Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

[Fake Boris]

BTW, a poll conducted in Quebec yesterday concluded that 70% of Québécois approve of the coalition.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
BTW, a poll conducted in Quebec yesterday concluded that 70% of Québécois approve of the coalition.

Of course they would! Quebec has a knife to their throat!

[notyoueither]

If the plurality has no meaning, then how did Harper 'win' the election?

Why did we have to have the charade of losing confidence?

The answer is that the plurality has a lot of meaning. It is the basis of legitimacy for a govenrment, coalition or no. Forming a government that excludes the plurality from power over their objections is fundamentally undemocratic in a parliamentary system.

That's the argument Harper will make, and likely win, even if that means appealing to the Palace.

[Fake Boris]

This is unprecedented for the reasons I've outlined above. Try reading them now.

How the **** can my opinion that they didnt' give enough time for the government to govern "wrong"? Again, you are a completely ****ing clueless twit. I'm not saying LEGALLY THIS IS NOT ALLOWED. I have clarified this, WTF is your problem?

Do you understand what the word "unprecedented" means?

Do you even understand the meaning of your posts?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

This is unprecedented for the reasons I've outlined above. Try reading them now.

How the **** can my opinion that they didnt' give enough time for the government to govern "wrong"? Again, you are a completely ****ing clueless twit. I'm not saying LEGALLY THIS IS NOT ALLOWED. I have clarified this, WTF is your problem?

Do you understand what the word "unprededented" means?

Do you even understand the meaning of your posts?

I'm not using it in the legal terms.

There is no precedent for a leader who has already announced his pending resignation of a party after the worst defeat since confederation to team up with separatists to seize power 1 month after an election. True or no?

If it's true, that's what's called "unprecedented". This means it is without precedent.

Is this your problem with English, or is it a problem with your intelligence?

[Sharpe]

It is unprecedented for a leader that has resigned to become head of a coalition.

It is not unprecedented for a leader that has resigned to become Prime Minister.

[KrazyHorse]

It is the basis of legitimacy for a govenrment

?????????????

The ONLY precedent seems to be that in the absence of letters of support presented immediately to the G-G the plurality party is given first crack at things.

Non-plurality governments are rare, but that does not make them less legitimate.

We elect Members to the Commons. We do not elect PMs. The government is formed under a PM who can gain the confidence of the Commons. The fact that the plurality party is about to lose this confidence while the second party has demonstrated its ability to gain it is unusual, but NOT in contravention of any of the principles or traditions of parliamentary government.

The PM is not lord of the Commons, nor of the Governor General. When he has a firm grip on a Parliamentary majority he may act like it. But when his hold on the Commons is weak then he must tread lightly, lest the Commons switches its allegiance to another.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If the plurality has no meaning, then how did Harper 'win' the election?

He didn't. Well, he won his seat, I suppose.

[Jon Miller]

The only concern that the minority groups have is that the people will get upset with their working with 'opponents'.

If this doesn't happen, then there is no harm.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Look, I would like him to hang on to power. But you are proposing a RADICAL change to the relationship between PM and Commons. I really doubt that in these circumstances any G-G NOT out to set a precedent would grant a request for the dissolution of Parliament. I also doubt that any reasonable G-G would refuse a request for a prorogue. Using procedural tricks to avoid certain votes is as old as time, and the G-G does not AFAIK usually stand in the way. If Harper really wants to provoke a crisis he can request from the Queen the immediate dismissal of Michaelle and the appointment of a rubber stamp.

[KrazyHorse]

Part of me wants to see Harper do precisely that.

I love living in interesting times.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The only concern that the minority groups have is that the people will get upset with their working with 'opponents'.

If this doesn't happen, then there is no harm.

JM

The Liberals and NDP are skirting a very fine line here. They are collaborating with a separatist party.

Now, the Bloc Quebecois hasn't been acting up too much lately and separatism in general has been on the back burner. So the level of disgust may not be as high as it would have been 10 years ago. But it is still there.

[KrazyHorse]

My feeling is that this is an extremely dumb move on the part of the Liberals, first and foremost. There are all sorts of marginal ridings where this will not sit well. They may be poisoning the well for a long time to come, and when the hypothetical coalition government comes crashing down they might have to drink from it.

[RedFred]

My feeling is that extremely dumb moves have been made by the PCs, Grits AND NDPs. The only winners I see is the Bloc and possibly the Greens because the Greens were not involved in the whole mess.

Grow up MPs! The public has decided on a PC minority government. Work it out! Deal with it.

[Asher]

Join it!

http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=51442165364&ref=nf