This mes the Conservatives' fault?


Machjo
#1
Considering that the CVonservatives were a minority government, did they not foresee that they were vulnerable to this crisis? Certainly a Conservative-Liberal co-alition would have been prefereble to the one we'll have now?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Considering that the CVonservatives were a minority government, did they not foresee that they were vulnerable to this crisis? Certainly a Conservative-Liberal co-alition would have been prefereble to the one we'll have now?

It would have been preferable to someone who will compromise. That wouldn't be Harper....
 
Machjo
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

It would have been preferable to someone who will compromise. That wouldn't be Harper....

Well, then a party that can't compromise doesn't deserve to run a minority government.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#4
I don't think so.

I think the NDP/BQ hatched this awhile ago, and just waited for the right opportunity to haul the Liberals on board.

It would have happened anyway......but I am surprized at Harper's great miscalculation.......the threat to end party subsidies......it was incompetent in a minority situation.....he should have known better.

I wonder......do you think he was trying to force a non-confidence vote, so as to try again for a majority?????

Could be.

Now THAT would make it all his fault.
 
Francis2004
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Considering that the CVonservatives were a minority government, did they not foresee that they were vulnerable to this crisis? Certainly a Conservative-Liberal co-alition would have been prefereble to the one we'll have now?

Machjo I think the status quo could have done very well.. Personally I don't see why with a stronger mandate Harper had to stir with not one but all opposition parties..

Had he focused on the economy and done his job he could very well had run Government without issues.. What happaned really made no sense and now we face a possible election for political posturing.
 
Machjo
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

I don't think so.

I think the NDP/BQ hatched this awhile ago, and just waited for the right opportunity to haul the Liberals on board.

It would have happened anyway......but I am surprized at Harper's great miscalculation.......the threat to end party subsidies......it was incompetent in a minority situation.....he should have known better.

I wonder......do you think he was trying to force a non-confidence vote, so as to try again for a majority?????

Could be.

Now THAT would make it all his fault.

I don't know. All I know is that, if I were leading a minority government, even if just one seat short, my first priority would have been to try to get enough independents or another party on board to form a majority. It's just not possible to survive as a minority. If you're a minority, your first objective ought to be to try to form a majority through co-alition if need be.

Had Harper done that, his co-alition would have been untouchable. Now it appears the other parties were more competent that the CP to form that majority. Harper loses... and so do we to some extent. My God, I can't believe I'm now starting to support the CP!

Normally I support the left owing to my favouring more government spending on education and trades and professional training. Aside from that, I'm fiscally conservative all the way. So when a lef-leaning party proposes increased spending on everything but no mention of education, then I might as well just vote Conservative. I'ver never voted Conservative before, but we'll see come next election. We're living in interesting times.
 
Francis2004
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

I don't think so.

I think the NDP/BQ hatched this awhile ago, and just waited for the right opportunity to haul the Liberals on board.

It would have happened anyway......but I am surprized at Harper's great miscalculation.......the threat to end party subsidies......it was incompetent in a minority situation.....he should have known better.

I wonder......do you think he was trying to force a non-confidence vote, so as to try again for a majority?????

Could be.

Now THAT would make it all his fault.

Colby, I have to disagree on that.. CTV is right on this article that the Liberals have the most to lose from this coalition so why join it if there is nothing to gain. The stake are extremely high and realistically they are the most exposed..

Quote:

What's the political fallout?

Surprisingly, it may be the Liberals who have the most to lose in the long-run. The party has always presented itself as the one true alternative to the Tories, and a party that occupies a wide swath of the political spectrum to represent the majority of Canadians.



But now, the Liberals are relying on two other parties to form a government, and the stature of those parties could grow on the political landscape.
"Once you let the nose of the camel into the tent, you might get the whole camel in the tent," said Scott. "In this context, Layton is the camel."


He said Layton may tell the Liberals he only wants a small part in the coalition, such as a few cabinet posts. But if the coalition does form a government, voters who don't normally vote NDP may get used to the idea of Layton in power.
That's bad news for the Liberals.


"The NDP are always on their heels to become the second party, and in my view, the Liberals run a serious risk of eroding their already-eroded position as a second party," said Scott.

CTV.ca | Democracy in action or bloodless coup?

Cheers
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

...but I am surprized at Harper's great miscalculation...

Yeah, me too, that's by far the biggest surprise and disappointment to me in all of this. I really wanted to think better of Harper than this shows. Apparently he has the instincts of a fascist, he wants to destroy the opposition parties and run an authoritarian state by himself, without opposition. I haven't been particularly impressed by the opposition parties either though. The government backed down on the things that really pissed them off, they should have backed down too, and let the government bring in its budget in January, and defeated it on a confidence motion then, if that's what they want to do. That would have been much more in line with our constitutional traditions. There's been a lamentable lack of statesmanship all around.
 
mt_pockets1000
#9
I think the opposition had been pushed to the brink once too often and were tired of backing down. They saw an opportunity to bring the present government to it's knees and went for it. Harper ruled with impunity during his last term. He was mistaken by thinking he could carry on with the status quo this time around.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#10
Why is it that the opposition is being made out to be the bad guys here when Harper himself tried to get the NDP and the Bloc to do the same thing to Paul Martin and the Liberals a few years ago? Harper should be replaced and the Tories
should fall on their sword to keep their hope alive. The real contest is yet to come when the GG issues her ruling as to whether there will be an election, and I think this time there will not be, the opposition has the power and alliance to hold for a
specific period of time. Harper should not be the PM, period, he overstepped his
bounds and his actions were really dumb for a minority government
 
VanIsle
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Why is it that the opposition is being made out to be the bad guys here when Harper himself tried to get the NDP and the Bloc to do the same thing to Paul Martin and the Liberals a few years ago? Harper should be replaced and the Tories
should fall on their sword to keep their hope alive. The real contest is yet to come when the GG issues her ruling as to whether there will be an election, and I think this time there will not be, the opposition has the power and alliance to hold for a
specific period of time. Harper should not be the PM, period, he overstepped his
bounds and his actions were really dumb for a minority government

I think it would be a tad more correct to say that Harper talked about a coalition. He didn't actually do it. What these other parties are saying to you is that your vote - your right to vote means/meant nothing whatsover to them. They are telling us that their opinion matters more than ours. A handful of people are un-democratically speaking to us and cancelling out every vote for every party in the last election. They want the power and they are determined to get it no matter how much money is lost. What kind of garbage is being thrown at us when they plan to set up a government with a man who they were already looking to replace before election night was over. This man - Dion - already has been told that he will be expected to step down in May 09. If the Coalition passes, he will be the Prime Minister of Canada and be so effective that he is already in a position of being forced to step down. What if he changes his mind? Can they force him to step down? I don't think they can. Just because the Liberals and the NDP say they will agree with each other and support each other doesn't mean they will or that that agreement will last more than a few weeks at best. If any of you think this country is in a mess now - just wait for the other shoe to drop. If the govenor general allows this to happen she will throw this country into deep despair.
 
VanIsle
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004 View Post

Colby, I have to disagree on that.. CTV is right on this article that the Liberals have the most to lose from this coalition so why join it if there is nothing to gain. The stake are extremely high and realistically they are the most exposed..



CTV.ca | Democracy in action or bloodless coup?

Cheers

Sir Francis - I don't agree. The Liberal Party is a crazy mixed up party right now and siding with the likes of Layton prove that. Regardless of all that, the NDP will never overtake the Liberals as being the stronger of the two and Layton is so dis-liked that no one is ever going to get used to him being a leader. In my view, Jack Layton is a bully - not a leader. It is my belief that should this farce go through, it will be the end of the NDP, not the end of the Liberals.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

I think it would be a tad more correct to say that Harper talked about a coalition. He didn't actually do it.

Writing a letter to the Governor General and expressing your interest in forming a government after a confidence vote is more than just talking about it...

Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

What these other parties are saying to you is that your vote - your right to vote means/meant nothing whatsover to them. They are telling us that their opinion matters more than ours.

The members of the coalition are all elected members of Parliament...they have been put in the position they are in by Canadian voters...

As I have stated before, we never elected any government we've had...we've elected a Parliament, and the government is formed from within that Parliament...most often it is the party with the majority of members that forms the government, but nothing in our Constitution says that this must be the case, and if the other members of Parliament defeat the party in power, then that is Parliamentary democracy in action...this is the system of government we've always had, nothing has changed...

Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

A handful of people are un-democratically speaking to us and cancelling out every vote for every party in the last election.

Show me in our Constitution where it says that what's happening is undemocratic.

If you can't then I have to call bull**** and ask you politely to stop your frickin' whining...

Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

This man - Dion - already has been told that he will be expected to step down in May 09. If the Coalition passes, he will be the Prime Minister of Canada and be so effective that he is already in a position of being forced to step down. What if he changes his mind? Can they force him to step down?

Get your facts straight...Dion offered to step down after the election...no one forced his hand...

Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

I don't think they can. Just because the Liberals and the NDP say they will agree with each other and support each other doesn't mean they will or that that agreement will last more than a few weeks at best. If any of you think this country is in a mess now - just wait for the other shoe to drop. If the govenor general allows this to happen she will throw this country into deep despair.

This coalition is far more likely to be able to work together and get things done than the Harper government who wasn't willing to work with anyone...and this is really what it's all about...Harper tried to govern like he had a majority government, the rest of Parliament are now stating in no uncertain terms that it was wrong of him to do so...
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Considering that the CVonservatives were a minority government, did they not foresee that they were vulnerable to this crisis? Certainly a Conservative-Liberal co-alition would have been prefereble to the one we'll have now?

Maybe- I think this debacle caught old Stevie boy by surprise BUT he survived well for two years with about 12% less support than he just rec'd in October, so I guess that is understandable. IMHO, neither Layton or Dion can be trusted. if Dion becomes P.M. does anyone REALLY think he's going to step down as leader?
 
scratch
#15
JLM,

If this scenario works out and Dion is at the helm it will not be for long.
Young Trudeau is waiting in the wings.

Just an observation.

rgs
scth
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Why is it that the opposition is being made out to be the bad guys here when Harper himself tried to get the NDP and the Bloc to do the same thing to Paul Martin and the Liberals a few years ago? Harper should be replaced and the Tories
should fall on their sword to keep their hope alive. The real contest is yet to come when the GG issues her ruling as to whether there will be an election, and I think this time there will not be, the opposition has the power and alliance to hold for a
specific period of time. Harper should not be the PM, period, he overstepped his
bounds and his actions were really dumb for a minority government

I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. Fact one- ALL politicians can be sleezy when the "need" arises. Fact two- I think Harper was just doing what he thought realistic given the poor economic situation (tax payers shouldn't be forking out to support political parties and only idiots strike in uncertain times) Fact three- the "coalition" only has majority because they have the Bloc who is totally opposed philisophically on board- it remains to be seen if Michelle John will buy it.
 
scratch
#17
Well, JLM

I do not think that she ha an option.

Just an observation.

scratch
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#18
First its becoming clear Stockwell Day tried the same thing in 2000 with the Bloc no less and they have the paper work to prove it apparently. Then in 2004 Harper talked about it, the reason nothing happend is the other parties knew better than to trust him. Harper promised to do everything legal to hold on. Now its being reported he is offering Liberals cabinet posts to jump ship. If that is true, it is in fact illegal to offer inducements with specific deals, and this could become a second police matter, the same as taping and releasing private conversations.
Harper thought he had the opposition on the ropes, and forgot he was dealing with
people who actually know how the laws and rules work. The conservatives clearly do not know these fundamental rules. This is done and the coalition will do it now
or wait until January either way this government and in particular, Harper is finished. The conservatives, didn't understand how much of a problem they created. Parliamentary, rules state this parliament was elected and therefore a coalition government is elected by the people under law like it or not
 
Colpy
Conservative
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

First its becoming clear Stockwell Day tried the same thing in 2000 with the Bloc no less and they have the paper work to prove it apparently. Then in 2004 Harper talked about it, the reason nothing happend is the other parties knew better than to trust him. Harper promised to do everything legal to hold on. Now its being reported he is offering Liberals cabinet posts to jump ship. If that is true, it is in fact illegal to offer inducements with specific deals, and this could become a second police matter, the same as taping and releasing private conversations.
Harper thought he had the opposition on the ropes, and forgot he was dealing with
people who actually know how the laws and rules work. The conservatives clearly do not know these fundamental rules. This is done and the coalition will do it now
or wait until January either way this government and in particular, Harper is finished. The conservatives, didn't understand how much of a problem they created. Parliamentary, rules state this parliament was elected and therefore a coalition government is elected by the people under law like it or not

Point by point:

1. There was no coalition.....big difference between considering one, and actually handing the Bloc the power.

2. If you are party to a conversation, it is not illegal to tape it.

3. Harper should not be offering cabinet seats true, but it seems to be standard practise......remember Brison? StronacH?

4. Nothing in the law says we can't go to a new election.....allowing the Bloc to become a power in gov't is a serious enough issue to take to the people.
 
Machjo
#20
Scary stuff. I saw the PM's speech on TV this evening. I couldn't believe he used the word 'separatist'. As PM, he should know how politically charged the word is. Apparently in the French version of his speech, he used the word 'sovereignist', which suggests that he's well aware of the emotional charge on the word separatist in Quebec. And I'm sure he knows (if he has half a brain) that not only did he put the last nail in his coffin in Quebec, but also most likely p**ed off a lot of sovereignists and even some fence-sitters who might have watched it in English. And I'm sure political commentators in the Quebec media wil mention this difference between the two speeches, if not done already.

Of course this rhetoric about a 'co-alition' with separatists will sit well in the Conservative centres in the west. It will consolidate his powerbase there, kill the Conservatives in Quebec, and polarise the country like never before, and just before a Bloc-supported co-alition is about to take power. So now not only is such a co-alition going to gain some power (which was already a given before the speech), but now he's even potentially fuelled more support for the Bloc and maybe even the PQ. God going Stevie.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#21
Well, I know it is a hard way to rule the country, but I've been saying the CPC should quit kissing Quebecois arse for a long time. This little event just might give Harper his majority outside Quebec, thanks to the Three Stooges.......whenever there happens to be an election.
 
Machjo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Well, I know it is a hard way to rule the country, but I've been saying the CPC should quit kissing Quebecois arse for a long time. This little event just might give Harper his majority outside Quebec, thanks to the Three Stooges.......whenever there happens to be an election.

It might. But then what happens if the Quebecers interpret that as a sign of support for Harper's comments? Suddenly we'd have a Conservative majority in Ottawa and a PQ majority in Quebec City. Now how do you think a Harper majority would handle a sovereignty referendum with a 50% plus vote in favour? Call in the troops would be my guess judging from his character. Is this kind of escalation really necessary? In some ways, normalizing the Bloc could weaken the Bloc, ironically enough. It makes Quebecers think that maybe they were wrong about the West hating their guts.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

It might. But then what happens if the Quebecers interpret that as a sign of support for Harper's comments? Suddenly we'd have a Conservative majority in Ottawa and a PQ majority in Quebec City. Now how do you think a Harper majority would handle a sovereignty referendum with a 50% plus vote in favour? Call in the troops would be my guess judging from his character. Is this kind of escalation really necessary? In some ways, normalizing the Bloc could weaken the Bloc, ironically enough. It makes Quebecers think that maybe they were wrong about the West hating their guts.

Thoughtful post.

But Quebec will always see the Conservatives as representatives of the west....in power or out.

I think constant, never-ending appeasement of Quebec not only encourages radical sovereignists, but also twists the gov't of Canada out of sync with the people of Canada.

For example, in the last 40 years, how many years have we been led by a PM from outside Quebec???????

Three.

Well over 90% of the time, our PM is a Quebecer. That is fine, but it does reflect the disproportional influence of Quebec and Quebec culture within this country.....time to balance it out a bit. Not just the west, the RoC wants in.

And appeasing Separatists! Just outrageous, IMHO, and I don't care who did it when.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Well, I know it is a hard way to rule the country, but I've been saying the CPC should quit kissing Quebecois arse for a long time. This little event just might give Harper his majority outside Quebec, thanks to the Three Stooges.......whenever there happens to be an election.

It may very well feed a Conservative win ... but it won't be Harper at the helm....
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#25
Peception is everything, for example, if someone joins the folks on the other side of isle, you do not make them a cabinet minister immediately, splitting hairs? No,
to do so otherwise, is illegal. Attempting to form a coalition is the same as trying
to organize it the difference is the Tories were not trusted enough.
As for what is happening, its the fault of the Prime MInister and not necessarily the party therefore the party should force him to step down.
Under parliamentary democracy the coalition is acting within the context of the law. At a time like this it is unfortunate that we must go through a major crisis all because Harper attempted to use his position to do everything but deliver a state of the economy. Clearly there was no problem with the union, they have a tentative agreement with them, and the party subsidy is part of every civilized electoral system, including the United States.
I hope there is some resolution, but Harper can't be trusted now, so both Dion and Harper should go.
 
Kreskin
#26
It may be decades before we see another majority government. If that's the case will opposition parties make elections obsolete by having non confidence votes immediately after elections? To me this is a non confidence vote against the people, and it's cheap political garbage that undermines democracy.
 

Similar Threads

12
It's all the Party's fault.
by Machjo | Mar 15th, 2010
3
It's Spock's Fault
by Curiosity | Mar 7th, 2007
18
Now there going to say its our fault
by mrmom2 | Aug 25th, 2005
3
XP Fault!!! HELP!
by Anonymous | Sep 6th, 2002