The Coalition Gambit
What do you think?
Do you think the Coalition is a good thing for Canada?
Yes [ 11 ] ** [42.31%]
No [ 14 ] ** [53.85%]
Don't know [ 1 ] ** [3.85%]
Total Votes: 26
Guests cannot vote 
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
  Reply to this topicStart new topic
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 12:23 AM
Post #1
 


Please include why...

I'll start. I pushed no because....
-It funnels badly needed government funds into Quebec.
-It stands very little chance of accomplishing anything beneficial in Parliament.
-It more than likely means another election.
-Said election is going to show Stephan Harper/Next Conservative leader retain his supporters, and I believe many disgruntled Liberal supporters are going to drift over and give him a shot at a majority.
-It shows the naiveness of the voting public, with supporters unilaterally rooting for this thing. So far the only reason I have seen is spite, even though the negative members of this thing have so much as announced their intentions to siphon public funds.

Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
blush
post Dec 3 2008, 12:26 AM
Post #2
 


I don't like the third option, change it to......"I have no clue what you are talking about" Attention: REGISTER / LOGIN to view the image!
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 12:29 AM
Post #3
 


Breaking the rules yes voter........
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Sponsor Ad  
Go to the top of the page
 
 
heinzy
post Dec 3 2008, 12:59 AM
Post #4
 


I voted 'No'.

Those power obsessed pinko egocentrists , sailing in the wake of Obama's (note: I said his name Attention: REGISTER / LOGIN to view the image! ) unfortunate win , smell

a moodswing in the East , and like pigs seeking truffels , rake up muck , sorry , want to capitalise on the lemming effect.

So, the Eastern commies and pinkos will not shy away from any malfeasance but heed the beckoning of tantalising

opportunism.

I hope they get their ass clobbered at a possible next election.

Reason enough to convert to Catholicism LOL

This post has been edited by heinzy: Dec 3 2008, 01:01 AM
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 05:09 AM
Post #5
 


So 3 yes, 2 no with no substance behind their decision? Come on their must be something....
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 06:50 AM
Post #6
 


I Attention: REGISTER / LOGIN to view the image! the number of people willing to throw the country to the wolves for no reason beyond spite of popular opinion.

Keep blaming 'em politicians though, you wonder why nothing in government works...... Attention: REGISTER / LOGIN to view the image!
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Tiger the Lion
post Dec 3 2008, 07:20 AM
Post #7
 


A resounding NO! vote from me!

Goat Boy, I agree with your reasons...it also make a mockery of our election process to begin with. What good is having an election, exercising our rights to vote, calling it a Democracy only to have some power hunger pinheads try to over turn what the voters voted for.

Shame on them!

Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 07:26 AM
Post #8
 


Keep tying your shoelaces together hardcore lefties, you may as well shoot the rest of us.

Here is an example of an educated & active liberal voter turned disgusted. How many more thousands are their like him? Trade a coalition that will fall apart in weeks for decades of Conservative Iron fist rule? I've already heard countless more like this, WILL NOT VOTE LIBERAL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

QUOTE
And a coalition would be any different. The NDP and BQ say they won't join without Dion stepping down, guess what looks like Dion is going to step down. The NDP won't join unless the Liberals scrap the 50 billion tax break to help businesses keep employees instead of laying them off. The Liberals admitted that it was a good tax break and should go through, now they are looking at dropping it. And to top it off. Get this.

The BQ won't join unless the Liberals make it law that ALL Federal politics in Quebec are Only in French.

I would rather be governed by a Conservative government that has to get the help of only one party compaired to a Coalition where both the BQs and NDPs pockets have to be greased for anything to happen. Whats will the BQ or NDP want next that the Liberals will have to give into.

The Liberals are showing there true form right now, I used to be a big supporter of the Liberals, until they started to do things like this in the last couple years. They don't stand for anything anymore, oh other than doing whatever they have to, to get back into power.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
?
post Dec 3 2008, 07:48 AM
Post #9
 


It depends...it would be OK if the Liberals were just a few seats shy of forming the government let's say 1-2, and they could form it with just the NDP and without the Separatist Bloc. Plus they had a better more dynamic leader...like pierre trudeau. but it's a weak coalition, and given what I saw on the News, Dion blowing up in parliament yesterday. That was awful. Outta control. Trudeau nor Chretien never lost their composure like that. I just don' wanna see this guy in, even though voted Liberal. People like John Manley haven't expressed support for the coalition. As is the same for Ignatieff thus far. And it's trashing support for the Liberals everywhere else in the country. NO thx.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 08:17 AM
Post #10
 


QUOTE (? @ Dec 3 2008, 07:48 AM) *
It depends...it would be OK if the Liberals were just a few seats shy of forming the government let's say 1-2, and they could form it with just the NDP and without the Separatist Bloc. Plus they had a better more dynamic leader...like pierre trudeau. but it's a weak coalition, and given what I saw on the News, Dion blowing up in parliament yesterday. That was awful. Outta control. Trudeau nor Chretien never lost their composure like that. I just don' wanna see this guy in, even though voted Liberal. People like John Manley haven't expressed support for the coalition. As is the same for Ignatieff thus far. And it's trashing support for the Liberals everywhere else in the country. NO thx.


I am at this point, considering transferring my creds to UBC to do a Poli Sci degree. This debacle is more disgusting than anything the Americans have ever produced, and we're all paying for it like sheep.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Nat
post Dec 3 2008, 08:37 AM
Post #11
 


I think with the 4 party system we have seem to revolved into you will see more coalition governments in the future. It was possible to get majorities with 2 and 3 parties but less likely now. If you look at Europe this is the norm.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 08:44 AM
Post #12
 


QUOTE (Nat @ Dec 3 2008, 09:37 AM) *
I think with the 4 party system we have seem to revolved into you will see more coalition governments in the future. It was possible to get majorities with 2 and 3 parties but less likely now. If you look at Europe this is the norm.


Cite examples of European separatist parties.
European parties do not plan take downs of the government before an election, and then complain about election costs.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Nat
post Dec 3 2008, 09:14 AM
Post #13
 


QUOTE (Goat Boy© @ Dec 3 2008, 08:44 AM) *
Cite examples of European separatist parties.
European parties do not plan take downs of the government before an election, and then complain about election costs.


European coalitions can take up to a year after an election to form a sable government.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 09:17 AM
Post #14
 


QUOTE (Nat @ Dec 3 2008, 10:14 AM) *
European coalitions can take up to a year after an election to form a sable government.


You failed to answer either question.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Nat
post Dec 3 2008, 09:24 AM
Post #15
 


QUOTE (Goat Boy© @ Dec 3 2008, 09:17 AM) *
You failed to answer either question.


Because you have no proof that the coalition was formed before the election.
The Bloc isn't part of the coalition they will vote freely on everything other then confidence for 18 months, so the separatists angle isn't relevant.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
RealWoman
post Dec 3 2008, 09:26 AM
Post #16
 


People are so hung up on the Bloc that it's laughable. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc have had a kind of coalition since Harper got his first minority government. They are just making it official. The country isn't going to dissolve if those big bad separtists support the NDP/Liberal coalition. Yeah I said it, NDP/Liberal Coalition because that's essentially what it is. Oh and by the way, the Bloc has other issues other than sovereignty - might want to read up on their views on other things as well - might be enlightening.

Anyway, I am pro this coalition. The government is choked in minority, and Harper is dragging his feet. This is a no-confidence matter in which the majority of the House has said they don't believe Harper is doing what is right for Canada. About time someone did something about it.


Sorry, I couldn't help but comment on Tiger the Lion's post:

"...it also make a mockery of our election process to begin with. What good is having an election, exercising our rights to vote, calling it a Democracy only to have some power hunger pinheads try to over turn what the voters voted for."

This is part of our democratic process. Parties can form coalitions. I shouldn't have to point out that more people DIDN'T vote for Harper than did. The Conservatives don't hold a majority in the House. As an NDP voter, I am happy to see Layton take action against the Harper government because I don't have any confidence in him either. He's dragging his feet while Canada's economy is getting flushed.

This post has been edited by RealWoman: Dec 3 2008, 09:27 AM
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 09:34 AM
Post #17
 


QUOTE (Nat @ Dec 3 2008, 10:24 AM) *
Because you have no proof that the coalition was formed before the election.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/11/30/p...cs.html?ref=rss


</h3>
QUOTE
<h3>Tories release transcript of NDP meeting
The Conservatives, meanwhile, have released details of an NDP caucus meeting they say was held in the form of a conference call on Saturday.

The Tories say they released a portion of the transcript on Sunday because it shows the NDP was working very closely with the Bloc long before last Thursday's economic update to replace the government.

"Let's just say we have strategies," NDP Leader Jack Layton said during the call. "This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc to lock them in early because you couldn't put three people together in … three hours. The first part was done a long time ago. I won't go into details."

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre told CBC News, "Today, we learned that this was all a backroom scheme, which involved at least the NDP and the separatists. They concocted this well before they even saw the fall economic update."

NDP strategist Brad Lavigne refuted the charge, saying Layton was referring to a commitment between the NDP and the Bloc to keep the lines of communication open.

NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair said at a news conference that nothing in the NDP-BQ talks is any different than the contingency planning Stephen Harper himself engaged in with the two parties during the last Liberal minority in 2004.

He said the meeting, the co-ordinates of which were inadvertently given to a Tory, were illegally recorded and broadcast and that the party has consulted two experts, including a legal specialist, for an opinion on whether the Criminal Code was violated.

Opposition parties say they have lost confidence in the government of Prime Minister Harper, and the Liberals have drafted a no-confidence motion on the economic update that will be put to a vote Dec. 8.

Liberal finance critic John McCallum said he doesn't trust the Conservatives to make proper plans in their budget to shore up the slowing economy.


It doesn't get much clearer than that.

QUOTE (Nat @ Dec 3 2008, 10:24 AM) *
The Bloc isn't part of the coalition they will vote freely on everything other then confidence for 18 months, so the separatists angle isn't relevant.

Of course the BQ is a part of this coalition. Their are concessions being made to gain their support, and without them they will pull out. They also guaranteed themselves veto power, to ensure they don't have to support anything that puts the Country ahead of Quebec. They also guaranteed themselves a nice big pile of cold hard cash, even if the "coalition" fails in a week.

You still have not answered, either question...
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Nat
post Dec 3 2008, 09:40 AM
Post #18
 


First off that information was gathered from illegal sources, shame on the Conservatives. I'm sure we will see them in court over that one. Second it does not say that this coalition was developed before the election!

Isn't it interesting that former Conservative Bill Casey. Independent now, Casey is voting non-confidence too. One more person Stephen bullied around.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 09:47 AM
Post #19
 


QUOTE (Nat @ Dec 3 2008, 10:40 AM) *
First off that information was gathered from illegal sources, shame on the Conservatives. I'm sure we will see them in court over that one. Second it does not say that this coalition was developed before the election!

You're right, it was. About the only card I would possibly hand them is that they came public with it right away and didn't try and hide it, and that isn't much. We may as well fire every government employee with a party affiliation. However that doesn't make the probability of this story being true 99%, and to believe anything else would be an exercise of Naivete. Attacking Harper and defending the New Dictatorship Party is fallacy, they're both guilty as hell.

QUOTE (Nat @ Dec 3 2008, 10:40 AM) *
Isn't it interesting that former Conservative Bill Casey. Independent now, Casey is voting non-confidence too. One more person Stephen bullied around.

What is your point with this though? How many Liberals are going to cross the floor? Wait until the next election, party management has to be licking their chops, even if Super Steve loses.

This whole thing stinks, it's a massive waste of tax payers money for no good reason. The NDP should shut up, nobody cares, the Liberals should start doing their jobs and regaining the respect of the voters rather than trying to steal at every oppurtunity, and Stephan Harper should stop being a dick, and try and run this country.

This entire debacle is making me into a Harper supporter, as he appears to be the only one showing a shred of honesty. Ironic after all the accusations directed at him.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 09:51 AM
Post #20
 


Oh and PS, there is nothing good about this coalition. It is fiscal suicide, precedent setting for the BQ, and the only thing the New Libs on the Block can agree on is a desire to conduct hostile takeover on the elected government.

Keep letting that spite and contempt for Harper brew though, it's ripping the government apart at the seams.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Nat
post Dec 3 2008, 09:55 AM
Post #21
 


The ripping apart of government came from Harper who refuses to acknowledge he does not have a majority.
He should have worked with the opposition not try to attack them.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Heroic Canadian
post Dec 3 2008, 10:11 AM
Post #22
 


Winston Churchill ran a coalition government during the 2nd World War, without ever having been elected.
Currently, both Ireland and New Zealand are governed by coalitions.

What is happening is not undemocratic at all, in spite of the lies coming from Harper.
It really is the will of the people , no matter what spin the Cons are desperately putting on it.
The majority rules.
That's democracy, eh!


Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
RealWoman
post Dec 3 2008, 10:16 AM
Post #23
 


Goat,

I have to take issue with some of the things you've said:

"Of course the BQ is a part of this coalition. Their are concessions being made to gain their support, and without them they will pull out. They also guaranteed themselves veto power, to ensure they don't have to support anything that puts the Country ahead of Quebec. They also guaranteed themselves a nice big pile of cold hard cash, even if the "coalition" fails in a week.:"

Do you have any proof of the above stated? Where is your source for this information - like on veto power, a big pile of cash, etc?

"This entire debacle is making me into a Harper supporter, as he appears to be the only one showing a shred of honesty. Ironic after all the accusations directed at him. "

You seem like a reasonably smart guy - do you really think there is such thing as an honest politician? Come on now.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 10:26 AM
Post #24
 


QUOTE (Nat @ Dec 3 2008, 10:55 AM) *
The ripping apart of government came from Harper who refuses to acknowledge he does not have a majority.
He should have worked with the opposition not try to attack them.


Harper isn't the friendliest guy around, there is some history there. But this.....they didn't give him a chance. He's doing the smart thing and waiting to see what happens down south, and properly planning the response. This was was premeditated by Taliban Jack, and Stephanie jumped on board when Harper made the idiot move of trying to take his money away.
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
RealWoman
post Dec 3 2008, 10:29 AM
Post #25
 


Maybe Harper needs to get his head out of the US's ass and focus on OUR country?
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
shinta chan
post Dec 3 2008, 10:38 AM
Post #26
 


QUOTE (RealWoman @ Dec 3 2008, 11:29 AM) *
Maybe Harper needs to get his head out of the US's ass and focus on OUR country?



Well, I think this say's it all. Attention: REGISTER / LOGIN to view the image!
Go to the top of the page Report Post
 
+Quote Post
Goat Boy©
post Dec 3 2008, 10:49 AM
Post #27
 


QUOTE (RealWoman @ Dec 3 2008, 11:16 AM) *
Goat,

I have to take issue with some of the things you've said:

"Of course the BQ is a part of this coalition. Their are concessions being made to gain their support, and without them they will pull out. They also guaranteed themselves veto power, to ensure they don't have to support anything that puts the Country ahead of Quebec. They also guaranteed themselves a nice big pile of cold hard cash, even if the "coalition" fails in a week.:"

Do you have any proof of the above stated? Where is your source for this information - like on veto power, a big pile of cash, etc?


Pick up today's national post.
The veto power is front and center. What it translates into, is that all major decisions must be run through the bloc, and the bloc retains the ability to say no. As it is the BQ's raison d'etre to look out for numero uno, and give the rest of the country the finger, this constitutes veto power. Google it.

Big pile of cash; This was in yesterdays province, I'll try and find an online article. But the just of it is; The part of said deal that brings Quebec's support, is the reversal of Conservative budget cuts to, "Quebec cultural programs." Hundreds of millions of dollars, just for speaking french.

Within a week; This is speculation, however; If Gilles supported PM Stephanie Dianne on anything without putting Quebec's interests on front burner, he is effectively slitting his own throat politically. He has been given free reign here, the Libs can accomplish nothing without the BQ, and they know it. The BQ can ask for anything they want. That translates into the Canadian Federal Government of Quebec, with scraps for the rest of us.

QUOTE (RealWoman @ Dec 3 2008, 11:16 AM) *
"This entire debacle is making me into a Harper supporter, as he appears to be the only one showing a shred of honesty. Ironic after all the accusations directed at him. "

You seem like a reasonably smart guy - do you really think there is such thing as an honest politician? Come on now.


A shred, that's the key word.
Go to the top of the page Report Post