[mtbr]

Streaker wrote:

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.

and 13 years of the Lieberals at 40 percent.

[kenmore]

Apollo wrote:

Any scenario where the seperatists hold power is undemocratic.

The separatists as you call them, would not have any power in a coalition. They would have requests that be included before they would agree to support such a coalition. The bloc is a legal Canadian party voted to represent the people of Quebec in Ottawa and rightly so. I dont know why people go on about the what ifs. The Bloc would not be running Canada and they dont want to. The coalition would be a good alternative to what we have now for sure.

[Streaker]

mtbr wrote:

Streaker wrote:

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.

and 13 years of the Lieberals at 40 percent.

A coalition wouldn't be any less democratic than that, either.

[ridenrain]

If it was illegal under the constitution, the GG couldn't let it happen.

The Libs are desperate to spin this to "saving Canada" and all about the economic problems but it's obvious that it's only about money.

[kenmore]

mtbr wrote:

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

Lets not forget the liberals had a majority.. can you say it? majority. NOT minority and thats what stevie has.. right mtbr .. right?

[ryan29]

tamtam10 wrote:

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.

good point thats exactly what i have been saying , you have to also wonder why the once mightly liberal party would even consider trying to form a government under such terms as its going to look bad for years to come as they are trying to overthrow a government that was just re-elected without the consent of canadians .

[Apollo]

lily wrote:

Apollo wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the coalition is democratic. You know it, I know it.... and I think even Ryan knows it.

But it has everything to do with "right" or "wrong" and either you know it or are in denial.

Can you openly admit that if it were the Conservatives doing this, you would be saying the same things?

[ryan29]

Streaker wrote:

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.

lots of governments have been elected with less than 50% of the vote , so that is not an argument for this coalition at all .

i also don't think any of the liberal majorites were a result of them winning over 50 % of the vote , its almost impossible under a 4 or 5 party system for one to win more than 50 % of the vote

[westmanguy]

*sigh*

Yes, it is undemocratic.

Why?

Because not all people who voted Liberal voted with the knowledge the Liberals would form a coalition with the NDP, propped up by the separatist Bloc Quebecois.

Because not all people who voted NDP voted with the knowledge the NDP would form a coalition with the Liberals, propped up by the separatist Bloc Quebecois.

And I'm damn sure a lot of Canadians who voted Liberal or NDP, voted with the intention they'd be in bed with the Bloc Quebecois.

There are many centrist, moderate Canadians who voted Liberal, who would be sick to their stomach at the notion of the NDP having control over financial and economic portfolios.

This would be democratic if the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc, during the last election would have been public and said "If it's another Conservative minority, there is a possibility we might form a coalition of sorts to replace the Conservatives, if need be".

They didn't do that. The Liberals denied all chances of a coalition.

This is why this whole thing is undemocratic. Canadians, by and large, didn't vote for a Liberal/NDP Coalition propped up by the separatists.

And bootlegga, when Harper worked with the Bloc in Opposition, it wasn't in a formal agreement, like what the Libs and NDP are doing.

Completely different.

[Apollo]

kenmore wrote:

Apollo wrote:

Any scenario where the seperatists hold power is undemocratic.

The separatists as you call them, would not have any power in a coalition. They would have requests that be included before they would agree to support such a coalition. The bloc is a legal Canadian party voted to represent the people of Quebec in Ottawa and rightly so. I dont know why people go on about the what ifs. The Bloc would not be running Canada and they dont want to. The coalition would be a good alternative to what we have now for sure.

So when the seperatists ask for Billions of dollars to get them to go along, it means that they have no power? How about in a couple of months when they try to pass a bill that the seperatists don't like and they have to throw a few more billion dollars their way? How can you possibly think that they have no power? They hold the balance of power. Without the seperatists, there is no coalition!!

[Streaker]

The Bloc Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is strong in this thread.

[ryan29]

Apollo wrote:

kenmore wrote:

Apollo wrote:

Any scenario where the seperatists hold power is undemocratic.

The separatists as you call them, would not have any power in a coalition. They would have requests that be included before they would agree to support such a coalition. The bloc is a legal Canadian party voted to represent the people of Quebec in Ottawa and rightly so. I dont know why people go on about the what ifs. The Bloc would not be running Canada and they dont want to. The coalition would be a good alternative to what we have now for sure.

So when the seperatists ask for Billions of dollars to get them to go along, it means that they have no power? How about in a couple of months when they try to pass a bill that the seperatists don't like and they have to throw a few more billion dollars their way? How can you possibly think that they have no power? They hold the balance of power. Without the seperatists, there is no coalition!!

that is the problem with this potential coalition , as conservatives have so many seats 143 . that it could not survive without the bloc quebecois . the ndp and the liberals will have to give and do certain things for the bloc in order for it to survive . the question is what is the separtist bloc going to ask for ? and is the liberals and ndp willing to make consessions to quebec that would make it a more independent province so as to please the bloc ?

[ryan29]

Streaker wrote:

The Bloc Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is strong in this thread.

what you honestly though that canadians outside of quebec would be cool with a coalition that involves the bloc quebecois ? its the last thing that we want , this coaliton is going to be so unpopular out west and in ontario it is guaranteed to fail if they ever go thru with the idea .

[Scape]

WMG, the Bloc supported the CPC in 39th parliament. Now that the table is turned your not in favor? I'm sure the Bloc voters were not happy to be propping up Harper either but the shoe is on the other foot now.

[Apollo]

Quote:

and is the liberals and ndp willing to make consessions to quebec that would make it a more independent province so as to please the bloc ?

They will do handstands to keep the alliance going. The Liberals are on the verge of collapse and Jack Layton knows that this is as close to governing the country as they are ever going to get. They would sell Canada for a plum nickel to the seperatists. These are very dangerous times.