Hate to say this, but a coalition of parties based solely in Eastern Canada, with only Eastern Canadian voters in mind, will lead to increased talk of Western Alienation and separation. Don't agree with it at all, as I don't agree with an undemocratic coalition either, but the result of a coalition has the ability to destroy the country.
High Ho it's off to the polls we go.
- Thread starter Trex
- Start date
Trex, I don’t think they will do any worse than the current lot, whether Liberal or Conservative.
I think it is a bit unfair to characterize all right wingers as you do. Sure, there are extremes on the right, but certainly no more so than extremes on the left. As a more center-right person, I support a bit of both con and lib policies, except the tax and spend policies of the libs and dippers.
Not to worry, juan, that credit will be around no matter who forms the government. It will be passed in plenty of time for this year’s income tax return.
I notice you don’t support tax and spend policies of ‘libs and dippers’, so I assume you enthusiastically support borrow and spend policy of Conservatives.
Thus I assume you are OK with the borrow and spend policies of Mulroney, Reagan, Bush the first, Bush the second, Mike Harris here in Ontario (though that doesn’t’ concern you) and now Harper.
Five, is that you? Good to hear from you again, even if we fundamentally disagree. Your posts always were thought provoking. Just a comment on the above though, why would you think it would have been a good idea last election, when there have certainly been other election results where the same process could have been done, the only difference being the other results were, for the most part, Liberal minorities (Trudeau, Martin, etc)?
Don't worry about it, Bluey. Sir Pompass calls anyone who disagrees with him a right-wing religious nut (or at least right-wing). lol
Actually, no I did not support the stimulus spending at all, just as I did not support the stimulus and clunker spending of Obama. I did support most of Mulroney's policies, simply because I could not in any moral conscience support Trudeau in any fashion. You DO remember him don't you, the first PM to have finance minister to give us a deficit? Reagan and Bush 1 I supported again because the alternatives were awful, and as for Bush 2, given 9/11, judging him has to have that taken into account. However, watching "Talk a lot, say nothing" Obama for the last two years, I do fear for where he is taking the North American economy.
One last point. If there had been a Conservative majority, I firmly believe that we would not have the deficit we have now. The spending was a demand of Iggy and Jackie, so to put ALL the blame on Harper is hypocritical at best.
Well, I may fit his category of right wing, but certainly not religious!! And I consider myself center-right, which I guess to left wing loons is far right!!
Given how long it would take a new government to actually get sat, present a budget, write this legislation, etc., I would not count on it. Yes, Iggy has said he would keep it, but for this year? Highly doubtful, given the length of time it takes any government to actually get something done.
Not to say it could not be retroactive, though, but that would be about the best he could do, IMO.
All true, but conveniently ignoring two important points.......
First off, the BQ must NEVER be allowed to place their greasy mitts anywhere near the levers of power.....and yes, the Coalition did include them, God knows what they were promised........
Secondly, in such a case, IMHO.......the GG should have called a new election, Conservatives versus the Parties of the Coalition. It was very clear at the time that the People were outraged at the idea of a Coalition gov't that included a partnership with the BQ, silent or not. I can say with little fear of contradiction that had such an election would have returned a Conservative majority.....
Unfortunately, Harper paniced at the thought of the BQ in power......unfortunate, but understandable......and blew it. He should have asked for disolution.....if granted, he would have thumped the Opposition most handily........if NOT granted, the GG would have let the Coalition form government, and then THAT bunch would have "worn" the recession, the deficit, and as well the whiff of sedition eminating from the backroom meetings with their BQ participants...after 30 months....or 54 at most.... we would have had CPC majorities for the forseeable future....with out the traditional pressing of the lips to Quebecois bums.
I thought the suspension of Parliament was the wrong move....wrong ethically, wrong tactically, wrong politically.......Harper's reaction showed cowardice, both politically and morally. For that I have no forgiveness. That is why I flirted with the idea of St. Iggy as PM.....
But here we are.....and the CPC is still the best of a sorry lot.
Sorry to quote you again, but I want to make it clear to you that I support lower taxes to individuals and corporations, so that individuals can spend more money, and corporations can hire more people, instead of giving it to the government. I support smaller government, which no party has yet done to my satisfaction, and I support government out of my face every time I turn around. I do not support tax and spend, never have, never will. That is the policy of both the Libs and Dips, so that is why I cannot support them. Given my philosophy, the closest party is the conservatives, but that is sometimes a reluctant support. Put money into the economy using the tax system to reduce taxes, not take it and spend for partisan reasons, which all parties have a history of doing.
Could not have said it better. If the FIBS, DIPS and BLOCS want to have a coalition, then run as a coalition, not some underhanded grab for power AFTER an election. The Canadian public does not like treasonous acts such as what was tried last fall.
I think he probably meant getting rid of confidence votes for everything that was traditionally not a confidence vote. Budgets and a few other pieces of Government business have always been confidence votes, but I see no reason why An Act to increase the availability of agricultural loans and to repeal the Farm Improvement Loans Act needs to be a confidence vote.
Re: Harper’s Request for Prorogation
The constitutional convention is that the existing prime minister (notwithstanding the results of the election) has the right to meet the new House of Commons, and attempt to seek the support of that House. Now, this could mean that the Conservatives could have less seats than the Liberals, and continue to govern with the votes of the Bloc and the New Democrats—that is entirely constitutional, and entirely democratic (because the Government would function with supply approved by a majority of voices).
The Liberals, however, would not have the ‘right’ to govern, even if they teamed up with other parties, unless the prime minister resigns or is dismissed, and the same would be true the other way around; however, it’s important to distinguish between two scenarios that would probably be confused with one another.
Let’s say the current Government is a Liberal minority, and there is now an election; if the Conservatives won the election, but did not have a majority of seats, the Liberals would nonetheless have the constitutional right to meet the House of Commons and attempt to seek the House’s support to govern (through Bloc and New Democratic votes). If the Liberals, under such a scenario, are able to receive the House’s support on a throne speech, then the Liberals have a democratic mandate to govern. If the Liberals’ attempt to pass a throne speech was defeated, or the Government was defeated too quickly, then there is precedent for the Governor General to ask another party to govern, provided that such a party can receive the support of the House of Commons (and therefore a democratic mandate to govern).
Now, second scenario: Let’s say the current Government is a Conservative minority, and there is now an election. The Conservatives win less than a majority of seats, but less than the Liberals; even if the Liberals campaigned on a partnership with the New Democrats and they, together, had more seats than the Conservatives, the Tories would nonetheless have the right to meet the House of Commons to seek support. However, the Liberals would not have that right (unless the Conservatives were defeated within an extremely short timeframe), because they are not the incumbent Government.
Now, if the prime minister has returned to the Commons and the Government had been defeated, then it may have been appropriate for another party to be summoned to government, provided that the time since the last election had been extremely short (for example, less than six months). That’s an extremely exciting facet of Canadian constitutional conventions and law—we have a system that can adapt to the day-to-day needs of the constitutional landscape.
I think he panicked, rather, at the thought of his loss of the prime ministership.
He ran to Rideau Hall, and asked for a “do-over”.
Hello, AlbertaBlue! :smile:
The constitutional convention is that the existing prime minister (notwithstanding the results of the election) has the right to meet the new House of Commons, and attempt to seek the support of that House. Now, this could mean that the Conservatives could have less seats than the Liberals, and continue to govern with the votes of the Bloc and the New Democrats—that is entirely constitutional, and entirely democratic (because the Government would function with supply approved by a majority of voices).
The Liberals, however, would not have the ‘right’ to govern, even if they teamed up with other parties, unless the prime minister resigns or is dismissed, and the same would be true the other way around; however, it’s important to distinguish between two scenarios that would probably be confused with one another.
Let’s say the current Government is a Liberal minority, and there is now an election; if the Conservatives won the election, but did not have a majority of seats, the Liberals would nonetheless have the constitutional right to meet the House of Commons and attempt to seek the House’s support to govern (through Bloc and New Democratic votes). If the Liberals, under such a scenario, are able to receive the House’s support on a throne speech, then the Liberals have a democratic mandate to govern. If the Liberals’ attempt to pass a throne speech was defeated, or the Government was defeated too quickly, then there is precedent for the Governor General to ask another party to govern, provided that such a party can receive the support of the House of Commons (and therefore a democratic mandate to govern).
Now, second scenario: Let’s say the current Government is a Conservative minority, and there is now an election. The Conservatives win less than a majority of seats, but less than the Liberals; even if the Liberals campaigned on a partnership with the New Democrats and they, together, had more seats than the Conservatives, the Tories would nonetheless have the right to meet the House of Commons to seek support. However, the Liberals would not have that right (unless the Conservatives were defeated within an extremely short timeframe), because they are not the incumbent Government.
For greater certainty, the Liberals and New Democrats would have formed the ministry entirely out of those two parties; the Bloc would not have been considered a part of the governing party, and rather, had only agreed to support the proposed Government on matters that would precipitate governmental defeat. It was a Liberal–New Democratic partnership, with the support of the Bloc Québécois. Just to clear that up.
The prime minister should never have made a request for prorogation when there was a question of confidence before the House of Commons; it was entirely inappropriate, and prime ministers have been dismissed for attempting to avoid such questions of the Commons. In my opinion, the request should have been denied, and the Governor General should have presented the prime minister with two options: (a) dissolve the legislature entirely and drop the writs for a general election, or (b) return to the House and face the music.
Now, if the prime minister has returned to the Commons and the Government had been defeated, then it may have been appropriate for another party to be summoned to government, provided that the time since the last election had been extremely short (for example, less than six months). That’s an extremely exciting facet of Canadian constitutional conventions and law—we have a system that can adapt to the day-to-day needs of the constitutional landscape.
I don’t think so.
I think he panicked, rather, at the thought of his loss of the prime ministership.
He ran to Rideau Hall, and asked for a “do-over”.
One last point. If there had been a Conservative majority, I firmly believe that we would not have the deficit we have now.
Quite so, AlbertaBlue. When Mulroney had a conservative majority I assume he ran a healthy surplus? He ran huge deficits, but you supported his policies anyway, because (surprise!), he was a conservative and so are you.
You evidently had no problem with huge borrowings by Reagan and the two Bushes (by your own admission, you supported them). So that really validates my point, in general you have no problem with the borrow and spend policy of conservatives.
The spending was a demand of Iggy and Jackie, so to put ALL the blame on Harper is hypocritical at best.
I see, so Iggy held a gun to Harper’s head and told him run a huge deficit or else, is that it? If Harper did not want to run a deficit, he could resign, dissolve the Parliament and call another election. He did that when there was absolutely no reason to do (he thought he would get a majority again Dion and he didn’t). So why not call an election on an issue as important as budget deficit?
Harper represents the long tradition of borrow and spend conservatism. And you are not alone, most conservatives don’t have a problem with borrow and spend philosophy.
Actually, no I did not support the stimulus spending at all,
But that is just the point, why not admit that you are a true, blue conservative, you would support Harper (or any conservative for that matter) no matter what? Why the charade? Reading your posts I get the impression that you think all the conservative politicians (Reagan, two Bushes, Mulroney etc.) did a fantastic job of managing the economy while all the Liberal politicians (Clinton, Chrétien, Martin etc.) ran the economy into ground.
Quite so, AlbertaBlue. When Mulroney had a conservative majority I assume he ran a healthy surplus? He ran huge deficits, but you supported his policies anyway, because (surprise!), he was a conservative and so are you.
You evidently had no problem with huge borrowings by Reagan and the two Bushes (by your own admission, you supported them). So that really validates my point, in general you have no problem with the borrow and spend policy of conservatives.
The spending was a demand of Iggy and Jackie, so to put ALL the blame on Harper is hypocritical at best.
I see, so Iggy held a gun to Harper’s head and told him run a huge deficit or else, is that it? If Harper did not want to run a deficit, he could resign, dissolve the Parliament and call another election. He did that when there was absolutely no reason to do (he thought he would get a majority again Dion and he didn’t). So why not call an election on an issue as important as budget deficit?
Harper represents the long tradition of borrow and spend conservatism. And you are not alone, most conservatives don’t have a problem with borrow and spend philosophy.
Actually, no I did not support the stimulus spending at all,
But that is just the point, why not admit that you are a true, blue conservative, you would support Harper (or any conservative for that matter) no matter what? Why the charade? Reading your posts I get the impression that you think all the conservative politicians (Reagan, two Bushes, Mulroney etc.) did a fantastic job of managing the economy while all the Liberal politicians (Clinton, Chrétien, Martin etc.) ran the economy into ground.
Sorry to quote you again,
Sorry to quote me again? Why AlbertaBlue, I like to be quoted, more often the better.
I support lower taxes to individuals and corporations, so that individuals can spend more money, and corporations can hire more people, instead of giving it to the government.
You have summarized the conservative problem in a nutshell. Conservatives are ideologically opposed to tax increase, they want to cut taxes. But they dare not cut services, they will be booted out of the office if they do. The only alternative is to borrow the money. If there are no taxes and services must be provided, borrowing on a massive scale is the only answer.
That is why one conservative politician after another borrows hugely and runs huge deficits and huge debt. Borrow and spend is an integral part of Conservative philosophy.
You say you support smaller government and lower taxes. But what would you do if smaller government isn’t possible (as it isn't)? You would still want lower taxes, right? That is where the borrow and spend philosophy originates.
Sorry to quote me again? Why AlbertaBlue, I like to be quoted, more often the better.
I support lower taxes to individuals and corporations, so that individuals can spend more money, and corporations can hire more people, instead of giving it to the government.
You have summarized the conservative problem in a nutshell. Conservatives are ideologically opposed to tax increase, they want to cut taxes. But they dare not cut services, they will be booted out of the office if they do. The only alternative is to borrow the money. If there are no taxes and services must be provided, borrowing on a massive scale is the only answer.
That is why one conservative politician after another borrows hugely and runs huge deficits and huge debt. Borrow and spend is an integral part of Conservative philosophy.
You say you support smaller government and lower taxes. But what would you do if smaller government isn’t possible (as it isn't)? You would still want lower taxes, right? That is where the borrow and spend philosophy originates.
Last edited: