Coalition Government

jdobbin · December 1, 2008

We may not directly elect the government and all that will be employed in running this nation....but our vote for our MP of our choosing is also a vote for the type of government we want, be it liberal , PC, NDP what ever....And forming a coalition government takes that away....kind of makes voting a mout piont really.

So your solution is repeated elections.

So i agree with Historybuff, it may be legal to do so, but it does not make it right....

Harper had a few years to correct this problem. He knew about it because he tried the same thing in 2004.

I'm sure Tory supporters would have found some way to justify it has he succeeded.

There is still alot of unanswered questions before the GG steps into the S Storm, what exactly is the coalitions solution to our economic crises, and is it actually better than Harpers plan....or is it just a power grab....

Well, our system allows for a power grab if the Opposition has lost confidence in the government.

Edited December 1, 2008 by jdobbin

Moonbox · December 1, 2008

And yet look at where we are now. Think Harper got here by acting conciliatory?

Non conciliatory and bullying are two VERY different things.

I think you were one of many that said the Liberals were going to bend over and like it...or else. Well, the answer is no now.

What I said was that the conservatives wouldn't call an 'election' any time soon because it would be unpopular to do so. The thought of a coalition hadn't even crossed my mind.

Good, another Tory who thinks that the Tories should sit in Opposition instead.

I'd rather have the Tories leading us right now. I don't need bailout money, nor does my family. Blue collar needs the money right now. The Liberal/NDP coalition is promising it. I'm not pleased with this but I'm betting they'll pay politically when their bailouts and tax increases are announced. On the other hand, I think whatever party leads during the recession is going to hurt for it in the future. I'm disgusted with the Liberals as they are right now, and if a party is going to sink because of the economy, I'd rather it be Bob Rae, Justin Trudeau and the whole gang.

I think that the Liberals will have a far better record on spending than the Tories. The NDP know as well that they will be judged on how well they manage to finances.

Typical dodge and avoid. The question was what do YOU think about the intended billions about to be thrown in as bailouts/stimulus? The economy has been slowing for over a year now and I've been quite fine with increased spending along the way. Jdobbin you've been opposed to virtually EVERY spending announcement made. I find it hilariously ironic how you think spending billions in extra stimulus (which the conservatives have already been doing somewhat) is all of the sudden okay under the Liberals. This is what makes it really difficult to take your arguments seriously.

Now that a Liberal government is on the horizon, are you all of the sudden becoming a champion of Keynesian economics? I won't be surprised, but I do believe it might hurt your credibility. If, on the other hand, you're prepared to be just as critical about Liberal spending, particularly this aid package which is the crux of the whole fiasco, then congratulations, you're on your way to becoming someone we can all take seriously.

NDP4Montreal · December 1, 2008

The Conservatives have the longest history of working with the BQ.

Yup...and some dumb Con (Screenname: Eastern) had the guffaw to PM me and call me an "Idiot, Jerk off, Separatist, S*heads who he fought against overseas, who were cowards who ran away in WWI and am continuing the french tradition"

LOL

I didn't realize having NDP in my name meant I was a BQ supporter....and if he honestly meant that because I didn't mind the BQ helping to support the coalition, well....2004 comes to mind there.

kimmy · December 1, 2008

And again, a con forgets that when the parties who garnished 28% of the vote support the party leader of the one that garnished 26%, then that means that PM has 54% of the voter electorate behind them.

Wait, that 28% includes the BQ's 10%?

Trying to interpret BQ votes as in any way an endorsement of Stephane Dion as Prime Minister is nonsensical.

Everyone realises that the opposition can't take power without the Bloc's support. But to believe the Bloc will have a stranglehold on the government and Quebec will suddenly jump out of the confederation is a ridiculous slippery slope that the Cons seem to want to portray.

This new coalition will need the support of separatist MPs to win any vote it puts before the House.

You can try to spin it any way you wish, but that is what it comes down to. It's an unprecedented situation.

Oh, and might I add, that the Bloc's separatist views certainly didn't concern Harper and the Cons in 2004 when they started their little plot, now did it?

The "plot" in 2004 was to join forces with the BQ to defeat a government that had clearly lost the respect of Canadians and required a new mandate if it was to continue to govern.

This new plot is to join forces with the BQ to form a government.

The attempt to draw some sort of moral equivalence between the two situations is a desperate attempt at rationalization.

-k

Oleg Bach · December 1, 2008

Now we will truely have a real two party system. On one side will be the coalition - which will in a sense be called party Ottawa...and they can all have fun glorifying themselves and continue to run a deficit with joyous bliss. Let the politicals play and have a big party. The other defacto government (or second party) will be big buisness - the judicary and their own protective standing army called law enforcement....and the "coalition" can bail the money managers our and all will be heavely...what a sweet arrangement.

jdobbin · December 1, 2008

Non conciliatory and bullying are two VERY different things.

Please. The howl of coward and the various articles from Tory advisers saying the Liberals should be brought to their knees on every issue was ruthless bullying and finally the Liberals said no.

What I said was that the conservatives wouldn't call an 'election' any time soon because it would be unpopular to do so. The thought of a coalition hadn't even crossed my mind.

Totally bogus. Harper realized his misstep and figured that he had to reassure the Opposition that he wasn't going to pull a fast one like I said he was and he promised this weekend not to call an election for two years. His intent as I made clear was to make sure that he crippled the Liberals and then called an election while they were in their leadership race.

I'd rather have the Tories leading us right now. I don't need bailout money, nor does my family. Blue collar needs the money right now. The Liberal/NDP coalition is promising it. I'm not pleased with this but I'm betting they'll pay politically when their bailouts and tax increases are announced.

I have no doubt that you want the Tories to lead. Too bad they decided to play hardball. Not it is back in their face.

Typical dodge and avoid. The question was what do YOU think about the intended billions about to be thrown in as bailouts/stimulus? The economy has been slowing for over a year now and I've been quite fine with increased spending along the way. Jdobbin you've been opposed to virtually EVERY spending announcement made.

I think the Harper government has run this country into the ground with their spending. They have left no room for this recession.

You had no problem with the spending past the Harper promise in 2006 and 2008 not to go past the rate of inflation and population growth. They are 25% over that and it happened even before Canada faced any difficulties.

I have supported infrastructure spending all along. I don't support doing it over the rate of inflation and population. I think the Liberals are going to have to cut other spending or postpone or delay other funding. Given the Tory record, I think the Liberals can do it better.

I find it hilariously ironic how you think spending billions in extra stimulus (which the conservatives have already been doing somewhat) is all of the sudden okay under the Liberals. This is what makes it really difficult to take your arguments seriously.

It is hard to listen to the cries of unfair. Harper and your Tories brought this on themselves.

Now that a Liberal government is on the horizon, are you all of the sudden becoming a champion of Keynesian economics? I won't be surprised, but I do believe it might hurt your credibility. If, on the other hand, you're prepared to be just as critical about Liberal spending, particularly this aid package which is the crux of the whole fiasco, then congratulations, you're on your way to becoming someone we can all take seriously.

Shows how much you know. I have supported Keynesian policies of stimulus and Freidman's policies of not going into deficit.

The Tories once again took the country into the position of deficit with their stupid spending.

August1991 · December 1, 2008

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.

Exactly, Capricorn. This question did not ask whether the Conservative government should be replaced by a coalition - it only asked whether we should hold another election. I tis not hard to understand why most people in Quebec do not want another election.

----

I agree with Argus and fellowtraveler above. If this coalition goes ahead and manages to form a government, I don't think either Duceppe or the Liberal leader (whoever it is) will fare well in the long run. I simply cannot see Duceppe supporting Dion as PM for one month let alone 30 months. Even Ignatieff has referred to this as a "poisoned chalice".

In all the various references to a "democratic" government, it is important to note that the coalition would require the support of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc for every single confidence vote. A false step at any moment would mean the government's end.

Harper, OTOH, only needs the support of one other opposition party to stay in power. A coalition government will be tremendously unstable and directly dependent on Bloc votes.

----

Reading quickly through this thread and elsewhere, I have the impression that teh Liberals and NDP (Layton said as much in the recorded conference call) have sent out militants to log on to forums and take a hyperpartisan position. It is obvious that some people have a blind, passionate hatred of Stephen Harper. Not much good can come of such motivations.

I was appalled by the vitriol in Scott Reid's ungrammatical screed:

Their imperative could not be more clear: kill him. Kill him dead.

Link

Imagine if someone wrote something like that about Barack Obama.

jdobbin · December 1, 2008

Reading quickly through this thread and elsewhere, I have the impression that teh Liberals and NDP (Layton said as much in the recorded conference call) have sent out militants to log on to forums and take a hyperpartisan position. It is obvious that some people have a blind, passionate hatred of Stephen Harper. Not much good can come of such motivations.

It was Harper's blind hatred of the Liberals that put him in this bind. He thought he could kill them with confidence motions from here till the cows come home. Or do you deny that is what his intent was? Do you deny that he was likely to call an election before May? Do you deny that he has lost the confidence of Parliament? Do you deny that he brought this on himself?

madmax · December 1, 2008

The Tories once again took the country into the position of deficit with their stupid spending.

It's hard to believe how much money was wasted before the storm. It's like they spent money for snowplowing in June and don't know what to do now that the snow is falling.

Paul Martin, Frank McKenna, Roy Romanov, and John Manley..... The coalition is deadly serious affair. Put these names against Flaherty and he doesn't have a wing and a Prayer. Its going to be a rough week for the CPC. Nothing they are throwing is sticking beyond the base.

Notable in this is still the lack of a leader.

I suggest you get on your network and make certain that DION steps aside for the good of the country, let alone the coalition. THis guy is POISON on the streets.

The Economic Stimulus package is now OWNED by the LPC/NDP coalition and is being announced across the Country. The CPC haven't produced one, and are going to look like Johny Come Latelys. That is not good.

The only thing the CPC have been able to do is attack. That will not keep power.

PS (can we not find 3 more anti coalition votes?)

Edited December 1, 2008 by madmax

August1991 · December 1, 2008

It was Harper's blind hatred of the Liberals that put him in this bind. He thought he could kill them with confidence motions from here till the cows come home. Or do you deny that is what his intent was? Do you deny that he was likely to call an election before May? Do you deny that he has lost the confidence of Parliament? Do you deny that he brought this on himself?

Uh, I think it was the Canadian voting public that decided the Liberals should fall to their lowest popular vote in history.

Indeed, a few short weeks ago, the Liberals were talking seriously about how they must "renew" themselves. This wasn't Stephen Harper's doing.

Now a few weeks later, the Liberals no longer talk of renewal or reform. They can get back into power as long as they give several cabinet seats to the NDP and obtain the unfailing support of the Bloc. (Indeed, Duceppe has probably already made it plain that this coalition is only possible if Dion is not leader.)

Pierre Trudeau must be rolling in his grave.

I think that a Liberal leader who takes power under such conditions will be drinking from a poisoned chalice that will make him toxic in a future election.

jdobbin · December 1, 2008

Notable in this is still the lack of a leader.
I suggest you get on your network and make certain that DION steps aside for the good of the country, let alone the coalition. THis guy is POISON on the streets.

There is no provision for unresigning as leader of the Liberals. There will be a new leader in May. I think it is easier for the party to accept an acting PM and find Dion a cabinet position such as Foreign Affairs.

Just my guess because I just stepped out of the room where the decisions are being made.

Army Guy · December 1, 2008

So your solution is repeated elections.

If that is what is called for then Yes, let me ask you this last time you voted, did you do so, thinking that maybe my party would form a coalition, one beyond my control, not of my choosing....i mean really are liberal and NDP that close in thinking and policies....

Harper had a few years to correct this problem. He knew about it because he tried the same thing in 2004.
I'm sure Tory supporters would have found some way to justify it has he succeeded

I not sure all PC voters agreed to that when it happen.

Well, our system allows for a power grab if the Opposition has lost confidence in the government.

So nothing more than Dion and Layton desparate attempt to share the PM's office....not what is good for Canada, but rather to allow them to have thet're name s on the PM's door...and the keys to the private bathroom.

Oleg Bach · December 1, 2008

If that is what is called for then Yes, let me ask you this last time you voted, did you do so, thinking that maybe my party would form a coalition, one beyond my control, not of my choosing....i mean really are liberal and NDP that close in thinking and policies....
I not sure all PC voters agreed to that when it happen.

So nothing more than Dion and Layton desparate attempt to share the PM's office....not what is good for Canada, but rather to allow them to have thet're name s on the PM's door...and the keys to the private bathroom.

You got it Army Guy. Last thing on their mind is Canada...so when you as a soldier fight - you fight for the people and not for the government. Cos there is no one worth fighting for in Ottawa.

jdobbin · December 1, 2008

Uh, I think it was the Canadian voting public that decided the Liberals should fall to their lowest popular vote in history.

Come on. You know how the system works in Canada. The voting public also decided that Harper wasn't to get a majority.

You are going down the same path of "it's not fair" that other Tory supporters are going.

Indeed, a few short weeks ago, the Liberals were talking seriously about how they must "renew" themselves. This wasn't Stephen Harper's doing.

And Harper was talking about being conciliatory. Instead his aim was to destroy rather than wait for that renewal. As I said, the Tories were going to call an election anyway. Either way the Liberals were backed into a corner and yes, that was Harper's doing.

Now a few weeks later, the Liberals no longer talk of renewal or reform. They can get back into power as long as they give several cabinet seats to the NDP and obtain the unfailing support of the Bloc. (Indeed, Duceppe has probably already made it plain that this coalition is only possible if Dion is not leader.)

The Liberals still have their leadership vote coming.

I suspect we will see an acting PM if Dion is the stumbling block.

Pierre Trudeau must be rolling in his grave.

He would be having the time of his life. He stuck Stanfield with the same machinations. At least he felt a little bad about it since Stanfield was a decent man. Harper is the anti-Christ, the prince of darkness and the devil incarnate to many Canadians. Coincidentally, that is how Harper regards the Liberals and has been acting accordingly since 2006.

I think that a Liberal leader who takes power under such conditions will be drinking from a poisoned chalice that will make him toxic in a future election.

And any Liberal party that let's this pass only to have the Tories call an election in 5 months are fools.

HistoryBuff44 · December 1, 2008

I don't know how many times it has to be said. We elect MPs who form governments. We don't directly elect the government.

yes i read that in the textbook too, but do you really think they dont care what the electorate wants?

I think the Opposition has lost confidence in Harper to stop acting like a bully in a minority government. That is enough to vote no confidence.
You might not like it but it is within the rules and it is the job of the Opposition to oppose when they lose faith in the government.

i think its a mistake, one, they moved too soon on this, two, because the whole stimulus packages arent performing as they hoped for in the states. This is a power grab by someone who's career is dead and another who knows without something like this he will never govern. I cant wait for the block's demands to really start kicking in.

jdobbin · December 1, 2008

If that is what is called for then Yes, let me ask you this last time you voted, did you do so, thinking that maybe my party would form a coalition, one beyond my control, not of my choosing....i mean really are liberal and NDP that close in thinking and policies....

I thought the NDP would never go for it. It appears that all three parties though have lost confidence in the government and the Tories pushed them together.

I not sure all PC voters agreed to that when it happen.

There was not a peep as far as I can remember.

So nothing more than Dion and Layton desparate attempt to share the PM's office....not what is good for Canada, but rather to allow them to have thet're name s on the PM's door...and the keys to the private bathroom.

Harper was going to call an election anyway to destroy the Liberals so the move form a coalition was exactly where Harper put the Opposition. Harper wanted to play games rather than focus on conciliatory government in a minority situation.

g_bambino · December 1, 2008

let me ask you this last time you voted, did you do so, thinking that maybe my party would form a coalition, one beyond my control, not of my choosing....

The formation of all governments is beyond your choosing.

jdobbin · December 1, 2008

yes i read that in the textbook too, but do you really think they dont care what the electorate wants?

Can you say for certain that it isn't?

i think its a mistake, one, they moved too soon on this, two, because the whole stimulus packages arent performing as they hoped for in the states. This is a power grab by someone who's career is dead and another who knows without something like this he will never govern. I cant wait for the block's demands to really start kicking in.

I wonder what the Bloc's demands were when Harper made an agreement with them in 2004.

charter.rights · December 1, 2008

Sadly, in the last election Harper was not given a mandate to govern. He was only given a mandate to lead parliament IF he was co-operative.

Army Guy · December 1, 2008

The formation of all governments is beyond your choosing.

While it is true i don't have a say in who is going to be minister of what, my vote does count for my MP, but his party as well....so i do have a chioce....

Oleg Bach · December 1, 2008

The Block is not a Canadian party - It is the party of the Nova Franco party of France....this should be explained to them that they can only have he comfort of Canada on the one condition - that the province of Quebec as a whole apply for landed immigrant status - then we will grant them citizen ship.....untill then they are a people that are displace and with out papers - I'm serious - let them have a referendum on the premise of joining Canada - so far Quebec has never been a Canadian entiy...Quebecers should understand that they are exactly like Alaska was to America...just before they joined the union - Quebec is property of France as Alaska was of Russia...Quebec had better figure out if she wants to be Canadain or not...Maybe we can buy Quebec from France? :lol:

kimmy · December 1, 2008

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.

...

I believe that cry existed in the Paul Martin Government, and the Chretien government, when he had a Majority with a Minority of votes. The Reform Party used to scream the loudest, and before that the NDP. Even the PC felt disadvantaged with 25% of the vote and 2 seats

Your point? Chretien governed with his 39% of the popular vote. Martin governed with his 36% of the popular vote. Neither of them were ousted to make space for a guy who'd just 2 months earlier received 26% of the popular vote.

To put the scope of Dion's defeat in historical context, it should be pointed out that he brought the Liberals a smaller portion of the popular vote than John Turner in 1984. I don't have figures handy, but I believe the phrase "all time low" was used to describe Liberal support during this past election.

I said a number of times during the election that I'd have considered voting for the Liberals, but I'd never consider voting to make Stephane Dion Prime Minister. Considering the amount of Liberal support that bled to the other parties during the election, I think even many traditional Liberals simply did not want Stephane Dion to be Prime Minister. It was widely speculated among analysts that the results were a personal rejection of Stephane Dion. When polled about the party leaders, Canadians routinely ranked Stephane Dion somewhere between pocket lint and crab lice.

Leaving aside the question about whether it's allowed or ok or "undemocratic" or whatever, let me just ask this. A guy who was just crushed in the polls and thrown under the bus by his own party is about to become Prime Minister. Does this really sit well with people?

Can this guy really stand in front of Canadians and say "I am the 23rd Prime Minister of Canada"?

(Well, we know he can't literally *say* it, but you know what I'm getting at.)

Mr Harper is about to be forever remembered in the history books.

This will certainly be an unprecedented situation. In 20 years, I wonder how this will be looked back on. I'm curious to see how history looks back on "Prime Minister Dion".

-k

myata · December 1, 2008

So nothing more than Dion and Layton desparate attempt to share the PM's office....not what is good for Canada, but rather to allow them to have thet're name s on the PM's door...and the keys to the private bathroom.

Well, no, it's actually quite fair. CPC won most votes, and they got the first call to govern. The problem is that they just aren't interested in a serious, non partisan government in cooperation and with support of opposition, that the country needs at this time. So, unfortunate as it is, the choice is now between spending another $300 million on another elections (the question still hangs whether we really needed the first one?), or, letting the next guys in the line to try their hand. By all common sense, the answer should be clear: the Tories cannot govern in the manner that is called for by the situation, and their mandate, and the election is out of question. Coalition is the only rational exit from this situation, brought about not by necessity or some natural or social development, but purely by pointless brinkmanship of that bunch around Harper, who would never miss a chance to kick their opponent, even when it wouldn't necessarily bring them much good.

HistoryBuff44 · December 1, 2008

Can you say for certain that it isn't?

how many people that "cross the floor" are re-elected.

I wonder what the Bloc's demands were when Harper made an agreement with them in 2004.

ya, i figure the nation within a nation status.

August1991 · December 1, 2008

He would be having the time of his life. He stuck Stanfield with the same machinations. At least he felt a little bad about it since Stanfield was a decent man. Harper is the anti-Christ, the prince of darkness and the devil incarnate to many Canadians. Coincidentally, that is how Harper regards the Liberals and has been acting accordingly since 2006.

The silence of Trudeau's son is deafening.

Trudeau may have played games with Stanfield or Lewis but the only games he ever played with Levesque involved knives. Trudeau was consistent on this point throughout his career.

----

IOW, the one true policy the Liberals have is their connection to national unity. If they lose that (and they will if they go along with this coalition idea dependent on eternal Bloc support), then I think their leader will be forever marked.

Aside from the fact that Harper's attempt at a deal in 2005 never went through and so we'll never know what would have happened, the Tories are (or at least were) in a different place on the National Question.

Dobbin, you must admit that teh Liberals will be going into unknown and very dangerous territory if they let the NDP into the cabinet and if they are beholden to the Bloc for every confidence vote. How will the English Canadian public view this Liberal leader in the next federal election?