What the "Coalition" was really about
Winnipegger @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:02 am
Many people have already forgotten what the coalition was really about. Let me remind everyone.
The Chrétien Liberals changed the rules for political donations. They restricted donations to $5,400 per person per party per year, or $1,000 per year from corporations. The subsidy of a certain amount per vote was provided to compensate for money lost due to the donation restrictions. When Harper's Conservatives got elected in 2006, they tried to restrict it to $1,000 per person per year, and prohibited donations from corporations. And it was to be retroactive to January 1, 2006. This was when the Liberals were preparing for their leadership convention, and the delegate free was $995. The delegate fee was considered a political donation, so any Liberal member who donated more than $5 during the 2006 would not be permitted to be a delegate at the leadership convention. This was a blatant attempt to interfere with the Liberal leadership. The Senate intervened; said changes to political donations will become effective January 1, 2007, so it wouldn't interfere with the leadership convention, and increased the limit to $1,100 per year. Harper had a hissy fit over that.
Immediately after the 2008 election, Harper said he was introducing a bill to prohibit any subsidies to any political party other than the Conservative Party, but the restriction on donations would remain in place. This was a blatant attempt to kill all other parties. He wanted to turn Canada into a single party state, like the former Soviet Union. And Harper said this was a confidence motion, if voted down it would force an election. This bill was introduced the first day that parliament sat after the 2008 election!
Canada has a system to prevent that sort of shit. If parliament votes non-confidence soon after an election, then the Governor General is required to go to the leader of the official opposition to ask if he can form a coalition that can hold the confidence of the majority of parliament. This isn't expected to happen, this is intended to prevent the Prime Minister from making every bill a confidence motion. In other words, it is specifically to prevent Stephen Harper from doing what he did.
Stéphane Dion responded to this by asking Jack Layton to form a coalition. The Liberals did not want a coalition, but that was better than turning Canada into a single party state. The coalition in 2008 was strictly the Liberal and NDP, but to assure the Governor General that this coalition would hold the confidence of the majority of parliament (the other requirement) they got Gilles Duceppe to sign a document stating the Bloc would not vote non-confidence in the coalition for a period of 6 months after the coalition government formed. Once this letter was delivered to the GG, the Bloc would be bound by it. The only concession to the Bloc was they would continue to get their funding, just like any other political party. The Bloc would not be part of the coalition, would not be part of cabinet, would not be given any other concession. Gilles thought that issue was important enough to sign said letter.
Again, it is not expected that such a coalition would ever form. This exists to prevent the Prime Minister from calling every bill a confidence motion. Stephen Harper was required to back down on the subsidy business. Taking it that far showed Stephen Harper has no judgement. In the end he had to ask the GG to prorogue parliament in order to kill the subsidy restriction bill, and to postpone the confidence vote. They could only hope that parliament didn't bring a confidence vote as soon as it resumed sitting in 2009. Well, it worked; the Liberal Party replaced their leader, and Michael Ignatieff chose not to bring a vote of confidence before the house. Harper's Conservatives really screwed up, they almost lost government even though they won the election. But this also means the Harper government was severely spanked.
Now Stephen Harper is mouthing off about the coalition business again. Gilles Duceppe even made a formal news announcement that Stephen Harper asked he and Jack Layton to form a coalition in 2004! Good for Gille.
This reminds me of an old adage: When you are up to your chin in shit, you keep your mouth shut. Stephen Harper just doesn't know when to keep is big mouth shut.
Unsound @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:17 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Immediately after the 2008 election, Harper said he was introducing a bill to prohibit any subsidies to any political party other than the Conservative Party, but the restriction on donations would remain in place.
I don't have time to look into it right now, but this seems like a flat out lie to me. As I recall, there would be no subsidies to anyone. I thought it was a bad idea, but it wasn't an attempt at a "single party state" as you seem to be saying.
RUEZ @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:22 am
Unsound Unsound:
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Immediately after the 2008 election, Harper said he was introducing a bill to prohibit any subsidies to any political party other than the Conservative Party, but the restriction on donations would remain in place.
I don't have time to look into it right now, but this seems like a flat out lie to me. As I recall, there would be no subsidies to anyone. I thought it was a bad idea, but it wasn't an attempt at a "single party state" as you seem to be saying.
Ya, that jumped out at me too. I'm gonna need to see something that backs that statement up. I'll refrain from calling it a flat out lie for now.
OnTheIce @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:23 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Many people have already forgotten what the coalition was really about. Let me remind everyone.
The Chrétien Liberals changed the rules for political donations. They restricted donations to $5,400 per person per party per year, or $1,000 per year from corporations. The subsidy of a certain amount per vote was provided to compensate for money lost due to the donation restrictions. When Harper's Conservatives got elected in 2006, they tried to restrict it to $1,000 per person per year, and prohibited donations from corporations. And it was to be retroactive to January 1, 2006. This was when the Liberals were preparing for their leadership convention, and the delegate free was $995. The delegate fee was considered a political donation, so any Liberal member who donated more than $5 during the 2006 would not be permitted to be a delegate at the leadership convention. This was a blatant attempt to interfere with the Liberal leadership. The Senate intervened; said changes to political donations will become effective January 1, 2007, so it wouldn't interfere with the leadership convention, and increased the limit to $1,100 per year. Harper had a hissy fit over that.
Immediately after the 2008 election, Harper said he was introducing a bill to prohibit any subsidies to any political party other than the Conservative Party, but the restriction on donations would remain in place. This was a blatant attempt to kill all other parties. He wanted to turn Canada into a single party state, like the former Soviet Union. And Harper said this was a confidence motion, if voted down it would force an election. This bill was introduced the first day that parliament sat after the 2008 election!
Canada has a system to prevent that sort of shit. If parliament votes non-confidence soon after an election, then the Governor General is required to go to the leader of the official opposition to ask if he can form a coalition that can hold the confidence of the majority of parliament. This isn't expected to happen, this is intended to prevent the Prime Minister from making every bill a confidence motion. In other words, it is specifically to prevent Stephen Harper from doing what he did.
Stéphane Dion responded to this by asking Jack Layton to form a coalition. The Liberals did not want a coalition, but that was better than turning Canada into a single party state. The coalition in 2008 was strictly the Liberal and NDP, but to assure the Governor General that this coalition would hold the confidence of the majority of parliament (the other requirement) they got Gilles Duceppe to sign a document stating the Bloc would not vote non-confidence in the coalition for a period of 6 months after the coalition government formed. Once this letter was delivered to the GG, the Bloc would be bound by it. The only concession to the Bloc was they would continue to get their funding, just like any other political party. The Bloc would not be part of the coalition, would not be part of cabinet, would not be given any other concession. Gilles thought that issue was important enough to sign said letter.
Again, it is not expected that such a coalition would ever form. This exists to prevent the Prime Minister from calling every bill a confidence motion. Stephen Harper was required to back down on the subsidy business. Taking it that far showed Stephen Harper has no judgement. In the end he had to ask the GG to prorogue parliament in order to kill the subsidy restriction bill, and to postpone the confidence vote. They could only hope that parliament didn't bring a confidence vote as soon as it resumed sitting in 2009. Well, it worked; the Liberal Party replaced their leader, and Michael Ignatieff chose not to bring a vote of confidence before the house. Harper's Conservatives really screwed up, they almost lost government even though they won the election. But this also means the Harper government was severely spanked.
Now Stephen Harper is mouthing off about the coalition business again. Gilles Duceppe even made a formal news announcement that Stephen Harper asked he and Jack Layton to form a coalition in 2004! Good for Gille.
This reminds me of an old adage: When you are up to your chin in shit, you keep your mouth shut. Stephen Harper just doesn't know when to keep is big mouth shut.
The Chrétien Liberals changed the rules for political donations. They restricted donations to $5,400 per person per party per year, or $1,000 per year from corporations. The subsidy of a certain amount per vote was provided to compensate for money lost due to the donation restrictions. When Harper's Conservatives got elected in 2006, they tried to restrict it to $1,000 per person per year, and prohibited donations from corporations. And it was to be retroactive to January 1, 2006. This was when the Liberals were preparing for their leadership convention, and the delegate free was $995. The delegate fee was considered a political donation, so any Liberal member who donated more than $5 during the 2006 would not be permitted to be a delegate at the leadership convention. This was a blatant attempt to interfere with the Liberal leadership. The Senate intervened; said changes to political donations will become effective January 1, 2007, so it wouldn't interfere with the leadership convention, and increased the limit to $1,100 per year. Harper had a hissy fit over that.
Immediately after the 2008 election, Harper said he was introducing a bill to prohibit any subsidies to any political party other than the Conservative Party, but the restriction on donations would remain in place. This was a blatant attempt to kill all other parties. He wanted to turn Canada into a single party state, like the former Soviet Union. And Harper said this was a confidence motion, if voted down it would force an election. This bill was introduced the first day that parliament sat after the 2008 election!
Canada has a system to prevent that sort of shit. If parliament votes non-confidence soon after an election, then the Governor General is required to go to the leader of the official opposition to ask if he can form a coalition that can hold the confidence of the majority of parliament. This isn't expected to happen, this is intended to prevent the Prime Minister from making every bill a confidence motion. In other words, it is specifically to prevent Stephen Harper from doing what he did.
Stéphane Dion responded to this by asking Jack Layton to form a coalition. The Liberals did not want a coalition, but that was better than turning Canada into a single party state. The coalition in 2008 was strictly the Liberal and NDP, but to assure the Governor General that this coalition would hold the confidence of the majority of parliament (the other requirement) they got Gilles Duceppe to sign a document stating the Bloc would not vote non-confidence in the coalition for a period of 6 months after the coalition government formed. Once this letter was delivered to the GG, the Bloc would be bound by it. The only concession to the Bloc was they would continue to get their funding, just like any other political party. The Bloc would not be part of the coalition, would not be part of cabinet, would not be given any other concession. Gilles thought that issue was important enough to sign said letter.
Again, it is not expected that such a coalition would ever form. This exists to prevent the Prime Minister from calling every bill a confidence motion. Stephen Harper was required to back down on the subsidy business. Taking it that far showed Stephen Harper has no judgement. In the end he had to ask the GG to prorogue parliament in order to kill the subsidy restriction bill, and to postpone the confidence vote. They could only hope that parliament didn't bring a confidence vote as soon as it resumed sitting in 2009. Well, it worked; the Liberal Party replaced their leader, and Michael Ignatieff chose not to bring a vote of confidence before the house. Harper's Conservatives really screwed up, they almost lost government even though they won the election. But this also means the Harper government was severely spanked.
Now Stephen Harper is mouthing off about the coalition business again. Gilles Duceppe even made a formal news announcement that Stephen Harper asked he and Jack Layton to form a coalition in 2004! Good for Gille.
This reminds me of an old adage: When you are up to your chin in shit, you keep your mouth shut. Stephen Harper just doesn't know when to keep is big mouth shut.
The entire point of your post is a lie.
Thanks for trying, maybe next time.
The coalition floated because the Liberals, NDP and Bloc were afraid of losing their government handout. Period.
andyt @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:37 am
Unsound Unsound:
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Immediately after the 2008 election, Harper said he was introducing a bill to prohibit any subsidies to any political party other than the Conservative Party, but the restriction on donations would remain in place.
I don't have time to look into it right now, but this seems like a flat out lie to me. As I recall, there would be no subsidies to anyone. I thought it was a bad idea, but it wasn't an attempt at a "single party state" as you seem to be saying.
How to shoot yourself in the foot and invalidate your own message. Harper did try to cosy up to the Bloc, the same thing he accuses the opposition of doing. All of em will sleep with the devil to get power. But to twist it into lies doesn't help at all.
andyt @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:45 am
$1:
Bloc leader says Harper lying about earlier coalition bid
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/bloc-leader-says-harper-lying-earlier-coalition-bid-20110326-074230-428.html $1:
But Duceppe says Harper wanted to form his own coalition seven years ago against Paul Martin's Liberals.
"He finished second in that election," Duceppe said.
The Bloc leader said Harper even talked about a legislative agenda.
"He came to my office and said 'What do you want in the speech from the throne?'," Duceppe said.
"He finished second in that election," Duceppe said.
The Bloc leader said Harper even talked about a legislative agenda.
"He came to my office and said 'What do you want in the speech from the throne?'," Duceppe said.
Winnipegger @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:47 am
The bill stated that only the elected party got the subsidy. Every other party would lose it. Since the Conservatives were elected, that would provide funding to only the Conservatives.
Do you guys really not realize why such an extrodinary thing happened? Removing the newly elected government and forming a coalition is not somethat that just "happens". This was an attempted blatant abuse of power by the Harper Conservatives; they got spanked. Don't fall for Harper's attempt to rewrite history.
Thanos @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:52 am
I'm fairly certain that the Liberals could have financed everything themselves from the brown-bagged wads of cash they were merrily tossing around Montreal in teh AdScam era.
andyt @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:53 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
The bill stated that only the elected party got the subsidy. Every other party would lose it. Since the Conservatives were elected, that would provide funding to only the Conservatives.
Do you guys really not realize why such an extrodinary thing happened? Removing the newly elected government and forming a coalition is not somethat that just "happens". This was an attempted blatant abuse of power by the Harper Conservatives; they got spanked. Don't fall for Harper's attempt to rewrite history.
Do you guys really not realize why such an extrodinary thing happened? Removing the newly elected government and forming a coalition is not somethat that just "happens". This was an attempted blatant abuse of power by the Harper Conservatives; they got spanked. Don't fall for Harper's attempt to rewrite history.
You want to make that claim, you should back it up with some proof. I admit I didn't read the bill, but the media said it would deprive all parties of the subsidy, but that it favored the Reformacons because their fundraising was in better shape. If you can show otherwise, let's have it.
QBC @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:55 am
Wow, the partisan BS is really gaining strength.... 
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:05 am
QBC QBC:
Wow, the partisan BS is really gaining strength....
Didn't take long at all either
herbie @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:07 am
$1:
introducing a bill to prohibit any subsidies to any political party other than the Conservative Party,
Even I the Tory loather wouldn't stoop to bullshit like that.
The system was revised to a subsidy based on the number of votes a Party received at the least election (about $1.15 per vote last I read) and smaller donations based on individual donations to restrict influence buying.
A huge corporation, or agency (like Chamber of Commerce) could no longer donate $10,000,000 to the Party it favoured. A big union like Steelworkers or CUPW could not shovel $1,000,000 into the party it liked.
That screwed the NDP mostly, and business was formerly divided between Tory/Libs.
At least it was fair.
What Harper wanted to do was end the per-vote subsidy altogether. At the time the Libs were in debt, in disarray and everyone knew the Tories could raise more from individual donations.
The Bloc would've ended up with SFA. The Greens would've got dick shit. The NDP had to get union support local by local. The Libs would have their declining business donation gobbled up to service debts.
Cheesey opportunism.
I'm sure if they could have they would have and the same apologists (at least it's OUR party breaking all the rules, therefore it's GOOD) would have celebrated it.
QBC @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:09 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
QBC QBC:
Wow, the partisan BS is really gaining strength....
Didn't take long at all either
...Nope...we could save everyone a lot of time and aggravation you know......Some Members Some Members:
Liberals Bad!!!!..... Conservatives Good!!!!
Other Members Other Members:
Conservatives Bad!!!! ..... Liberals Good!!!!
That's about the gist of every post made in the political threads so far....
Unsound @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:08 am
QBC QBC:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
QBC QBC:
Wow, the partisan BS is really gaining strength....
Didn't take long at all either
...Nope...we could save everyone a lot of time and aggravation you know......Some Members Some Members:
Liberals Bad!!!!..... Conservatives Good!!!!
Other Members Other Members:
Conservatives Bad!!!! ..... Liberals Good!!!!
That's about the gist of every post made in the political threads so far....
You forgot "NDP of no consequence!"(my cavemen are articulate) but other than that spot on.
So Winnipegger... no proof? Just drop in to spread lies and then scurry back to liberal hq to ask for advice on how to get away with it?
sandorski @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:01 am
Harper rigged the explosives that brought down the Twin Towers!
True story!! 