babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » in cahoots   » Buzz on new parliament

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Buzz on new parliament
frandroid_atreides
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2569

posted 31 January 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for frandroid_atreides   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buzz Hargrove - Put the Tories on a Short Leash

quote:
If the three parties pledged to collectively defeat the government over any of these priorities, Mr. Harper's leash would be a short one. And if Harper's government fell as a result, then the Governor-General could call on the opposition parties to attempt a centre-left government.

Is he really calling for the Bloc to enter a coalition government?

HAHA HAHE HAHA HEHA HAH AHAH HAHAA AHAH EHAH HAEHA HEAH HAHAE

Maybe Hargrove doesn't understand what the word "separatist" means.


From: Toronto, Arrakis | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 31 January 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Buzz Hargrove - Put the Tories on a Short Leash

While we're using pet metaphors, isn't it time we had Buzz neutered?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 31 January 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
LOL. I'd like to see that coalition government... would they adopt "Hey voters: fuck you" as an official slogan, or would that just be the unwritten motto?
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 31 January 2006 03:29 PM      Profile for Erstwhile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wouldn't that slogan be more appropriate the the Conservative "we will not compromise" post-election message?
From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 31 January 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
LOL. I'd like to see that coalition government... would they adopt "Hey voters: fuck you" as an official slogan, or would that just be the unwritten motto?

Isn't that the defacto case for any slim minority government?


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 01 February 2006 11:53 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Watkins:

Isn't that the defacto case for any slim minority government?


No. It's the de facto case for any coalition of parties that supplants the minority government. Would have been the same if Harper and Duceppe formed a government after the last election...


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 01 February 2006 11:57 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
No. It's the de facto case for any coalition of parties that supplants the minority government. Would have been the same if Harper and Duceppe formed a government after the last election...

What if the combination of the popular vote of 2 or more opposition parties is greater than the popular vote for the minority governing party?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 01 February 2006 12:04 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

What if the combination of the popular vote of 2 or more opposition parties is greater than the popular vote for the minority governing party?



So what? If you voted for the NDP, that means you wanted the NDP to win. Not the Liberals, or the Bloc, or the Conservatives. It would be a HUGE slap in the face to NDP supporters if their party puts a Liberal back in the PM's chair. Jack and his team campaigned on being different and offering a better option than the Liberals, not putting them back in power- that's just the opposite.

But I'm fairly confident that the NDP caucus is above trading their principles for a few seats in the cabinet.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 01 February 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for Erstwhile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

But I'm fairly confident that the NDP caucus is above trading their principles for a few seats in the cabinet.

I'm not. But I'm fairly confident there's enough hard feelings after the last election to preclude a formal coalition among any of the parties...


From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 01 February 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
I'm starting to really like Hargrove. The world can be a dark and depressing place and his absurd Monty Python-esque comedic performance is a welcome respite from the front page news.

NDP-Separatist-Criminally Corrupt Liberal coalition? You just have to love it.

Go Buzz Go. Love the jokes.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 01 February 2006 03:03 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
I'm starting to really like Hargrove.

Me too! He is like a car accident that you can't resist looking at.

From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 February 2006 03:11 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In other news Basil is starting to feel the earth moving under him. This is clearly in response to in-house support losses.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 01 February 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
No. It's the de facto case for any coalition of parties that supplants the minority government. Would have been the same if Harper and Duceppe formed a government after the last election...
I don't really see your point. In a case like that, the voters of even more people would be reflected in the make-up of the government. So what if they represent 2 parties, rather than one.

In most democracies, that is a common occurrence. If (say) one left of centre party gets the most votes, and 3 centre-right parties (representing more votes) can agree on a plan to govern, then they govern. That seems like a reasonable approach, compared to parties representing 64% of the population bowing down in submission to the one party that got 36%.

BTW, I'm not arguing that this scenario should happen in the current parliament, or that the Conservatives should not govern. There is no way the BQ would participate in a governing coalition. So the only reasonable government is for the Conservatives to govern, and proceed on a vote-by-vote basis.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 02 February 2006 01:12 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
So the only reasonable government is for the Conservatives to govern, and proceed on a vote-by-vote basis.

Agreed. It's unfortunate though that the NDP and Conservatives are 7 seats shy of a majority. If they could have made it, then at least anti-corruption legislation should have been easy.

But Buzz is obviously more interested in power and slush money than things like that.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 02 February 2006 01:23 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
It's unfortunate though that the NDP and Conservatives are 7 seats shy of a majority.
I'm not sure I get your math. On the few hypothetical issues where those 2 parties agree, and the Liberals and BQ are oppposed:

The CPC has 124 and the NDP 29, for a total of 153. If there is a Liberal speaker (Milliken) and if Independant Andre Arthur votes the same way, that already creates a 154-153 majority. Those are two big ifs, so a seat or 2 more would be needed.

All of this also depends on recounts in Parry Sound-Muskoka and Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River. If the former held and the latter flipped, the NDP would pretty much have the balance of power on some issues, if Milliken is re-elected as speaker.

On the other hand, if a Conservative is elected speaker, the NDP is a seat or 2 away from having the balance of power.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
kimmy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11914

posted 04 February 2006 09:46 AM      Profile for kimmy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it would be tremendously interesting to see a Liberal/BQ/NDP coalition bring down the Harper government and attempt to form their own government.

I think the political fallout could potentially ruin the Liberals in a Mulroneyesque fashion.

The charge of "working with the separatists!" would be far more clear-cut and indisputable than it was when Martin accused Harper of doing so. I am sure there are many Canadians who would simply not forgive the Liberal leader of the day for putting BQ MPs in Cabinet posts, which would undoubtably be a precondition of such an alliance. That would certainly give Harper something fresh to fight the next election against.

And then there's the question of who'd actually be PM. You can say that 30% of Canadians voted for Paul Martin to stay on as Prime Minister. The argument becomes a lot weaker when applied to (Dion/Brison/Stronach/whoever is left in the leadership race.)

And I think it would just add to the perception of the Liberals as a party that just cares about being in charge. I think it would come across as a power-hungry move that many Canadians would view in a negative light.

It would certainly make for an interesting sequence of events, but I think the ultimate result would be a Harper majority.

-k


From: Awesometon, Alberta! | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 04 February 2006 12:29 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
If (say) one left of centre party gets the most votes, and 3 centre-right parties (representing more votes) can agree on a plan to govern, then they govern.

That's exactly why PR was started in Europe, at the time universal franchise was potentially going to lead to the labour/socialist party being the largest. It was the alternative to "unite the right" (which wasn't feasible, the right being divided between anti-clericals and confessional parties) As a short-term tactic, it worked, but in the long run it helped create the moderate left social-democratic parties we know today.

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 04 February 2006 01:21 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If the three parties pledged to collectively defeat the government over any of these priorities, Mr. Harper's leash would be a short one. And if Harper's government fell as a result, then the Governor-General could call on the opposition parties to attempt a centre-left government.

Of course, if the Liberals had wanted to try to do this, they could have without letting Harper form a government in between.

Once Harper's formed a government and survived a spring sitting, the Governor General won't call on the other parties to form a government if Harper wants to call an election.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca