Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Monday, March 28, 2011

HOW THE COALITION WILL MAKE MICHAEL IGNATIEFF PRIME MINISTER

According to Liberal MP David McGuinty

Here's the scenario... on Election Day, Mr. Harper wins with the most seats, but falls just shy of a Majority. The Governor General asks him to form a Government, to see if he can maintain "the Confidence of the House".

Considering that the Opposition Parties just voted non-Confidence, the likelihood is VERY HIGH that they will NOT grant Mr. Harper the "Confidence of the House".

So what happens in that result? The Governor General will then, according to Constitutional tradition, approach the Leader of the SECOND PLACE party, and ask him to seek the "Confidence of the House" by forming a Government.

That's right folks... THAT'S how the Opposition parties are planning to make Michael Ignatieff the Prime Minister, even if Stephen Harper wins the election without an outright Majority.

Don't believe me? Then listen to Liberal MP David McGuinty, as he lays out that very scenario for CBC's Evan Solomon...



There you have it folks... if Stephen Harper does not win an outright Majority on May 2, the Opposition Parties will ensure that they wrest power, and anoint their anointed Leader, Michael Igantieff, as Prime Minister.

Because don't forget... THE COALITION DEAL IS STILL IN FORCE!!! This was their plan all along... wait until the Budget came down, drop the Government, fight an election campaign, and then take power by ANY MEANS NECESSARY, since they already had the framework in place.

There's only one way they can disprove my theory... for Michael Igantieff to publicly withdraw his signature on the Coalition Accord.

Labels: , , ,

15 Comments:

  • At Mon Mar 28, 11:10:00 AM EDT, Blogger Alex said…

    You've got it exactly.

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 11:21:00 AM EDT, Blogger Bruce said…

    Exactly as tradition has been in a parliamentary system. Where is teh problem?

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 11:33:00 AM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    The problem is that the Liberals are trying to keep this quiet, rather than honestly telling the Canadian public what their plans are.

    Can you say, "Hidden Agenda"???

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 11:47:00 AM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Democracy at work? Scandalous!

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 12:17:00 PM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    William in Ajax said...

    If the Conservatives fail to get their majority ...don't despair.

    There are a dozen centre-right Liberals ready to (cross the floor) to join the Conservatives in a Majority lasting 4 years, instead of being outcasts in a leftist coalition which won't last 1 year.!
    JMHO

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 01:46:00 PM EDT, Blogger Patsplace said…

    The Liebral Constitution indicates that there is a need for an election to replace a leader, they've got one. Igula and Mini-Marx will never get Cabinet positions by force of vote count so this looks like the way to go, why they've even got a document that states the terms of the coalition. They're Liebrals, therefore they lie. Now that I'm on the topic of Liebrals, where's the $200,000,000.00 that is missing from the HRD, Adscam and Gun Registry thefts?

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 02:18:00 PM EDT, Blogger Brian Busby said…

    The "Liebral Constitution indicates that there is a need for an election to replace a leader". No it doesn't - or is Patsplace referring not to the Liberal Party of Canada, but some imagined entity with characters named Igula and Mini-Marx.

    "They're Liebrals, therefore they lie." Clever.

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 03:35:00 PM EDT, Anonymous Drew Costen said…

    I vote NDP, but I'd rather see a Liberal PM with a coalition than Harper (or any Conservative) as PM.

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 06:18:00 PM EDT, Anonymous canadian politicker said…

    1. Your theory remains preposterous.

    2. No matter what paper Mr. Ignatieff signs, doesn't sign, eats, or writes in blood beneath a full moon, this elaborate "deal" you continue to describe is simply Parliamentary practice and is immune to his ability to contract.

    If Mr. Harper cannot obtain the support of the house, he is not allowed to be Prime Minister. That is it. Regardless of anything else, if Mr. Harper cannot obtain majority support for his matters of confidence after an election, it is entirely normal, customary, and ok for the office of the prime minister to be offered to the leader of another party.

    There is literally nothing Mr. Ignatieff could do to change this fact.

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 07:50:00 PM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It wouldn't surprise me that the opposition would be such rats when it comes to an election. I'm terrified of the thought of that snake Ignatieff becoming PM.

     
  • At Mon Mar 28, 08:33:00 PM EDT, Blogger Alex said…

    Politicker admits to it even as he vehemently denies it.

    This is getting really funny!

    Though I'd much rather hear Politickers "I told you so," who wants to hear Christian Conservative say that? Is it not the worst possible outcome? Is there a way to just avoid all the drama? Conservative Majority is the way out, even for you politicker. You'll be able to claim we were crazy forever and it would be such a relief to hear it.

     
  • At Tue Mar 29, 09:19:00 AM EDT, Anonymous Canadian politicker said…

    I'm not quite certain what I admitted to, considering I'm not attempting to hide anything.

    My sole point is that the increasingly shrill accusations and conspiracy theories are emerging from (among others) the author of this blog are in fact nothing more than sensationalistic descriptions of the actual political process in Canada.

    We should all be able to agree that spreading ignorance is something to be frowned upon.

     
  • At Tue Mar 29, 02:02:00 PM EDT, Blogger Alex said…

    "sensationalistic descriptions of the actual political process in Canada."

    Would you censor him or force him to write about coalitions drowsy and pleasing way?

    My point stands and so does the authors.

     
  • At Tue Apr 05, 10:18:00 PM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    it is humorous that many of you accuse the liberals of lying, when harper openly states that coalition governments are illegal, which is a flat out lie, coalition's are perfectly legal in Canada although one has not been formed since prior to the british north america act (according to wikipedia). on another note, childish name calling and ideological intolerance should not pass for legitimate political discourse. yes, i am talking to you "patsplace". i have no issue with the conservative ideal, but mr. harper hardly represents that. he wastes money all over the place such as these fighter jets we keep hearing about, and the idea of building gigantic prisons when crime levels have been dropping steadily since 1991 seems counter-intuitive.

     
  • At Wed Apr 06, 10:06:00 AM EDT, Anonymous Canadian Politicker said…

    The point of the author is that if Mr. Harper does not win a majority, the opposition will "wrest power" "by any means necessary away from him" because of this coalition business.

    In fact, if Mr. Harper obtains a minority, he has two options ahead of him: either run the country like he has been for the last five years, reckless as to the mandate of the other parties, or he can seek support from at least one of them on his confidence bills.

    If he chooses the former, his agenda will be voted down, and the Governor General will make Mr. Ignatieff the leader. The NDP, Liberals, and Bloc don't have to lift a finger for this - Mr. Harper will do all the work for them. Why?

    Because that's how our system works.

    If you dislike it so much, feel free to campaign to change it, but these accusations of 'coalitions' and 'taking power by any means necessary' are outlandish and infantile, and they betray a deep lack of understanding of how Canadian parliamentary democracy works.

    So would I like the author to write in a "drowsy and pleasing way"? No. I just want him to be bothered to know what he's talking about before he writes.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home