[OnTheIce]

In the past, whenever I needed to refer to the coalition agreement that members of the Liberal caucus signed, I could just go to Liberal.ca and find it. However, imagine my surprise when I tried to find it as an election looms in which Michael Ignatieff will be dogged daily by a question he seems to be unwilling to answer: that of a coalition with the other two parties if Stephen Harper should again win a plurality of seats in the House of Commons.

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/

So I guess it's fair to say that we know their end game plan when they lose.

[DerbyX]

Here it is:

Oh wait. Did you say Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition. I thought you meant CPC-NDP-Bloc coalition. My bad.

Quote:

"Lurking behind the red door are socialists and separatists plotting for cabinet seats!" thundered MP Dean Del Mastro in the Commons.

The alarmist Conservative talk was scoffed at by Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe, who has pointedly noted that Harper proposed defeating Paul Martin's minority Liberal government on its throne speech in 2004 and replacing it, with NDP and Bloc backing.

Duceppe revelled in the details this week, describing the Delta Hotel on Maissonneuve Boulevard in Montreal where Harper convened the conspirators.

"He was coming in my office saying, 'If Martin is going to lose confidence, what do you want in the throne speech? What would you like in the budget?'" Duceppe recalled.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX wrote:

Here it is:

Oh wait. Did you say Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition. I thought you meant CPC-NDP-Bloc coalition. My bad.

Quote:

"Lurking behind the red door are socialists and separatists plotting for cabinet seats!" thundered MP Dean Del Mastro in the Commons.

The alarmist Conservative talk was scoffed at by Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe, who has pointedly noted that Harper proposed defeating Paul Martin's minority Liberal government on its throne speech in 2004 and replacing it, with NDP and Bloc backing.

Duceppe revelled in the details this week, describing the Delta Hotel on Maissonneuve Boulevard in Montreal where Harper convened the conspirators.

"He was coming in my office saying, 'If Martin is going to lose confidence, what do you want in the throne speech? What would you like in the budget?'" Duceppe recalled.

Nice dodge, but that's what.....7 years ago....uber-old news.

Why won't Ignatieff answer this question TODAY?

Why was this document removed?

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce wrote:

Nice dodge, but that's what.....7 years ago....uber-old news.

Why won't Ignatieff answer this question TODAY?

Why was this document removed?

Its only old news because it puts Harper in a bad light. He can't complain that its an affront to democracy when he himself proposed the very idea in the first place.

Personally I would love to see an official NDP-Lib coalition. Assuming this isn't just a childish piece of partisanship (and if its coming from Stephen Taylor it is) the bad press surrounding the coalition and the voting publics inability to grasp the finer points of our parliamentary system should explain that.

The real question is why is it a bad thing when its a Lib-NDP coalition but not when it was a CPC-NDP coalition?

Answer: Both party leaders supported it when it was in their favour.

[Gunnair]

I'd like to see the coalition as well, if only to prove or disprove this part of our parliamentary system would work. Iggy does need to come clean, however, otherwise he's no better than Harper.

Well, actually he is no better than Harper, but that's beside the point.

[DerbyX]

Gunnair wrote:

I'd like to see the coalition as well, if only to prove or disprove this part of our parliamentary system would work. Iggy does need to come clean, however, otherwise he's no better than Harper.

Well, actually he is no better than Harper, but that's beside the point.

The confusion last time was so many people claiming "they didn't vote for a coalition". They can't. They don't vote for a PM either or a party for that mater.

They vote for an MP to represent their riding in office and once elected that MP can up and change parties on a whim or go independent. A minority government is a defacto coalition anyway. The ruling party needs the support of other parties to govern. It doesn't get any simpler then that.

Add to that the GG and the fact that they decide who makes up the government. Hell Harper has to go to the GG and ask for parliament to be dissolved and the GG could simply say no.

[andyt]

Gunnair wrote:

I'd like to see the coalition as well, if only to prove or disprove this part of our parliamentary system would work. Iggy does need to come clean, however, otherwise he's no better than Harper.

Well, actually he is no better than Harper, but that's beside the point.

Not me. It won't work and we'll just have turmoil. Just a nice minority Reformacon govt, thank you very much.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

Nice dodge, but that's what.....7 years ago....uber-old news.

Why won't Ignatieff answer this question TODAY?

Why was this document removed?

Its only old news because it puts Harper in a bad light. He can't complain that its an affront to democracy when he himself proposed the very idea in the first place.

Personally I would love to see an official NDP-Lib coalition. Assuming this isn't just a childish piece of partisanship (and if its coming from Stephen Taylor it is) the bad press surrounding the coalition and the voting publics inability to grasp the finer points of our parliamentary system should explain that.

The real question is why is it a bad thing when its a Lib-NDP coalition but not when it was a CPC-NDP coalition?

Answer: Both party leaders supported it when it was in their favour.

It's old news because it's irrelevant.

Sure, Harper did try to do a similar thing, but that's not an option now, nor will it be after the election.

It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.

I'm not debating with you the merits of the idea, I'm asking you WHY won't Ignatieff discuss the issue and why would they remove such a document from their website on the eve of the campaign?

On a side note...

Derby, you mentioned before that you were tired of responding to negative feedback on your rep (being the reason yours is hidden), the problem is that you make some excellent points, but the majority of time, you never respond to people.

You can still make your point and respond to other users debating you.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce wrote:

It's old news because it's irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant when the person who now claims its an affront to democracy once tried to do that very thing. Every time Harper claims otherwise it should be stated that he in fact tried to do it.

OnTheIce wrote:

Sure, Harper did try to do a similar thing, but that's not an option now, nor will it be after the election.

Yes it is and for the same reasons. Its a fact of our political system. Harper could have gotten NDP support to pass his budget and defeat the NC motion. That would have been a coalition albeit an informal and temporary one.

OnTheIce wrote:

It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.

Why? Given that most of the pundits say CPC-minority yet again and we'll have the same problem a year from now. Harper who is absolutely loathe to make any deals with the Libs is forced stray further away from his conservative core or else throw even more cash (and have you been following his spending splurge in QC?) at QC for Bloc support.

At least an official coalition would provide a measure of stability.

OnTheIce wrote:

I'm not debating with you the merits of the idea, I'm asking you WHY won't Ignatieff discuss the issue and why would they remove such a document from their website on the eve of the campaign?

At this point do you honestly think they could get away with that? Iggy isn't talking coalition because he is trying to get elected. The coalition wasn't exactly popular. Aside from the fact you are discounting the possibility that he dropped it because the people didn't seem to support it, its a moot point unless the situation warrants it. Should he win a minority then he doesn't need it because he can simply do what is normally done and that is buy support from an opposition party. If he wins a majority then even less so. If the CPC wins a majority then its irrelevant. Its only relevant if the CPC wins a minority and the Lib-NDPs have a sufficient number of seats to be a credible alternative.

All of this of course is to say nothing of the fact that the legality of coalitions are an inherent part of the political system as is floor crossing. Floor crossing is quite frankly a greater affront to democracy. People elect a representative from a party with a given ideology/platform who can suddenly up and change parties?

That's a reality of the system. Harper railed against that practice too, for all of 10 minutes after he got elected.

OnTheIce wrote:

On a side note...

Derby, you mentioned before that you were tired of responding to negative feedback on your rep (being the reason yours is hidden), the problem is that you make some excellent points, but the majority of time, you never respond to people.

You can still make your point and respond to other users debating you.

Where??? Where do I not respond to people? I don't respond to a couple of turds on this forum because its nothing but a flame fest that usually ends with me (and me alone most of the time) getting warned or banned. The last time we had a big political debate I matched you post for post and if I recall your last post to me was "don't bother responding I'm putting you on the ignore list". That was some time ago though and to be honest I was surprised you bothered posting to me at all after I came back.

I've gone toe to toe politically with just about anybody and everybody on this forum. Hell Bodah just the other day claimed I was going for the last word thing, a criticism I've received LOTS of times.

I work. I sleep. I have a dog to walk and sometimes I honestly don't see the response because I've left the thread and moved on. Sometimes I've already said my piece and sometimes I realize its heading for the flame bin and want to avoid the inevitable burn I get.

Anybody who really wants a response usually PMs me and for the record lots of people have. Or they have bumped the thread with a "well?" comment because they realize that they responded a day later and I might not have see it.

Most of the criticism I get (non-political partisanship aside) is that I ALWAYS try and get the last word so where you get the idea I don't respond is beyond me.

Its quite possible I didn't respond to some people like you say because I was currently banned and unable to.

[Elvis]

Gilles Ducepp is like the Fat girl no one want to date in public but everybody fuck her

[CDN_PATRIOT]

Gilles Duceppe has always been a few fries short of a plate of poutine, and for anyone to think anything he ever says has some kind of merit/truth, then your nuts.

He's nothing more than a dellusional separatist.

-J.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX wrote:

Where??? Where do I not respond to people? I don't respond to a couple of turds on this forum because its nothing but a flame fest that usually ends with me (and me alone most of the time) getting warned or banned. The last time we had a big political debate I matched you post for post and if I recall your last post to me was "don't bother responding I'm putting you on the ignore list". That was some time ago though and to be honest I was surprised you bothered posting to me at all after I came back.

Derbs,

I asked you to comment on two questions directly and you dodged them so quickly, you didn't give it a thought to answer.

Of the few that I have blocked over the years, I unblocked you as I do enjoy to hear from the other side of the fence. Most of us do pay you the respect of answering questions you pose and we'd like the same in return.

I think we've all had enough of the dodge and weave while avoiding the shortfalls of the parties we support.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Where??? Where do I not respond to people? I don't respond to a couple of turds on this forum because its nothing but a flame fest that usually ends with me (and me alone most of the time) getting warned or banned. The last time we had a big political debate I matched you post for post and if I recall your last post to me was "don't bother responding I'm putting you on the ignore list". That was some time ago though and to be honest I was surprised you bothered posting to me at all after I came back.

Derbs,

I asked you to comment on two questions directly and you dodged them so quickly, you didn't give it a thought to answer.

Of the few that I have blocked over the years, I unblocked you as I do enjoy to hear from the other side of the fence. Most of us do pay you the respect of answering questions you pose and we'd like the same in return.

I think we've all had enough of the dodge and weave while avoiding the shortfalls of the parties we support.

Where? Where did I do that? You'll have to be specific because I don't see anywhere I'm not answering you or avoiding the question.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX wrote:

Why? Given that most of the pundits say CPC-minority yet again and we'll have the same problem a year from now. Harper who is absolutely loathe to make any deals with the Libs is forced stray further away from his conservative core or else throw even more cash (and have you been following his spending splurge in QC?) at QC for Bloc support.

At least an official coalition would provide a measure of stability.

Because that's not what Canada wants. Further, it's BS. It's a tactic used by those who crave power. It was the same tactic before when Harper was involved and it's the same now.

This has nothing to do with what's best for Canada. This is what's best for Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton.

IF you think that a coalition government would provide stability I think you'd be kidding yourself. Canada is stable. Our economy is on track and doing very well coming out of the recession.

DerbyX wrote:

At this point do you honestly think they could get away with that? Iggy isn't talking coalition because he is trying to get elected. The coalition wasn't exactly popular. Aside from the fact you are discounting the possibility that he dropped it because the people didn't seem to support it, its a moot point unless the situation warrants it. Should he win a minority then he doesn't need it because he can simply do what is normally done and that is buy support from an opposition party. If he wins a majority then even less so. If the CPC wins a majority then its irrelevant. Its only relevant if the CPC wins a minority and the Lib-NDPs have a sufficient number of seats to be a credible alternative.

All of this of course is to say nothing of the fact that the legality of coalitions are an inherent part of the political system as is floor crossing. Floor crossing is quite frankly a greater affront to democracy. People elect a representative from a party with a given ideology/platform who can suddenly up and change parties?

That's a reality of the system. Harper railed against that practice too, for all of 10 minutes after he got elected.

I think he needs to make his position clear. Would he consider it again if the situation came forth? If not, say so....just don't lie. This is dogging him already and we're not even on the campaign. The National media is hounding him already and he refuses to answer then they remove the papers from the site.

I just gives the CPC and the media anti-Liberal talking points right from day 1. Bad move.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

Nice dodge, but that's what.....7 years ago....uber-old news.

Why won't Ignatieff answer this question TODAY?

Why was this document removed?

Its only old news because it puts Harper in a bad light. He can't complain that its an affront to democracy when he himself proposed the very idea in the first place.

Personally I would love to see an official NDP-Lib coalition. Assuming this isn't just a childish piece of partisanship (and if its coming from Stephen Taylor it is) the bad press surrounding the coalition and the voting publics inability to grasp the finer points of our parliamentary system should explain that.

The real question is why is it a bad thing when its a Lib-NDP coalition but not when it was a CPC-NDP coalition?

Answer: Both party leaders supported it when it was in their favour.

Right here.

You did answer me, but after I asked you again and noted your lack of response