Liberal, Npd And Block Going To Bring Down The Gov

[Morglor9]

Huh? I don't really feel like reading back through this whole thread, but I find it hard to believe that no one has mentioned the removal of government subsidies or the economy in the past three pages. Now, may I remind you that the current worldwide economic crisis is caused not by government interference in economics, but a lack of government regulation? Deregulation in the US allowed things like sub-par mortgages, and that is why the world is where it finds itself right now. In addition to this, the inflation and problems in the US economy (which are affecting the world) have not been caused by a "more Socialist" US President, but a right-wing Republican. As for calling the Liberals and NDP here in Canada socialists, you might only be slightly justified in saying this of the NDP. On top of this, Harper's Conservatives have been in power since 2006, so what's going on in Canada's economy right now should easily be at least partly blamed on them, more so than you could blame these so-called "Socialist" leaders.

[Bizud]

If socialism is a failed economic system (what is socialism anyway?), then what is laissez-faire capitalism?

 

Removing a measly 27 mil of subsidies isn't going to do squat. There are lots of other subsidies that could have been eliminated, like to big business, but clearly Harper wasn't going to propose that. Let's look at why these subsidies for political parties exist in the first place. They were a quid-pro-quo for banning large individual (usually corporate or union) donations. The Conservatives, having inherited the mass-movement infrastructure of the Reform party, win the donation race handily, while the Liberals, who always relied on large donations, are having much more difficulty adjusting to the new rules and are nearly broke. The NDP is in better shape but they, too, miss large union donations, ditto for the Bloc. So when the Conservatives propose eliminating these subsidies without returning to the old rules that allowed large donations, it's a pretty clear attack on every party but their own. Harper thought, "Hey, let's kick the other parties while they're down; they haven't teamed up against us so far so we'll keep pushing the envelope." Lesson learned?

 

Really? I thought a lot of them were PO'd. I mean the gov't does pretty much not give a poop about them (until the Cons got in). If Harper got ousted by Dion/Layton how upset would they be out there?

 

There's no doubt all the rubes out here, in all of Western Canada, are furious about the coalition. But they all voted Conservative in the first place. I don't know one Liberal or NDP supporter who, even if they aren't nuts about their party's coalition partner, doesn't want Harper out at all costs and doesn't want their party to be in the government. The only people who complain about the Conservatives being ousted are Conservatives, and of course they're upset. Nobody explained to them that they did not actually win the election. All of this "now the people must make their voice heard" crap is just stupid; we just did make our voices heard, in an election which returned fewer Conservative MPs than non-Conservatives.

[C-Bacon]

I don't know one Liberal or NDP supporter who, even if they aren't nuts about their party's coalition partner, doesn't want Harper out at all costs and doesn't want their party to be in the government. The only people who complain about the Conservatives being ousted are Conservatives, and of course they're upset.

 

I don't know any Liberal or NDP supporters against the coalition either, which is why i'm scratching my head when I read polls saying the Conservatives are close to the 50% margin if an election were held. Either it's the Dion factor, or the Conservative spin machine has been successful in swaying people that don't follow politics and actually think that this is some sort of coup.

[Crusader]

Thirding this, don't know ANY Liberal or NDP supporters that oppose the coalition. It's really just the more "right wing" and "business oriented" people in the party that oppose this. That and John Manley wants to be PM.

[Morglor9]

I guess my other posts have confirmed it, but I'm willing to jump in as part of that 62% majority in support of the Coalition.

[heyrabbit]

Because free-market neo-liberalism has done so much for so many. Take case studies from nations that were force fed (via internal or external forces) neo-liberal reforms - like most of Latin America during the 1980s and compare them to when they broke away from such reforms. Or just look at places like Norway or Sweden and how terrible things are going for their 'big government' economic policies.

 

 

 

The "moderate" public actually support most of the NDP policies.

 

Also, let me guess, when you say socialism is a failed economic system, you're referring to the Soviet Union, right?

 

When I say it's a failed system, I'm referring to any country that practices it, to whatever extent, which happens to be every country in the world, including mixed economies such as Canada and Sweden. The old Soviet Union is just one of the best examples of Socialism, along with Nazi Germany and Cuba. What's terrible about dying waiting for an operation in Sweden, or not being able to afford a car, or paying 25% in taxes on your food? They have the exact same problems that are typical of socialist influence.

 

If socialism is a failed economic system (what is socialism anyway?), then what is laissez-faire capitalism?

 

Laissez-faire capitalism is the antithesis of Socialism. Or, Socialism is the negation of Capitalism. LF Capitalism is the only moral system in human history.

 

 

Morglor: Study economics. Briefly explain to me how you think a lack of "government regulation" has caused the crisis. Also, tell me what you think inflation is.

Edited December 8, 2008 by heyrabbit

[calgarydave]

which returned fewer Conservative MPs than non-Conservatives.

 

Seriously, you keep making this point but that doesn't make it true. Thats the beauty of Canadian politics, we have more than 2 parties, and CANNOT make the distinction that you're trying to make. We cannot lump everyone into Conservative or non Conservative.

Its not Tories VS everyone else.

Its not East Canada VS West Canada,

nor is it Canada VS Quebec.

 

Speaking as one of that, what'd you call us?? Rubes. As a "Rube" I have to say that your elitest attitude (eg calling westerners Rubes) is the exact sort of attitude that has caused consternation out here. A couple elections ago the liberal candidate in my riding's campaign slogan was "Vote the west in". That carrying with it the context that the only way that we could have any sort of representation in Federal Gov was to conform to the views of the majority. Frankily that sort of attitude pissed me off beyond belief (I was actually going to vote for him before I saw his slogan). But I digress.

 

Myself and all the other Rubes that I know aren't pissed off at the concept of a coalition government. What pisses us off is that they have to pander to the Bloc in order to get it. Mark my words if the coalition takes power in Jan with the support of the Bloc it will come back to bite them in the ass.

 

Further its not just us "Rubes" that are annoyed at whats been going on. Evidenced by the fact that Tory support through-out Canada. Not just in Rubesville has gone up since the flap started.

 

 

As to the points on Campaign financing. Its a great illustration of the differences in the attitudes of the parties. The Tories have gone out and set up a network of campaign donors, very similar to what helped Obama. Grassroots supports, where the party supports open their wallets to help the political party they support get in. Where as the other parties are just happy to let the tax payers shoulder the burden. And heck maybe just MAYBE if the parties didn't get the hand outs, maybe they'd stick to more effective campaigning methods, and lay off the attack ads which frankly piss me off on both sides.

 

I find it difficult that in a time where all Canadians are being forced to tighten their belts, due to the faltering economy that we should keep giving dumptruck loads of money to help elected officials get re-elected.

Nevermind the fact that cutting the campaign financing as they were trying to do would hurt the Tories the most as they got the most vote. "But its not fair they have thier network of donors set up and we dont" Well boo-freaking-hoo should've spent more time getting your own donors lined up.

 

 

Graham:

If the coalition did take over there would be people who would be frustrated, there would be some that would be PO'd. But don't expect us to start to threaten to Separate like Quebec does. The Alberta Separatist party is sorta like the short bus of AB politics. Excepts it is politically correct to make fun of them :angry:

 

 

Morglor: Study economics. Briefly explain to me how you think a lack of "government regulation" has caused the crisis. Also, tell me what you think inflation is.

 

De-regulation in the banking industry in the states allowed them to start to take on more risky lending strategies. One of which was the sub-prime mortages. When housing prices in the states started to fall, coupled with rising interest rates the banks found themselves with billions in failed investments.

 

This had 2 affects.

First off millions of people started to loose their homes, and it a lot of cases that would've been their life savings, or would've spent their life savings trying to make it thru w/o foreclosure.

Secondly this caused there to be a lack of liquidity in the lending industry.

When I took econ in Uni, the prof always talked about to run a business you needed 3 things. Land, Labour and Capital. Businesses could no longer secure affordable capital to grow and expand their businesses.

 

Now I'll conceed that 10 years from now when we look back, most likely we won't say that this was the root cause of the economic instability we are facing now. But it's sure made a bad situation worse.

 

*EDIT* Pure socialism really doesn't work, nor does pure capitalism. Hence why we have been operating under a mixed economy. I'm sure there's economists out there who have done studies showing that as governments prod our economies towards more of socialist or pure capitalist economy that there are and have been increasing pressure on the economy to return to a more central mixed format. I'm not sure if that makes sense and no I dont have any substantial evidence to back up what I just said just my suppositions ;)

Edited December 8, 2008 by calgarydave

[Bizud]

I live in Kamloops BC and this place is full of fucking rubes. I don't understand why Harper is so popular out here, but I've noticed a demonstrable lack of knowledge of our political system on the part of the locals complaining about the coalition.

 

Seriously, you keep making this point but that doesn't make it true. Thats the beauty of Canadian politics, we have more than 2 parties, and CANNOT make the distinction that you're trying to make. We cannot lump everyone into Conservative or non Conservative.

Its not Tories VS everyone else.

Its not East Canada VS West Canada,

nor is it Canada VS Quebec.

 

No, you missed my point, AGAIN. The Conservatives have a minority of the seats in House. The government governs at the pleasure of the House. This means that all this time, this past two years, the opposition, by not working together, has been allowing Harper to govern. They could have withdrawn that consent and installed another government at any time by teaming up. Because there are more MPs in the House who are NOT Conservative than there are Conservatives, and that's pretty much the dividing line between the parties - the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens can all be considered, and would describe themselves as, at least somewhat "progressive." The Conservatives are the opposite.

 

As to the points on Campaign financing. Its a great illustration of the differences in the attitudes of the parties. The Tories have gone out and set up a network of campaign donors, very similar to what helped Obama. Grassroots supports, where the party supports open their wallets to help the political party they support get in. Where as the other parties are just happy to let the tax payers shoulder the burden. And heck maybe just MAYBE if the parties didn't get the hand outs, maybe they'd stick to more effective campaigning methods, and lay off the attack ads which frankly piss me off on both sides.

 

I find it difficult that in a time where all Canadians are being forced to tighten their belts, due to the faltering economy that we should keep giving dumptruck loads of money to help elected officials get re-elected.

Nevermind the fact that cutting the campaign financing as they were trying to do would hurt the Tories the most as they got the most vote. "But its not fair they have thier network of donors set up and we dont" Well boo-freaking-hoo should've spent more time getting your own donors lined up.

 

It wouldn't hurt the Tories the most, they have other funds to rely on. That's like saying taxes are a bigger burden on the wealthy because they have to pay more of them. Yeah, the other parties are going to have to build up a successful organization to raise donations, but that's not the point - this is about one party trying to change the rules to hit all their competitors where it hurts. And if there were no public subsidies for votes, it would make sense to let individuals, corporations and unions donate more than $1000 a year, like they used to be - wouldn't it? Remember these new campaign financing rules are less than a decade old.

 

Finally, as for tightening our belts, I haven't had to yet, so I really don't know what you're talking about.

[Morglor9]

Morglor: Study economics. Briefly explain to me how you think a lack of "government regulation" has caused the crisis. Also, tell me what you think inflation is.

 

I should hope that I don't have to explain how a lack government regulation has caused/worsened the crisis. Aside from the description given by calgarydave of how the two are related, many news articles written about the crisis when it started months ago in the US, right up to now and probably to continue for some time have pointed to subprime mortgages allowed by deregulated lending in the US to have either caused or worsened the current economic situation.

 

@ calgarydave, on the campaign subsidies: I would argue that the average middle-class Conservative supporter isn't the one who's making the contributions to their party. The donors, I'm guessing, are mostly people from executive corporate positions. This worries me, as a party who receives more of their funding from the executive level of the corporate world, even if it is given by private individuals from that world, is more likely to be an industry lapdog. In general, heavy industry donations to a party like the NDP or Green would either completely undermine their political positions or destroy them by pacifying lobbyists to maintain their cashflow from these "donors".

Edited December 8, 2008 by Morglor9

[Bizud]

The Conservatives do receive a lot of donations from their rank and file members. Building up that organization is how Reform became a credible political force in the first place - neither the Liberals nor the old Progressive Conservatives ever bothered seeking out donations en masse because it just wasn't necessary, before large donations were banned. That changed in 2002, and as of the 2004 election parties now receive $1.95 per vote in subsidy money. Now the parties all have to adjust and ratchet up their efforts to get their supporters to donate. The Conservatives have a leg up on the competition. That's why their attempt to change the rules at this point, without changing them to again allow donations larger than $1000, is a transparent attempt to gain an advantage over the other parties by breaking their wallets. It's not about saving the federal government some money. $27 million is a piddling sum compared to (for example) the amount lost when the GST was cut by a single percentage point.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Bizud

[Crusader]

Way to screw the Party Iggy and Manley.

 

Manley should go back to the Tories where he's wanted.

[heyrabbit]

De-regulation in the banking industry in the states allowed them to start to take on more risky lending strategies. One of which was the sub-prime mortages. When housing prices in the states started to fall, coupled with rising interest rates the banks found themselves with billions in failed investments.

 

This had 2 affects.

First off millions of people started to loose their homes, and it a lot of cases that would've been their life savings, or would've spent their life savings trying to make it thru w/o foreclosure.

Secondly this caused there to be a lack of liquidity in the lending industry.

When I took econ in Uni, the prof always talked about to run a business you needed 3 things. Land, Labour and Capital. Businesses could no longer secure affordable capital to grow and expand their businesses.

 

Now I'll conceed that 10 years from now when we look back, most likely we won't say that this was the root cause of the economic instability we are facing now. But it's sure made a bad situation worse.

 

*EDIT* Pure socialism really doesn't work, nor does pure capitalism. Hence why we have been operating under a mixed economy. I'm sure there's economists out there who have done studies showing that as governments prod our economies towards more of socialist or pure capitalist economy that there are and have been increasing pressure on the economy to return to a more central mixed format. I'm not sure if that makes sense and no I dont have any substantial evidence to back up what I just said just my suppositions ;)

 

There is no logical sequence of causality that links de-regulation to recessions. De-regulation isn't teh cause of the economic crisis, and it's not a knock against free market economics, because the economic problems are caused by regulation, not de-regulation.The CRA literally forced banks to lend subprime mortages. Aside from that, the gov't created easy opportunity for lenders to sell subprime mortages by financially backing Freddie and Fannie. Then you have the 700 billion dollar bail-out to prop-up the housing market. In fact, it's a perfect against gov't interference in the economy.

 

What makes socialism evil doesn't disappear when you practice it less. Socialism is literally the negation of Capitalism. it's a system based on altruism, on the violation of every individual's rights. it necessarily causes totalitarian dictatorships, by its very nature. Capitalism, on the other hand, is the only moral and only practical system in history. it's the correct system. I'm talking about Laissez-faire Capitalism.

Edited December 9, 2008 by heyrabbit

[ToadMan]

/sigh.

 

This is what I know about our current economic crisis (which I find hard to attribute to socialist tendencies given 8 years of highly right wing policy makers). Subprime mortgages are the result of insurers not being required to have capital funds in the event they have to pay out. What that really means is that banks where handing out mortgages on the idea that house prices will always rise. Banks insure the mortgages against default. When you buy most kinds of insurance the insurer is required to have some funds or assets that will allow them to pay out some percentage of the total amount they are insuring. This doesn't mean that an insurer has to be able to pay out all policies at the same time, but the usual regulation prevent firms from over leveraging. Since this wasn't true in the mortgage industry, firms where in fact leveraged out beyond a safe limit. When people started to default on mortgages the banks claimed on the insurance, since the insurers where over extended, they could actually pay out the claims, which caused the chain reaction.

 

The recession we are seeing is a result of policies put in place to allow banks to make huge amounts of money by loosening the restrictions which kept their lending safe. The massive cash injection isn't actually the cause of the recession. It is contributing to the current state of recession (or the inflation as you have pointed out). However the injection came as an attempt to stabilize a situation that would have run dangerously out of control. As it stands the whole thing didn't go so well anyway.

 

It's pretty late, and I'm not going to seek out supporting evidence for the above.

 

On a side note, if we can keep this to a debate of facts? I'm barely able to tolerate the implication that anybodies opinion is less valid than another. Especially when the high and mighty are just throwing out buzz words and hardly seem to have any real supporting evidence are argument to their claims.

[Crusader]

Bob Rae just pulled out of the leadership race. The coalition is pretty much ruined.

[Bizud]

I would have preferred Rae (holding my nose) to Ignatieff, but whatever, at least the Liberals now have someone who can hold his own in a debate against Harper.

[borntohula]

i think the coalition has served its purpose.

 

1) it got dion out faster than he would've had to leave, had it succeeded. he wasn't a bad guy, but clearly he was divisive to the liberal party, which isn't the best kind of leader to have when you're trying to form an alliance. i think the liberal party knew full well that the coalition wouldn't work. if it did, well then it proved that dion was a good leader and clearly capable of running the country, but if he failed, then he would be a scapegoat, and be forced from the leadership. problem solved.

 

2) pressured harper into acting, and (hopefully) re-thinking the budget. obviously it won't be a complete 180, because its still a conservative budget regardless, but i think that the pressure that the liberals and NDP have been applying to the tories will make them re-think things. that might be naive of me.

 

when parliament resumes come january, clearly harper will present the budget as the item for the motion of confidence, making it difficult for the coalition to really continue successfully. i think that the liberals and NDPs will vote along with the budget, because if they don't they clearly do not have their interests of the country in mind (i'm obviously torn on this issue, not being a fan of harper or the conservatives, but i think any budget is better than no budget at this point). voting agaisnt the gov't would probabyl force an election, something we really can't afford at the moment, given that the last one cost $300 mil.

 

the confidence vote will be over and harper will (miss)handle the economic crisis. come the next election, which will probably be in a year or two, ignatieff and the libs will use the fact that harper was prime minister during the beginning of the crisis as a measure to get him and the tories out, and will probably win the election with a minority.

 

the coalition has put both the liberals and NDP in a better footing than they would've been otherwise.

Edited December 10, 2008 by borntohula

[bishopx]

You know, I've been watching this unfold... Canada is experiencing interesting times right now...Saskatchewan is in the middle of a major labor shortage, a labor shortage. Meanwhile I'm getting 120 resumes a week for shitty jobs, that would be at least 30% paycuts to must of the people applying, because of all the layoffs.

 

Democracy is a wonderful thing, and the players here have every right to do what they're doing in a democratic society...

 

Canada like every other nation has it's issues, but jesus...this shit is the kind on bullshit that could destroy it. The election is over...move on. Focus on filling jobs, improving health care, helping those who can't help themselves. The people need to speak up and tell the whiny politicos to shut the fuck up, and let it go. Work with the system, not tear it down.

Edited December 10, 2008 by bishopx

[Morglor9]

Not only is Saskatchewan in a labour shortage, but the government has been paying tons of money to bring in workers from all over the world.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Morglor9

[Moonlight_Graham]

Socialism is literally the negation of Capitalism. it's a system based on altruism, on the violation of every individual's rights. it necessarily causes totalitarian dictatorships, by its very nature. Capitalism, on the other hand, is the only moral and only practical system in history. it's the correct system. I'm talking about Laissez-faire Capitalism.

 

Laissez-faire capitalism would destroy a great many of an individual's rights, not retain them. You have a delusional faith that free capitalism will self-correct everything justly, simply based on the principle of capitalism. This is not true. There is a ridiculas amount of corruption & moral malice than can occur when businesses are left unchecked. This occured was seen in the west after the Industrial Revolution. It is seen throughout history (ie: slavery, disgustingly long hours, horrible working conditions). You think that workers will just up & leave and magically find a better job with better pay/conditions if such occurs & all will wonderfully correct itself? Didn't & doesn't happen.

 

The irony of what you're saying is that if you take away all regulation from business owners, then the business owners themselves become totalitarian dictators of their businesses. They can do anything they want to their employees, unless laws/regulations are set to protect them. Your argument might be "well they can just leave & find a new job because competition would create it, thus the system would correct itself". Thats almost exactly like saying that someone who lives in a country run by a totalitarian dictatorship can just up and leave his country if he doesn't like it. Its a lot more complicated than that.

 

Like Marx, many of your ideas are based in theory and not reality. But i would like to know your definition of what "every individual's rights" are?

 

borntohula:

 

i think the coalition has served its purpose.

 

I totally agree. And the Liberals & the coalition are a joke now. One day they want Dion for PM, the next they want him out. In a way i'm glad the coalition crisis came to be, but in other way its quite sad that the threat of elections/coalitions are the only way for the oppositions in a minority-controlled Parliament to have any leverage to disagree. Thats a mighty huge flaw in our gov't system. I like the U.S. system in that congressmen are able/encouraged to vote in the interests or their constituents foremost and not just along party lines.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Moonlight_Graham

[Bizud]

voting agaisnt the gov't would probabyl force an election, something we really can't afford at the moment, given that the last one cost $300 mil.

 

If an alternative government-in-waiting exists that has the confidence of the House, the Governor-General pretty much has to invite them to form the government rather than dissolving parliament for an election. The Liberals won't vote against the budget unless the coalition deal is still on.

 

I totally agree. And the Liberals & the coalition are a joke now. One day they want Dion for PM, the next they want him out. In a way i'm glad the coalition crisis came to be, but in other way its quite sad that the threat of elections/coalitions are the only way for the oppositions in a minority-controlled Parliament to have any leverage to disagree. Thats a mighty huge flaw in our gov't system. I like the U.S. system in that congressmen are able/encouraged to vote in the interests or their constituents foremost and not just along party lines.

 

This actually isn't a flaw in our system of government, but rather our political parties. MPs are free to vote however they want, but their leaders and whips will impose discipline because they can. The Reform party was supposed to change all that, isn't that funny? I think it is. Anyway, the UK has the same (Westminster) system we do, but voting against the party line is much more common, although some of that is probably due to the much larger House.

 

This was only a crisis, however, because of our country's profound unfamiliarity with coalition government and the notion that the biggest party doesn't necessarily get to govern. And I don't think the coalition is dead by any means. I think the Liberals have a lot to lose if they back out now - why would anyone vote for a party that would turn down the opportunity to be in government?? People elected them to STOP STEPHEN HARPER - that is the main objective here for progressives in this country - and if they won't do that a lot of people will vote for another party that is more willing (though perhaps less able) to.

 

Also, lesson leared. Don't feed the Objectivists.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Bizud

[ToadMan]

You know, I've been watching this unfold... Canada is experiencing interesting times right now...Saskatchewan is in the middle of a major labor shortage, a labor shortage. Meanwhile I'm getting 120 resumes a week for shitty jobs, that would be at least 30% paycuts to must of the people applying, because of all the layoffs.

 

Saskatchewan has a labour shortage because employers won't pay enough money. It's the sad fact. My home town of Saskatoon has a housing market that is going through the roof (in perspective to it's history). Employers just won't pay enough. I got told that as a University grad with 2 degrees I couldn't earn enough to pay a mortgage on a small 2 bedroom condo?!?. I moved to California for an offer that is more than double the Saskatchewan going rate for my profession.

 

Now I realize that is bias because they labour shortage is likely more limited to manual labour jobs (I know construction companies where offering walk on site employment to any ticketed trade worker before I left). What usually gets missed is that there isn't any workers because people have been leaving the province for years, meaning people who would potentially work those trades have long since gone to Alberta where the money is.

 

Anyway, that could even be a thread of it's own. On that note, the capitalist debate could also be a thread of it's own (and I believe there is one of those around). I encourage you to continue to debate it, but I encourage it in a different location... unless you can make it some how relevant to the topic at hand.

 

I apologize for the irony of being off topic only to then caution about being off topic. ;)

[Moonlight_Graham]

This actually isn't a flaw in our system of government, but rather our political parties. MPs are free to vote however they want, but their leaders and whips will impose discipline because they can. The Reform party was supposed to change all that, isn't that funny? I think it is. Anyway, the UK has the same (Westminster) system we do, but voting against the party line is much more common, although some of that is probably due to the much larger House.

 

This was only a crisis, however, because of our country's profound unfamiliarity with coalition government and the notion that the biggest party doesn't necessarily get to govern. And I don't think the coalition is dead by any means.

 

Really, i didn't know that about the UK parliament. Why is it more common in the UK? Wouldn't the party leader + whips still hold the same kind of large power over the other MP's? Interesting, i should research that.

 

It still has something to do with the politcal system though. The Westminster system has the head of gov't (the PM) also a member of the legislature (as well his the cabinet). Therefore the PM has a vote in the legislature, as do members his cabinet, so the PM can control the voting & discipline, as you say, members who don't vote with the party or speak out of hand etc. The U.S. system has the head of gov't (The President) seperate from legislature, so he has much less power over other party members in congress and also cannot table bills.

 

I agree its only a "crisis" because we aren't used to coalition governments And i agree that the coalition isn't over. I was reading Ignatief's (sp??) comments in the newspaper today after he took over as Liberal leader. I like his stance, that its up to Harper to table a good budget to whether the coalition brings him down or not. However he also said he would not go into any negotiations with Harper about the budget, which i think is odd.

[Morglor9]

I don't think it's that odd for him to say budget negotiations aren't an option. Harper knows that they're willing to bring him down and govern as a coalition, he has to know that they aren't going to screw around. They were ready to bring him down a week ago, so the proroguing of Parliament and being able to table a budget is his one chance, and he only gets that one chance to stay in power. Considering what he'd been trying to pull, he doesn't really deserve it and should be thankful that the Coalition parties didn't decide to just vote down his budget no matter what it contains. At the same time, hearing the budget and considering it before voting on it makes the Coalition parties appear less power hungry and more concerned for the well being of Canada.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Morglor9

[Moonlight_Graham]

I don't think it's that odd for him to say budget negotiations aren't an option. Harper knows that they're willing to bring him down and govern as a coalition, he has to know that they aren't going to screw around

....At the same time, hearing the budget and considering it before voting on it makes the Coalition parties appear less power hungry and more concerned for the well being of Canada.

 

I agree that this makes the Coalition seem less like power-grab losers. But without negotiations, or at least sitting down at the table & discussing things, i guess the Libs etc. assume Harper knows what kind of budget they want? Anyways, i read in the news that Ignatief has already talked privately with Harper (either yesterday or Thurs, can't remember) about the state of the economy & the budget. So wtf, i would kinda consider those to be negotiations. But i'm just glad they are talking instead of posturing like douchebags.