Goodbye Conservatives and Hello Coalition, it's about time
- Thread starter Adriatik
- Start date
This is what happens when a bean counter becomes prime minister they really don’t have what it takes to be a leader and a true leader at that.
This bean counter that dealt with statistics and made some waves when he was leader of the National Citizens’ Coalition for three years.
If Stephen Harper wants to stay in power he has to cut his finance minister immediately and bring in a new one and this new finance minister has to bring in a new mini-budget that satisfies all sectors of the Canadian economy and he has less than a week to do this.
If he does this the coalition will fail and the Canadian people will see that there is a leader in the House of Commons.
If Harper does this then Ducceppe and Dion will support the government, if they don’t they will lose voter support and for the NDP they might support it too.
If Harper decides to defend his finance minister and stand firm, the Conservative government will fall and Canada will have a coalition government.
When you think about it Harper was good as an opposition leader.
This bean counter that dealt with statistics and made some waves when he was leader of the National Citizens’ Coalition for three years.
If Stephen Harper wants to stay in power he has to cut his finance minister immediately and bring in a new one and this new finance minister has to bring in a new mini-budget that satisfies all sectors of the Canadian economy and he has less than a week to do this.
If he does this the coalition will fail and the Canadian people will see that there is a leader in the House of Commons.
If Harper does this then Ducceppe and Dion will support the government, if they don’t they will lose voter support and for the NDP they might support it too.
If Harper decides to defend his finance minister and stand firm, the Conservative government will fall and Canada will have a coalition government.
When you think about it Harper was good as an opposition leader.
My God, are you so dependent on a party's ability to mesmorize you with glamorous TV adverts for you to vote for them? I barely watch TV, so no skin off my back. This election I almost voted for a Green candidate, even though he had minimal advertising funding. I'd be more than willing to vote for an independent even, and I do my own research and don't depend on TV adverts to decide for me. If tv adverts are all the parties can count on to get votes, it's time to call it quits. It's time to cancel democracy altogether and replace it with a technocracy. Because honestly, I'd rather live in a technocratic state than a democratic one with candidates voted in winning a popularity contest. Or as Chretien put it, a poopoolarity contest.
If we need glitz and glamour to win an election, then it's time to admit democracy is bankrupt.
Good Day to you Socrates! I got this info off the TV last night so I don't have a link yet,
But I'm sure I could dig one up. It was on the 24hr/day CTV news channel. I'll need to
get some more coffee into me before I start digging. Right now I'm still waking up so I'm
just going to play for a while.
So what your saying is they need to give lots of money to the Auto Sector and all will be good. Well sorry to say it but the Auto Sector is dead, a influx of money will just delay what is going to happen. They priced themselves out of a job, its the employees own fault. I have friends and family in it, and for someone with a grade 10 education, making 100,000 dollars a year, doing what they do is just insane.
With or without the money, the autosector is dead, why throw good money at a bad problem and turn it into bad money. Take that money either hold onto it or use it for a problem that is worth it.
The autosector is dead, has been for a long time, and should have died about 5 years ago. The CAW is a great propoganda machine, probably one of the best, they make it seem like the world will end without them, it won't.
With or without the money, the autosector is dead, why throw good money at a bad problem and turn it into bad money. Take that money either hold onto it or use it for a problem that is worth it.
The autosector is dead, has been for a long time, and should have died about 5 years ago. The CAW is a great propoganda machine, probably one of the best, they make it seem like the world will end without them, it won't.
No, this is what happens when a significant number of Canadians keep voting for the corrupt, arrogant Liberals......who will do anything to keep power in their hands.....including support and succor the separatists of the BQ.
They care nothing about the people or the nation, they love only power, and would destroy the nation in a heartbeat if it meant they could rule.
They are currently validating my long-held opinion of the Liberal Party of Canada.......they will destroy this nation, if left to their own devices.
The NDP are simply stupid.....the Liberals are malicious.
Well....a couple of our Federal Political Parties have made it very clear that the recent entitlement
of the $1.95/vote/party is the biggest motivation to throw the country into turmoil at a time when
the World economy is swirling around the bowl. It's ugly but it's pretty obvious and it's out there
for all Canadians to see now...
Imposing (inflicting) a bail-out/stimulious package upon the nation before knowing what the USA
is going to do with it's newest President (who doesn't take power until January 20th/09 would be
just reckless and stupid, as we could be throwing away BILLION's of $$$ if we're totally out of
touch with the American plan (as well as the rest of the G20). ALL Parties know this and I'm sure
ALL Economists will agree with this, so that's just an excuse to crash the Government to protect
their snuffling antics and keep their heads firmly in the public tax trough. I can't believe people are
even arguing about something so obvious.
Will the Piglets invite the Independent MP's to the trough in the nature of leveling the playing field?
The Conservatives tried to level the playing field by scraping the who'll $1.95/vote/party to which
Canada as a nation managed to live without for its first 130yrs (or so...) since Confederation....
The Conservative Party only had 144/308 seats in Parliament, and about 40% of the Populations
didn't bother to even peal their backsides off their sofa's to go and vote...so to say that the
Democratic process is working when the Liberals & NDP unite and purchase the voting power
of the Bloc (on a vote by vote basis with a carrot attached to each vote favoring ONE Province)
to the detriment of all of the other Provinces, isn't what I voted for six weeks ago. How many
people on this Forum voted for that schmozzle, with that outcome in mind? I voted for the Party
that promised to p*ss away the least in vote buying promises (2 billion vrs about 50 billion for the
Liberals and NDP....each). Another Federal election now would really p*ss me off and cost us all
another 1/3 of a billion dollars, but it might save us $100 billion or more...
Now if you add together the vote purchasing promises of both the NDP & Liberals (and factor in
the soon to be cancelled 50 billion in corporate tax breaks that'll crush many business's in Canada
and spike the unemployment rate further and faster), and add to that all the $$$ carrots to purchase
the Bloc's loyalty to benefit only one Province at the expense of every other...Oh My God....
Keep in mind that Canada's "Natural Leading Party" who don't seem able to even manage their own
Parties finances, want's to run the show in a time of Global economic turmoil, by purchasing the post
with YOUR money, I find utterly disgusting.
of the $1.95/vote/party is the biggest motivation to throw the country into turmoil at a time when
the World economy is swirling around the bowl. It's ugly but it's pretty obvious and it's out there
for all Canadians to see now...
Imposing (inflicting) a bail-out/stimulious package upon the nation before knowing what the USA
is going to do with it's newest President (who doesn't take power until January 20th/09 would be
just reckless and stupid, as we could be throwing away BILLION's of $$$ if we're totally out of
touch with the American plan (as well as the rest of the G20). ALL Parties know this and I'm sure
ALL Economists will agree with this, so that's just an excuse to crash the Government to protect
their snuffling antics and keep their heads firmly in the public tax trough. I can't believe people are
even arguing about something so obvious.
Will the Piglets invite the Independent MP's to the trough in the nature of leveling the playing field?
The Conservatives tried to level the playing field by scraping the who'll $1.95/vote/party to which
Canada as a nation managed to live without for its first 130yrs (or so...) since Confederation....
The Conservative Party only had 144/308 seats in Parliament, and about 40% of the Populations
didn't bother to even peal their backsides off their sofa's to go and vote...so to say that the
Democratic process is working when the Liberals & NDP unite and purchase the voting power
of the Bloc (on a vote by vote basis with a carrot attached to each vote favoring ONE Province)
to the detriment of all of the other Provinces, isn't what I voted for six weeks ago. How many
people on this Forum voted for that schmozzle, with that outcome in mind? I voted for the Party
that promised to p*ss away the least in vote buying promises (2 billion vrs about 50 billion for the
Liberals and NDP....each). Another Federal election now would really p*ss me off and cost us all
another 1/3 of a billion dollars, but it might save us $100 billion or more...
Now if you add together the vote purchasing promises of both the NDP & Liberals (and factor in
the soon to be cancelled 50 billion in corporate tax breaks that'll crush many business's in Canada
and spike the unemployment rate further and faster), and add to that all the $$$ carrots to purchase
the Bloc's loyalty to benefit only one Province at the expense of every other...Oh My God....
Keep in mind that Canada's "Natural Leading Party" who don't seem able to even manage their own
Parties finances, want's to run the show in a time of Global economic turmoil, by purchasing the post
with YOUR money, I find utterly disgusting.
Goodbye Conservatives and Hello Coalition, it's about time Reply to Thread
rd1331, Thank You!
rd1331, Thank You!
I think you may have something there, but regardless, bailing them out with tax $s is a BAD BAD plan. IF Gov't feels it must throw $20 billion at them, give it to the taxpayers (or the income tax exempt equivalent) in the form of incentives to buy "green" American built vehicles. That way you kill 3 birds with one, help the consumers, help the manufacturers and help the progress toward a "greener" country. You DON'T dump money directly into the hands of a bunch of corporate incompetents.
JLM, who won the election? Nobody did, there was no clear winner. Now, in Canada, it is customary to invite the party with most MPs to form the government. However, in many European countries, being the largest party will get you squat. It is important who has the backing of more than 50% of the MPs, not which is the largest party.
In Canada, minority government is customary, coalition government is not. However, that does not mean that the coalition government is any less legitimate, nothing of the sort.
In a two party system a majority is needed for "a win"- but in a multi party system a plurality is needed for "a win"- at least that's what they taught me in school.
The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]
Plurality \Plu*ral"i*ty\, n.; pl. pluralities. [L. pluralitas:
cf. F. pluralit['e].]
1. The state of being plural, or consisting of more than one;
a number consisting of two or more of the same kind; as, a
plurality of worlds; the plurality of a verb.
[1913 Webster]
2. The greater number; a majority; also, the greatest of
several numbers; in elections, the excess of the votes
given for one candidate over those given for another, or
for any other, candidate. When there are more than two
candidates, the one who receives the plurality of votes
may have less than a majority. See Majority.
[1913 Webster]
Take the plurality of the world, and they are
neither wise nor good. --L'Estrange.
[1913 Webster]
3. (Eccl.) See Plurality of benefices, below.
[1913 Webster]
Plurality of benefices (Eccl.), the possession by one
clergyman of more than one benefice or living. Each
benefice thus held is called a plurality. [Eng.]
[1913 Webster]
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]
plurality
n 1: the state of being plural; "to mark plurality, one language
may add an extra syllable to the word whereas another
may simply change the vowel in the existing final
syllable"
2: a large indefinite number; "a battalion of ants"; "a
multitude of TV antennas"; "a plurality of religions"
[syn: battalion, large number, multitude, pack]
3: (in an election with more than 2 options) the number of
votes for the candidate or party receiving the greatest
number (but less that half of the votes) [syn: relative
majority]
Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]
56 Moby Thesaurus words for "plurality":
a mass of, a world of, army, best part, better part, bevy, body,
bulk, bunch, cloud, clutter, covey, essence, flight, flock, flocks,
generality, gist, gravamen, hail, hive, host, jam, large amount,
legion, lots, main body, major part, majority, many, mass,
masses of, meat, mob, more than half, most, muchness, multitude,
nest, numbers, pack, preponderance, preponderancy, quantities,
quite a few, rout, ruck, scores, shoal, substance, swarm,
the greatest number, throng, thrust, tidy sum, worlds of
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]
PLURALITY, government. The greater number of votes given at an election; it
is distinguished from a majority, (q.v.) which is a plurality of all the
votes which might have been given; though in common parlance majority is
used in the sense here given to plurality.
Plurality \Plu*ral"i*ty\, n.; pl. pluralities. [L. pluralitas:
cf. F. pluralit['e].]
1. The state of being plural, or consisting of more than one;
a number consisting of two or more of the same kind; as, a
plurality of worlds; the plurality of a verb.
[1913 Webster]
2. The greater number; a majority; also, the greatest of
several numbers; in elections, the excess of the votes
given for one candidate over those given for another, or
for any other, candidate. When there are more than two
candidates, the one who receives the plurality of votes
may have less than a majority. See Majority.
[1913 Webster]
Take the plurality of the world, and they are
neither wise nor good. --L'Estrange.
[1913 Webster]
3. (Eccl.) See Plurality of benefices, below.
[1913 Webster]
Plurality of benefices (Eccl.), the possession by one
clergyman of more than one benefice or living. Each
benefice thus held is called a plurality. [Eng.]
[1913 Webster]
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]
plurality
n 1: the state of being plural; "to mark plurality, one language
may add an extra syllable to the word whereas another
may simply change the vowel in the existing final
syllable"
2: a large indefinite number; "a battalion of ants"; "a
multitude of TV antennas"; "a plurality of religions"
[syn: battalion, large number, multitude, pack]
3: (in an election with more than 2 options) the number of
votes for the candidate or party receiving the greatest
number (but less that half of the votes) [syn: relative
majority]
Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]
56 Moby Thesaurus words for "plurality":
a mass of, a world of, army, best part, better part, bevy, body,
bulk, bunch, cloud, clutter, covey, essence, flight, flock, flocks,
generality, gist, gravamen, hail, hive, host, jam, large amount,
legion, lots, main body, major part, majority, many, mass,
masses of, meat, mob, more than half, most, muchness, multitude,
nest, numbers, pack, preponderance, preponderancy, quantities,
quite a few, rout, ruck, scores, shoal, substance, swarm,
the greatest number, throng, thrust, tidy sum, worlds of
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]
PLURALITY, government. The greater number of votes given at an election; it
is distinguished from a majority, (q.v.) which is a plurality of all the
votes which might have been given; though in common parlance majority is
used in the sense here given to plurality.
So the power-mad loonies of the Liberal and the NDP, spurred on buy Harper's attempt to pull their greedy maws off the public tit, wish to throw the country in the toilet
Colpy, the dispute is not about cutting off public funding to the political parties, that is only a minor point. Anyway, I understand that Harper has backed away from that, public funds to the parties will not be cut off.
The attempt to cut off the funding to political parties, while politically stupid, did not involve that much money. That was only a minor point. The major point of contention is the stimulus package.
Conservatives do not want a stimulus package, all the other parties do. Evidently the other parties feel strongly enough about it so that they are willing to put their differences aside and cooperate on this one issue.
This is not a power grab or thwarting the democracy, it is a serious difference in policy. Indeed, thwarting of democracy etc. are the side issues which really veer away from what should be the main argument, the main topic of debate. Well maybe not here, here anything goes, but at least in Ottawa.
The main topic of debate should be, would a stimulus package at the time have a desirable effect? That is a serious argument which is obscured by political shenanigans.
Colpy, the dispute is not about cutting off public funding to the political parties, that is only a minor point. Anyway, I understand that Harper has backed away from that, public funds to the parties will not be cut off.
The attempt to cut off the funding to political parties, while politically stupid, did not involve that much money. That was only a minor point. The major point of contention is the stimulus package.
Conservatives do not want a stimulus package, all the other parties do. Evidently the other parties feel strongly enough about it so that they are willing to put their differences aside and cooperate on this one issue.
This is not a power grab or thwarting the democracy, it is a serious difference in policy. Indeed, thwarting of democracy etc. are the side issues which really veer away from what should be the main argument, the main topic of debate. Well maybe not here, here anything goes, but at least in Ottawa.
The main topic of debate should be, would a stimulus package at the time have a desirable effect? That is a serious argument which is obscured by political shenanigans.
Don't bet your first born on it. It could be a few Mondays- perhaps by which time common sense will prevail.
That is the problem JLM, isn’t it? When a party has to depend upon another party to form a government, can it really be said to have won the election? Let me give you a hypothetical example.
Let us say Cons had 130 MPs, Libs 120 MPs, NDP 40 MPs. Now both Cons and Libs need the help of NDP to form a government, with the help of NDP, they have a majority. On their own, neither Cons nor Libs can form a government; such a government can be brought down at any time by the other parties.
In this situation, are the extra 10 MPs for conservatives really that important? They are important in our system, because Conservative party (being the largest party) will be called on to form a government. However, in many countries it won’t carry any weight at all. The party, Con or Lib which can muster the support of NDP will be called on to form the government.
So it depends upon how one defines a win.
Looking at it that way maybe there should be a provision for 2nd choice on the ballot.
coalition government
And you think this is a good thing? Better take a course in economics. In any event this is not democracy in action. Even added together the three disaster parties do not come anywhere close to the votes the Conservatives got plus all those who did not vote who obviously were perfectly happy with the Conservatives. Only a complete moron or someone with a lust for power at any cost (see Taliban Jack) would throw in with a party that has the destruction of Canada as its goal.
Those of us who live in BC have first hand experience at the disaster the NDP will make of the economy and they managed that here while the rest of the country was having a boom. I'd hate to see how bad it would be if they were allowed to govern during a recession. My grandchildren would still be paying for it.
And you think this is a good thing? Better take a course in economics. In any event this is not democracy in action. Even added together the three disaster parties do not come anywhere close to the votes the Conservatives got plus all those who did not vote who obviously were perfectly happy with the Conservatives. Only a complete moron or someone with a lust for power at any cost (see Taliban Jack) would throw in with a party that has the destruction of Canada as its goal.
Those of us who live in BC have first hand experience at the disaster the NDP will make of the economy and they managed that here while the rest of the country was having a boom. I'd hate to see how bad it would be if they were allowed to govern during a recession. My grandchildren would still be paying for it.
Not only that, Scratch. Try Germany. There is the Social Democratic Party and the centre right alliance of two parties (Christian Democrats and one other, I don’t remember). The Liberal Party is the party of the center. Whoever the Liberal party would form coalition with, would form the government. It didn’t matter which was the largest party.
This situation went on for several decades; I understand these days situation is even more complicated, now Greens are the force to reckon with.
Same story in Denmark even New Zealand. There are many countries with proportional representation, where coalition is the order of the day.