Dion to become PM next Monday...

Wow! Holy Government madness! The Liberals and the NDP have formed a coalition with the support of the Bloc. They intend to topple the Conservatives next Monday and take over power of the house. Dion will lead the coalition and become the PM provided the Gov. General agrees to let the coalition rule as opposed to triggering another election.

Great balls of fire... what a crazy day in Canadian politics.

What. The. Diddle!!!!!?

We had a LONG discussion about this in class today. And we came to the conclusion that we are now entering a political minefield. Either way, we are about to enter uncharted territory.

PKC wrote:We had a LONG discussion about this in class today. And we came to the conclusion that we are now entering a political minefield. Either way, we are about to enter uncharted territory.

Joe "Who" became PM when he toppled Trudeau. A lot of you *now* know who Joe Clark is, but back then he was Joe "Who".

This is not uncharted at all, just rarely navigated.

there should be a "none of the above" option on ballots.

I'm not a conservative, but this is just wrong. Governments should be selected by THE PUBLIC not behind closed doors. What's the point of an election if parties can team up and topple the sitting party?

How is this different from a group of radicals seizing control of a government(other than the bloodshe of course)? This is about as ridiculous as the US Federal Reserve being owned as a private company.

Disgusting what is happening. Dion ran on a platform of not forming a coalition with other parties and look where he is less than 7 weeks later.

Im disgusted with the Canadian gov' and hopefully the GG will declaire this unconstitutional. Its amazing that a group of seperatest could possilbly run, in part, the Canadian gov.

PKC wrote:We had a LONG discussion about this in class today. And we came to the conclusion that we are now entering a political minefield. Either way, we are about to enter uncharted territory.

This will be the 2nd time this has happened in Canadian history. The first time was during the first world war. Robert Borden's Union government formed a coalition with the Liberals to toppled and take over.

Oddly enough, Harper threatened to do just this back in 2004...

wprager wrote:

PKC wrote:We had a LONG discussion about this in class today. And we came to the conclusion that we are now entering a political minefield. Either way, we are about to enter uncharted territory.

Joe "Who" became PM when he toppled Trudeau. A lot of you *now* know who Joe Clark is, but back then he was Joe "Who".

This is not uncharted at all, just rarely navigated.

Clark did via an election though, not really the same. This is a coalition taking over without an election.

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:

PKC wrote:We had a LONG discussion about this in class today. And we came to the conclusion that we are now entering a political minefield. Either way, we are about to enter uncharted territory.

Joe "Who" became PM when he toppled Trudeau. A lot of you *now* know who Joe Clark is, but back then he was Joe "Who".

This is not uncharted at all, just rarely navigated.

Clark did via an election though, not really the same. This is a coalition taking over without an election.

Oops, you know what they say about memory, right? There was a vote of non-confidence but it was Clark who got defeated. So I got some of the details right, just not the main points. That's why it says "detail-oriented" on my CV.

By the way, Shabbs, we're creeping up on Croney. Just 53 to go, for me.

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:

PKC wrote:We had a LONG discussion about this in class today. And we came to the conclusion that we are now entering a political minefield. Either way, we are about to enter uncharted territory.

Joe "Who" became PM when he toppled Trudeau. A lot of you *now* know who Joe Clark is, but back then he was Joe "Who".

This is not uncharted at all, just rarely navigated.

Clark did via an election though, not really the same. This is a coalition taking over without an election.

Oops, you know what they say about memory, right? There was a vote of non-confidence but it was Clark who got defeated. So I got some of the details right, just not the main points. That's why it says "detail-oriented" on my CV.

Ahhh... yes, you are right though. Clark's government was toppled back in '79 during the XMAS season, but the "vote" was delayed and Trudeau took over in February...

hemlock34 wrote:I'm not a conservative, but this is just wrong. Governments should be selected by THE PUBLIC not behind closed doors. What's the point of an election if parties can team up and topple the sitting party?

How is this different from a group of radicals seizing control of a government(other than the bloodshe of course)? This is about as ridiculous as the US Federal Reserve being owned as a private company.

I know eh? Isn't that insane!?

And it really isn't that different than a group of radicals...A Coup De TA is a Coup De Ta. It's just not a military opperation.

I'm not a Conservative either, and I agree with what you're saying. Seems like they are undermining the voices of the people.

The additional monkey wrench in this is that the Liberals are going to go through a Leadership convention in May and elect a new Leader since Dion will be "stepping down" for putting the Liberal party in it's death spiral...

This is all so wrong... I think I'd almost prefer another election over this. Frig. I can't believe I said that.

Ok here's my two cents:

1. This is perfectly legit. Canadians need to understand that we are not the States. This doesnt have anything to do with your beliefs and who you vote for, instead it has to do with the way our political system works. More precisely, in the States people vote for a president, in Canada we vote for a party. Coalition governments are very common in Europe and i see no problem for one here if no 2 (below) applies.

2. Regardless of whether you debate the percentages of not, Harper did not win a majority in this federal election. Yes his party won the most seat. However, that does NOT give him the legitimacy to rule. As a minority leader his job (as appointed by the people) is to form consensus and he has done little in trying to do so. The policies that were brought forth for the next financial budget essentially spat in the liberal, ndp, and blocs face. Harpers caucus was banking on the fact that other parties were too weak to go into another election and during the past weekend his "backtracking" on the pretentuous policies indicates that (ie. no stike for federal workers (wtf is that? Most contracts have been expired for over a year) and the cutoff of fuding to political parties (because the conservatives are backed by big corporations and already have 10 times more than the next parties to use on elections).

In the end, it doesnt matter what political affiliation you have but if you trully belive in democracy then you should have no issue with a coalition government because, right now, Harper is not capable (whether he wants to or not) of creating consensus and running the government. I promised not to dip into the numbers but consider this: would you rather a government formed by 38 % or 61% of the popular vote? If you choose the latter, you chose the coalition government.

p.s. I am very versed in politics and anything relating to political philosophy. Please keep this in mind if you decide to reply to my post because these are issues that get me really worked up. I understand that some people may disagree with the logic that i have presented but PLEASE reply respectfully if you want to avoid a philosophical battle. Im begging you