[IcedCap]

Let' stop with all this undemocratic nonsense, the Tories won 37% of the vote, the 'coalition' combined won 55% which is more democratic? The Tories had their chance at forming a govt and fucked up.
I'd rather have Harper stay in charge just for stability's sake with the current economic uncertainty but you know what he deserves to be ousted based on a cynical attempt to exploit the situation for partisan political motives. I mean what's more undemocratic than trying to bankrupt your opponents?

[ziggy]

IcedCap wrote:

Let' stop with all this undemocratic nonsense, the Tories won 37% of the vote, the 'coalition' combined won 55% which is more democratic? The Tories had their chance at forming a govt and fucked up.
I'd rather have Harper stay in charge just for stability's sake with the current economic uncertainty but you know what he deserves to be ousted based on a cynical attempt to exploit the situation for partisan political motives. I mean what's more undemocratic than trying to bankrupt your opponents?

funny but I didnt see the word "coalition" on my ballot.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock wrote:

I agree boots but it's not how it's looking in the media. Even the usual Lib flag wavers at CTV are seeing this whole NDP-Bloc thing as something sneaky and not nice.

This backroom deal has just made the Tories look noble.

Whoever said politics is nice?

[IcedCap]

ziggy wrote:

IcedCap wrote:

Let' stop with all this undemocratic nonsense, the Tories won 37% of the vote, the 'coalition' combined won 55% which is more democratic? The Tories had their chance at forming a govt and fucked up.
I'd rather have Harper stay in charge just for stability's sake with the current economic uncertainty but you know what he deserves to be ousted based on a cynical attempt to exploit the situation for partisan political motives. I mean what's more undemocratic than trying to bankrupt your opponents?

funny but I didnt see the word "coalition" on my ballot.

I didn't see a policy "bankrupt other parties" either.

[ziggy]

IcedCap wrote:

ziggy wrote:

IcedCap wrote:

Let' stop with all this undemocratic nonsense, the Tories won 37% of the vote, the 'coalition' combined won 55% which is more democratic? The Tories had their chance at forming a govt and fucked up.
I'd rather have Harper stay in charge just for stability's sake with the current economic uncertainty but you know what he deserves to be ousted based on a cynical attempt to exploit the situation for partisan political motives. I mean what's more undemocratic than trying to bankrupt your opponents?

funny but I didnt see the word "coalition" on my ballot.

I didn't see a policy "bankrupt other parties" either.

Either did I and in case you dont know,the libs were bankrupt long before Harper came along.

I guess theres no such thing as loseing graciously anymore.

[Jabrwock]

ziggy wrote:

funny but I didnt see the word "coalition" on my ballot.

You didn't see the Conservative coalition party on there?

Progressive-Conservative-Reform coalition, AKA the "new" Conservative party.

[ziggy]

Jabrwock wrote:

ziggy wrote:

funny but I didnt see the word "coalition" on my ballot.

You didn't see the Conservative coalition party on there?

Progressive-Conservative-Reform coalition, AKA the "new" Conservative party.

I didnt see the ndp and libs as one party on my ballot,maybe my vote means nothing anymore unless it's anything but conservative?

I'm getting pretty pissed at the fact that the coalition see's any votes for the cons as not legit.

The libs lost,suck it up and move on.

[IcedCap]

ziggy wrote:

I didnt see the ndp and libs as one party on my ballot,maybe my vote means nothing anymore unless it's anything but conservative?

I'm getting pretty pissed at the fact that the coalition see's any votes for the cons as not legit.

The libs lost,suck it up and move on.

Come on, no one says parties have to have a formal agreement going into an election, coalitions are formed and dissolved all the time in the rest of the world.
The Tories created this crisis all by themselves, while other governments around the world are reaching out to their oppositions he chose instead to try and destroy them.
Funny how all of a sudden you're complaining about your vote not mattering, because that's precisely what Harper was trying to do with his political funding proposal, at least I knew my vote was always worth $1 to the party I voted for even if they stood no chance of winning.

[ziggy]

Lets hold another election then,this time the libs and ndp have to be one party on the ballot.

Or we can hold ten,seems it wont matter untill the libs get power back.

And judging by the stockmarket today,the damage has been done now.

[Jabrwock]

ziggy wrote:

I didnt see the ndp and libs as one party on my ballot,maybe my vote means nothing anymore unless it's anything but conservative?

You voted for your conservative candidate. If they don't have the majority of parliament (or the support of the majority), they can't form a government. That's how it works. It's not the party with the most seats, it's the group that has the support of parliament. In a majority, obviously, this the natural outcome, they have the power to support themselves 50%+1.

The reason most minorities fall back to election is because the opposition parties couldn't cooperate to get majority support.

FYI, Harper wanted this exact same situation back in 2004. A coalition of "anything but Liberal", with his party forming the head of the 3-party coalition. G&M has a story about that letter.

Quote:

The libs lost,suck it up and move on.

The Cons don't have majority support, they should suck it up and move on...

It's in the Constitution. The powers are not invested in the "Government of Canada", but rather the "Parliament of Canada". The Governor General has the power to dissolve Parliament and call for a new election, but she doesn't have to call a new election just because the current party in charge doesn't have the votes to stay in power. She can hand it over to whomever has the support of Parliament.

[bootlegga]

Jabrwock wrote:

FYI, Harper wanted this exact same situation back in 2004. A coalition of "anything but Liberal", with his party forming the head of the 3-party coalition. G&M has a story about that letter.

Yeah, but it's okay if the Conservatives do it...just not liberals or socialists...

[ziggy]

Think back when Joe who got run off,there was a guy in a wheelchair involved.

[mtbr]

bootlegga wrote:

Jabrwock wrote:

FYI, Harper wanted this exact same situation back in 2004. A coalition of "anything but Liberal", with his party forming the head of the 3-party coalition. G&M has a story about that letter.

Yeah, but it's okay if the Conservatives do it...just not liberals or socialists...

post the letter and show some proof of the coalition Harper tried to arrange.

[Jabrwock]

mtbr wrote:

post the letter and show some proof of the coalition Harper tried to arrange.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/28/a-tr ... mory-lane/

Quote:

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

In other words, "there are alternative options to dissolving parliament (calling an election) should Dion ask you to because he doesn't have the confidence of Parliament"...

There's an interview link on the same page where Harper denied he was looking to form a coalition, but admitted that in minority governments, you need the support of other parties (a defacto coalition) in order to govern. And that minority governments should work closely with other parties in order to draft legislation. In other words, be a coalition in everything but name...

[bootlegga]

RUEZ wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

How do you think the Bloc/NDP is similar to the Conservatives? Harper had no problem using their support to bring down Martin in 2005...so I think it's your argument that is flawed, not mine.

There is no similarity between the Bloc/NDP and the Conservatives. Co-operating in parliament is different then forming a coalition, which in essence is a temporary union of those parties under one leader.

Oh, so it's only okay when the Conservatives want a coalition, right?

Quote:

The Conservatives have alleged that the moves by the opposition parties to offer themselves up to the Governor-General as a viable alternative, should the government fall, are undemocratic. However, the Liberals retaliated by saying that Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe presented precisely the same proposal to former Governor-General, Adrienne Clarkson, in 2005.

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=39427