but the conservative party didn't win, or we wouldn't be in this situation right now. They're just the largest minority party, and the only reason they got to form a government is because they got support from enough of the opposition to make majority vote. there's no voter choice for any party to govern.
And how do you propose we plan out coalition government before we even know who gets how many seats? "Oh we want to work together so voters please don't vote any of us into a majority government"?? You're asking the opposition to do something that's impossible. It's perfectly legitimate and makes perfect sense to talk about it now that the election's over, and the tories have a minority, it's the only situation in which a coalition government in our electoral system could possibly be formed, period.
I don't think you (or anyone else who thinks they should have formed a coalition government before the election, for that matter) know how the system works.
you've just answered your own question.. but i think you and i think differently in terms of winning.. i thought of it as who got to form the government (who won the most seats).. i'm thinking you're coming from how much support each party got respectively? either way.. my assertion still stands.. we indeed do have the conservatives running as our government..
and i'm not asking them to do the impossible.. like ether explained they could've formed an alliance before the election rather than deciding for a coalition government afterwards.. and if they did.. they probably would have had better chances knocking off the conservatives.. forming an alliance and forming the coalition.. although different in name.. still achieves the same means to an end...
lastly... you don't have enough credentials to assert your last statement..
Nobody was suggesting that they "form a coalition government" before the election. What they should have done, was form an alliance and consolidate into one party. The conservative parties did it back in 2003. Now there's only one Conservative Party and it has a substantial amount of support. The NDP, Liberals, and the Bloc could have done the same before the last election. Instead, they pull this stunt now.
so you're saying we should fuck up our electoral system even more just so the slightly less fucked up side can have a chance at representing most of Canada?
And it's not a stunt.
siuying;41789 said:
you've just answered your own question.. but i think you and i think differently in terms of winning.. i thought of it as who got to form the government (who won the most seats).. i'm thinking you're coming from how much support each party got respectively? either way.. my assertion still stands.. we indeed do have the conservatives running as our government..
this is what you just said: 1. the winner is defined as whoever forms the government 2. the winner should form the government 3. therefore, whoever forms the government should form the government
which, obviously, does not in any way justify your original assertion that it's somehow bad or "wrong" for the opposition to form a coalition right now.
siuying;41789 said:
lastly... you don't have enough credentials to assert your last statement..
I don't need to be an authority (an authority, btw, isn't ipso facto qualified to make such a statement, for your future reference), the statement "they should have formed a coalition before the election" is all the proof that's needed. Ether's reformulation (quoted above), on the other hand, actually makes sense.
Primexx, you're avoiding the issue. The Liberals and NDP being on the same side of the political spectrum does not matter even slightly. The fact that a lot of Liberal voters are friendly towards the NDP is not remotely relevant. The only relevant detail is that this coalition is changing the voting landscape after the votes have been cast. That's all that matters. They didn't have the confidence in an allied win to do it before the election, so they waited until they had collected votes under false pretenses, and now are attempting to leverage those votes towards goals that their "supporters" were not aware of when they voted. You can't claim the "left" got the popular vote. If they wanted to go that route, they had ample opportunity to unify the left before the election.
In any case, it probably won't matter. The governor-general has to sign off on anything like this, and she is compelled to listen to the Prime Minister. And if she somehow disobeyed, the Prime Minister can fire her, and wait for a new governor-general to come along, and do what he says.
I am pretty sure the PM cannot fire the GG. Since the GG is the Queens representative in our Government, only the queen can hire/fire the GG.
Plus something else that doesn't make sense. How can this new combined party suddenly take power when their combined number of seats is still less than that of Tories?
Primexx, you're avoiding the issue. The Liberals and NDP being on the same side of the political spectrum does not matter even slightly. The fact that a lot of Liberal voters are friendly towards the NDP is not remotely relevant. The only relevant detail is that this coalition is changing the voting landscape after the votes have been cast. That's all that matters. They didn't have the confidence in an allied win to do it before the election, so they waited until they had collected votes under false pretenses, and now are attempting to leverage those votes towards goals that their "supporters" were not aware of when they voted. You can't claim the "left" got the popular vote. If they wanted to go that route, they had ample opportunity to unify the left before the election.
How does it change the voting landscape when every party still has the same amount of seats? For that matter how do you know that they "didn't have the confidence...to do it before the election, so they waited until they had collected votes"? Even granting that they had this planned out all along, how does that at all illegitimate what they're doing right now? Oh that's right, it doesn't! There goes your argument right out the window.
Morro;41798 said:
In any case, it probably won't matter. The governor-general has to sign off on anything like this, and she is compelled to listen to the Prime Minister. And if she somehow disobeyed, the Prime Minister can fire her, and wait for a new governor-general to come along, and do what he says.
the GG doesn't necessarily have to do what the PM says. Harper could ask for an election all he wants (and he probably will), it's unlikely the GG would call one though.
this is what you just said: 1. the winner is defined as whoever forms the government 2. the winner should form the government 3. therefore, whoever forms the government should form the government
which, obviously, does not in any way justify your original assertion that it's somehow bad or "wrong" for the opposition to form a coalition right now.
no this is not what i said.. i did not define i said "i was thinking..." what i was acknowledging is that perhaps we have different interpretations on the word... i was asking for your opinion on how YOU think of the term winning.. please re-read what i wrote..
the winner of the past election did form the government.. unless i'm in the wrong country.. stephen harper of the conservative party is our current prime minister is he not? and no i did not say the winner should form the government that was the result of the election.. it was reflected by the election.. not from what i said..
btw on a side note (not for argumentative purposes).. your conclusion is wrong.. i think it should be "whoever is the winner forms the government" was what you were getting at..
primexx;41796 said:
I don't need to be an authority (an authority, btw, isn't ipso facto qualified to make such a statement, for your future reference), the statement "they should have formed a coalition before the election" is all the proof that's needed. Ether's reformulation (quoted above), on the other hand, actually makes sense.
*sigh* no no nnooo ... i did not say you had to be an authority.. i said credentials... authority =/= credentials dear.. personal credentials... as in how much do you know of me (and any canadians who don't agree to this coalition government) to say they don't know how this electoral system works?
and NO i did not say what you quoted.. please refer to quotation below..
primexx;41796 said:
I don't think you (or anyone else who thinks they should have formed a coalition government before the election, for that matter) know how the system works.
no this is not what i said.. i did not define i said "i was thinking..." what i was acknowledging is that perhaps we have different interpretations on the word... i was asking for your opinion on how YOU think of the term winning.. please re-read what i wrote..
the winner of the past election did form the government.. unless i'm in the wrong country.. stephen harper of the conservative party is our current prime minister is he not? and no i did not say the winner should form the government that was the result of the election.. it was reflected by the election.. not from what i said..
btw on a side note (not for argumentative purposes).. your conclusion is wrong.. i think it should be "whoever is the winner forms the government" was what you were getting at..
ok, I think the point of confusion is how the process of actually forming a government goes.
- if a party gets over 50% of the seats, then they get to form the government, no questions asked. all the opposition can hate them and it wouldn't do shit.
- if no party has over 50% of the votes, then everyone has a chance at forming the government. this usually ends up being the party with the most seats, but they need to have the confidence of the opposition.
- if they don't have said confidence, then the smaller parties could form a government together. there's nothing which says "the party with the most votes has to form the government".
Harper had the confidence of the rest of the parties last time, and he had it up until a few days ago. Once the party in government looses said confidence, the PM could either ask for another election, or recommend another party. The GG, of course, also has discretion as to whether to call another election or to ask another party to form the government.
The coalition government would be completely distinct from the current Harper one. If you insist on having another election, hey I don't mind, but a lot of people are crapping over that idea.
Finally, to address your post, if you read your posts together, my summarization is exactly what you said.
the conservatives won.. i think at the very least those results should be upheld
3. now substitute 1 into 2
siuying;41802 said:
*sigh* no no nnooo ... i did not say you had to be an authority.. i said credentials... authority =/= credentials dear.. personal credentials... as in how much do you know of me (and any canadians who don't agree to this coalition government) to say they don't know how this electoral system works?
and NO i did not say what you quoted.. please refer to quotation below..
How does it change the voting landscape when every party still has the same amount of seats? For that matter how do you know that they "didn't have the confidence...to do it before the election, so they waited until they had collected votes"? Even granting that they had this planned out all along, how does that at all illegitimate what they're doing right now? Oh that's right, it doesn't! There goes your argument right out the window.
Again, changing the subject. People voted for a party. Now, after receiving their votes, they are throwing those votes behind an entirely different entity. That they very probably had this planned all along doesn't make this any more unconstitutional (that would be difficult,) it simply makes them more blatantly assholes.
the GG doesn't necessarily have to do what the PM says. Harper could ask for an election all he wants (and he probably will), it's unlikely the GG would call one though.
It is the extreme tradition that the GG simply do what the PM tells her. And, as I said, if she doesn't, Harper simply fires her, and the whole process gets put on hold until a new one arrives, and if they don't agree, Harper fires that one, too. And so on.
However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper could still block coalition efforts by proroguing Parliament, that is, suspending it without dissolving it. That would mean his government could not be defeated in the current session of the House of Commons.
The coalition is a joke.
And not to mention, subtle treason (as they have been planning this long before the elections).
Again, changing the subject. People voted for a party. Now, after receiving their votes, they are throwing those votes behind an entirely different entity. That they very probably had this planned all along doesn't make this any more unconstitutional (that would be difficult,) it simply makes them more blatantly assholes.
how are they "throwing" their votes behind a different entity when each party retains the exact same seats?? Are you opposed to them working together for once?
Morro;41807 said:
It is the extreme tradition that the GG simply do what the PM tells her. And, as I said, if she doesn't, Harper simply fires her, and the whole process gets put on hold until a new one arrives, and if they don't agree, Harper fires that one, too. And so on.
As mentioned before Stephen Harper broke his own election promises with the early election wasting millions of dollars.
The other parties are not the only ones playing shenaligans here. Who cares if they planned it all along, they still wouldn't be able to execute their plan unless they had enough seats to do so.
If a government can get the support of a majority of Canadians, and thus form a majority government this could not happen.
ok, I think the point of confusion is how the process of actually forming a government goes.
- if a party gets over 50% of the seats, then they get to form the government, no questions asked. all the opposition can hate them and it wouldn't do shit.
- if no party has over 50% of the votes, then everyone has a chance at forming the government. this usually ends up being the party with the most seats, but they need to have the confidence of the opposition.
- if they don't have said confidence, then the smaller parties could form a government together. there's nothing which says "the party with the most votes has to form the government".
Harper had the confidence of the rest of the parties last time, and he had it up until a few days ago. Once the party in government looses said confidence, the PM could either ask for another election, or recommend another party. The GG, of course, also has discretion as to whether to call another election or to ask another party to form the government.
The coalition government would be completely distinct from the current Harper one. If you insist on having another election, hey I don't mind, but a lot of people are crapping over that idea.
yes... precisely that's how it works..
primexx;41805 said:
Finally, to address your post, if you read your posts together, my summarization is exactly what you said.
your summarization left out the most important point.. a point that i've been stating and re-stating again and again.. hence it's not a representative depiction of what i said..
i'm not even going to bother regurgitating what i said before.. i trust you have the capabilities to figure it out..
your summarization left out the most important point.. a point that i've been stating and re-stating again and again.. hence it's not a representative depiction of what i said..
i'm not even going to bother regurgitating what i said before.. i trust you have the capabilities to figure it out..
apology accepted.. and how nice of you to opt out your infamous quote.. =P
actually, that's a function of the software, it removes double-quotes automatically
So you quote how Harper would do anything to stay in power and then conclude that the coalition is bad. yea, makes perfect sense.
When I say, "my favorite part," it means it was so damned funny that he was going to drive himself into a dick move because of some silly coalition.
But of course you missed the connotation... being not used to real conversations and all.
Let me make this clear: I take no sides in Canadian politics due to the recent, IMMATURE, turn of events. So whatever you think I'm saying, it is probably the opposite of that.
Also, lets remember who made the first dick move--> Dion and Layton. Whatever dick move Harper is willing to make, at least he hadn't made it yet.
Geez. It would be so much easier if we belonged to the USA.
Also, lets remember who made the first dick move--> Dion and Layton. Whatever dick move Harper is willing to make, at least he hadn't made it yet.
Geez. It would be so much easier if we belonged to the USA.
well dion and layton didnt make the first dick move, it was harper who casued shit to hit the fan when he called an unnecesary election and his finance minister decided canada doesnt need a stimulus package (primary reason for the coalition)
anyways we all know how events are gunna unfold from here:
conservitive voters will be sour and will argue we didnt vote for a colation government but for Harper
Liberal, ndp n BQ supporters (60 of the country) will be content with the new coalition
now since this will be the first real colation (if everything works out), we have to wait and see whether or not its more productive than a minority govt.
Canada doesn't need stimulus packages, our economy will fix it self shortly. This is only the reason they are claiming to form the coalition. Recordings have Layton stating that it is truly a power grab.
Conservative voters will truly be mad. So will the NDP supporters who believe in democracy, and the liberal leaders who don't want Dion as a leader. And no Anglo wants their party to be allied with separatists.
60s of the country will not be content with the coalition. It will not work out and it will just make things worse. Being the left winged socialists they are, they will want to do what the states are doing and start pumping money we don't have into places that don't need it. The coalition will collapse and there will be a new election. Canadians will be pissed at these three parties and there will be a Tory majority.
Comments
and i'm not asking them to do the impossible.. like ether explained they could've formed an alliance before the election rather than deciding for a coalition government afterwards.. and if they did.. they probably would have had better chances knocking off the conservatives.. forming an alliance and forming the coalition.. although different in name.. still achieves the same means to an end...
lastly... you don't have enough credentials to assert your last statement..
There's my statement
And it's not a stunt. this is what you just said:
1. the winner is defined as whoever forms the government
2. the winner should form the government
3. therefore, whoever forms the government should form the government
which, obviously, does not in any way justify your original assertion that it's somehow bad or "wrong" for the opposition to form a coalition right now. I don't need to be an authority (an authority, btw, isn't ipso facto qualified to make such a statement, for your future reference), the statement "they should have formed a coalition before the election" is all the proof that's needed. Ether's reformulation (quoted above), on the other hand, actually makes sense.
In any case, it probably won't matter. The governor-general has to sign off on anything like this, and she is compelled to listen to the Prime Minister. And if she somehow disobeyed, the Prime Minister can fire her, and wait for a new governor-general to come along, and do what he says.
Plus something else that doesn't make sense. How can this new combined party suddenly take power when their combined number of seats is still less than that of Tories?
the winner of the past election did form the government.. unless i'm in the wrong country.. stephen harper of the conservative party is our current prime minister is he not? and no i did not say the winner should form the government that was the result of the election.. it was reflected by the election.. not from what i said..
btw on a side note (not for argumentative purposes).. your conclusion is wrong.. i think it should be "whoever is the winner forms the government" was what you were getting at.. *sigh* no no nnooo ... i did not say you had to be an authority.. i said credentials... authority =/= credentials dear.. personal credentials... as in how much do you know of me (and any canadians who don't agree to this coalition government) to say they don't know how this electoral system works?
and NO i did not say what you quoted.. please refer to quotation below.. those are your conspicuous words.. =)
just some douche bag primexx here, nothing to see
- if a party gets over 50% of the seats, then they get to form the government, no questions asked. all the opposition can hate them and it wouldn't do shit.
- if no party has over 50% of the votes, then everyone has a chance at forming the government. this usually ends up being the party with the most seats, but they need to have the confidence of the opposition.
- if they don't have said confidence, then the smaller parties could form a government together. there's nothing which says "the party with the most votes has to form the government".
Harper had the confidence of the rest of the parties last time, and he had it up until a few days ago. Once the party in government looses said confidence, the PM could either ask for another election, or recommend another party. The GG, of course, also has discretion as to whether to call another election or to ask another party to form the government.
The coalition government would be completely distinct from the current Harper one. If you insist on having another election, hey I don't mind, but a lot of people are crapping over that idea.
Finally, to address your post, if you read your posts together, my summarization is exactly what you said.
1. http://talksfu.ca/showpost.php?p=41789&postcount=32 2. http://talksfu.ca/showpost.php?p=41766&postcount=23 3. now substitute 1 into 2 ah I apologize for misunderstanding. Usually credential is analogous to authority.
Harper: "I got BoardWalk!! I got BroadWalk!!"
Dion: "GOD-DAMN-IT!! I wanted fucking BoardWalk! This isn't faaaair!!!!"
Harper: "IN YOUR FACE, YOU FRENCH FUCK!"
Layton: "Errr... I got Park Place...."
Harper: "Ha-ha, you stupid, BroadWalk is better."
Dion: "Layton!! Layton!!! Give me Park Place!!"
Layton: "No!! I bought it!!"
Dion: "Ok... well, let's team up!"
Harper: "LOL like that'll help."
Layton: ".... Why....?"
Dion: "Just do it! I'll give you all my property!!"
Layton: "Ugh.. I hate Monopoly."
Harper: "LUL, YOU GUYS CAN'T TEAM UP UNTIL YOUR NEXT ROUND."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My favorite part of the article... The coalition is a joke.
And not to mention, subtle treason (as they have been planning this long before the elections).
The other parties are not the only ones playing shenaligans here. Who cares if they planned it all along, they still wouldn't be able to execute their plan unless they had enough seats to do so.
If a government can get the support of a majority of Canadians, and thus form a majority government this could not happen.
i'm not even going to bother regurgitating what i said before.. i trust you have the capabilities to figure it out.. apology accepted.. and how nice of you to opt out your infamous quote.. =P
But of course you missed the connotation... being not used to real conversations and all.
Let me make this clear: I take no sides in Canadian politics due to the recent, IMMATURE, turn of events. So whatever you think I'm saying, it is probably the opposite of that.
Also, lets remember who made the first dick move--> Dion and Layton. Whatever dick move Harper is willing to make, at least he hadn't made it yet.
Geez. It would be so much easier if we belonged to the USA.
shit to hit the fan when he called an unnecesary election and his finance minister decided canada doesnt need a stimulus package (primary reason for the coalition)
anyways we all know how events are gunna unfold from here:
conservitive voters will be sour and will argue we didnt vote for a colation government but for Harper
Liberal, ndp n BQ supporters (60 of the country) will be content with the new coalition
now since this will be the first real colation (if everything works out), we have to wait and see whether or not its more productive than a minority govt.
Conservative voters will truly be mad. So will the NDP supporters who believe in democracy, and the liberal leaders who don't want Dion as a leader. And no Anglo wants their party to be allied with separatists.
60s of the country will not be content with the coalition. It will not work out and it will just make things worse. Being the left winged socialists they are, they will want to do what the states are doing and start pumping money we don't have into places that don't need it. The coalition will collapse and there will be a new election. Canadians will be pissed at these three parties and there will be a Tory majority.
oooh somebody's a political analyst hey let's start calling the NDP 'socialists', just like the 'separatists' oh cool! I never knew Bush was a socialist! a political analyst AND economist, talented a political analyst and economist who can foresee the future! supernatural too! or, you know, they could see the Tories for what they are and not elect them into government again.
nothing more to see here