If Iggy's being honest, that gives him a head and shoulders advantage over Harper's peculiar version of transparency.
Ignatieff Confesses!
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Gone a little over the top with your partisanship there, Colpy. It's the Governor-General's call, one of the few real powers the G-G has, and a legitimate constitutional practice that has precedent in this country. Read up on the King-Byng Affair, for example. It's hardly an overthrow if Ignatieff tries to do what the G-G asks by following the constitutional practices and precedents of responsible government in a parliamentary democracy. That's really all Ignatieff said he'd do. And yes, I read the whole article.
I am quite familiar with the King-Byng thing.........
And yes the G-G can call on him.
And yes he can legally enter into any agreement with any party.
I know all that.
My problem is a government that exists solely at the pleasure of the Bloc Quebecois......especially one led by someone as unconcerned with Canadian nationality as Ignatieff obviously is.......
My concern is not a legal concern. It is a political concern.
To enhance the BQ by making it a de facto part of government is a disasterous mistake in the fight for national unity.
...but you had no problem with Harper courting BQ. Isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander?
And what would you think id Harper reached out to the Libs, iggy as deputy PM along with cabinet seats????????
Good now all Canadians can vote for the opposition party of our choice and get rid of
this guy with quick dispatch. I am thrilled if the opposition would form a coalition as it
is part of our proud democratic history with the Parliamentary system. Britain and
other countries have coalition's or have engaged in coalition governments in the past.
In BC we have a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives right now and Saskatchewan
is the same so what is so terrible about a coalition. The last thing Canada needs is a
Social Conservative with a majority.
this guy with quick dispatch. I am thrilled if the opposition would form a coalition as it
is part of our proud democratic history with the Parliamentary system. Britain and
other countries have coalition's or have engaged in coalition governments in the past.
In BC we have a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives right now and Saskatchewan
is the same so what is so terrible about a coalition. The last thing Canada needs is a
Social Conservative with a majority.
You mean the guy we voted for ruling the country, yep, it has worked more or less, but now we need more but not an election every couple of yrs. We decide after 4 yrs not the loser opposition.
I don't know. Who do mean by "we". Certainly not you and me. But, that said, yes I was referring to Harper when I quoted your statement "power hungry group of men who cannot get the confedence of Canadians to rule them". That does define Harper's political career the last few years.
Ignatieff Confesses!
He will overthrow the gov't, if Harper does not win a majority.
Ignatieff clears the air: Grits could govern if Tories win minority - The Globe and Mail
So there it is folks.
A clear choice.
Harper as PM with a majority, or Ignatieff as PM, beholden to the Bloc Quebecois for his position.
I have to say, I told you so.
And I have to give the Count credit. He did step up to the plate and make his intentions known before the vote. Good for him, I'm glad he is not simply stealing the choice from the Canadian people. He is not stupid. He must know this could easily sink his chances. So, he made the ethical choice, and made the peoples' choice clear.
Kudos to the Count.
Now, let's get out there and sink him, for the good of the nation.
A Conservative majority.
Just confirms what most of us have known all along...........................a real nutter. :lol:
I love Canada and that is why I never want to see Harper with a majority. Harper is a little
control freak, and I hope this country never experiences the Social Conservative Majority.
I can handle a Conservative Minority, or even an Iggy minority but I don't want to see any
of these people with a majority. I supposed pushed to the wall I would rather see Iggy in a
coalition as PM rather than Harper. At least coalitions can come unglued.
As for what will I do? I am voting for Jack Layton I can be sure he won't be the PM but he
can influence the agenda.
control freak, and I hope this country never experiences the Social Conservative Majority.
I can handle a Conservative Minority, or even an Iggy minority but I don't want to see any
of these people with a majority. I supposed pushed to the wall I would rather see Iggy in a
coalition as PM rather than Harper. At least coalitions can come unglued.
As for what will I do? I am voting for Jack Layton I can be sure he won't be the PM but he
can influence the agenda.
Oh this is nothing more than if you don't support the government then you don't support the troops bullsh!t.
Man I hope this Country finds its way back to majority territory. I am so sick of this minority crap. Weak Parties, weak leaders, money pissed away to appease political opposition.
Ignatieff Confesses!
He will overthrow the gov't, if Harper does not win a majority.
Ignatieff clears the air: Grits could govern if Tories win minority - The Globe and Mail
So there it is folks.
A clear choice.
Harper as PM with a majority, or Ignatieff as PM, beholden to the Bloc Quebecois for his position.
I have to say, I told you so.
And I have to give the Count credit. He did step up to the plate and make his intentions known before the vote. Good for him, I'm glad he is not simply stealing the choice from the Canadian people. He is not stupid. He must know this could easily sink his chances. So, he made the ethical choice, and made the peoples' choice clear.
Kudos to the Count.
Now, let's get out there and sink him, for the good of the nation.
A Conservative majority.
Confesses?
Everything he said above which you quoted, is based on what the Gov General decides..... that's how it works.... that's how it always worked, regardless of whatever party or party leader is being asked the question.
In plain'er english, He's not planning on forming any kind of Coalition with any of the other parties if Harper gets a minority, like what Dion tried to do. But if the Gov General tells him to do so, then he will, even if that means forming one with Harper & the Conservatives if things go that way.
Big friggin deal.
Jeez, you're acting like this is the final nail in the coffin or will somehow prove he's an evil person, when in reality, it's the most logical answer anybody in his position should give..... because once again.... that's how our system works.
If anything, his interview & comments clearly shows that he is going to abide by our system of democracy and follow it to the letter.... where Harper in the past, has used loopholes to run around our system of democracy in order to get what he wants..... such as proroguing parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote.
Nice try, but Harper still doesn't deserve a Majority.
I'd prefer the NDP to lead for once, but in reality, I know some are not ready for that for whatever reason..... thus, I'd prefer the Liberals to win the election over the Conservatives any day, while the NDP form opposition.
Confesses?
Please.
Loser Country?
Wow, brilliant argument :roll:
If Layton represents a % of those who voted for him and he is a part of a collective with other parties, including the Conservatives, to run the country, then that collective that includes him and those he represents do make the majority and thus, has every right to hold some level of power within that collective.
You speak as though one sole party should run the entire government as if they make up the majority, which they don't. In a minority government, no one party does..... which is why in order for a minority government to function properly, at least two parties need to work together. That's why Harper & the Cons haven't been able to do jack squat while in a Minority, because he refuses to work with any of the other parties, as he & the con supporters seem to think they should be able to do whatever they want without the approval of the other parties, whom collectively represent the Majority.
Get a clue.
That maybe so, but that's also just too damn bad, because in our Democracy, the people of Quebec (whom are still legit Canadian Citizens) voted for them to represent them, thus they have every right to be in our government and they have every right to have input on matters that don't just affect them, but the rest of the nation.
And considering Harper's plan to "Beholden to the Separatists" while in opposition to gain power over Martin, I think your priorities are a bit screwed up.
Considering that the Bloc within Dion's Coalition were not going to have any type of power to create decisions that would compromise the well-being of the nation, your fearmongering is pointless.
For the 33rd time, the Liberals & NDP were to form decisions and the Bloc agreed to vote in favor for them. The moment the Bloc didn't vote in favor for something, or the moment the Bloc attempted to destabilize anything, the Coalition would be disolved and an election would have ensued.
There was and is no danger to the nation by working with the Bloc...... prior to Harpers boogy-man tactics against them, every single party, including the Cons, have worked with the Bloc in order to get a number of issues dealt with & voted for.
Because of that history with the other parties working with the Bloc in the past, they have already been legitimized & empowered as an equal political party. Because they represent the people who voted for them, in our democracy they are already legitimized & empowered as an equal political party.
So please stop with the baseless fear mongering.
Not as dumb as trying to follow what the US does, as if they're somehow better.... they don't even have the same system of government, yet people like you and people like Harper think we should be more like them.
Wait, I'll correct that..... they think we should be close enough like them in order to be exploited and turned into a banana republic.
Much of what you said about the UK could easily be transferred to how things currently are in Canada under Harper's rule. I don't even remember the last decent policy he and his party came up with, I just remember lame attack ads & a dysfunctional government that ended up doing very little for this nation..... oh and pages upon pages of corruption.
You don't read very well do you?
I'd pick option #2 over Harper any day of the week. As already stated and clarified, there can be a Harper Minority if the election ends that way. Only the Gov General can determine if that minority remains or not. The only thing Iggy stated is that he would follow the rules of our Democracy as it should be followed.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Cripes, talk about ignoring what's in front of your own eyes.
Man you guys sure do fit the title "Cons"
You didn't even supply a link to what you were talking about.... probably because you knew full well you were just spouting bullsh*t
No plans to topple Tory minority: Layton - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News
".....When asked about the difference between his party and the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff, the 60-year-old NDP leader offered a blunt summation.
"The major difference is that we are committing to get things done; they've made commitments and then turned right around and broken those commitments time and time again," he said.
You should read the article posted in the initial OP.....
‘What I’m prepared to do is talk to [NDP Leader Jack] Layton, or [Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles] Duceppe, or even Mr. Harper and say: ‘Look, we’ve got an issue here. How do we solve it? Here’s the plan I want to put before Parliament. This is the budget I would bring in.’ Then we take it from there.”
Then you wouldn't look silly.....
^ That's your evidence? :roll:
Oh noes! Iggy admits he'll talk with the other parties to get work done!!!!
*GASP!!!* Oh the horror of it all!!!
How does any of that prove he himself won't allow a Harper Minority?? :lol:
At least a few people in here can read, lol
That, and during WWI, Canada did have a Coalition Federal Government and it worked.
Coalition Governments in Canada | Mapleleafweb.com
"Coalition governments have been rare in Canadian history; however, the ones that have existed had have important impacts on Canadian politics. This article describes the nature of coalition governments in Canada, including a basic definition of coalition governments, an overview of different types of coalitions, and a historical perspective on coalition governments in Canada......
...... The Union Government (1917-20)
Since Confederation there has only been one coalition government in Canada’s history: the Union Government of World War I. This was a coalition between the Conservative Party, led by Robert Borden, and Liberals and independents. The coalition was formed in order to broaden support for the Borden government and its controversial conscription policy.
In 1917, Prime Minister Borden announced that his government was going to introduce conscription to increase troops for the war in Europe. This policy was strongly opposed by many groups in Canada, in particular, French Canadians in Quebec and rural farmers. These groups resented being forced to participate in a British foreign war.
Prime Minister Borden hoped that a coalition government consisting of Conservatives and Liberals would help overcome these growing divisions within the country on this issue. Wilfrid Laurier, then leader of the Liberal Party, was opposed to conscription; he refused to lead his party into a coalition with the Conservatives. Many English-speaking Liberals, however, disagreed with their leader and left the party to join Borden in a coalition commonly referred to as the “Union Government.” Ultimately, the Union Government was successful in wining the general election of 1917 and eventually pushing conscription through Parliament.
With the end of the war in 1918, the primary raison d’être for the Union Government ceased to exist and the coalition began to break apart. Many former Liberals returned to their original political party, and the coalition dissolved completely with Prime Minister Borden’s retirement in 1920."
There was also another Coalition noted in the above link The Great Coalition (1864-1867)
The Conservatives didn't have an issue back then to form a Coalition.... Harper didn't have an issue a few years back with a Coalition to gain power.... and he even dealt with the Bloc to try and get that Coalition to form.
Yet this time because it's Liberals leading the way and Liberals dealing with the Bloc.... suddenly it's a different story.... Suddenly it's wrong.... suddenly it's evil and the whole country will fall apart.
Pah'friggin'Leeze :roll:
As mentioned by another member, if Quebec wants to separate, they'll do so, regardless if the Bloc is leading the charge or not..... just as any other province or territory has the ability to separate if they really wanted to.
That's Democracy..... we have the Democratic right to not exercise our Democratic Right..... we also have the Democratic Right to leave the Democracy that gives us the right to..... otherwise, it's not a Democracy.
What a loaded question..... oh so if we don't vote for that american-ass-kissing Harper, suddenly we hate Canada?
time to slap on yer cowboy hat and shoot yer guns in thar air...... if'n you don't believe what I's believe, yers a Terr'ist.... you hates eh'Merika!! YEEEE HAW!!
If'n youz dun votes fer Harper n' them thar Con'servatives..... youz hates Canada!!! YEEE HAW!!!
^ A clear sign of someone who's run out of arguments..... then again, you really didn't have an argument to begin with. :roll:
That's what you all said last election and look what happened.
We don't vote for our Prime Minister.... and elections occur in our Democracy when the government loses confidence.
This isn't A'merika.... though with you staring at your bald eagle avatar everyday, I would understand if you were getting confused.
Last edited:
I am sitting here listening to Iggy, and what he said on the coalition is this. Who ever has the
most seats gets to form a government. If they can't get the House to accept them then the
matter is turned over to the Governor General. If he asks others to form a government or he
asks other parties to support another party, then under the rules of a parliamentary system
he would try to form a government.
An alliance of parties is a lot less secure than a coalition. I hoped he would have said I will form
a coalition but in fact he didn't.
most seats gets to form a government. If they can't get the House to accept them then the
matter is turned over to the Governor General. If he asks others to form a government or he
asks other parties to support another party, then under the rules of a parliamentary system
he would try to form a government.
An alliance of parties is a lot less secure than a coalition. I hoped he would have said I will form
a coalition but in fact he didn't.