Or time to get him out of power and get a PM who won't try to push through budgets that would gag a hag-fish.
The Coalition Strikes!!!
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
If the parties are upfront about a coalition, I have no problem with it. it's the after the fact dealings that boils my blood. If I vote NDP, Liberal or Conservative, I did not vote the traitorous Bloc, and that's what a lot of people have a problem with.
Any deal with the Bloc, formal or informal, should never be discussed. I cannot hold faith in a government that aligns its self with a part that's sole existence is the breakup of this country.
What it comes down to is that the Liberals are entirely pathetic with their current leader and are devoid of any ideas that every day Canadian's care about. The government we have is the government we deserve.
Where did people get the idea that BQ were part of the coalition the Libs and NDP talked after the last election?
I've noticed that idea keeps floating around like a meme.
BQ was *not* part of that coalition.
They just said they weren't going to vote with Harper.
That's no different than when the BQ tells *any* party they will or will not vote with them. Sometimes the BQ *does* vote with the Conservatives. That time they said they wouldn't.
That did not make them part of the coalition. It was a Liberal-NDP coalition that just happened to be offering Quebec the better deal, so the BQ chose to vote with them.
The BQ isn't being separatist any more. Talk to people from Quebec and they'll explain that to you. Now it's just a party promoting the interests of one province in particular, like what Alberta would have if their Wild Rose party ever got power.
Actually, I've read his stuff, and the only problem is he's too smart for the job. He's a natural mediator, whereas Parliament encourages people with the one-dimensional attitude of a Rottweiler (which is whey we need a Senate to review their bills).
Like Pearson, Iggy would probably be better as a Diplomat.
Not in a system where 39% of the people can get power with the dumb first-past-the-post system we've got.
It should be more like Germany, where seats are allocated to parties according to what percentage of the over-all popular vote.
The other 61% of the people not wanting to live under Harpies *did* do what you're supposed to do, which is not vote for them, so they don't "deserve" Harpie rule supported by only a minority.
Last edited:
The BQ promised Dion 18 months.
Now, if you think they did that for the good of the country, I have a bridge in a prime area of NYC for sale.....
Exactly what were they promised? There was something, and whatever it was, it wasn't good for Canada.
Therein lies the problem.
What it comes down to is that if the current election turns out like the past two, the NDP & Liberals do not hold a majority of the votes, hence the deal with the devil.
Not quite. They promise the Lib-NDP coalition - not just Dion - to not vote with the Conservatives for 18 months, just to see if the coalition would devliver the better deal for Quebec that is what the BQ's job in Ottawa is as far as the average Quebecker is concerned (which not separation these days... it's just to represent Quebec interests... they're doing for Quebec what the Wild Rose party would do for Alberta if they were to form a federal party.)
I know they didn't. They did it to see if the coalition would give Quebec a better deal than Harper.
But if you do it right, what's good for Quebec can also be good for Canada as a while. They are one of the founding provinces and fundamental to Canadian identity and a full member of the nation, remember?
So... you heard they were promised something, but nobody knows what it was, but whatever it was, it would have to be bad?
HAVE to be bad?
I dunno. If I was an Anglo PM from Western Canada with Quebec to deal with, and say for example I had to buy some planes, my version of dealing with the BQ would go like this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ME: "Hey BQ, as PM I have to upgrade a fleet of planes.
"My options are to buy them from Boeing, or buy them from Bombardier.
"I'd rather buy them from Bombardier, because Canadians need the jobs, so if I spend the money here, they're getting their tax dollars back and will be getting an actual benefit for paying taxes, and for me it will be easier to collect taxes next year, because they'll have money to pay next years' taxes.
"But I need a guarantee the product will be at least as good as what Boeing has to offer."
BQ: "I'm sure it iz."
ME: "Yeah I'm sure you're sure it is too, but here's the deal: *You* do the due-diligence to ensure quality so they don't think they're being combed over by an anal-retentive Anglo, and if Bombardier passes muster in order to get the contract justifiably by having the best product, I let it be said loud and clear that Quebec got the contract because BQ worked for it, and you get re-elected for having done your job representing Quebec interests by causing jobs to go to Quebec that might have gone to the states.
"Do you think you can do that?"
BQ: "Oh oui! Anything else?"
ME: "Yeah... the seats... they should be nice like the ones found in a Citroen. Would that be possible?"
BQ: "I will zee what we can do!"
ME: "Oh, and one more thing. When you've signed off on a guarantee of quality and they get the contract... every plane coming out of the plant has to pass inspection by a certification team from Alberta. I hate conflict of interest scandals. Still want the challenge?"
-------------------------------------------------
Would you call that a case of cow-towing to the BQ for representing Quebec's interests?
Last edited:
And what EXACTLY did the Lib/NDP promise the BQ to retain their support for 18 months????
Nothing good for Canada, I promise you that.
Which is the point. If ANY party sells out Canada for power by forming a coalition with BQ support either as a full partner or as a silent partner, the people of this country will go bat**** crazy. And they should.
First of all, we were promised "no coalition" and are going to the polls with that assumption. Therefore to enter into any coalition after the election would be anti-democratic.
Secondly, in the immediate sense, as I have said 1,000 times, the BQ is NOT concerned with Canada, in fact their very reason for existence is the destruction of Canada.......I find in beyond my comprehension that any sane Canadian that gives a hoot about the nation would calmly support letting the fox loose among the chickens.......it borders on sedition. It is stupid. About what i have come to expect from the left. the BQ will be the second largest bloc of seats....do you really think they will support a Lib/NDP gov't without huge demands????
Third, in the lond run: The Quebec people have every right to elect whomever they please, and the BQ has every right to sit in Parliament.......but the DO NOT have the right to be part of gov't. The greatest fault of the BQ as a force is that it can never form gov't, and is therefore somewhat irrelevant, especially in times of majority gov't.......this is a point that needs to be driven home.....the BQ does NOTHING for Quebec........to include them in gov't Oh My! So so so idiotic.
Now, I rant about this now because......although I was willing to accept Ignatieff's word.....I have changed my mind.
All three opposition parties have said they will not support the Tory budget even after the election.
The Tories are expected to get 153 seats, two short of majority.
Imagine: budget presented, vote, gov't falls.
What happens then????????
It is kinda obvious, isn't it??
The Liberal assurance of "no coalition, formal or informal, with any party" goes out the window.
As does the nation.
We NEED to give the Conservatives a majority, for the good of the country.
OTTAWA—The auditor general says the Harper government misinformed Parliament to win approval for a $50-million G8 fund that lavished money on dubious projects in a Conservative riding.
And she suggests the process may have been illegal.
The findings are contained in a confidential report Sheila Fraser was to have tabled in Parliament on April 5.
The report was put on ice when the Harper government was defeated and is not due to be released until after the May 2 election.
However, a Jan. 13 draft of the chapter on the G8 legacy infrastructure fund was seen by The Canadian Press.
It reveals that Industry Minister Tony Clement, the mayor of Huntsville, and the general manager of Deerhurst Resort chose the 32 projects that received funding — with no regard for the needs of the summit or the conditions laid down by the government.
The report analyzed the $1-billion cost of staging last June’s G8 summit in Ontario cottage country and a subsequent gathering of G20 leaders in downtown Toronto.
And she suggests the process may have been illegal.
The findings are contained in a confidential report Sheila Fraser was to have tabled in Parliament on April 5.
The report was put on ice when the Harper government was defeated and is not due to be released until after the May 2 election.
However, a Jan. 13 draft of the chapter on the G8 legacy infrastructure fund was seen by The Canadian Press.
It reveals that Industry Minister Tony Clement, the mayor of Huntsville, and the general manager of Deerhurst Resort chose the 32 projects that received funding — with no regard for the needs of the summit or the conditions laid down by the government.
The report analyzed the $1-billion cost of staging last June’s G8 summit in Ontario cottage country and a subsequent gathering of G20 leaders in downtown Toronto.
Sorry, Unforgiven....
You'll have to do better than the old draft of an unreleased report that says something unspecific might have been illegal.
Meaningless.
You'll have to do better than the old draft of an unreleased report that says something unspecific might have been illegal.
Meaningless.
Huh? You're acting like it's a secret or something. It's not.
They promised the BQ that there would be no cuts to campaign/operating funding to seated parties, which is the grenade Harper tossed in, and which is what pushed the Libs/NDP into thinking maybe it was time for a coalition, because in case you hadn't noticed, Libs and NDP have never been cozy bedfellows, so it had to be something pretty extreme to get them thinking about it.
And it *was* extreme. Those equalization payments are the only thing preventing Ottawa from turning into a Lobbying Factory like Washington has become.
Watch this documentary: Casino Jack and the United States of Money (2010) - IMDb and you'll see interviews with Washington government/lobbyists saying how if the US had a system like Canada's then the large-scale Lobbyist corruption that happens in Washington would not be, yet Harper wants to pull Canada down into that pit, when people living in it now are jealous of Canada and wish they could get out of it.
It's no secret what the Lib/NDP coalition offered the BQ for the BQ to not join their coalition, but to simply play along.
The deal between the Libs/NDP coalition and the BQ is called a *collaboration*, not a coalition. It was a Lib/NDP coalition with collaboration from the BQ.
But it *is* a secret what Harper offered the BQ in 2004 for the BQ to not just collaborate with the Conservatives, but to actually *join* the Conservatives in a coalition.
So really, if you have an issue with the BQ being part of a coalition you should be attacking Harper, because he's the only one who ever offered to form a coalition with the BQ...
And if you have an issue with secret backroom perks being offered to the BQ, you should be attacking Harper, because nobody knows what perks he offered the BQ, whereas it's no secret what the BQ's interest in the Lib/NDP coalition was.
Ahh... so you're saying if Harper were to form a coalition with the BQ like he tried to do in 2004, and if the BQ had bit and he'd got enough power to sell Canada out to the multinationals worse than it is already, that people should go bat**** crazy. I can see that.
No it wouldn't. It would be breaking a campaign promise.
Otherwise, the option for parties to form coalitions is one of the things keeping the Westminster version of parliamentary democracy semi-workable, and I have associates in Europe who are flabbergasted by how so few Canucks seem to understand that.
It's still flawed... the current "first-past-the-post" system only shows true representation if there's only two parties. If parties got seats in the House as a function of percentage of popular vote, the Greens would have 8-9 seats, which is how Germany does it. Germany seems to have the best overall parliamentary system. After WW-II they decided to get it right, once and for all.
That's how they started, but they changed. Just like how the Social Credit party started on a single issue, which was the destruction of the fractional-reserve banking system, but by the time they matured they'd left that in the dust long ago.
Hmm... I think you need to actually start talking to french-Canadians and see where they're at these days.
The internet has helped a lot. It's possible for mono-lingual English speakers to plug into french-Canadian forums, and use online software like Bablefish to translate what they're saying, and to respond in French, and what you'll find is that their issues are just as mundane as those expressed by people from any other region.
What would your reaction be if the Wold Rose party of Alberta were to go federal?
What would your reaction be if Newfoundland were to form a party focused on representing Newfoundland interests, with a key part of their platform being that if Ottawa won't satisfy their desires, they'll separate Newfoundland from Canada and join the US? There is such a Newfie party (can't remember it's name) but they hold onto the position that Newfoundland never should have joined Canada... that it should have joined the US... and that they got railroaded into joining Canada... which is basically true... Ottawa played dirty on that one... Ottawa never gave a hoot about Newfoundland itself, but it was *desperate* to get Labrador.
Well, if but "DO NOT have the right" you mean *moral* right, maybe... but if you mean legal right, yeah they do, and Harper tried to tap into that in 2004.
When the Lib/NDP asked the BQ to collaborate, there would have been no BQ in cabinet, but the deal Harper offered in 2004 would have resulted in BQ members being in cabinet, and cabinet is the actual government.
Hmm... first you say the BQ has no "right" to be in government in Ottawa, and now you're saying their greatest flaw is they can never form a government.
If the government falls again then that means promises made in the previous election are no longer valid, which means Iggy's not even breaking a campaign promise if the government falls again, but that's probably too fine a nuance of the logic of campaign promising for most Reformacon supporters.
Well duh... the options are, another election, *or* the Governor General might conclude that Canadians are getting too election weary, and that there's a stalemate among the voters, and therefore might choose to ask the Libs and NDP to form a coalition.
If the Governor General *asks* the Libs and NDP to form a coalition, which she can do (it's amazing how many Canucks don't know how their own political system works), then Iggy would not be breaking a campaign promise, which is that he's not making formation of a coalition part of his platform.
Hmm... you think it's better to let Canada to become more of a Plutocracy than it is already. That's what Harper's facilitating.
Harper has demonstrated over and over again that he doesn't govern, he rules, and his methods are jackbooted. He's a Plutocratic hand-puppet. There's no way Preston Manning can be happy with what the Reformers became.
As a Reformacon, do you think it's okay to spend a billion dollars on a five-day photo-op for the G8 leaders to have their picture taken together when they did *no* discussion about policy or trade, and anybody with Photoshop could have put images of them together in the same pic...
But you'll think that spending a billion dollars to improve education is frivolous government spending?
Explain.
Last edited:
Quote: Originally Posted by petros
If we had a legitimate system there wouldn't be coalitions.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/c...hat-makes-canadian-government-democratic.html
So much crap.....so little time.
Once again, and I'm yelling because you guys seem to be deaf.
CORPORATE PARTY DONATIONS ARE COMPLETELY ILLEGAL IN CANADA.
There is NO chance of us becoming like the USA in that sense.
Deal with it.
And, I don't care WHO lets the BQ close to governing......it is simply ridiculous, idiotic, and damn close to seditious......and it is NOT the Conservative Party that is playing that game now......
The GG does NOT ask anyone to form a coalition, they ask a party leader to form a government with the support of the House. BIG difference. Speaking of not knowing how the system works.......
the rest is blah blah blah blah..........not relevant.
Colpy, you sound desperate. Your guy is winning. We are going to get a royal phucking. This will make you happy for some strange reason but hey! to each his own.
By the way, the CPC is a coalition so WTF are you going on about coalitions?
By the way, the CPC is a coalition so WTF are you going on about coalitions?
I didn't say corporate... I said Plutocrat.
And if Harper gets a majority, he'll jackboot changes like no leveling of party campaign/operating budgets, which means YES, there is a change of us becoming like the USA in that sense... IF Harper gets a majority.
But it *was* Harper who was playing that game, wasn't it... and it was a much cozier deal with the BQ that the Lib/NDP offered them.
You're ranting against coalitions, yet the Conservative party is not just a coalition between the Reform and PC party... it's a full-blown merger.
You're ranting against the Lib/NDP to have offered the BQ a collaboration, which means the BQ would not have had seats in cabinet under the Lib/NDP deal...
But the deal Harper tried to make with the BQ *would* have resulted in BQ having seats in cabinet.
That means, by your standards, Harper is more of an enemy to Canada than would be a Lib/NDP coalition.
The GG can ask anyone to form a government. If the GG wanted, she could ask the BQ to form a government. It's just that by tradition she asks the party with the most seats in the House.
She's also got the power to fire a PM, which not enough Canadians know they can ask her to do if we get shackled with a majority government ruled by a jackboot.
Last edited: