The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'm not sure what your point is?

Conservatives are trying to win over former PC's? Yes they are b/c as you say (and I implied) a majority isn't possible without them. They obviously haven't done it YET.

The topic under discussion in the bit I quoted was a Conservative majority government,

My point would be that it is impossible for the Conservatives to form a majority based solely on support of old Reformers; that for them to form a majority they would have to have support from former PC reds from coast to coast (especially in Quebec); and that continued use of the Reform bogey man in connection with a the Tories boils down to little moire than irrational fear or fear mongering.

Think about it. To form a majority, the Conservatives would have to elect a large number of MPs from urbanized Ontario, all over Quebec, and also gain support in the Maritimes.

We are led to believe that these 50 to 100 people (don't know exactly how many needed, haven't done the math, but it would be a very large proportion of the caucus and cabinet of any Tory majority/government) residents of Central and Eastern Canada, would somehow all follow the gospel of a few kooks from the prairies and mountain men from BC?

What, are they packing Manning around in a suitcase that converts to a pulpit? Will there be punch at the Saturday night revival/caucus meetings?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I don't think coalitions are very common provincially either.

I would say pipe dream more than day dream, for the simple fact that a coalition would not be necessary to form a government with fewer seats than the Conservatives. All that would be required would be that the leaders of the other parties make it clear to Harper and the GG that a Conservative government would not survive the Throne Speech. The GG would then most likely ask the leader of the second largest party if he/she could form a government...

Okay. It appears to be my choice of words you have difficulty with. Fair enough. Call it an "accord" if you like, or any other similar meaning word.

[Wezil]

Income Trusts - I'll skip it if you don't mind. You and I will never agree on that and I can't be bothered researching it. To my mind you are arguing my Case #2 (Incompetence). You claim they were blissfully unaware and no one could see it coming. We disagree.

Originally posted by notyoueither

The topic under discussion in the bit I quoted was a Conservative majority government,

My point would be that it is impossible for the Conservatives to form a majority based solely on support of old Reformers; that for them to form a majority they would have to have support from former PC reds from coast to coast (especially in Quebec); and that continued use of the Reform bogey man in connection with a the Tories boils down to little moire than irrational fear or fear mongering.

Think about it. To form a majority, the Conservatives would have to elect a large number of MPs from urbanized Ontario, all over Quebec, and also gain support in the Maritimes.

We are led to believe that these 50 to 100 people (don't know exactly how many needed, haven't done the math, but it would be a very large proportion of the caucus and cabinet of any Tory majority/government) residents of Central and Eastern Canada, would somehow all follow the gospel of a few kooks from the prairies and mountain men from BC?

What, are they packing Manning around in a suitcase that converts to a pulpit? Will there be punch at the Saturday night revival/caucus meetings?

*bolding mine

I still don't know why you are arguing with me about this since we seem to agree. You lay out a hypothetical scenario that involves the Conservatives winning over the PC's (as we both seem to agree is necessary) and by your use of future tense, you agree this hasn't yet happened.

If you are arguing the PC's are nurturing an irrational fear of the Conservatives and Reformers then I suggest you take it up with them, not me. I'm simply stating the obvious.

If on the other hand you are arguing the PC's have already joined with the new Conservative party in the desired numbers then we are left asking where are all their votes?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither

There would be no need for a smaller party (like the NDP) to marry itself to a government to effect the end desired (assuming that end is to avoid a Conservative government) and in fact any smaller party that did so would be dangerously close to electoral suicide.

Rae won his majority after having done just that. He hitched his wagon to the stronger, more numerous, Peterson Liberals and looked good. Ended up with a majority government of his own.

Is is a risk? Sure, but Jack seems in a risk taking mood these days and this would be the only way for Dion to survive if the Cons win more seats in the General election. If Harper forms the next lasting government Dion is toast and everyone knows it. There is an up side for both.

The BQ of course is the fly in the ointment. Do they get brought in (definitely unmanageable) and if not can they upset the numbers?

I'm not arguing this scenario is probable or even likely, just possible.

[notyoueither]

I think our differences on the coalition bit revolves around different use of the word.

To me, a coalition is a government with ministers from the coalition parties. Was Rae a minister in the Peterson cabinet? If not, and neither were any other dippers, then I would not call it a coalition government.

A minor party propping up a minority government does not make a coalition government. It makes it a minority government.

[Wezil]

Yes, I realised you had difficulty with the word while considering an earlier post. I concede a proper "coalition" would require cabinet ministers be part of the deal.

The Rae/Peterson deal was more than just your usual coalition. It was a written accord (more suitable word for what I'm talking) that included policy benchmarks that had to be met. It allowed Peterson to govern without worrying about every vote coming down the pipe.

I mentioned earlier that the NDP would have to finish strong in this vote to pull such a thing off (and avoid being seen as the minor party you mentioned).

[notyoueither]

I doubt I am the one having difficulty with the word.

I also doubt that an agreement on policies is more than a usual coalition.

[Wezil]

Just plain argumentative today aren't you?

We can talk about someone other than Harper if you prefer.

[Asher]

Do you like getting pounded from all sides?

[Wezil]

Nah, I expect partisans to be partisan. I get NYE.

And I understand you have a hate on for Dion and the Libs so I understand your support of Mr. Harper.

As to "pounded"? I'll let the record speak for itself. You've scored no decent points other than the obvious anti-Dion stuff whereas NYE seems proud of finding fault with a word I myself conceded was too strong for what I intended. You take your victories where you can find them I guess.

[Asher]

NYE isn't the world's biggest Harper fan. He's also from Edmonton which is the liberal backwater of Alberta. The shame...

[Wezil]

I know NYE has issues with Harper. I'd actually be interested to discuss them in a rational way...

[Asher]

Anyone want to discuss Layton's shot-in-the-foot policy?

Just as he was starting to make gains at the expense of the centre-left Liberal party, he reminds people he's a died-in-the-wool socialist.

Free money for everyone, $51.6B in more spending to ensure that poverty magically doesn't exist in 2020. Where will all of this money come from? Simple -- he's gonna raise corporate income tax.

Because that won't hurt taxpayers. Corporations will just shrug it and pay it. They won't re-evaluate their operations in Canada, lay people off to deal with the new taxes, curb expansion, and they certainly won't pass on these expenses to consumers. Taxes to corporations are free money in Jack's world.

[Wezil]

I see they released their official platform today. They should have done it earlier. You can't campaign for weeks without putting what you stand for down in writing.

The NDP have always been wonky with #'s. Rae tried to spend Ontario out of recession when we were already in serious financial trouble. 2 years later the deficit he had run up was so serious he was forced to turn on his union buddies and legislate days off without pay for most government employees. He did it the People Friendly NDP way though - he called it a "social contract".

I could see Jack in the same boat as he obviously doesn't have a clue that healthy companies are more likely to have healthy employees than unhealthy ones. US bashers are like that as well (and are often NDP types...hmmm). They wish the worst ills on the US seemingly unaware of the closeness of our economies.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
Nah, I expect partisans to be partisan. I get NYE.

Originally posted by Wezil
I know NYE has issues with Harper. I'd actually be interested to discuss them in a rational way...

First, you assume a lot about people without knowing too much. At least you are consistent in the habit.

Second, rational is not the first word that comes to mind when I read what you write about Harper. I have some problems with him how the new party has run, but I'm not the raging cynic that you seem to require as the mark of a reasoned individual.