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

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why should I? I've made my point. Your protestation that Ignatieff's presumed new status as Liberal leader changes the situation entirely is ridiculous. It has no precedent in law or custom. It is once more a fundamental misunderstanding of the status of the executive in Canada relative to the legislature.

No, it's once more a fundamental misunderstanding of you and me.

I'm saying such an action is ridiculous and unacceptable, not that it is unprecedented.

But it is actually unprecedented: while people have been appointed as PM and they were not elected as such, it's always been by the same party who ran for office and won the plurality. Never before has a coalition hastily formed so quickly after an election, ditched its leader, replaced it with a new guy, then tried to pass him off as PM to take the country in a radically different direction. That is unprecedented, no matter how you try to spin it.

[Asher]

The GG simply gets to choose, come January, if we're to call a new election or to give the coalition a chance in power.

It's her choice, you need to stop pretending like it's not.

And given the multitude of factors, the election is pretty much 95% likely:
- The fact that the Canadian public clearly does not want the coalition government, even if Iggy is their leader
- The fact that the Canadian public's support for the conservative party is at record levels, and has gone up significantly since this mess has started
- The fact that the political landscape has changed dramatically. The Liberals have changed leaders hastily and changed directions. The Liberal party people voted for in October is not the Liberal party they have now.
- The fact that the Liberal government was elected with promises that they would not form a coalition with parties that would "be damaging to the economy. Period"
- The fact that this coalition is only possible with the backing of a party whose interests are decidedly and blatantly not in the best interests of this country, and they have virtual "Veto" power on any issues.

It'd be completely irresponsible for the GG not to call the election given all of these factors.

[KrazyHorse]

It's her choice, you need to stop pretending like it's not.

And given the multitude of factors, the election is pretty much 95% likely:

I will make a bet with you, conditional on the government falling in January (if there is not a vote of no-confidence then the bet is called off).

You claim that a new election is 95% likely. Give me 4-1 odds (80%-20% in other words). I will put up 100 $US that the G-G chooses to allow Iggy to attempt to form a government. You put up 400 $US that she instead chooses to call a new election.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

It's her choice, you need to stop pretending like it's not.

And given the multitude of factors, the election is pretty much 95% likely:

I will make a bet with you, conditional on the government falling in January (if there is not a vote of no-confidence then the bet is called off).

You claim that a new election is 95% likely. Give me 4-1 odds (80%-20% in other words). I will put up 100$ that the G-G chooses to allow Iggy to attempt to form a government. You put up 400$ that she instead chooses to call a new election.

I'm not going to bet money on the actions of an unelected former television journalist with a ****ed up French name.

She's done whatever Harper's asked so far, so I'm not sure if this is because she can think rationally or if she just votes for whoever she thinks is cutest (which is likely). If the latter is the case, Iggy changes everything.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not going to bet money on the actions of an unelected former television journalist with a ****ed up French name.

She's done whatever Harper's asked so far, so I'm not sure if this is because she can think rationally or if she just votes for whoever she thinks is cutest (which is likely). If the latter is the case, Iggy changes everything.

She is acting PRECISELY as I predicted, based on PRECEDENT.

And PRECEDENT would say that she will allow Iggy a chance at governing if it comes to that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
She is acting PRECISELY as I predicted, based on PRECEDENT.

And PRECEDENT would say that she will allow Iggy a chance at governing if it comes to that.

Not everyone agrees with you that there was a precedent for proroguing parliament the way she did.

Most would disagree, actually.

[Asher]

500 posts, continuation: http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...hreadid=182454

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher


Not everyone agrees with you that there was a precedent for proroguing parliament the way she did.

Most would disagree, actually.

You are correct that there was no direct precedent for the prorogue. But as I stated, the relevant precedent was that the PM has enormous latitude in scheduling issues. When it comes to disallowing elections very shortly after other elections when there is a reasonable chance that Commons will give its confidence to another government there are very strong precedents.

I'm actually impressed with how she has performed so far. She is taking her role as a neutral mediator quite seriously. Were she to go nuts and grant a new election in January I would be very surprised.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The Parti Québécois made a late surge to capture 51 seats and about 35 per cent of the popular vote - just seven points behind the Liberals.

This is nonsense. Polling through all of october and november showed the PQ with 32-35% and the PLQ with 41-46%. The final results were well within the margin of error of all of these polls.

Whoever wrote that is a ****ing moron (or just somebody who's looking for a "surprise" story to tell when in fact the results were exactly as expected).

Yeah, but for a strange reason they should still have gotten more seats. It sounds like there was a surprise vote polarization.

Also a La Presse poll a few days before the election put the PQ at 29%. Most observers expected that to be correct, because (and you know it):
-polls underestimate Liberal vote
-low participation tends to hurt separatists more