Author
|
Topic: Buzz on new parliament
|
frandroid_atreides
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2569
|
posted 31 January 2006 02:43 PM
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
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 01 February 2006 11:53 AM
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
|
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 01 February 2006 12:04 PM
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
|
|
|
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908
|
posted 01 February 2006 02:40 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052
|
posted 01 February 2006 03:37 PM
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604
|
posted 04 February 2006 01:21 PM
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
|
|