Dion as Prime Minister

cbc.ca/canada/british-columb … talks.html

This could get interesting.

Yep.  Interesting indeed.  This could be game over for Harper.

In a bad way-I don’t see anything good coming of this attempt at three parties trying to make a bid to run stuff. It’s just too damn hard trying to get co-operation to work for very long and who the hell wants another election so damned soon??!!

Hope you all remember which polling station you voted at, if this works out the way I think it might.


Well, the opposition parties have an agreement for 18 months, which could prove more stable than a Conservative minority.

With the right attitude it can work well.  Germany for example has been governed by coalition governments as long as I can remember. They hold their election every four years.
There are many other countries where it works fine.

It’s time for Canada to try that experiment.  Cooperation must be viewed as a better option than constant confrontation at this moment.

And Cullen is probably a candidate for one of the 6 cabinet spots for the NDP.

I think this Maclean’s article does a good job of explaining the pros and cons of a coalition government-

blog.macleans.ca/2008/12/01/how- … ents-work/

I don’t think it’s the right move but I’m stuck with the outcome of whatever sh*t goes down in the capitol over the next few weeks.


I don’t have a problem with it.

Lots of countries use government by consensus with coalitions and lots of parties.  Works just fine.  The standard rule is that if a government fails, the king/president/etc asks the second-place party to try and form a coalition.  Happens all the time.

The Conservatives called the election because they claimed they could no longer work in parliament where they weren’t a majority.  Despite that claim, they were able to pass a bunch of bills (including budgets!) with a de-facto coalition with the other parties.  Including the Bloc Quebecois. 

Now all of a sudden the idea of another party doing what they’ve done for the last couple of years is “undemocratic” and “illegitimate.”


64% of Canadians voted for other parties.  Let those other parties try and run things, if the Conservatives claim they can’t.

I’ll be happy to see Harper go down in flames.  A coalition will work just fine here.

When the Tories decided that screwing the other parties out of their election funding was more important than addressing the economic problem, they lost all claim to legitimacy.
I just love hearing the staged calls to CKNW whining about the “expense” of funding the parties ($30 million/33 million people - 90c each), lying outright that ‘the unions’ and ‘Liberal bagmen’ still make huge donations (which the funded concept was meant to end) and never getting called on it.
I maintain to this day that “taking something away from someone else rather than demanding your share” is fundamental conservative philosophy.

I’m not a big fan of the three opposition parties attempting to circumvent the democratic outcome of the recent election. Canadians just had the chance to oust Harper, and enough said no.

The majority of Canadians voted against Harper, about sixty percent of them.

The other elected parties are perfectly within their rights to issue a vote of non confidence as they collectively are in the majority (they are not doing anything that is improper).  Harper brought this on himself.

I dont think I could stand her voice if she were prime minister. Isn’t she an american now? if not quebec should separate.

LMAO :smiley:

I’m not contesting that–but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

By beating the other three in an election?

I know that I’ll be bombarded by 20 people telling me that Germany is doing this, and Iceland is doing that–but this is Canada, and enough people voted for Harper that none of the other three took power from him. Now the argument is that because they got 60%+ of the vote combined, they are capable of running the country? In that case, I argue that three six-year-olds should be able to form a coalition and vote as a single 18-year-old person.

^I totally disagree ^

No by governing poorly and underestimating his competition. :smile:

You’re silly, that’s putting three infants minds together against a more matured mind. That basically saying the other three parties are stupid while Harper is educated.

The three of them got 60% of the total vote, that means together they represent more people. So if they joined, they should be able to govern the country, since they represent the majority of the population. That’s how it’s supposed to work. Now it may not work out that way, since once they’re done with their primary goal of getting rid of Harper, they may possibly just start disagreeing with each other and screw it up. It’s just that comparison sort of sucked.

My browser has an automatic BS detector and it’s flashing pretty fast right now :unamused: 

This comment confirm the lack of credibility of eccentric.  Lots of conservatively minded people are intelligent but he makes them all look bad.