[ShepherdsDog]

A party that can't effectively administer its own coffers can't be expected to effectively administer those of the nation. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

[ErikFG]

$1:

Isn't it fun to blame the Conservatives for things that the other parties wouldn't allow to happen?

Enh, you just have the wrong idea, plainly. Every party (ab)used the senate with the appointment system. Harper said he would FIX IT.

He objected to it. I can certainly see why, since I voted conservative back then.

Harper said he wanted an electoral senate. Great. I agreed with him.

Harper used the appointment system to put more than enough conservatives into the senate to establish an electoral senate system. GREAT.

And then stopped.

Because he doesn't want one. He's the one appointing senators now.

Harper doesn't care about reforming anything, as much as he used to say he did. Harper is just one more politician who'll use the senate for what he said he wouldn't. Ditto with all his bullshit about accountability, quickly to be put aside whenever anything went wrong.

Hey, I liked the idea of the CPC. I'm an Albertan. But Harper is just dishonest.

[ErikFG]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

A party that can't effectively administer its own coffers can't be expected to effectively administer those of the nation. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

I agree. Since Harper has managed to screw up our coffers admirably. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss Paul Martin.

[Freakinoldguy]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

A leader that can sign up a majority of the MPs to support him becomes the PM, say in the case of a minority government which the world is full of. It's the Parliamentary system. The country went all over this in 2008, and you still don't know the rule.

Must be old age or maybe indifference but now that you mention it, somewhere in the recesses of my mind I do remember something about it being discussed before.

Still sounds like something right out of the Russian Revolution though.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

A leader that can sign up a majority of the MPs to support him becomes the PM, say in the case of a minority government which the world is full of. It's the Parliamentary system. The country went all over this in 2008, and you still don't know the rule.

Must be old age or maybe indifference but now that you mention it, somewhere in the recesses of my mind I do remember something about it being discussed before.

Still sounds like something right out of the Russian Revolution though.

Why? The government was defeated based on a motion of non-confidence. If the same people get elected to the same seats again, why would the GG assume the Conservatives would all of a sudden have the confidence of the house? In that case, the constitution says the GG can ask another party to form government, so that we don't set up an endless cycle of electing minority governments that do not have the confidence of the house - triggering yet another election.

[Scape]

Canadaka Canadaka:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The end result will be the same, regardless of the path taken to get there. Liberal government propped up by the 'dippers and perhaps the bloc?

Sounds like a coalition government to me.

If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck... well, I ain't calling it a fracking goose.

IT IS NOT THE SAME THING! And I'm tired of the ignorance and misinformation.

In this NON coalition scenario there would be no NDP or Bloc members of government. All the ministers would be Liberal. It would govern with the confidence of the house just as the Conservatives have.

So when Harper had to get NDP votes to prop up his government that qualifies as a coalition in your books. Good to know.

[OnTheIce]

ErikFG ErikFG:

$1:

Isn't it fun to blame the Conservatives for things that the other parties wouldn't allow to happen?

Enh, you just have the wrong idea, plainly. Every party (ab)used the senate with the appointment system. Harper said he would FIX IT.

He objected to it. I can certainly see why, since I voted conservative back then.

Harper said he wanted an electoral senate. Great. I agreed with him.

Harper used the appointment system to put more than enough conservatives into the senate to establish an electoral senate system. GREAT.

And then stopped.

Because he doesn't want one. He's the one appointing senators now.

Harper doesn't care about reforming anything, as much as he used to say he did. Harper is just one more politician who'll use the senate for what he said he wouldn't. Ditto with all his bullshit about accountability, quickly to be put aside whenever anything went wrong.

Hey, I liked the idea of the CPC. I'm an Albertan. But Harper is just dishonest.

Bullshit.

Harper tried not just once, but 4 TIMES to change the way the Senate works. All stalled by the Liberals or left on the table before an election.

You can't just leave the Senate empty in the hopes that if you try another time legislation will be passed.

[Regina]

ErikFG ErikFG:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

A party that can't effectively administer its own coffers can't be expected to effectively administer those of the nation. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

I agree. Since Harper has managed to screw up our coffers admirably. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss Paul Martin.

Really?? You must have missed the Global Financial Crisis which started in the middle of 2007 and has also left the Canadian dollar in shambles. The poor thing has nearly bottomed out at close to $1.05 US. and $72.28 Euro.
Total shame and didn't need to happen.

[OnTheIce]

ErikFG ErikFG:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

A party that can't effectively administer its own coffers can't be expected to effectively administer those of the nation. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

I agree. Since Harper has managed to screw up our coffers admirably. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss Paul Martin.

Yea, I miss those days of massive cuts to health care and making our military a Global joke.

It's time Stephen Harper takes a page from Martins book. Make the biggest cuts to health care in Canadian history and claim success when you have a surplus.

It's also funny how anti-Harper people are very quick to ignore the Global recession and forget that the Liberals supported the budget that took our debt to new heights.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

A leader that can sign up a majority of the MPs to support him becomes the PM, say in the case of a minority government which the world is full of. It's the Parliamentary system. The country went all over this in 2008, and you still don't know the rule.

Must be old age or maybe indifference but now that you mention it, somewhere in the recesses of my mind I do remember something about it being discussed before.

Still sounds like something right out of the Russian Revolution though.

Why? The government was defeated based on a motion of non-confidence. If the same people get elected to the same seats again, why would the GG assume the Conservatives would all of a sudden have the confidence of the house? In that case, the constitution says the GG can ask another party to form government, so that we don't set up an endless cycle of electing minority governments that do not have the confidence of the house - triggering yet another election.

I have no confidence in the Opposition but that don't mean we can just boot them out for shits and giggles. This whole "confidence of the house" thing pisses me off to no end. Who gives a fuck what the Opposition thinks? Let us, the taxpaying voters decide we don't have any confidence in Harper instead of some whiney visitor that throws a $300M hissy fit cuz he's not getting what he wants.

The rest of this applies to BOTH major parties and their kool-aid guzzling boot-lickers. I'm so fucking sick and tired of the bitching and complaining about this or that party doing such and such when the whining party is/has been just as guilty of the same or similar bullshit. You guys don't insult my intelliegnce, you actually insult my stupidity when you partisan hacks assume the rest of us are just as blind and retarded as you are.
The parties are real good at coming out with bullshit slogans, it's about time the voting populace had their's and had it heard: PUT CANADA FIRST

[andyt]

Nope. Confidence of the house is an important concept. It actually keeps the PM in line to some degree, if he can't get his own party to back him for some crazy scheme. And if you have a minority govt, because the electorate didn't see fit to give it a majority, confidence of the house is what keeps the minority in check.

But Iggy is an idiot. He should have his answers figured out by now. It seems obvious that the CPC will get either a majority or very close to one. There is no way Iggy could form a govt without the support of the Bloc - the NDP's support just wouldn't be enough. He should just say he doesn't want to speculate, that he's running for PM of a majority govt and what happens after the election will be determined then.

Call me Iggy, my rates are cheap.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

On the subject of confidence. I understand the mechanics behind it all. What I was trying to get at, albeit somewhat clumsily, is what good is having a non-confidence call when there doesn't seem to be much confidence in the yahoo making the call in the first place?

[dino_bobba_renno]

I don’t think there is anything wrong with a coalition provided that the possibility of one is approached in an open and honest manner. I’ve said it before, if the opposition parties wish to form a coalition it should have been out there at the beginning of this election campaign. Instead what we’ve seen is absolute and utter denial of the potential of one being formed which is in my opinion compete bs.

The problem with not being forthright on the issue is two fold. For one, no one is able to get a true and accurate idea of what the coalition would stand for so far as policies and the way in which it would be represented in the house(ie who sits in cabinet). Two, the planning and agreements that need to be in place to ensure that any proposed coalition is stable enough to hold together for more than a year isn’t happening.

What’s probably going to happen is that the Conservatives will win the election with basically the same number of seats. Parliament will resume and the opposition will vote the budget down and they will in turn to the GG looking to form a coalition. We’ll get some half assed coalition of sore losers who will have so many internal disputes that they will be of little use to anyone. A year later we’ll be back at the polls. In the end all they will have accomplished is pissing off everyone and damaging the legitimacy of coalitions for decades to come.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I believe half the problem is the current leaders. There's an Ignatieff/Harper duo that isn't working. I think a Bob Rae and Peter McKay duo would be much more partical mined. For me, it's Ignatieff and Harper gooey up the works.

[saturn_656]

Scape Scape:

Canadaka Canadaka:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The end result will be the same, regardless of the path taken to get there. Liberal government propped up by the 'dippers and perhaps the bloc?

Sounds like a coalition government to me.

If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck... well, I ain't calling it a fracking goose.

IT IS NOT THE SAME THING! And I'm tired of the ignorance and misinformation.

In this NON coalition scenario there would be no NDP or Bloc members of government. All the ministers would be Liberal. It would govern with the confidence of the house just as the Conservatives have.

So when Harper had to get NDP votes to prop up his government that qualifies as a coalition in your books. Good to know.

Different scenario. Harper is already in government as they won the largest number of seats last election.

As if I had to explain it...