[ryan29]

bootlegga wrote:

Given that the three parties in the proposed coalition received more than 50% of the votes, it would actually be the first time in a long time that the government had such a majority.

Therefore, it would be fairly democratic, as the majority of Canadians would be represented.

ok but did any of the parties involved campaign on such a coalition ? and did they ever give the canadian public a chance to vote on such a plan during the election . if they had suggested this idea during the election harper would of for sure won a majority . as this proposed coalition is absurd .

[Sapio]

Thanos wrote:

It might not be undemocratic but by relying on the Bloc to prop it up it certainly can be considered anti-Canadian, anti-nationalist, and anti-federalist.

The Liberals and NDP's will never get this stain off of them that they've covered themselves with by getting into bed with the Bloc.

Well said. Under the law they would not anything undemocratic, but in the public eye it would look very very bad.

[Chumley]

At this point I would like a majority government. By anyone.
It seems with minority governments constant fighting for control and overturns of government is all that happens.
At least with a majority something gets done.

[StuntmanMike]

mtbr wrote:

True, Harper opened the box, however for the Liberals to deny this has nothing to do with bringing down the house even after it was withdrawn is absolute poppycock.
This was in the works even before they had heard any details from the economic update.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... itics/home

I'm not sure how your article disputes what I said. The article states quite clearly that the cuts to electoral funding were the catalyst that united the NDP and Libs. If it wasn't for that detail, they would have rolled over and accepted whatever the Tories proposed.

That said, politics are like a train. Once you set something like this in motion, you can't just turn it off.

The Libs and NDP have been saying all week that their attempt to bring down the government has nothing to do with the electoral reforms, and everything to do with the "lack of fiscal stimulus." That's a bald faced lie and everyone knows it. But spin is part of the game, and all parties do it.

Unfortunately, now that the Tories have withdrawn the contentious electoral reforms, the coalition can't very well back down. It would expose them as liars.

So the vote is going to happen. The government's going to lose the confidence of the house. The only question is what will the GG do?

[Sapio]

lily wrote:

Sapio wrote:

The funny (or not so funny)thing is that most Canadians did not know that political parties got this 1.95 until all this started.

Sure we did. I didn't know the exact amount, but I knew they got something - it's been used as a reason to vote, especially in ridings where your vote doesn't appear to make a difference.

I'm not saying that you did not know. I'm saying there are a great many Canadians who did not.

[RUEZ]

bootlegga wrote:

Given that the three parties in the proposed coalition received more than 50% of the votes, it would actually be the first time in a long time that the government had such a majority.

Therefore, it would be fairly democratic, as the majority of Canadians would be represented.

You couldn't be further from the truth. A majority didn't vote for a coalition. The three parties that could possibly form a coalition are not interchangeable or even very similar. The people in favour of a coalition seem to think that a vote for any one of these parties is completely transferable to the other. If you form a coalition with these three parties whose ideology do you use? The Liberals were in favour of a carbon tax whereas the NDP weren't. The NDP wanted to put 8 billion into healthcare, I don't believe the Liberals supported that. The Bloc would like to see Quebec as a seperate country, I don't think either of the other two parties supports that. In fact the only thing these three parties can agree upon is that they want to be in power at any cost.

[kenmore]

wouldnt count on an end to the liberals wackjob... but we almost ..guess we did put an end to the useless torys when they were reduced to 2... repeat 2 seats .. and someone should have put a stake in the heart of the remaining.. out of the ashes of the racist white supremist reform party... came little boy bush blower harper.. now we are stuck with it for a while.. they said on the news today 30 % voted in the last election..harpers flunkies got the most seats but didnt win nothing.. the shit we are facing now is him wanting to be king ... nothing else..he cant work with a minority government and everyone knows heaven help us if he ever did get a majority.. I would prefer M.Dusceppe as PM to harper.. a coalition would work for the people of the country unlike the torys who are there for the bucks and to steal from the average guy...

[Apollo]

Any scenario where the seperatists hold power is undemocratic.

[ryan29]

lily wrote:

To the OP - how can this be undemocratic when such a situation is allowed within our laws?

everything about this whole thing is undemocratic .

first off the conservatives clearly won the recent election and have a stronger mandate to govern than they did last time .

secondly none of the opposition parties told canadians during the election that they planned to form such a coaliton . i'm sure many would of reconsidered there votes if they know what they had planned .

third there working with a party that wants to destroy canada the bloc quebecois , a party that is not know for looking out for canada's best interests .

finally they want to take power without giving the voters a chance to have there say . are they willing to let us vote on this proposed coalition ?

[tamtam10]

yes it would be undemocratic because the change in government would be as a result of a back door deal, not the consent of the Canadian population.

[Apollo]

lily wrote:

Are coalition gov'ts illegal?

Then they're not undemocratic.

Is a 60 year old man having sex with a 16 year old girl illegal? No it isn't but it doesnt make it right.

I wonder which tune you would be playing it if was the Conservatives looking to take the back door into power.

[ryan29]

lily wrote:

Are coalition gov'ts illegal?

Then they're not undemocratic.

i never said it was illegal or that coalitions were illegal . but this ine would be undemocratic cause they do not have canadians consent to form one as they never campaigned on such plans and after oct 14 everyone was under the rightful impression that the conservative government had been re-elected with a mandate to govern .

[RUEZ]

I'm curious what people would think if the Cons decided to broker their own deal with the Bloc to keep themselves in power?

[mtbr]

I can't wait to hear what the Liberals have to say after learning they have been effectively left out of the loop.

[Streaker]

In no way, shape or form would this be any more undemocratic than having a government elected with less than 50% of the popular vote, as is the case with these CON barbarians.