Coalition Government

[Wild Bill]

My internet server is Sympatico. On the home page they ask a polling question about some current issue every day. It's not a scientific poll but given the number of subscribers it can't help but be pertinent.

This morning the question is "Would you support a coalition government"?

61% voted 'NO'.

So far I've seen no sign that the Opposition parties have considered how ordinary Canadians feel about what they are proposing.

If the Sympatico informal poll means anything, I think they'd better consider it, fast!

[madmax]

We have not had countless repeated elections, their countries that vote every year.

Seeing what we have seen in the last week the result of the next election would be a majority, but who knows which party.

All I care about right at this very minute is that the canadian people are consulted.

The Canadian Public was consulted. We just had an election. The Prime Minister appears to have lost the confidence of the parliment and the GG cannot afford to send the government back to the polls, should another minority conservative government be formed that results in the same deadlock of defeat. Therefore, if the coalition proves that it can form a stable government for at least 2 years, the GG must consider this avenue before wasting money and time on a General Election during an economic meltdown. The some transition is most important.

The problem is that Mr Harper had it his way, and probably could have carried on until 2009 against the turtling Dion. He could have continued to pass legislation much like he had from 06 to spring09. But he choose to have an unnecessary election.

We don't need another unnecesary election, when there is a government ready, willing and ABLE, to pass legislation. A government that would have the confidence of the house.

That is democracy.

[Argus]

We don't need another unnecesary election, when there is a government ready, willing and ABLE, to pass legislation. A government that would have the confidence of the house.

I've noticed the Left is always in favour of consulting the people except when they fear the people will disagree with them. Then it becomes unnecessary.

[madmax]

It depends on the circumstance that they are brought in on. We have time for an election we are not in a major global war.

Yes, we are in a global war against terror. And we are in a major Global economic crises.

As I said before this extends past party lines.

Yes, somehow the BQ, LPC and NDP got that message... What happened to Harper?

[madmax]

We have a Separatist a Socialist and a bumbling Idiot threatening to take over the Canadian Government in what I see as a political coup. The Liberals have the lowest vote numbers in Canada and they feel they have the right to now seize power. I understand that they technically can legally do it however why have an Election if the results of what the people want is thrown out. As far as I am concerned this is just one step above one of our Generals seizing power in the name of democracy.

I hope you voted in this important poll

[capricorn]

My internet server is Sympatico. On the home page they ask a polling question about some current issue every day. It's not a scientific poll but given the number of subscribers it can't help but be pertinent.

This morning the question is "Would you support a coalition government"?

61% voted 'NO'.

So far I've seen no sign that the Opposition parties have considered how ordinary Canadians feel about what they are proposing.

If the Sympatico informal poll means anything, I think they'd better consider it, fast!

A Quebec poll shows 76% of Quebecers in favour. Only 9% want an election. 9% undecided.

En effet, 76% des personnes interrogées favorisent l'installation au pouvoir d'un gouvernement de coalition si les conservateurs sont défaits lundi prochain, alors que seulement 9% souhaitent la tenue d'élections générales et que 9% sont indécis.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebe...e-coalition.php

I suppose the results of these polls depend entirely on how the question is asked.

[Sir Bandelot]

Harper is popular only because he represents the cult of personality. But behind him are the philoshophies of Albertan pig farmers, something that most decent Canadians don't want. But most people are only impressed by an image and don't care about the details, and so their vote is influenced by propaganda... one of the flaws of representative democracy.

[jdobbin]

Have you read the polls on what confidence people have in leadership? Harper is waaaay out in front of any of the opposition. And in confidence in dealing with the economy? Harper is wayyyyy out in front of any of the other opposition leaders. He certainly screwed up here, but I don't see him as being a drawback to the party. I'm not fond of the guy, but still, fair's fair.

Martin was ahead of Harper at the last election on leadership. It didn't figure into Harper's decision to bring his government down.

Even if you think this confidence vote is a naked grab for power, our system provides for it.

It is up to the Opposition to explain why they lost confidence but once that confidence vote is lost, only one person can decide what happens next. The Governor General weighs out all factors. The screams that it is antidemocratic from those who are Conservative supporters has to be judged for the silence they had when they attempted the same things themselves in 2004.

The Governor General only has to decide what tradition and the Constitution provide for in the event of a confidence vote. She may indeed choose an election but the option (as Harper knows well) is that she can turn to the Opposition to ask them to form a government.

It is fair and it sometimes better than repeated elections that drain the treasury and don't resolved anything after they are done.

[madmax]

If the Liberals and New Democrats adopt the same platform I would agree but they are so far apart hence separate party. This is just plain the seizing of power. The GG should reject and send it back to an election and let the democratic process work. I am sure the liberal Party would not exist afterwards.

Everyone I speak to.. Doesn't want an Election or Dion. But that is where it ends.

[jdobbin]

However, the lefties who've gone on for the past 3 years about the injustice of having a Prime Minister who was chosen by only 38% of Canadians seem strangely supportive of having a Prime Minister who only 26% of Canadians voted for.

Think the righties complained about the same thing when the Liberals were in power.

Personally, I accept it as the results of a multi-party system that we have in Canada.

Edited December 1, 2008 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

Think the righties complained about the same thing when the Liberals were in power.

Personally, I accept it as the results of a multi-party system that we have in Canada.

As do I! Bring on the Liberal/Socialist/Seperatist grand coalition!

lol

[jdobbin]

As do I! Bring on the Liberal/Socialist/Seperatist grand coalition!

Finally, a Conservative who accepts that a coalition government is possible and within the rules of our democratic traditions.

[jdobbin]

It will ensure a minimum of two Tory majorities, and utterly ruin the careers of Layton, Dion and anybody else associaited with this disgrace. A legion of former PMs would roll over in their graves if Duceppe is invited to hold the balance of power.

A little hard to believe your anger. Were you this upset with Harper when he did the same thing with the Bloc in 2004?

[madmax]

I have been in a few of those countries.....I would rather live in Canada thank you and live by the "normal" way of Electing Governments.

Read'em and weep. This is our parlimentary system, Queen and All.....

In the United Kingdom the term National Government is in an abstract sense used to refer to a coalition of some or all UK major political parties. In a historical sense it usually refers primarily to the governments of Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain which held office from 1931 until 1940.

The all-party coalitions of Herbert Henry Asquith & David Lloyd George in the First World War and of Winston Churchill in the Second World War were sometimes referred to as National Governments at the time, but are now more commonly called Coalition Governments. Churchill's brief 1945 'Caretaker Government' also called itself a National Government and in terms of party composition was very similar to the 1931-1940 entity.

The Wall Street Crash heralded the global Great Depression and Britain was particularly badly hit. The government was trying to achieve several different, contradictory objectives: trying to maintain Britain's economic position by maintaining the pound on the gold standard, balancing the budget, and providing assistance and relief to tackle unemployment.

In 1931 the situation deteriorated and there was much fear that the budget was unbalanced, which was borne out by the independent May Report which triggered a confidence crisis and a run on the pound. The Labour government agreed to make changes in taxation and expenditure in order to balance the budget and restore confidence, but the Cabinet could not agree on the two options available: either introduce tariffs, or make 20% cuts in unemployment benefit.

[White Doors]

Finally, a Conservative who accepts that a coalition government is possible and within the rules of our democratic traditions.

It is possible and within the rules, but the grand Coalition will be severely punished by the Canadian voter next election.

You, as a Liberal, should be very wary of this. This will forever change the nature of politics in Canada, effectively regulating the Liberals to a rump of a coalition.

English Canadians will not take kindly to the BQ running the country. Also, the BDers will not take kindly to being in bed with the Ad-Scam people.

I can't figure out why Harper and Co. are backing down on this.

A couple of months on the bench will do more for the CPC than 4 years in power ever could.

[jdobbin]

If such a move occurs, Canada would be justified in recommending to the Crown that its Canadian representative be replaced forthwith.

Who do you think Canada is?

[madmax]

We need electoral reform but it has to be in a manner that will greatly reduce the power of the parties.

Erm, No!!! The fact that governments have power, means they can accomplish something without their hands tied behind their back. I could handle a cut to public funding of parties... but that's another poll.

[g_bambino]

Forget the qualifications. There is nothing undemocratic about two opposition parties forming a coalition government.

Call it unethical, unforgiving, evil, whatever you want. But please stop calling it undemocratic, because it's not.

Well put.

[madmax]

Read it again put down the partisanship and actually read the transcripts. What they are saying is we don't what a vote we don't need the democratic process, we will take harper out without the mandate from the Canadian public. If he ment their was nothing undemocratic about it that is what he would have said.

Do you realize you are grasping at straws?

[jdobbin]

I, for one, don't think it's unfair or undemocratic. However, what aggravates me is the blatant, in your face, lying on the part of the opposition leaders.

Well, the Tories can use that for their next election platform. Guess that will be up to the electorate to decide on.

As I said, it's legal, but they should have done it after the election, not seized on this pretext and then pretended it's about the economy. As it is I consider them all nothing more than grasping, venal, self-serving, liars who couldn't care less what damage they might do to the economy by creating instability in government.

The instability started when Harper decided to act in a ruthless bullying way once again and lost the confidence in a minority government. Even if you think this isn't about economics, even if you think it is a power grab...the one thing that this is completely about is confidence and the Opposition doesn't have it in Harper to stop acting like a horse's ass and really get dow to the brass tacks of the economy.

[madmax]

what was the vote numbers for the NDP again? The Liberals? The Bloc? Pray do tell. Much more than 63% voted against the NDP. Much more than 63% voted against the Liberals. Much more than 63% voted against the Bloc.

Sorry bub, the tories won the election.

The Tories received 144 seats and an opportunity to form a government. The Prime Minister appears to have put that opportunity in jeapardy. The Prime Minister is also on record with regards to asking the GG to consider the Opposition parties request to govern before going to the polls.

Sorry bub, Mr Harper the tories may sit in opposition. They lost the government. (Unbelieveable)

[jdobbin]

It is possible and within the rules, but the grand Coalition will be severely punished by the Canadian voter next election.

I don't know how you can even know that. Are you Kreskin? What if they manage things competently for the next two years?

You, as a Liberal, should be very wary of this. This will forever change the nature of politics in Canada, effectively regulating the Liberals to a rump of a coalition.

Don't know that you can say that either.

We have seen Liberals supported in past minority governments and they have survived.

English Canadians will not take kindly to the BQ running the country. Also, the BDers will not take kindly to being in bed with the Ad-Scam people.

Many Canadians actually like Duceppe despite what you say. Many said they wished they could vote for him. Go figure.

I can't figure out why Harper and Co. are backing down on this.

A couple of months on the bench will do more for the CPC than 4 years in power ever could.

Well, it might not go so well for Harper. How many kicks at the can does he get?

[madmax]

Now that we're settled down, if you think you seen brinkmanship from Harper, it's going to get a lot worse. If Harper shut down Parliament until the budget vote expect massive polling, a barage of attack ads, tv appearances, etc. Harper has ammunition, he apparently has time, and has funds to wage war. I think he has to, he has no confidence in the house, and should begin campaigning immediately. His bullying will get worse. He will try and bully the opposition into an election.

Good lord, how stupid can he be?

[White Doors]

I don't know how you can even know that. Are you Kreskin? What if they manage things competently for the next two years?

Don't know that you can say that either.

We have seen Liberals supported in past minority governments and they have survived.

Many Canadians actually like Duceppe despite what you say. Many said they wished they could vote for him. Go figure.

Well, it might not go so well for Harper. How many kicks at the can does he get?

It is my prediction and I am confident of it.

I am HOPING that they form this coalition.

Then we will see which of the two of us knows Canadians the best.

[fellowtraveller]

The Canadian Public was consulted. We just had an election. The Prime Minister appears to have lost the confidence of the parliment and the GG cannot afford to send the government back to the polls, should another minority conservative government be formed that results in the same deadlock of defeat. Therefore, if the coalition proves that it can form a stable government for at least 2 years, the GG must consider this avenue before wasting money and time on a General Election during an economic meltdown. The some transition is most important.

The problem is that Mr Harper had it his way, and probably could have carried on until 2009 against the turtling Dion. He could have continued to pass legislation much like he had from 06 to spring09. But he choose to have an unnecessary election.

We don't need another unnecesary election, when there is a government ready, willing and ABLE, to pass legislation. A government that would have the confidence of the house.

That is democracy.

And how does the Opposition prove that they are stable, that they are able to pass legislation? Only by presenting all members of the coalition, or letters of agreement of same, to the GG. Liberals plus NDP does not represent a stable govt, they are many seats short of a majority and many seats short of the total of the govt they propose to replace. The GG will not accept vague promises of assistance from the Bloc as evidence of stability, so either they formally include the Bloc or they can take their toys and go home. I cannot believe that the NDP and Liberals are so stupid as to formally align with the Bloc, it would be suicidal.

The 'coalition' cannot form a govt, and they cannot afford an election.

We are in midgame still, and all sides still have options.