurt his chances of ever being PM. Ignatieff is likely to quash this thing before it ever becomes a reality if he knows what is good for him.
On December 04 2008 15:03 BloodyC0bbler wrote: why is no one talking about how rae or Ignatieff will be leading this coalition when the liberals decide which of them is replacing dion.
I can`t speak for Rae since he still loves the NDP and leftist policies, but real liberals like Ignatieff realize that this type of coalition can only hurt the liberal party and hurt his chances of ever being PM. Ignatieff is likely to quash this thing before it ever becomes a reality if he knows what is good for him.
Most likely won't have the chance to, thing is, dion is doing this yes, but without the support of his party they could remove him ahead of schedule, so something tells me he isn't doing this on his own, as they aren't speeding up getting rid of him which means if the deal goes bad the blame will fall on his shoulders, not the future leader
On December 04 2008 15:03 BloodyC0bbler wrote: why is no one talking about how rae or Ignatieff will be leading this coalition when the liberals decide which of them is replacing dion.
I can`t speak for Rae since he still loves the NDP and leftist policies, but real liberals like Ignatieff realize that this type of coalition can only hurt the liberal party and hurt his chances of ever being PM. Ignatieff is likely to quash this thing before it ever becomes a reality if he knows what is good for him.
Most likely won't have the chance to, thing is, dion is doing this yes, but without the support of his party they could remove him ahead of schedule, so something tells me he isn't doing this on his own, as they aren't speeding up getting rid of him which means if the deal goes bad the blame will fall on his shoulders, not the future leader
Its a known fact that more MPs in the Liberal caucus support Ignatieff than Dion. The problem is that leadership is decided by all party members, not just those elected to parliament. If it was up to parliament, Ignatieff would have replaced Dion on October 15th. Dion is trying to cling to power by becoming PM to the detriment of Canada and the Liberal Party. Iggy insiders report that he has never been on board with this coalition 100% from the beginning and for good reason. I think he`s just hoping that Parliament will be prorogued and that he`ll have the chance to become leader through other means before a confidence motion so there can be another election with a decent Liberal candidate.
On December 04 2008 15:03 BloodyC0bbler wrote: why is no one talking about how rae or Ignatieff will be leading this coalition when the liberals decide which of them is replacing dion.
I can`t speak for Rae since he still loves the NDP and leftist policies, but real liberals like Ignatieff realize that this type of coalition can only hurt the liberal party and hurt his chances of ever being PM. Ignatieff is likely to quash this thing before it ever becomes a reality if he knows what is good for him.
Most likely won't have the chance to, thing is, dion is doing this yes, but without the support of his party they could remove him ahead of schedule, so something tells me he isn't doing this on his own, as they aren't speeding up getting rid of him which means if the deal goes bad the blame will fall on his shoulders, not the future leader
Its a known fact that more MPs in the Liberal caucus support Ignatieff than Dion. The problem is that leadership is decided by all party members, not just those elected to parliament. If it was up to parliament, Ignatieff would have replaced Dion on October 15th. Dion is trying to cling to power by becoming PM to the detriment of Canada and the Liberal Party. Iggy insiders report that he has never been on board with this coalition 100% from the beginning and for good reason. I think he`s just hoping that Parliament will be prorogued and that he`ll have the chance to become leader through other means before a confidence motion so there can be another election with a decent Liberal candidate.
This if fair and im not arguing against it, it was my belief though that dion was currently only a representative till the liberals replaced him, ie if he was to become PM via the coalition it would still be a coalition where the liberals could replace the leader at any given point through this period. I could be incorrect, but if it was announced already he will be turfed wouldn't that still happen regardless of the coalition, or was the agreement signed state that dion must be pm if the coalition is accepted?
Didn't they say that they wouldn't form a coalition government when they knew they were going to lose the election? I actually like Ignatieff and people are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I will, at the least, want to hear the coalition out.
Michaëlle Jean and her racially balanced skin tone must not be allowed to taint our democracy any longer. Our parliament MUST be allowed to bicker, bandwagon and bully! Down with The Harper, down with The Harper! Our mission must manifest the martinet of the majority! Down with The Harper! Down with The Harper!
Please, peon. Why wallow in your want of will. The will of the majority must manifest, it is our mission. The minority's modus will not march with this man. Down with The Harper, down with The Harper! Our ire will incinerate you incredulous insistence at intervention. Down with The Harper, down with The Harper!
Charlottetown, chime with charismatic cries for calamity! The reveille of the revolution will resound in the rinks of Regina! The valets of Victoria will force the villians to valediction! The whores of Halifax shall no longer hallow his name! Frères of Fredericton fly to freedom! Tantamount tyrrants of Toronto be toppled! Serfs of St.John's, serve no sovereign! Run, quixotical quaint of Quebec, be quelled no longer!
Idiots of Edmonton, mercy from illiteration but not from death!
And lets not joke, who the fuck cares about Manitoba?
On December 05 2008 05:11 Durak wrote: So wait, instead of a fiscal stimulus we have eight weeks of wasted time?
Ya, this shows how dedicated Harper is to Canada. Shutting down parliament when the economy is taking a nose dive is extremely irresponsible and selfish.
On December 05 2008 05:11 Durak wrote: So wait, instead of a fiscal stimulus we have eight weeks of wasted time?
Ya, this shows how dedicated Harper is to Canada. Shutting down parliament when the economy is taking a nose dive is extremely irresponsible and selfish.
It was the govener general, not Harper
btw i loled at the head line on CBC, first two letters "GG".
On December 05 2008 05:11 Durak wrote: So wait, instead of a fiscal stimulus we have eight weeks of wasted time?
Ya, this shows how dedicated Harper is to Canada. Shutting down parliament when the economy is taking a nose dive is extremely irresponsible and selfish.
Yes, our economy is slowing but its doing better than most people give it credit for. Besides, the answer isn't to throw money around willy-nilly especially before we see what the US does.
This whole coalition thing has shit all to do with the lack of economic action or the economy (with the exception of the NDP), the opposition parties just have to say that to avoid looking like douches. Harper fucked up in his economic update by trying to cut public political party funding that would castrate the liberals and effectively disintegrate the greens and the bloc (both of which have almost zero private fundraising power). This put their backs up against a wall and forced them to act. That or all of this was pre-planned from the start and this was just their best opportunity.
Our economy is gonna be just fine. Most businesses have stopped expansion for now but once everything else picks up in the world the labour crunch will be back and we'll all be rolling in dough again. Just use this time for gaining skills and education and in 2-4 years you'll be poised to get rich.
On December 05 2008 05:11 Durak wrote: So wait, instead of a fiscal stimulus we have eight weeks of wasted time?
Ya, this shows how dedicated Harper is to Canada. Shutting down parliament when the economy is taking a nose dive is extremely irresponsible and selfish.
Yes, our economy is slowing but its doing better than most people give it credit for. Besides, the answer isn't to throw money around willy-nilly especially before we see what the US does.
I disagree. Fiscal actions takes time. "Throwing money around" is an ignorant way of viewing government spending.
Why does it matter what the US does? We're effected by what the US does, surely, but that doesn't change the fact that we need to stimulate our own economy. Plus, we do know that the US is going to be passing the democrat's fiscal plans either in December or certainly in January.
Well, Parliament has been prorogued until January 26. This is just shameful. I just can't believe for a minute that our leaders are doing this right now, during a financial crisis. Public polls are against the coalition and want an election, and if an election is called Conservatives will get a majority. I don't think the coalition will take over, the Governor General just can't let it happen, especially since so many people, just looking at the newspapers and tv, do not like the coalition, nor do they want them leading our country.
On December 06 2008 04:59 rushz0rz wrote: Well, Parliament has been prorogued until January 26. This is just shameful. I just can't believe for a minute that our leaders are doing this right now, during a financial crisis. Public polls are against the coalition and want an election, and if an election is called Conservatives will get a majority. I don't think the coalition will take over, the Governor General just can't let it happen, especially since so many people, just looking at the newspapers and tv, do not like the coalition, nor do they want them leading our country.
I can see the Governor General letting it happen. It's happened before.
Personally, I don't want another election because that's a waste of money. I don't want this six week, taxpayer paid-for, vacation for the idiots in government. I just want the Conservatives to stop being so arrogant and back down on something stupid for a change.
Too bad it doesn't matter what I want. I'll keep voting.
On December 06 2008 04:59 rushz0rz wrote: Well, Parliament has been prorogued until January 26. This is just shameful. I just can't believe for a minute that our leaders are doing this right now, during a financial crisis. Public polls are against the coalition and want an election, and if an election is called Conservatives will get a majority. I don't think the coalition will take over, the Governor General just can't let it happen, especially since so many people, just looking at the newspapers and tv, do not like the coalition, nor do they want them leading our country.
On the other hand, this gives the conservative government some time to govern without being thrown out by an angry mob. Harper was recently elected (again); give the man's term a chance. Power to the people. Respect the election results. They're basically trying to throw him out over political differences, and that's inappropriate. It's like here in the US, the crazy fucks that think Bush warrants impeachment.
On December 06 2008 04:59 rushz0rz wrote: Well, Parliament has been prorogued until January 26. This is just shameful. I just can't believe for a minute that our leaders are doing this right now, during a financial crisis. Public polls are against the coalition and want an election, and if an election is called Conservatives will get a majority. I don't think the coalition will take over, the Governor General just can't let it happen, especially since so many people, just looking at the newspapers and tv, do not like the coalition, nor do they want them leading our country.
On the other hand, this gives the conservative government some time to govern without being thrown out by an angry mob. Harper was recently elected (again); give the man's term a chance. Power to the people. Respect the election results. They're basically trying to throw him out over political differences, and that's inappropriate. It's like here in the US, the crazy fucks that think Bush warrants impeachment.
because lying to a jury about an affair is so much worse than torture
On December 06 2008 04:59 rushz0rz wrote: Well, Parliament has been prorogued until January 26. This is just shameful. I just can't believe for a minute that our leaders are doing this right now, during a financial crisis. Public polls are against the coalition and want an election, and if an election is called Conservatives will get a majority. I don't think the coalition will take over, the Governor General just can't let it happen, especially since so many people, just looking at the newspapers and tv, do not like the coalition, nor do they want them leading our country.
On the other hand, this gives the conservative government some time to govern without being thrown out by an angry mob. Harper was recently elected (again); give the man's term a chance. Power to the people. Respect the election results. They're basically trying to throw him out over political differences, and that's inappropriate. It's like here in the US, the crazy fucks that think Bush warrants impeachment.
because lying to a jury about an affair is so much worse than torture
Not tortue, but "enhanced interrogation techniques"
canadian elections don't really work the same way as american elections. unless you win a majority, you don't technically 'win' the election.
when there is no single majority party, the election is followed by a period where the governor general canvasses all of the parties and finds out which one/combination of one or more parties has the confidence of the house.
so people that say this is 'overturning' the results of the election are perhaps a bit incorrect. the election results allow for any party with the confidence of the house to be the government, not just the conservatives, so it's not so much 'overturning' or 'overthrowing' as it is a legitimate reconfiguring.
as i said before, harper won 37% of the vote, the coalition won 63% of the vote. so to call this an 'overthrow' or 'undemocratic' is quite silly. it's perfectly legal, democratic, and legitimate.
>whereas US impeachments, as i understand, actually do literally overturn the results of an election.
On December 06 2008 09:34 a-game wrote: canadian elections don't really work the same way as american elections. unless you win a majority, you don't technically 'win' the election.
when there is no single majority party, the election is followed by a period where the governor general canvasses all of the parties and finds out which one/combination of one or more parties has the confidence of the house.
so people that say this is 'overturning' the results of the election are perhaps a bit incorrect. the election results allow for any party with the confidence of the house to be the government, not just the conservatives, so it's not so much 'overturning' or 'overthrowing' as it is a legitimate reconfiguring.
as i said before, harper won 37% of the vote, the coalition won 63% of the vote. so to call this an 'overthrow' or 'undemocratic' is quite silly. it's perfectly legal, democratic, and legitimate.
>whereas US impeachments, as i understand, actually do literally overturn the results of an election.
Canada runs on convention, the Convention in Canada is to simply elect the party who holds the biggest minority. That is the way Canada has been run, that is the way Canadians see our Democracy as being run. It doesn't matter if its constitutional or not, the fact of the matter is, 37% of the country voted for the Conservatives. 26% for the liberals, 18% for the ndp, and 10% for the bloc.
Imho the whole situation is embarassing to me as a Canadian. Especially the fact that the governor general gets to decide who runs our country, which is insanely stupid considering the governor general is basically just a celebrity figurehead. I mean seriously who the hell is mikhail jean or whatever her name is. What qualifies her to decide the future of our country? I'm pretty sure she only got to be governor general becuase shes a black chick from haiti. Not that I even care which of the clowns she chooses. The only leader with any integrity we have is Gilles Duceppe and he doesnt even want to be in Canada, he wants to seperate LOL. As it is theres barely any real political difference betwen any of the parties. It only goes to show, all this time and the thing that really sets the opposition over the edge is losing their funding.
On December 06 2008 09:40 daz wrote: Imho the whole situation is embarassing to me as a Canadian. Especially the fact that the governor general gets to decide who runs our country, which is insanely stupid considering the governor general is basically just a celebrity figurehead. I mean seriously who the hell is mikhail jean or whatever her name is. What qualifies her to decide the future of our country? I'm pretty sure she only got to be governor general becuase shes a black chick from haiti. Not that I even care which of the clowns she chooses. The only leader with any integrity we have is Gilles Duceppe and he doesnt even want to be in Canada, he wants to seperate LOL. As it is theres barely any real political difference betwen any of the parties. It only goes to show, all this time and the thing that really sets the opposition over the edge is losing their funding.
Not necessarily. The Governor-General is the representation of the Queen, and yet has the same level of power as her: no power at all, merely serve as an image. To ask for an extension occurs all the time. It is without a doubt she will grant it. But keep in mind, she isn't the person who decides. She has to have asked for the opinions of experts in the field, and all she is doing is relaying the majority opinion of these so called experts. Think of her as a television basically.
Now in terms of the decision, there's a few reasons why granting an extension, or prorogation, is preferable. Keep in mind, although I am a hardcore Liberal, I must agree with the logic behind this decision.
Scenario 1: she says no to Harper.
Two things can happen in this scenario. The first is that she allows the coalition force to get into power. If this were to happen, it would defy the fundamental definition of a democracy, not at all listening to the will of the people. It must be the people who decide whether the coalition would take place or not. So in this case, it is inadvisable to let the coalition take power. The second case is to have an election. Short answer: the people don't want to re-vote. So that's a no too.
On top of this, despite the fact that the coalition is well ready to topple the government, it cannot sustain it. It doesn't have the means to carry out the role of governing. It is not in a state that would allow it to govern effectively, as the change would be too abrupt. Not to mention, if an election were to take place, only the Conservatives would have the funds to carry out their campaigns. Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc are at borderline in terms of their campaign funds. They just don't have enough money to mount a electoral campaign.
Scenario 2: she says yes to Harper.
By granting Harper an extension, she effectively avoids the need to call an election, as the people of Canada are not willing to pursue one. Not only that, she would avoid putting a coalition that is not 100% ready, to take on the role of governing the country. Because, for all we know, that may just make things worst for the country. Yes, the NDP and Liberals have agreed on their contract for a coalition, on the basis of the economy, but they still have contrasting agendas, which would mean constant disagreements while in power. These fights can stir up the population even more, and are not beneficial to the repair of the country's state. In fact, instead of fixing the economy as they have planned, they may just attack one another, which would lead to the Conservatives back into power the following election.
As much as the Conservatives are ragging me up the ass, I must agree with the prorogation, until the coalition is fully ready to undertake the measures of toppling the government. And, in order to do just that, the Liberals have to get their shit in order, find a great leader who would drive the Liberals in the correct direction.
I still believe Conservatives need to have a durian shoved up each of their MP's asses, and two up Harper's.
On December 06 2008 04:59 rushz0rz wrote: Well, Parliament has been prorogued until January 26. This is just shameful. I just can't believe for a minute that our leaders are doing this right now, during a financial crisis. Public polls are against the coalition and want an election, and if an election is called Conservatives will get a majority. I don't think the coalition will take over, the Governor General just can't let it happen, especially since so many people, just looking at the newspapers and tv, do not like the coalition, nor do they want them leading our country.
On the other hand, this gives the conservative government some time to govern without being thrown out by an angry mob. Harper was recently elected (again); give the man's term a chance. Power to the people. Respect the election results. They're basically trying to throw him out over political differences, and that's inappropriate. It's like here in the US, the crazy fucks that think Bush warrants impeachment.
It doesn't give the conservatives time to govern. It removes six weeks from everyone who could govern.
Can somebody translate Dion? I don't speak frenglish.
We will govern through corporation? Orly? I thought it was cooperation you downie Liberal.
God dion rages me. I dont give a damn about the separatists joining a coalition or even fucking layton being PM but Dion I CANNOT SMELL.
And I'm a Quebecquer. Goes to show.
It'll be a sad day for Canada when the leader of the Bloc has a better command of english than the prime minister of the country.
Just because he can't speak english properly, how is that remotely relevant to his party's policies about leading the government? Oh he can't speak properly, so i hate him and don't want him to be PM. genial mon ami. pas mal genial.
YEAH, LETS GO FOR A PM WHO CAN'T SPEAK ENGLISH.
Even Sarkozy can speak it. Time to open your liberal-biased eyes and realize that Dion is in no way qualified to run this country.
It ISNT relevant to his party's policies. But he WILL represent Canada on the global stage and will be the face of Canada (at least politically) if he was to become PM. A bilingual country where the leader can only speak french properly? Wow. I'm sorry but the fact that he's worked on the federal level for SO long and STILL can't speak english make me doubt his intellectual capacity. I used to regard him as an intellectual before I started listening to his english speeches. Then I realized he has some issues. How the fuck can I flawlessly speak english (I have NO accent whatsoever) after only speaking it for about 6-7 years when he's spent most of his career in an english environment and still can't speak it? The dude is mentally challenged or some shit.
Pas mal génial, ton ptit candidat favori. Et quoi encore, Pierre Falardeau comme PM du Canada?
i don't understand why cbc kept heavily trashing dion's national address video
everyone knows the liberals are penniless, harper got to call the address on his preferred time and prepare for it leisurely because only he knew he was going to call it ahead of time.
so now the opposition leader is supposed to have as good of communications as all of the powers of the prime ministers office, on short notice? this entire week dion is getting ridiculed, not because of his policies or his qualifications, but because of something as stupid as the quality of a video? despite the fact that he hasn't got crap to work with compared to the prime ministers office and had to make it on extremely short notice.
yay for bandwagoning against politicians for reasons that have nothing to do with their policies!
> here's an article that went into a bit of the behind the scenes of why the video was "so bad" btw
Also, look who's there at the base during the ceremony when the news that 3 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan. Stephen Harper. Where is Dion and Layton? The majority of people may have voted for the NDP, Liberals, and BQ, but they did not vote for a coalition. The Conservatives were the single party who got the majority of votes compared to the others. If the Governor General allows this undemocratic event happen, something has to be done by the people, and something is already being done. The polls show that the Canadians do not want an election, but we also do not want the coalition in power, with Stephane Dion leading our country. Bullying your way to power because you're upset about your all-time low voting turnout is not the way, and Dion should take the hint and give leadership over to someone is more qualified.
Can somebody translate Dion? I don't speak frenglish.
We will govern through corporation? Orly? I thought it was cooperation you downie Liberal.
God dion rages me. I dont give a damn about the separatists joining a coalition or even fucking layton being PM but Dion I CANNOT SMELL.
And I'm a Quebecquer. Goes to show.
It'll be a sad day for Canada when the leader of the Bloc has a better command of english than the prime minister of the country.
Just because he can't speak english properly, how is that remotely relevant to his party's policies about leading the government? Oh he can't speak properly, so i hate him and don't want him to be PM. genial mon ami. pas mal genial.
YEAH, LETS GO FOR A PM WHO CAN'T SPEAK ENGLISH.
Even Sarkozy can speak it. Time to open your liberal-biased eyes and realize that Dion is in no way qualified to run this country.
It ISNT relevant to his party's policies. But he WILL represent Canada on the global stage and will be the face of Canada (at least politically) if he was to become PM. A bilingual country where the leader can only speak french properly? Wow. I'm sorry but the fact that he's worked on the federal level for SO long and STILL can't speak english make me doubt his intellectual capacity. I used to regard him as an intellectual before I started listening to his english speeches. Then I realized he has some issues. How the fuck can I flawlessly speak english (I have NO accent whatsoever) after only speaking it for about 6-7 years when he's spent most of his career in an english environment and still can't speak it? The dude is mentally challenged or some shit.
Pas mal génial, ton ptit candidat favori. Et quoi encore, Pierre Falardeau comme PM du Canada?
How is it so much different than Jean Chretien speaking? Granted Jean Chretien speaks a wee bit better english, but the situation is the same. In regard to the fact that not known how to speak a language in correlation with intellectuality is that there is no correlation. Just because one doesn't know how to speak a language does not infer his capacity of intellectuality.
In psychology, you learn that people pick up language much quicker in their youth because of several pigments (not sure if it's the correct vocabulary) in their brains. By no means am I an expert on psychology, but I did take the course, and I recall that older people, having loss such pigments, cannot pick up new languages.
When a child is born, the brain consists of 100 or so of such pigments, and as the child become exposed to a language, only two or three of those pigments are developed and remain. The others disappear. It is why, for example, people who do not speak arabic have problems saying "r" in arabic, which requires the tongue to be rolled at the tip, not at the back like in french.
anyways, point is, Dion probably started speaking english only in his later years, a time in which the language pigments have already developed for french speaking only. Thus making it hard for him to pick up a new language, despite however long he is exposed to it.
So intellectuality has nothing to do with it, as it is all a biological problem of human beings. The same can be said with Harper and his french if I wanted to talk about that dude. I can't stand his french.
Then again, you're right. Dion cannot represent Canada in the world, as english is the mainstream language of the world.
BUT, at the moment, the problem is within Canada, a problem that needs to be fixed. Harper is doing a terrible job at it. Dion, hopefully with his knowledge as professor in poli sci from UMontreal, would do something about it for the time being. By the time he is called internationally, he will have already resigned, leaving someone else more fluent in english to represent Canada.
So what I'm thinking is, fix this country first, and by May or so, leave so another can take over in the international scene. It is a more productive path than waiting for Harper to do jack shit, just to benefit Alberta.
Now on to Harper. The reason I want Dion to take over the role of PM over Harper is due to Harper's politics.
If the scene was a scene in elementary school, Harper would be like a kid poking you with a pencil until you get pissed and yell, and then he would stop.
In the political scene, Harper will try to have his way, making decisions that will not benefit the whole of Canada, just his oil crazed province of Alberta, until opposing parties cry out in anger. Only then will he make the decisions that will make the other parties happy, and benefit the whole of Canada.
Just look at the stimulus package problem. He doesn't introduce a stimulus package, as he has 800M dollars in surplus that could be used to smooth out the economy, and he takes 30M from other parties.
Harper: "Oh, hey guys, I know I've got 800M in surplus from last budget, but I'm just going to go ahead and take 30M from you guys to fix the economy" Other parties: "YO WHAT THE FUCK, YOU WILL MAKE US BANKRUPT, AND NO ONE WILL SERVE AS OPPOSITION TO YOU. FUCK THIS YOU'RE GOING DOWN" Harper: "Oh I'm sorry.. ok ok I'll have a stimulus package ready by January, when I should already have had it by last week."
So honestly, That's the reason why I'm Liberal-biased. I would much prefer Dion, in the short term of 5 months, to have a real go at fixing the economy. Then have him replaced when the Liberal convention happens.
OR EVEN BETTER, have Dion resign like last week, have a new Liberal leader in who can get shit done. But as long as Consies* are not in power anymore.
* a term I made up, denoting the Conservatives, and their con-artist ways.
On December 06 2008 16:14 rushz0rz wrote: Also, look who's there at the base during the ceremony when the news that 3 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan. Stephen Harper. Where is Dion and Layton?
That's the PM's job, not party leaders job
The Conservatives were the single party who got the majority of votes compared to the others.
only because half of Canada didn't vote
Bullying your way to power because you're upset about your all-time low voting turnout is not the way, and Dion should take the hint and give leadership over to someone is more qualified.
Yes Dion should leave as soon as possible, but the bullying here isn't from the coalition. The bullying is from the Conservatives. Just read what I wrote on top.
On December 06 2008 16:14 rushz0rz wrote: Also, look who's there at the base during the ceremony when the news that 3 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan. Stephen Harper. Where is Dion and Layton?
That's the PM's job, not party leaders job
Yes, I understand that, but it's a time of political struggle. Dion should be doing everything he can if he wants support.
On December 06 2008 15:57 a-game wrote: i don't understand why cbc kept heavily trashing dion's national address video
everyone knows the liberals are penniless, harper got to call the address on his preferred time and prepare for it leisurely because only he knew he was going to call it ahead of time.
so now the opposition leader is supposed to have as good of communications as all of the powers of the prime ministers office, on short notice? this entire week dion is getting ridiculed, not because of his policies or his qualifications, but because of something as stupid as the quality of a video? despite the fact that he hasn't got crap to work with compared to the prime ministers office and had to make it on extremely short notice.
yay for bandwagoning against politicians for reasons that have nothing to do with their policies!
> here's an article that went into a bit of the behind the scenes of why the video was "so bad" btw
instead of telling us specific policy issues that the ndp and liberals agree or disagree on and analyzing in depth they keep going for stupid sound bites
like one liberal spoke out about dion and cbc is "the coalition is dead lol"
I dont really care if cbc comes down pro harper or pro coalition, but they should actually do news and not entertainment
sorry to keep foisting our boring canadian politics on TL
anyways the latest news is that bob rae has pulled out of the liberal leadership race, so michael ignatieff is now the new liberal leader. interesting development imo, i was cheering for rae but what can you do
PS: oh forgot to mention, dion resigned on monday, so now that ignatieff is the new leader he will officially replace dion as leader of the liberal party on wednesday
On December 10 2008 01:08 a-game wrote: sorry to keep foisting our boring canadian politics on TL
anyways the latest news is that bob rae has pulled out of the liberal leadership race, so michael ignatieff is now the new liberal leader. interesting development imo, i was cheering for rae but what can you do
PS: oh forgot to mention, dion resigned on monday, so now that ignatieff is the new leader he will officially replace dion as leader of the liberal party on wednesday
On December 10 2008 02:16 CTStalker wrote: it's funny that rae pulled out, cause just last night he was calling for the "liberal elite" to choose the leader
lmao
hmm you sure? that doesn't sound right
rae had been pushing for the liberals to choose their leader through giving every liberal party member a vote. the party brass rejected the idea and last night decided the leader would be decided by 700 or so party elites.
rae knew that his only hope for the leadership was to appeal to the grassroots of the party; once it was confirmed that the grassroots weren't going to have a say, he conceded his bid
On December 10 2008 01:08 a-game wrote: sorry to keep foisting our boring canadian politics on TL
anyways the latest news is that bob rae has pulled out of the liberal leadership race, so michael ignatieff is now the new liberal leader. interesting development imo, i was cheering for rae but what can you do
PS: oh forgot to mention, dion resigned on monday, so now that ignatieff is the new leader he will officially replace dion as leader of the liberal party on wednesday
oh shit that's quite a huge development....
wonder what's gonna go down next..
This makes me happy.
Ignatieff has been a critic of the way this coalition was formed and the way the Bloc has been used to prop it up. If anything, his leadership should bring some much needed 'sensibility' to the table.
In reading profiles, Ignatieff strikes me as much more of a 'modern' politician than we've typically seen in Canadian politics - where the only accepted currency is time spent in office (whether worthwhile or not). He's an academic, an intellectual. He has travelled the world and lived outside of our country. Call me an elitist, but I prefer someone who can bring an outside perspective to our small pond.
He's also a modern politician in that he opening acknowledges mistakes he has made in the past. He reserves the right to change his mind in a way that is not in the interest of fence-sitting and appeasing (ala Paul Martin), but as a realization that polticians are human and not infallible. Like the rest of the population, their opinions will grow and change as the information infront of them changes. There is nothing more frustrating than a politician holding on to an old view (knowing it is incorrect) because they see a changing mind as a character flaw.
Anyways, I'll have to read more about the guy and perhaps pick up a few of his books. Either way, it's interesting to get some bonefied intelligence back in the house.
Or maybe I'm biased since every time I learn of another well-travelled, intelligent, educated politician I think of Peter Lougheed, the pro-football player/lawyer/Harvard grad/best thing to ever happen to western politics.
On December 10 2008 02:16 CTStalker wrote: it's funny that rae pulled out, cause just last night he was calling for the "liberal elite" to choose the leader
lmao
hmm you sure? that doesn't sound right
rae had been pushing for the liberals to choose their leader through giving every liberal party member a vote. the party brass rejected the idea and last night decided the leader would be decided by 700 or so party elites.
rae knew that his only hope for the leadership was to appeal to the grassroots of the party; once it was confirmed that the grassroots weren't going to have a say, he conceded his bid
if it wasn't last night, it was fairly recently.
they were discussing it this morning on cbc radio 1
edit: sorry, your post was what i meant to write. but yeah, still a ridiculous suggestion to get the 800 people to choose the leader
Just read through the whole thread, and it's really interesting to see Canadians argue among eachother about politics. I'm just used to Canadians telling Americans they don't know what they're doing, so it's funny to see Canadians not ostensibly all in one big gang for once.
Anyway, Ignatieff is the new liberal party leader and doesn't fully support the coalition? Even so, isn't the coalition his best way to gain any power whatsoever? And the suspension of parliament, that means they can't form the coalition and oust Harper until atleast when the suspension is lifted?
Ignatieff hasn't said he's outright opposed to a coalition, or that he won't do it anyways (I don't think). But yeah, that would be the best way for them to get immediate power. The risk is that public opinion might not be on their side, which would result in losses for the Liberal party in the long run. And yes, that's precisely what the suspension of parliament is about.
Besides being annoying/delaying it, is the suspension really intended to stop them from going through with it? Won't they just, form the coalition and oust him as soon as the suspension is gone?
They could, yes. It seems Harper is after one of two things: either he hopes the coalition will fall apart in that time, or he will try to run a smear campaign and get public opinion on his side before his time runs out.
edit- In fact, some of the more conspiracy minded people out there suspect that the second option was Harper's plan all along, and that he engineered this situation so that next election his conservatives would get another shot at a majority government, rather than the weaker minority that they have right now.
On December 10 2008 05:58 Nightmarjoo wrote: Besides being annoying/delaying it, is the suspension really intended to stop them from going through with it? Won't they just, form the coalition and oust him as soon as the suspension is gone?
it depends
basically the conservatives are going to try and use the time to sway public opinion against the coalition. The hope is that they start a massive public outrising, which will put pressure on the MPs, which will put pressure on the coalition.
Now coming back there are 2 possibilites. a)Governor general gives the coalition a chance to govern. If there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the coalition, the chances might go down a bit, but will still be pretty high.
b) call a new election. if Things go the Conservatives way, you have the double whammy of the coalition being extremely unpopular, and the election being blamed on the liberals/NDP leading to a Conservative Majority.
In order of probability (my view) it is most likely that: 1) Liberals under Ignatieff back down following some sort of budget compromise by harper 2) Liberals continue on, get chance to govern, last 12-18 months 3) Liberals continue on, new election called, Conservative majority 4) Liberals continue on, new election called, Conservative minority
Stephen Harper just denied any accusations, on national television, that he was going to form a coalition with the BQ. How credible is this? Is there any cold hard facts that there was talks of a coalition between them? Lots of people call him a liar, so I'm not sure how credible he is sometimes.
On December 10 2008 14:47 rushz0rz wrote: Stephen Harper just denied any accusations, on national television, that he was going to form a coalition with the BQ. How credible is this? Is there any cold hard facts that there was talks of a coalition between them? Lots of people call him a liar, so I'm not sure how credible he is sometimes.
well...they did just sign a document with the liberals
Its not like the conservatives havent had a "coalition" with the bloc in the past (which makes the seperatist jabs hilarious) so its not unrealistic
but I havent really been following this over the past couple days
On December 10 2008 12:19 CTStalker wrote: in semi-unrelated news, ottawa's public transit workers are going on strike starting tonight.
this city is falling apart pretty fucking quickly
Ottawa has the best public transit of any city I've ever been too. I lived their for 18 years before moving to Toronto and I love the O Train, 95/97/96 and all the routes. The bus are nice, on time and frequent.
A lot of people depend on public transit to get to Carleton U because they go to Greenboro/Bayview and take the O-Train to school. I feel bad for the students that live in South Keys or Nepean/Kanata and need to take the 95 to Ottawa U or Algonquin College.
so apparently, ignatieff has said no to coalition, in favor to looking into what PM has to offer.
unless harper has a miracle up his ass and can make the best budget in the history of canada, he's gone. there's no hints as to whether he has the will to do it or the capability.
based on the first day of his job, ignatieff does show a strong stance as to his position and views. he really knows how to say "fuck you, no."
i'm actually looking forward to see how ignatieff steers canadian politics.
EPT
