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.

Are you suggesting it should be controlled by the government/public in ANY CAPACITY??...

This is why Yugoslavia is no longer a country.

B B B B Bird is the Word wrote:

smash88 wrote:

B B B B Bird is the Word wrote:is anyone listening to question period? woah.

Holy crap do i ever wish!

I can't believe what I'm hearing......is there any other place in society where you're allowed to behave the way they do? listening to it on CFRA.

If you like slanted and biased radio keep listening for the Afternoon Edition.

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:I don't give a crap about partisanship. No country can be run by a coalition. It is plain and simple. Having 3 cooks in the kitchen is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention the opinion of the international community. Plus Dion as our leader? Come on the guy can't run his own party. This is a way bad idea from a bunch of losers who lost an election. If they bring this before the GG, she better call an election not this coalition crap. Then the fence sitters and the morons who vote for candidates who have no hope in winning can pony up an opinion on who should govern. Man I am pissed about this Dung. Diddle wankers. Diddle.

Ok so she calls an election... Same results... What happens?

I just want things to get done...

Let's disect the issue at hand if it lead to an election. The Tories want to wait until January to release a stimulus package. The opposition wants one now. This is all that it comes down to. It's insane. Is this worth an election? If it's not, it's hardly worth a risky change of power IMHO.

I just don't understand how it's better for the governing party to have 36% or whatever of the popular vote than to have 65% or whatever it is...

If the NDP and Liberals were to form one party and we had another election would that be satisfactory to all of you? That would be perfectly fine with me, and is exactly what i've been calling for for a long time...

None of this coalition crap, just make a formal agreement, become one party and let's do it again...

The problem as I see it is that the NDP and Liberals are very different depending on the leader. In fact, if Iggy wins the leadership I expect to see the Liberals have more in common with the Harper Tories than I would with the NDP. They are not one in the same and do not represent the same groups of people. Even if you take out the equation the Bloc presents I can't see a Liberal and NDP coalition lasting more than a few months. They are at odds on quite a few issues.

Even majority governments don't enjoy the majority of the popular vote. I think Mulroney achieved it once and it fell apart in the most dramatic way. It's very difficult to hold together a large majority and keep everyone happy and on board. Keeping 2-3 parties in a coalition is next to impossible.

Yeah but what has to be done for the good of the people will get done... The right did it, they were massively splitting votes... Same is now happening on the left... The NDP and the Liberals are a lot closer than the the PC and Reform was... Just in my riding alone.. John Baird won by 3000 votes... he had 24000... The liberals had 21000 and NDP had 15000...

The PC and Reform were once in the same party lead by Mulroney and before him Clark. They did have a lot in common and were able to compromise on a platform. The big key issues that allowed them coexist were the same; low taxes, small gov't, private v.s public etc. They could splinter again under weak leadership or a sensational issue but so far so good.

The Liberals and NDP have never belonged to the same party. There are massive key issues they don't have in common. NAFTA, NATO, war in Afghanistan, etc... these two parties are very different.

And now I'm back up to speed: this is certainly turning into an interesting political excercise, and I voted conservative.

I am appalled at the joke the three stooges are playing with our electoral system.

I agree there is a place and time for coalition governments. These after to be decided before someone else takes power, not after.

We are a country of 30million people with 5 political parties federally. We will ALWAYS get a minority government 9 times out of 10.

I just don't want **unnamed party leader** (I wouldn't want to offend) to take over the reigns. Some of the suggestions he/she was making during the election campaign were ludicrous in how economically RETARDED (read: out of Bush's playbook) they were... Anyone who paid attention in a highschool home economics course knows who I'm talking about...

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:I don't give a crap about partisanship. No country can be run by a coalition. It is plain and simple. Having 3 cooks in the kitchen is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention the opinion of the international community. Plus Dion as our leader? Come on the guy can't run his own party. This is a way bad idea from a bunch of losers who lost an election. If they bring this before the GG, she better call an election not this coalition crap. Then the fence sitters and the morons who vote for candidates who have no hope in winning can pony up an opinion on who should govern. Man I am pissed about this Dung. Diddle wankers. Diddle.

Ok so she calls an election... Same results... What happens?

I just want things to get done...

Let's disect the issue at hand if it lead to an election. The Tories want to wait until January to release a stimulus package. The opposition wants one now. This is all that it comes down to. It's insane. Is this worth an election? If it's not, it's hardly worth a risky change of power IMHO.

I just don't understand how it's better for the governing party to have 36% or whatever of the popular vote than to have 65% or whatever it is...

If the NDP and Liberals were to form one party and we had another election would that be satisfactory to all of you? That would be perfectly fine with me, and is exactly what i've been calling for for a long time...

None of this coalition crap, just make a formal agreement, become one party and let's do it again...

The problem as I see it is that the NDP and Liberals are very different depending on the leader. In fact, if Iggy wins the leadership I expect to see the Liberals have more in common with the Harper Tories than I would with the NDP. They are not one in the same and do not represent the same groups of people. Even if you take out the equation the Bloc presents I can't see a Liberal and NDP coalition lasting more than a few months. They are at odds on quite a few issues.

Even majority governments don't enjoy the majority of the popular vote. I think Mulroney achieved it once and it fell apart in the most dramatic way. It's very difficult to hold together a large majority and keep everyone happy and on board. Keeping 2-3 parties in a coalition is next to impossible.

Yeah but what has to be done for the good of the people will get done... The right did it, they were massively splitting votes... Same is now happening on the left... The NDP and the Liberals are a lot closer than the the PC and Reform was... Just in my riding alone.. John Baird won by 3000 votes... he had 24000... The liberals had 21000 and NDP had 15000...

The PC and Reform were once in the same party lead by Mulroney and before him Clark. They did have a lot in common and were able to compromise on a platform. The big key issues that allowed them coexist were the same; low taxes, small gov't, private v.s public etc. They could splinter again under weak leadership or a sensational issue but so far so good.

The Liberals and NDP have never belonged to the same party. There are massive key issues they don't have in common. NAFTA, NATO, war in Afghanistan, etc... these two parties are very different.

These are all things that can be worked out though.... They are basically in agreeance with NATO... I don't see where the big disagreement is there.. Afghanistan is a totally different issue, but Layton has backed down from that, he took a lot of flask over his stance on that even within his own party... I'm not familiar with how they are different with NAFTA, but the stance on NAFTA changes every couple of years... So I don't hold that too high.. Thing is these are all issues that can be ironed out... These are mostly all conservatives pets anyway, won't be hard for the Liberals and NDP to come together on these... Health care and welfare are where they would have the most problems in my opinion but nothing that can't be worked out...

Number Twenty Nine wrote:I am appalled at the joke the three stooges are playing with our electoral system.

I agree there is a place and time for coalition governments. These after to be decided before someone else takes power, not after.

We are a country of 30million people with 5 political parties federally. We will ALWAYS get a minority government 9 times out of 10.

I agree which is why it is time to unite some of them...

mattshock wrote:I just don't want **unnamed party leader** (I wouldn't want to offend) to take over the reigns. Some of the suggestions he/she was making during the election campaign were ludicrous in how economically RETARDED (read: out of Bush's playbook) they were... Anyone who paid attention in a highschool home economics course knows who I'm talking about...

I agree I feel uneasy about him too, but inaction isn't better... or is it?

Number Twenty Nine wrote:I am appalled at the joke the three stooges are playing with our electoral system.

I agree there is a place and time for coalition governments. These after to be decided before someone else takes power, not after.

We are a country of 30million people with 5 political parties federally. We will ALWAYS get a minority government 9 times out of 10.

Unless a coalition is formed to unite the left.

mattshock wrote:I just don't want **unnamed party leader** (I wouldn't want to offend) to take over the reigns. Some of the suggestions he/she was making during the election campaign were ludicrous in how economically RETARDED (read: out of Bush's playbook) they were... Anyone who paid attention in a highschool home economics course knows who I'm talking about...

I believe the "coalition" said if they did take over, they'd put together a "crack team" of financial advisers to put together the Stimulus Package to address the economic crisis.

Those people are ex-Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, former Liberal cabinet minister
John Manley, ex-Saskatchewan NDP Premier Roy Romanow and ex-New
Brunswick Liberal Premier Frank McKenna -- now deputy chair of the TD
Bank.

I love how the government is (or going to) bail out the "big three" auto-makers and not the poor average Joe blow that is feeling the hit the most.

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:I don't give a crap about partisanship. No country can be run by a coalition. It is plain and simple. Having 3 cooks in the kitchen is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention the opinion of the international community. Plus Dion as our leader? Come on the guy can't run his own party. This is a way bad idea from a bunch of losers who lost an election. If they bring this before the GG, she better call an election not this coalition crap. Then the fence sitters and the morons who vote for candidates who have no hope in winning can pony up an opinion on who should govern. Man I am pissed about this Dung. Diddle wankers. Diddle.

Ok so she calls an election... Same results... What happens?

I just want things to get done...

Let's disect the issue at hand if it lead to an election. The Tories want to wait until January to release a stimulus package. The opposition wants one now. This is all that it comes down to. It's insane. Is this worth an election? If it's not, it's hardly worth a risky change of power IMHO.

I just don't understand how it's better for the governing party to have 36% or whatever of the popular vote than to have 65% or whatever it is...

If the NDP and Liberals were to form one party and we had another election would that be satisfactory to all of you? That would be perfectly fine with me, and is exactly what i've been calling for for a long time...

None of this coalition crap, just make a formal agreement, become one party and let's do it again...

The problem as I see it is that the NDP and Liberals are very different depending on the leader. In fact, if Iggy wins the leadership I expect to see the Liberals have more in common with the Harper Tories than I would with the NDP. They are not one in the same and do not represent the same groups of people. Even if you take out the equation the Bloc presents I can't see a Liberal and NDP coalition lasting more than a few months. They are at odds on quite a few issues.

Even majority governments don't enjoy the majority of the popular vote. I think Mulroney achieved it once and it fell apart in the most dramatic way. It's very difficult to hold together a large majority and keep everyone happy and on board. Keeping 2-3 parties in a coalition is next to impossible.

Yeah but what has to be done for the good of the people will get done... The right did it, they were massively splitting votes... Same is now happening on the left... The NDP and the Liberals are a lot closer than the the PC and Reform was... Just in my riding alone.. John Baird won by 3000 votes... he had 24000... The liberals had 21000 and NDP had 15000...

The PC and Reform were once in the same party lead by Mulroney and before him Clark. They did have a lot in common and were able to compromise on a platform. The big key issues that allowed them coexist were the same; low taxes, small gov't, private v.s public etc. They could splinter again under weak leadership or a sensational issue but so far so good.

The Liberals and NDP have never belonged to the same party. There are massive key issues they don't have in common. NAFTA, NATO, war in Afghanistan, etc... these two parties are very different.

These are all things that can be worked out though.... They are basically in agreeance with NATO... I don't see where the big disagreement is there.. Afghanistan is a totally different issue, but Layton has backed down from that, he took a lot of flask over his stance on that even within his own party... I'm not familiar with how they are different with NAFTA, but the stance on NAFTA changes every couple of years... So I don't hold that too high.. Thing is these are all issues that can be ironed out... These are mostly all conservatives pets anyway, won't be hard for the Liberals and NDP to come together on these... Health care and welfare are where they would have the most problems in my opinion but nothing that can't be worked out...

Nato - The NDP want out of altogether and the Liberals want it strengthened or remain status quo.

Afghanistan - what happens when Obama asks Canada to lengthen their commitment? The Libs got us in there and the NDP wanted no part of it. (militarily speaking)

NAFTA - the Libs are ok with the status quo and the NDP want it renegotiated or scrapped altogether. One would lead to the other I imagine.

The NDP have the unions in their back pocket and the Libs don't. The Libs are more friendly to Bay St. Not to mention these are two very proud brands that will never come together under one umbrella. The Liberals talk from the left but govern to the right. The NDP are just too far left of the Liberals for them to come together.

Interesting article here, on the 10 options facing Harper (including one to request the Queen to dismiss the Governor General).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081202.WBSteele20081202134134/WBStory/WBSteele/

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:I don't give a crap about partisanship. No country can be run by a coalition. It is plain and simple. Having 3 cooks in the kitchen is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention the opinion of the international community. Plus Dion as our leader? Come on the guy can't run his own party. This is a way bad idea from a bunch of losers who lost an election. If they bring this before the GG, she better call an election not this coalition crap. Then the fence sitters and the morons who vote for candidates who have no hope in winning can pony up an opinion on who should govern. Man I am pissed about this Dung. Diddle wankers. Diddle.

Ok so she calls an election... Same results... What happens?

I just want things to get done...

Let's disect the issue at hand if it lead to an election. The Tories want to wait until January to release a stimulus package. The opposition wants one now. This is all that it comes down to. It's insane. Is this worth an election? If it's not, it's hardly worth a risky change of power IMHO.

I just don't understand how it's better for the governing party to have 36% or whatever of the popular vote than to have 65% or whatever it is...

If the NDP and Liberals were to form one party and we had another election would that be satisfactory to all of you? That would be perfectly fine with me, and is exactly what i've been calling for for a long time...

None of this coalition crap, just make a formal agreement, become one party and let's do it again...

The problem as I see it is that the NDP and Liberals are very different depending on the leader. In fact, if Iggy wins the leadership I expect to see the Liberals have more in common with the Harper Tories than I would with the NDP. They are not one in the same and do not represent the same groups of people. Even if you take out the equation the Bloc presents I can't see a Liberal and NDP coalition lasting more than a few months. They are at odds on quite a few issues.

Even majority governments don't enjoy the majority of the popular vote. I think Mulroney achieved it once and it fell apart in the most dramatic way. It's very difficult to hold together a large majority and keep everyone happy and on board. Keeping 2-3 parties in a coalition is next to impossible.

Yeah but what has to be done for the good of the people will get done... The right did it, they were massively splitting votes... Same is now happening on the left... The NDP and the Liberals are a lot closer than the the PC and Reform was... Just in my riding alone.. John Baird won by 3000 votes... he had 24000... The liberals had 21000 and NDP had 15000...

The PC and Reform were once in the same party lead by Mulroney and before him Clark. They did have a lot in common and were able to compromise on a platform. The big key issues that allowed them coexist were the same; low taxes, small gov't, private v.s public etc. They could splinter again under weak leadership or a sensational issue but so far so good.

The Liberals and NDP have never belonged to the same party. There are massive key issues they don't have in common. NAFTA, NATO, war in Afghanistan, etc... these two parties are very different.

These are all things that can be worked out though.... They are basically in agreeance with NATO... I don't see where the big disagreement is there.. Afghanistan is a totally different issue, but Layton has backed down from that, he took a lot of flask over his stance on that even within his own party... I'm not familiar with how they are different with NAFTA, but the stance on NAFTA changes every couple of years... So I don't hold that too high.. Thing is these are all issues that can be ironed out... These are mostly all conservatives pets anyway, won't be hard for the Liberals and NDP to come together on these... Health care and welfare are where they would have the most problems in my opinion but nothing that can't be worked out...

Nato - The NDP want out of altogether and the Liberals want it strengthened or remain status quo.

Afghanistan - what happens when Obama asks Canada to lengthen their commitment? The Libs got us in there and the NDP wanted no part of it. (militarily speaking)

NAFTA - the Libs are ok with the status quo and the NDP want it renegotiated or scrapped altogether. One would lead to the other I imagine.

The NDP have the unions in their back pocket and the Libs don't. The Libs are more friendly to Bay St. Not to mention these are two very proud brands that will never come together under one umbrella. The Liberals talk from the left but govern to the right. The NDP are just too far left of the Liberals for them to come together.

Yeah I don't think the NDP i as extremists as they once were, granted it is a lot of work they would have to do in order to reach middle ground, but honestly I really don't think it would be out of this reach... Obviously what has happened over the weekend is the first sign of that.. Now this is because they have a common enemy, I don't know what will happen once Harper is no longer the leader of the conservatives..

Thing is, this is probably something that will drag on for a while.. I'm not saying it would be overnight, but if we go through another election and the left vote is split again to the extent it was, I would not be surprised to see them strongly considering the idea... The idea has been floated around numerous times, it's just now starting to pick up steam..

Dion is also gone in May, so that could change everything once again.. It remains to be seen...

Should be an interesting year though...

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

strachattack wrote:

smash88 wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:I don't give a crap about partisanship. No country can be run by a coalition. It is plain and simple. Having 3 cooks in the kitchen is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention the opinion of the international community. Plus Dion as our leader? Come on the guy can't run his own party. This is a way bad idea from a bunch of losers who lost an election. If they bring this before the GG, she better call an election not this coalition crap. Then the fence sitters and the morons who vote for candidates who have no hope in winning can pony up an opinion on who should govern. Man I am pissed about this Dung. Diddle wankers. Diddle.

Ok so she calls an election... Same results... What happens?

I just want things to get done...

Let's disect the issue at hand if it lead to an election. The Tories want to wait until January to release a stimulus package. The opposition wants one now. This is all that it comes down to. It's insane. Is this worth an election? If it's not, it's hardly worth a risky change of power IMHO.

I just don't understand how it's better for the governing party to have 36% or whatever of the popular vote than to have 65% or whatever it is...

If the NDP and Liberals were to form one party and we had another election would that be satisfactory to all of you? That would be perfectly fine with me, and is exactly what i've been calling for for a long time...

None of this coalition crap, just make a formal agreement, become one party and let's do it again...

The problem as I see it is that the NDP and Liberals are very different depending on the leader. In fact, if Iggy wins the leadership I expect to see the Liberals have more in common with the Harper Tories than I would with the NDP. They are not one in the same and do not represent the same groups of people. Even if you take out the equation the Bloc presents I can't see a Liberal and NDP coalition lasting more than a few months. They are at odds on quite a few issues.

Even majority governments don't enjoy the majority of the popular vote. I think Mulroney achieved it once and it fell apart in the most dramatic way. It's very difficult to hold together a large majority and keep everyone happy and on board. Keeping 2-3 parties in a coalition is next to impossible.

Yeah but what has to be done for the good of the people will get done... The right did it, they were massively splitting votes... Same is now happening on the left... The NDP and the Liberals are a lot closer than the the PC and Reform was... Just in my riding alone.. John Baird won by 3000 votes... he had 24000... The liberals had 21000 and NDP had 15000...

The PC and Reform were once in the same party lead by Mulroney and before him Clark. They did have a lot in common and were able to compromise on a platform. The big key issues that allowed them coexist were the same; low taxes, small gov't, private v.s public etc. They could splinter again under weak leadership or a sensational issue but so far so good.

The Liberals and NDP have never belonged to the same party. There are massive key issues they don't have in common. NAFTA, NATO, war in Afghanistan, etc... these two parties are very different.

These are all things that can be worked out though.... They are basically in agreeance with NATO... I don't see where the big disagreement is there.. Afghanistan is a totally different issue, but Layton has backed down from that, he took a lot of flask over his stance on that even within his own party... I'm not familiar with how they are different with NAFTA, but the stance on NAFTA changes every couple of years... So I don't hold that too high.. Thing is these are all issues that can be ironed out... These are mostly all conservatives pets anyway, won't be hard for the Liberals and NDP to come together on these... Health care and welfare are where they would have the most problems in my opinion but nothing that can't be worked out...

Nato - The NDP want out of altogether and the Liberals want it strengthened or remain status quo.

Afghanistan - what happens when Obama asks Canada to lengthen their commitment? The Libs got us in there and the NDP wanted no part of it. (militarily speaking)

NAFTA - the Libs are ok with the status quo and the NDP want it renegotiated or scrapped altogether. One would lead to the other I imagine.

The NDP have the unions in their back pocket and the Libs don't. The Libs are more friendly to Bay St. Not to mention these are two very proud brands that will never come together under one umbrella. The Liberals talk from the left but govern to the right. The NDP are just too far left of the Liberals for them to come together.

Yeah I don't think the NDP i as extremists as they once were, granted it is a lot of work they would have to do in order to reach middle ground, but honestly I really don't think it would be out of this reach... Obviously what has happened over the weekend is the first sign of that.. Now this is because they have a common enemy, I don't know what will happen once Harper is no longer the leader of the conservatives..

Thing is, this is probably something that will drag on for a while.. I'm not saying it would be overnight, but if we go through another election and the left vote is split again to the extent it was, I would not be surprised to see them strongly considering the idea... The idea has been floated around numerous times, it's just now starting to pick up steam..

Dion is also gone in May, so that could change everything once again.. It remains to be seen...

Should be an interesting year though...

Well, I think the agreement the coalition has to govern is fairly limited in scope. Obviously, they've all compromised to an extreme degree and omitted many of their planks.

I envisioned Iggy taking over for the Liberals and the battle for the next election would be fought for the centre-centre right with Harper. The left would be left for the NDP. As much as the NDP tried to appear more moderate there are still large groups of anti-globalization activists and other fringe activists that make up the grass roots of that party. They're not the type to give up their causes for the sake of getting into power. They can only water down their policy book so much. My best guess is they will look at Iggy as a crazed right winger and keeper of the establishment.

But you're right. It should be more interesting than what I originally thought it would be. Good chatting with ya.

Now I will detach myself from society, fall happily back into my bubble of slumber and watch hockey. The great escape... aaaahhh...

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

This is what it all comes down to Imo...All of our potential leaders are Dung.
And I'm pretty sure Dion lost more seats in his attempt at becoming PM than any Liberal leader in history. So............Why....is it...exactly...that he is the chosen one? I voted Liberal because I thought his caucus would be far superior to that of Harper, but never did I think Dion was the better leader.
This has disaster written all over it.

And, I don't know about you guys, but the last thing I would want to do, at this point in world history, is call attention to myself (i.e. Canada)
We needed to stay strong, relatively neutral, and stable. This s not stable...

My only word of advice for people, start buying some USD!!!