# What outcome would you like to see happen in the parliamentary crisis?



## PMedMoe (4 Dec 2008)

Poll at Canoe.ca (right side of page).

What outcome would you like to see happen in the parliamentary crisis? 

The Tories continue to govern with Harper as PM   43% 
The Tories continue to govern with a different PM   8% 
The coalition takes over   12% 
The Governor General dissolves parliament for a general election   20% 
A no confidence vote dissolves parliament for a general election   7% 
Anything but another general election   4% 
I don't care anymore   6% 
  

Total Votes for this Question: 1649


----------



## dapaterson (4 Dec 2008)

Where's the "Name PMedMoe as Supreme Galactic Overlord" option?


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2008)

Go Moe!


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Dec 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Where's the "Name PMedMoe as Supreme Galactic Overlord" option?



Nah, I don't want to be in charge.  I rather be one of the henchmen women!  ;D


----------



## Scratch_043 (4 Dec 2008)

if I'm reading into the results right, the majority wants The Conservatives in power, with 49% saying keep harper, and 8% saying new CPC PM. there's also 12% saying they want an election, so, let's say if even 1/3 of those would vote CPC, that's a total of 61%

(according to a canoe poll, which i know is not really that accurate, for any number of reasons)


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Dec 2008)

According to an Ipsos Reid poll, 60% of Canadians support the Conservatives at present and if an election were called, the Conservatives would get a majority government with 46% of the vote, compared with 23% for the Liberals, 13% for NDP, 9% for the Bloc, 8% for the Green Party and 5% undecided.

Marketwire Press Release


----------



## CountDC (5 Dec 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> According to an Ipsos Reid poll, 60% of Canadians support the Conservatives at present and if an election were called, the Conservatives would get a majority government with 46% of the vote, compared with 23% for the Liberals, 13% for NDP, 9% for the Bloc, 8% for the Green Party and 5% undecided.
> 
> Marketwire Press Release



In that case let's go to the polls, end the minority government and shut the whining losers out for a few years.


----------



## Love793 (5 Dec 2008)

I can never understand why people put so much stock in the polls put out.  Every one of them is worded towards the Party/Person whom pays for it. Yes, 60% did not vote for the PM (actually 100% did not vote for the PM per say), but 60% didn't vote for Dion or his Rasputin (Layton) either. It's all in the questioning and interpretation of it, plus the region the poll is taken in. I all ways want to know what happened to the 10-20% not accounted for?


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Dec 2008)

Love793 said:
			
		

> I can never understand why people put so much stock in the polls put out.  Every one of them is worded towards the Party/Person whom pays for it.



Actually, if you look on the link, the Ipsos Reid poll was done by Canwest News Services and Global National, not a political party.


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Dec 2008)

No option for public flogging of all leaders for sheer jackassery? :rage: (Extra strokes for the 3 stooges though)


----------



## Lil_T (7 Dec 2008)

I've taken part in a number of polls prior to the last election with  Angus Reid and the results of those polls were bang on.


----------



## GUNS (7 Dec 2008)

If the coalition succeeds in its attempt to try and gain control of government through a vote of non confidence. I hope the GG will call for an election, instead of handing over power to three clowns.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Dec 2008)

My preferred outcome of this whole mess is for the earth to open up and swallow the Parliament building while all the sitting members are there.  The money we'd save on their pensions alone would fix the economy.


----------



## thunderchild (10 Dec 2008)

This coalation will force upon Canadians a government they did not vote for...according to my dictonary that is called a coup.  I will not stand for that.  If the oppisition wants to defeat the government on the budget then so be it.  We will go back to the polls but don't take away my right to vote on the Government that I want, and have the right and duty to choose.


----------



## cp140tech (10 Dec 2008)

I'm not a fan of the coalition concept myself, but the people forming it were all elected by Canadians. I think it has been well publicized that this coalition is perfectly legal.

All that aside, do you realize that you've spelled dictionary wrong?  Thanks I needed a good chuckle.


----------



## Loachman (10 Dec 2008)

There is only one desireable outcome: To crush the Lieberals, to see them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women.


----------



## thunderchild (10 Dec 2008)

Oops... glad you had a laugh.  IF you remember your history Hitler did the same thing didn't he and he did it all by the book and killed how many millions?.  I know I'm going to extrems but history backs up my statement time and time again.  If the budget is voted down, that is a vote of non-confidense and WE should get the chance to choose who works for us ..not told who is going to get the job.  Especially when the new head of the coalition was put in place an not elected by a majority of the party he is suppose to represent by majority vote.


----------



## Loachman (10 Dec 2008)

Who says that I'm laughing.

I don't remember Hitler having any involvement with the Lieberal Party of Canada one way or another, and to what "book" are you referring?

As for "history back(ing) up (your) statement time and time again", I'm not even sure what your statement is.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Dec 2008)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> IF you remember your history



I think you need to go re-read your history. You missed the point and didnt understand it well the first time.


----------



## thunderchild (10 Dec 2008)

I mis stated the point that I wanted to make so I'll try again,  although the 3 opposition parties do combined have the ability to vote down the government, none can do it on their own. That part is easy the problem is in the following,
1.The leader of the liberals was selected not elected by his party (not very democratic)
2.This party lost the most seats and had the poorest results during an election in it's history.( doesn't have the confidence of the population but wants to be the government)
3.Has had 2 leaders in 72 hrs. (not reassuring as a stable choice for government)
4.Has not presented anything proving they have any plan at all other than get rid of  Harper. 
5.Would not give the population the chance to vote on what our government should be or will be.( takes away our right to vote until they choose to allow it.)
6.Want to avoid an election now because if they trigger one they'll loose even wost than 2 months ago. (sounds like he is seizing power not earning it) 
It all sounds like a coup, it is not democratic  and removes our right to select our own government effectively taking away our right to vote.


----------



## Loachman (10 Dec 2008)

Which is why I want to crush the Lieberals, to see them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women.


----------



## cp140tech (10 Dec 2008)

You get one vote.  Parties forming agreements with each other have done nothing to affect the vote you just cast.  
Like it or not, you don't get much say in what goes on day to day once your one vote has been cast. 
Members are free to cross the floor to join other parties, or sit as independents... it doesn't void the election results.

The Hitler thing is just farm animal stupid.

I like the Conan thing myself.


----------



## tabernac (10 Dec 2008)

mr peabody said:
			
		

> I think it has been well publicized that this coalition is perfectly legal.



Legal? Yes. Loophole in the system? Most definitely. Morally correct? Not by any measure.

It doesn't matter if the majority of Canadians voted against Harper. Canadians did NOT go to the polls to vote in a coalition. So the 62 or 63% majority argument doesn't fly particularly well. Or at all.


----------



## cp140tech (10 Dec 2008)

In my post I also said I was not a fan of the coalition.  Morally correct is subjective, legal not so much.  As ridiculous as I may personally believe the concept to be, it is a legitimate option.  The danger in a minority government is very real for a PM who rankles the opposition as much as Mr Harper seems to have done, way she goes.... the f@#kin way she goes.

We can argue all day... they'll do whatever they do.   I have had too much of this fine Irish whiskey to continue posting, good night folks.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2008)

I believe the so called coalition is actually unable to form a government as currently constituted, and the GG was correct to prorogue the Parliament.

1. The coalition caucus only consists of the Liberals and NDP=114 seats.
2. The BQ is not formally part of the coalition, nor do they have the means to take part in such a government as they have no ministers nor do they caucus with the coalition
3. There are no guarantees that the BQ will support the coalition in government, only that they will not motion or support a non confidence motion.

We need to clear the air, and I am starting to believe that Prime Minister Harper engineered this (knowing or suspecting that a coalition deal was in the works) with the long term goal of clearing out the deadwood parties and preventing future "pizza parliaments" and unstable minorities. I suspect that he would be comfortable with mergers or party extinctions that result in *national parties and a clear "Left/Right" choice for voters*, and would graciously head the opposition should a real majority of voters elect one opposition party to power, since that would reflect his desired outcome. (If he would be allowed to gracefully lead the Opposition is a different story, of course).


----------



## Scratch_043 (12 Dec 2008)

^
This is the best explanation of the current situation, and motivation that I have seen so far. Harper is no dunce, he has seen and realized that _no matter who is the "sitting" government_ that party can not effectively lead, given that there is pretty much no chance of a majority government on the horizon (up until this chain of events), and all other parties would effectively be 'waiting in the wings' for them to screw up on something, no matter how small, to get their chance to vote them down and get their chance.


----------



## Marshall (12 Dec 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I believe the so called coalition is actually unable to form a government as currently constituted, and the GG was correct to prorogue the Parliament.
> 
> 1. The coalition caucus only consists of the Liberals and NDP=114 seats.
> 2. The BQ is not formally part of the coalition, nor do they have the means to take part in such a government as they have no ministers nor do they caucus with the coalition
> ...



Very good explanation.

I myself hope the Tories stay in power with Mr. Harper. A coalition seems foolish, the public obviously voted for a Conservative government and that is what we should be entitled to for the next several years. January will be a interesting month.


----------

