Dion to become PM next Monday...

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

shabbs wrote: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.

Uh yeah. At least in an election THE PEOPLE would have a say. This plan is disgusting on so many levels. Even thinking about the prospect of this makes me sick to my stomach.

This is not a democratic country if Dung like this is allowed to occur. I am fine with a vote of no confidence forcing an election, but more or less, this is basically the coalition overruning the government. I said it before but it's the non-violent equivalent of a bloody coup. This isn't Uganda for Diddle sakes.

I'd like the GG to actually EARN her pay for once for something other than ceremonial fluff. She has the power to keep our country in the hands of the people where it belongs. Hopefully she has the common sense to make the ONLY logical decision here. I for one don't care for a shift towards an American style of government where only 2 choices are available.

blazer_2458 wrote: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

You bring up some good points, Blazer. I hadn't thought about it in that light.

You should tune in to 580 CFRA tonight shortly after 10. I have a feeling most of the callers tonight will crying bloody murder over this. Your input could be refreshing.

I have no doubt this is legit and they are following the process that is in place - I have no issue with that. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc clearly feel that Harper's government is not addressing the economic crisis we are facing and are stepping in in the interest of the public. Also, no issue with that, that's what this process allows for.

The optics of the Liberal party's implosion after the recent election do concern me. Dion decided to step down after the next Liberal leadership convention because he "failed" the party and now he'll be PM. The rumours of the NDP party being split about this and having the option to "walk away" if it's not going the way they want also cause me concern.

We'll have to see what happens next week and if the Gov. General gives them the power. Their first step will be to table a new economic stimulus plan and address the looming crisis.

I don't want this to spiral into a heated political debate... as that can get pretty nasty.

blazer_2458 wrote: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

A lot of Liberal supporters based their votes on the fact the Dion said he would never form a coalition government with the other parties. Whether it is legit or not the people still did not choose a coalition government.

PS your quote seems very Liberal bias, even though I am. I would not vote Liberal, ever, if Jack Layton was involved in that party.

You should ask that question to the people out in the West if they would rather have a gov and have basically no representation in the governing party. (hardly a party).

It is undemocratic because the people didnt not vote for a government formed by 3 parties, (one of which doesnt want to be part of Canada). If it is truly a democracy then the people should vote on a government run by the 3 parties. That is democracy, the people do have a say.

shabbs wrote:I have no doubt this is legit and they are following the process that is in place - I have no issue with that. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc clearly feel that Harper's government is not addressing the economic crisis we are facing and are stepping in in the interest of the public. Also, no issue with that, that's what this process allows for.

The optics of the Liberal party's implosion after the recent election do concern me. Dion decided to step down after the next Liberal leadership convention because he "failed" the party and now he'll be PM. The rumours of the NDP party being split about this and having the option to "walk away" if it's not going the way they want also cause me concern.

We'll have to see what happens next week and if the Gov. General gives them the power. Their first step will be to table a new economic stimulus plan and address the looming crisis.

I don't want this to spiral into a heated political debate... as that can get pretty nasty.

Whats actually interesting is the last time this type of coalition happened was when Canada adopted some of its best policies that nobody ever complains about today but were quite progressive at the time (E.g. a little national policy that made healthcare universal). I firmly believe, as shown in cases abroad, that this IS our chance to take a step forward as a nation and adopt policies that are beneficial today and moving forward.

Snuh wrote:
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.

Coup de TA? Is that something on he Playboy Channel?

Sorry, not trying to make fun of you, but it's "Coup d'Etat".

Neely4Life wrote:

blazer_2458 wrote: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

A lot of Liberal supporters based their votes on the fact the Dion said he would never form a coalition government with the other parties. Whether it is legit or not the people still did not choose a coalition government.

PS your quote seems very Liberal bias, even though I am. I would not vote Liberal, ever, if Jack Layton was involved in that party.

You should ask that question to the people out in the West if they would rather have a gov and have basically no representation in the governing party. (hardly a party).

It is undemocratic because the people didnt not vote for a government formed by 3 parties, (one of which doesnt want to be part of Canada). If it is truly a democracy then the people should vote on a government run by the 3 parties. That is democracy, the people do have a say.

That's my issue. What's the point of having an election if this can happen. I realize that a majority government wouldn't have to fear this, but we all know that majorities aren't always the case.

The people voted for a minority government for Harper. The onus should be on all politicians of all parties to make it work for all Canadians, because the people said so. Plain and simple.

hemlock34 wrote:
The people voted for a minority government for Harper. The onus should be on all politicians of all parties to make it work for all Canadians, because Stone Cold said so. Plain and simple.

fixed

Neely4Life wrote:

blazer_2458 wrote: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

A lot of Liberal supporters based their votes on the fact the Dion said he would never form a coalition government with the other parties. Whether it is legit or not the people still did not choose a coalition government.

PS your quote seems very Liberal bias, even though I am. I would not vote Liberal, ever, if Jack Layton was involved in that party.

You should ask that question to the people out in the West if they would rather have a gov and have basically no representation in the governing party. (hardly a party).

It is undemocratic because the people didnt not vote for a government formed by 3 parties, (one of which doesnt want to be part of Canada). If it is truly a democracy then the people should vote on a government run by the 3 parties. That is democracy, the people do have a say.

There are so many fundamental flaws with this sentence its hard for me to start.

1. Read a history book. Canada is a confederation that has a parliament to guide the progress of its provinces. Just like the provinces get together to form Canada, the political parties must do the same. In CANADA you vote for a party, not a leader! When you go to the poling station does it say Stephen Harper if you dont live in Calgary-South? I didnt think so. And im sorry that you have been mislead your whole life when you thought you were voting for a leader and didnt understand that your voting for a party.

2. People did vote for a government with 3 parties. With Harper winning a minority it means that he must ensure participation from all sides (thats the will of the people as he does not have a majority). He was unable to do that so the GG has the responsibility (read the constitution) to ask the opposition leaders if they can come to a concensus and form a government. The only way that this coalition would be illegitimate is if it were placed in power and did not have the necessary seats to pass motions (and then they would basically be in the same place as the conservatives).

3. Coalition governments do more than any other form of government (except for they authoritarian kind for obvious reasons) in the World. For instance, look at how much Germany has progressed during the last 15 years. Yes they were always strong industrially. However, Germany had also suffered from a strong decline in the manufacturing sector and unemployment rates were on the rise (sound familiar??? ). Both Kohl and Merkel were forced to make coalition governments to stay in power (interestingly enough Merkel (right wing) paired up with the Greens). Result? Today Germany is is seeing a resurgence in their manufacturing setor as they are now the WORLD LEADERS in photovoltaic cells (solar panels). Instead of saying no, we cant spend on renewables in uncertain economic times, they understood that the "green shift" was a way to diversify the economy. Im not going to get into conservative policies on this issue (which quite simply go against their whole free trade mantra because there basically protectionist policies).

4. Speaking of the west, there are some interesting facts that you probably dont take into account when anylyzing poll results. ALBERTA circoncriptions were redrawn during previous conservative government reigns in order to make it virtually impossible for them to loose a single seat (other than in Edmonton). A monkey could run and would be voted in before a nobel prize winner. In the end, the house does not represent over 25% of the ALberta vote that did not go to the conservatives (people here usually choose NDP over Liberal because past issues are hard to forget for some people). Last point for now, Harper has openly tried to destroy the Canadian Wheat board. Anyone who denies this is blinded. For a government that professes that it has integrity, thats a joke. The canadian wheat board is now appointing a new Director. Members have a choice between 4 candidates, 3 of these candidates were appointed by harper cronies and have openly campained to "diminish" the power that the wheat board has. Regarless of the fact that the MINISTER appointed to oversee the wheatboard is sending UNSOLICITED porpoganda to members encouraging them to disband the board (weird no? ) Anyways, Sound familiar? Its called laissez-faire policy and the conservatives have tried to privatize others such as our hospitals and other industries (such as Post Canada and Hydro Quebec). Privatizing everything is the worst thing we could do, especially in a time like this. Ever hear of perestroika? google it for fun...

Long story short, I understand that my views seem to lean in one direction of the political spectrum in Canada. However, I have worked as an personal advisor for 2 seperate ministers (one Liberal one COnservative) ON PARLIAMENT HILL. In terms of connections, I hear things that others dont know about for weeks. No lie. And having worked directly for one of his ministers, i can honestly label Harper as a facist. Look up the definition, analyze his type of governance, and the link cannot be denied.

hemlock34 wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:

blazer_2458 wrote: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

A lot of Liberal supporters based their votes on the fact the Dion said he would never form a coalition government with the other parties. Whether it is legit or not the people still did not choose a coalition government.

PS your quote seems very Liberal bias, even though I am. I would not vote Liberal, ever, if Jack Layton was involved in that party.

You should ask that question to the people out in the West if they would rather have a gov and have basically no representation in the governing party. (hardly a party).

It is undemocratic because the people didnt not vote for a government formed by 3 parties, (one of which doesnt want to be part of Canada). If it is truly a democracy then the people should vote on a government run by the 3 parties. That is democracy, the people do have a say.

That's my issue. What's the point of having an election if this can happen. I realize that a majority government wouldn't have to fear this, but we all know that majorities aren't always the case.

The people voted for a minority government for Harper. The onus should be on all politicians of all parties to make it work for all Canadians, because the people said so. Plain and simple.

You obviously did not read my previous comment about how OUR CANADIAN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS. Harper NEVER received the mandate to govern. Wining a minority does not award this privilege. Harper basically won the chance of governing and has failed at making concensus.

Your argument pretty much insinuates that Harper should be allowed to rule freely and that parties should put their intentions on the backburner.

blazer_2458 wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:

blazer_2458 wrote: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

A lot of Liberal supporters based their votes on the fact the Dion said he would never form a coalition government with the other parties. Whether it is legit or not the people still did not choose a coalition government.

PS your quote seems very Liberal bias, even though I am. I would not vote Liberal, ever, if Jack Layton was involved in that party.

You should ask that question to the people out in the West if they would rather have a gov and have basically no representation in the governing party. (hardly a party).

It is undemocratic because the people didnt not vote for a government formed by 3 parties, (one of which doesnt want to be part of Canada). If it is truly a democracy then the people should vote on a government run by the 3 parties. That is democracy, the people do have a say.

There are so many fundamental flaws with this sentence its hard for me to start.

1. Read a history book. Canada is a confederation that has a parliament to guide the progress of its provinces. Just like the provinces get together to form Canada, the political parties must do the same. In CANADA you vote for a party, not a leader! When you go to the poling station does it say Stephen Harper if you dont live in Calgary-South? I didnt think so. And im sorry that you have been mislead your whole life when you thought you were voting for a leader and didnt understand that your voting for a party.

2. People did vote for a government with 3 parties. With Harper winning a minority it means that he must ensure participation from all sides (thats the will of the people as he does not have a majority). He was unable to do that so the GG has the responsibility (read the constitution) to ask the opposition leaders if they can come to a concensus and form a government. The only way that this coalition would be illegitimate is if it were placed in power and did not have the necessary seats to pass motions (and then they would basically be in the same place as the conservatives).

3. Coalition governments do more than any other form of government (except for they authoritarian kind for obvious reasons) in the World. For instance, look at how much Germany has progressed during the last 15 years. Yes they were always strong industrially. However, Germany had also suffered from a strong decline in the manufacturing sector and unemployment rates were on the rise (sound familiar??? ). Both Kohl and Merkel were forced to make coalition governments to stay in power (interestingly enough Merkel (right wing) paired up with the Greens). Result? Today Germany is is seeing a resurgence in their manufacturing setor as they are now the WORLD LEADERS in photovoltaic cells (solar panels). Instead of saying no, we cant spend on renewables in uncertain economic times, they understood that the "green shift" was a way to diversify the economy. Im not going to get into conservative policies on this issue (which quite simply go against their whole free trade mantra because there basically protectionist policies).

4. Speaking of the west, there are some interesting facts that you probably dont take into account when anylyzing poll results. ALBERTA circoncriptions were redrawn during previous conservative government reigns in order to make it virtually impossible for them to loose a single seat (other than in Edmonton). A monkey could run and would be voted in before a nobel prize winner. In the end, the house does not represent over 25% of the ALberta vote that did not go to the conservatives (people here usually choose NDP over Liberal because past issues are hard to forget for some people). Last point for now, Harper has openly tried to destroy the Canadian Wheat board. Anyone who denies this is blinded. For a government that professes that it has integrity, thats a joke. The canadian wheat board is now appointing a new Director. Members have a choice between 4 candidates, 3 of these candidates were appointed by harper cronies and have openly campained to "diminish" the power that the wheat board has. Regarless of the fact that the MINISTER appointed to oversee the wheatboard is sending UNSOLICITED porpoganda to members encouraging them to disband the board (weird no? ) Anyways, Sound familiar? Its called laissez-faire policy and the conservatives have tried to privatize others such as our hospitals and other industries (such as Post Canada and Hydro Quebec). Privatizing everything is the worst thing we could do, especially in a time like this. Ever hear of perestroika? google it for fun...

Long story short, I understand that my views seem to lean in one direction of the political spectrum in Canada. However, I have worked as an personal advisor for 2 seperate ministers (one Liberal one COnservative) ON PARLIAMENT HILL. In terms of connections, I hear things that others dont know about for weeks. No lie. And having worked directly for one of his ministers, i can honestly label Harper as a facist. Look up the definition, analyze his type of governance, and the link cannot be denied.

Everything you said still does not take away from the fact that Canadians voted for a minority government, be it the Liberals, NDP, or Conservatives.

Most of your arguments are more shots at the conservatives and Stephen Harper instead of the real issue.

I know how the Canadian political system works, thanks, and not anywhere on my ballot, when I voted did it say "John Smith, Coalition Party".

I also dont disagree that Harper can be labled as such, but if I had known the the NDP and the Bloc would be governing Canada, my vote would have been much different as would many others.

I hate to be an Donkey but you really need to read a book on how the government works. You are obviously under the impression that Canada has the same type of political system as the states. IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. SO before posting what amount to an opinion of how a system works, please go hit up a Chapters-Indigo...

Thank you and good night!

Neely4Life wrote:

blazer_2458 wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:

blazer_2458 wrote: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

A lot of Liberal supporters based their votes on the fact the Dion said he would never form a coalition government with the other parties. Whether it is legit or not the people still did not choose a coalition government.

PS your quote seems very Liberal bias, even though I am. I would not vote Liberal, ever, if Jack Layton was involved in that party.

You should ask that question to the people out in the West if they would rather have a gov and have basically no representation in the governing party. (hardly a party).

It is undemocratic because the people didnt not vote for a government formed by 3 parties, (one of which doesnt want to be part of Canada). If it is truly a democracy then the people should vote on a government run by the 3 parties. That is democracy, the people do have a say.

There are so many fundamental flaws with this sentence its hard for me to start.

1. Read a history book. Canada is a confederation that has a parliament to guide the progress of its provinces. Just like the provinces get together to form Canada, the political parties must do the same. In CANADA you vote for a party, not a leader! When you go to the poling station does it say Stephen Harper if you dont live in Calgary-South? I didnt think so. And im sorry that you have been mislead your whole life when you thought you were voting for a leader and didnt understand that your voting for a party.

2. People did vote for a government with 3 parties. With Harper winning a minority it means that he must ensure participation from all sides (thats the will of the people as he does not have a majority). He was unable to do that so the GG has the responsibility (read the constitution) to ask the opposition leaders if they can come to a concensus and form a government. The only way that this coalition would be illegitimate is if it were placed in power and did not have the necessary seats to pass motions (and then they would basically be in the same place as the conservatives).

3. Coalition governments do more than any other form of government (except for they authoritarian kind for obvious reasons) in the World. For instance, look at how much Germany has progressed during the last 15 years. Yes they were always strong industrially. However, Germany had also suffered from a strong decline in the manufacturing sector and unemployment rates were on the rise (sound familiar??? ). Both Kohl and Merkel were forced to make coalition governments to stay in power (interestingly enough Merkel (right wing) paired up with the Greens). Result? Today Germany is is seeing a resurgence in their manufacturing setor as they are now the WORLD LEADERS in photovoltaic cells (solar panels). Instead of saying no, we cant spend on renewables in uncertain economic times, they understood that the "green shift" was a way to diversify the economy. Im not going to get into conservative policies on this issue (which quite simply go against their whole free trade mantra because there basically protectionist policies).

4. Speaking of the west, there are some interesting facts that you probably dont take into account when anylyzing poll results. ALBERTA circoncriptions were redrawn during previous conservative government reigns in order to make it virtually impossible for them to loose a single seat (other than in Edmonton). A monkey could run and would be voted in before a nobel prize winner. In the end, the house does not represent over 25% of the ALberta vote that did not go to the conservatives (people here usually choose NDP over Liberal because past issues are hard to forget for some people). Last point for now, Harper has openly tried to destroy the Canadian Wheat board. Anyone who denies this is blinded. For a government that professes that it has integrity, thats a joke. The canadian wheat board is now appointing a new Director. Members have a choice between 4 candidates, 3 of these candidates were appointed by harper cronies and have openly campained to "diminish" the power that the wheat board has. Regarless of the fact that the MINISTER appointed to oversee the wheatboard is sending UNSOLICITED porpoganda to members encouraging them to disband the board (weird no? ) Anyways, Sound familiar? Its called laissez-faire policy and the conservatives have tried to privatize others such as our hospitals and other industries (such as Post Canada and Hydro Quebec). Privatizing everything is the worst thing we could do, especially in a time like this. Ever hear of perestroika? google it for fun...

Long story short, I understand that my views seem to lean in one direction of the political spectrum in Canada. However, I have worked as an personal advisor for 2 seperate ministers (one Liberal one COnservative) ON PARLIAMENT HILL. In terms of connections, I hear things that others dont know about for weeks. No lie. And having worked directly for one of his ministers, i can honestly label Harper as a facist. Look up the definition, analyze his type of governance, and the link cannot be denied.

Everything you said still does not take away from the fact that Canadians voted for a minority government, be it the Liberals, NDP, or Conservatives.

Most of your arguments are more shots at the conservatives and Stephen Harper instead of the real issue.

I know how the Canadian political system works, thanks, and not anywhere on my ballot, when I voted did it say "John Smith, Coalition Party".

I also dont disagree that Harper can be labled as such, but if I had known the the NDP and the Bloc would be governing Canada, my vote would have been much different as would many others.

Actually, the coalition is a minority. In fact without consensus it doesnt work at all. Honeslty Neely im not going to argue this with someone who probably has zero academic or professional merit to talk about this. And FYI, i actually voted conservative in this election...

wprager wrote:

Snuh wrote:
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.

Coup de TA? Is that something on he Playboy Channel?

Sorry, not trying to make fun of you, but it's "Coup d'Etat".

The french grammar police are out in full force! Hahaha. j/k

blazer_2458 wrote:Actually, the coalition is a minority. In fact without consensus it doesnt work at all.

You mean the "official" coalition is a minority.



They need the Bloc's support to get anything through since the Lib+NDP are still a minority as you pointed out.

I view the Conservatives getting a minority Govt as Canada saying "Hey Harper, we're letting you run the show but you don't get full control... work with the other parties to make it work properly." I also view it as Canada saying they don't want the Lib or NDP to be in charge.

This coalition, if it does get to power, is going to need to convince Canada very quickly that is it acting in the country's best interests and not making a power play as it's being perceived by some.