So now a party must specify a minimum number of issues it intends to cover before it can be elected? Now honestly I have not looked much into the Bloc's overall policy platform, and I doubt sovereignty is its sole issue that has won it so many votes. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose it is in fact the case. so, who are we to now dictate how Quebecers are to vote, and which Mps can form coalitions with which MPs?
We are the people...........and we deserve to know if we are electing to government of our country a party dedicated to the destruction of that same country....
That seems kinda obvious to me.
A simple fix for the Liberals........just come out now and categorically state that there will be no coalition that depends on the BQ for support. Simple enough, fair enough, and the subject is dropped.
If they will NOT do that, you know they are heading down a road that, in my opinion, borders on sedition.
What lies and fear mongering? Who's talking about the sky falling if we should allow the 'separatists' to have a democratic voice in parliament? What I say is true based on my own observations of some Conservative suppoerters that I know, even if i can't confirm if they are card-carrying members.
Have you EVER heard of me saying the BQ should not be allowed to take their seats in Parliament?
No, you haven't. The people of Quebec have every right to elect to Parliament whomever they please.
And the people of Canada have every right to keep those representatives out of government. Which they WILL do, if that is their choice. It is up to the Count to make his intentions clear. As it stands now, it appears the Count has a seditious hidden agenda.
Just SAY IT, Count Iggy.....I'll believe you either way........
1. i'm not a member of the Liberal Party.
2. Though I'd have no qualms about voting for a Liberal candidate who is worthy of my vote, as it happens i've never voted for a Liberal candidate yet. Good try.
I apologize....damn, I hate to label someone a Liberal that has not sunk so low.
(Just kidding, Five)
No, they don't 'need' to say so. That said, I'd like to vote for a more open and honest candidate. If my local Liberal candidate can't give a straightforward answer, he'd not likely to get my vote either. I do admire Layton for having been more open about coalition, though he's not in my riding so I'll have to keep an eye out for my local Dipper too.
Absolutely, at least the NDP are being honest about it.
Again, should Iggy not be honest on this, that looks bad on him but not necessarily his party, any more than Harper is necessarily a reflection of each local Conservative candidate.
but if the conservatives want my vote, they'd better present me with a more worthy candidate than my local MP.
Fair enough.
Way to foam at the mouth in rabid fearmongering, Colpy!
First, members of the Liberal Party of Canada have stated that they're seeking to win the election that is about to begin--not to coalesce with other parties to take power, but to win single-handedly. Just to be paint this picture a bit more accurately, though--should every measure that the Conservative Party of Canada passed, only due to the support of the Bloc Quebecois, be thrown out as illegitimate? Are the Conservatives not just as guilty, then, for what you're attacking the Liberals for? Do you not remember Stephen Harper, when Opposition Leader, courting the Bloc to form a coalition against the Martin Liberals?
Why, Thank you, Five!
expect much more over the next 5 weeks.
BTW nice load of BS in the body of your post.........there is more chance that the Count will be struck by lightning than he will win this election.
And yes, any coalition that depends solely on the BQ is completely unacceptable, and I don't care WHO is in bed with the Devil. The other coalition did NOT happen, if it had, I would have quit the party in a heartbeat, and worked for their defeat. Maybe even joined the Liberals, if no other alternative rose from the disgust good Canadians would feel in such a situation.
Remember Mulroney and Reform. We killed him. Not the Liberals.
