Coalition Government

[jdobbin]

How can you guys compare a coalition government with a non-confidence vote?

Where was that compared?

In a minority, a vote of non-confidence is permitted.

In our country, the Governor General is allowed to weigh out whether to ask the Opposition if they can form a government rather than plunge the country into relentless elections.

A coalition government is one possibility to avoid another election and abide by the Governor General's request to attempt to form a government.

If it goes to an election...ok...fine...I once again get to have a say...but the conservatives NEVER tried anything like a coalition government.

November 26th, 2004 was strictly a non-confidence vote.

Sorry. You keep forgetting the letter to the Governor General to let Harper form a government rather than go to an election back in 2004.

[Alta4ever]

But I'm sure you would have thought it was brilliant, completely brilliant, when the Tories tried to do in 2004.

Really I would have would I? I wanted an election in 2004 as much as I do now. I like to excerise my right to vote, I do it every chance I get.

[jdobbin]

Really I would have would I? I wanted an election in 2004 as much as I do now. I like to excerise my right to vote, I do it every chance I get.

Then you must have been furious at Harper to try and circumvent your vote. Take your pick.

[Alta4ever]

Nothing. The don't seem to be asking for any positions in a new government and the Liberals are not offering anything.

By retaining confidence on a wide range of issues: the same as any minority government.

Other then the 1.95 whick is now off the table. What was offered to the Bloc, why would they now vote in favor of this?

What was offered to the bloc?

[Smallc]

What was offered to the bloc?

The Liberals and the NDP in many cases share basic social values with the Bloc. The Conservatives don't in most cases, and Mr. Duceppe dislikes this fact.

[Alta4ever]

Then you must have been furious at Harper to try and circumvent your vote. Take your pick.

Had I known I would have been. Someone is now tring to take subvert my right to vote for a government of my choice since the opposition has lost confidence in the government. So give me my choice to pick between there policies or another parties. if there is no confidence then its time for the public to give a new mandate to a NEW government.

[Alta4ever]

The Liberals and the NDP in many cases share basic social values with the Bloc. The Conservatives don't in most cases, and Mr. Duceppe dislikes this fact.

What will be given to the Bloc, a purely regional seperatist party?

The main social value if the bloc is a Quebec that is a soverign nation, do the NDP and Liberals share that basic value?

[Slim MacSquinty]

John McCallum says they will release a plan. This isn't only about party financing as that has been taken of of the table, though that is part of the problem. There are other issues. First, the opposition now knows they can't trust the government to put partisanship aside. Also, his attempt to take away union rights is not very popular with the left. The party financing is also a factor, partly because of hypocrisy. The money they intended to save by eliminating it was about the amount they have to spend on their extra ministers. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the governments lack of quick action on the current economic crisis (slammed by every economist that I have seen on TV today) is completely unacceptable. Charles Adler put it nicely today. He said that the Conservatives have given the opposition a gun and a choice. They can either shoot themselves or the Conservatives. Seems like an easy choice to me, and probably to them as well.

So they have no plan yet they are prepared to take down the government, although I fully understand the letter of the parlimentary rules, they ultimately have to prove their case to the electorate, and the absence of an alternative plan demonstrates to me their motives.

If the problem is half as bad as the opposition says the union issue means nothing, futhermore they have a contract with the public sector unions that outlasts, or nearly so, the life of the non-strike proposition.

Spread the blame around appropriately and you have to see that partisanship was equally played on all sides of the floor, in fact in the latest parliment the Liberals came out gunning first not the conservatives.

The party financing is much more money, especially in the long term, than the incremental cost of a few more cabinet ministers, not even close.

No the economic expeerts agree that the Canadian government would be wrong to act alone, and must act in concert with the US, the TV commentators are not econcomic experts. Furthermore action has been taken, they provided liquidity to the banks, had already lower consumption taxes and are in talks with the auto industry.

So in summation its all pure bullshit!

Charles Adler may be right, but ultimately the electorate has the gun!

[Wilber]

I don't think that will happen. What this may end up in is a possible joining of the NDP and Liberals in the future (if their plan works out) and even a Conservative split if people get mad enough at Harper over this. Jdobbin's idea is also a possibility.

Why not, if minorities become the norm, so could coalitions become a normal form of government.

As for the parties joining, not a chance, the Liberals and NDP have little in common except hatred for Harper. It isn't in their genes.

Politically this could work out well for the Conservatives. For the country, it could well be a disaster.

[johhny]

What will be given to the Bloc, a purely regional seperatist party?

The main social value if the bloc is a Quebec that is a soverign nation, do the NDP and Liberals share that basic value?

They also hold value to the Arts wich the tories made cutts to at election time , they also hold interest in keeping manufaturing jobs wich all three party's would be in favor of protecting. Fact of the matter is all 3 party's are willing to work together and the tories are unwilling to work with anyone.

Even politicians need to realize you need to work together and build friendship then make enemy's. Harper does not understand that and will fall for his lack of people skills.

Edited November 29, 2008 by johhny

[Alta4ever]

John McCallum says they will release a plan. This isn't only about party financing as that has been taken of of the table, though that is part of the problem. There are other issues. First, the opposition now knows they can't trust the government to put partisanship aside. Also, his attempt to take away union rights is not very popular with the left. The party financing is also a factor, partly because of hypocrisy. The money they intended to save by eliminating it was about the amount they have to spend on their extra ministers. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the governments lack of quick action on the current economic crisis (slammed by every economist that I have seen on TV today) is completely unacceptable. Charles Adler put it nicely today. He said that the Conservatives have given the opposition a gun and a choice. They can either shoot themselves or the Conservatives. Seems like an easy choice to me, and probably to them as well.

So they have no plan yet they are prepared to take down the government, although I fully understand the letter of the parlimentary rules, they ultimately have to prove their case to the electorate, and the absence of an alternative plan demonstrates to me their motives.

If the problem is half as bad as the opposition says the union issue means nothing, futhermore they have a contract with the public sector unions that outlasts, or nearly so, the life of the non-strike proposition.

Spread the blame around appropriately and you have to see that partisanship was equally played on all sides of the floor, in fact in the latest parliment the Liberals came out gunning first not the conservatives.

The party financing is much more money, especially in the long term, than the incremental cost of a few more cabinet ministers, not even close.

No the economic expeerts agree that the Canadian government would be wrong to act alone, and must act in concert with the US, the TV commentators are not econcomic experts. Furthermore action has been taken, they provided liquidity to the banks, had already lower consumption taxes and are in talks with the auto industry.

So in summation its all pure bullshit!

Charles Adler may be right, but ultimately the electorate has the gun!

Oh no some facts what ever will the left do, time to spin spin away.

BTW Great post.

[Smallc]

So they have no plan yet they are prepared to take down the government, although I fully understand the letter of the parlimentary rules, they ultimately have to prove their case to the electorate, and the absence of an alternative plan demonstrates to me their motives.

Where did I say that they didn't have a plan? They haven't released it, and they don't have to. They said that they plan to, and soon. Besides, the Conservatives would probably steal it again if they showed it too soon.

If the problem is half as bad as the opposition says the union issue means nothing, furthermore they have a contract with the public sector unions that outlasts, or nearly so, the life of the non-strike proposition.

I think there are other public service unions that this would effect. Besides, its the principle of the matter. Its an infringement of rights.

Spread the blame around appropriately and you have to see that partisanship was equally played on all sides of the floor, in fact in the latest parliament the Liberals came out gunning first not the conservatives.

You mean the Liberals that voted for the throne speech without reservation because they wanted to work with the government to try and fix the problem?

The party financing is much more money, especially in the long term, than the incremental cost of a few more cabinet ministers, not even close.

Sorry, I misread on the minister part with the report I was reading. Anyway, public financing isn't even a problem, its just that it goes against conservative values. All industrialized countries but one (\/ down there) have it. If they wanted to get rid of it, they should have rolled back the entire package that it came with. What they wanted to do was cripple the Liberals. Looks like it may have backfired on them.

No the economic experts agree that the Canadian government would be wrong to act alone, and must act in concert with the US, the TV commentators are not economic experts. Furthermore action has been taken, they provided liquidity to the banks, had already lower consumption taxes and are in talks with the auto industry.

The economic experts don't agree with you. I don' think I saw one that said that today on CBC, CTV, or CPAC. They want action now or they say that things will get worse and then it will be too late. And yes, the TV commentators that are Economists, are economic experts. They did ensure bank liquidity, and I applaud them for that, but we need new stimulus to create jobs.

So in summation its all pure bullshit!

That's your opinion....we're all entitled to one.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Or we could be like Switzerland where there has been a coalition since the 1950s. Take your pick.

Great, let's go to PR or STV then. Same thing.

[johhny]

Duceppe said his party's demands are simple: economic stimulus, aid for the manufacturing and forestry sectors and improved employment insurance.

[jdobbin]

Great, let's go to PR or STV then. Same thing.

I know you don't like where this has come but Harper knew from the start that his government would only survive on confidence. I don't see him backing down from acting like a horse's hind end.

Edited November 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Oh no some facts what ever will the left do, time to spin spin away.

And the right cries "No fair!"

[Alta4ever]

"improved employment insurance."

oh so now we want back the 500, 000,0000 the liberals spent in the 90's.

[jdobbin]

Other then the 1.95 whick is now off the table. What was offered to the Bloc, why would they now vote in favor of this?

What was offered to the bloc?

Nothing except to get rid of Harper.

[Alta4ever]

And the right cries "No fair!"

I haven't seen anyone from the tories say that, but know of several times DION and liberals have said those exact words in the last 2 years.

[jdobbin]

The party financing is much more money, especially in the long term, than the incremental cost of a few more cabinet ministers, not even close.

It is $30 million for the increased cabinet including Parliamentary secretaries and staff. We haven't even included their very large government expenditures for programs that so may ministers might institute.

[jdobbin]

I haven't seen anyone from the tories say that, but know of several times DION and liberals have said those exact words in the last 2 years.

We're hearing it now with the complaints of this being undemocratic.

[Alta4ever]

We're hearing it now with the complaints of this being undemocratic.

No that is the masses demanding their vote. Nobody said it wasn't fair, those are your words.

[Smallc]

oh so now we want back the 500, 000,0000 the liberals spent in the 90's.

The other day on CTV news, they said there is a $51B in the EI account.

[Smallc]

No that is the masses demanding their vote. Nobody said it wasn't fair, those are your words.

The masses don't get to decide. Its up to the GG.

[Alta4ever]

It is $30 million for the increased cabinet including Parliamentary secretaries and staff. We haven't even included their very large government expenditures for programs that so may ministers might institute.

I rather see themoney spent on running the country rather then wasted on political parties.

Which is the priority, governing or buying television ads?