Does Stephen Harper Know This Is Canada?

[gordiecanuk]

Because the NDP are the plague and the antithesis of what many Liberal supporters value, like free markets, private property and competition.

Ex separatist. He's no longer attracted to the idea.

So what your saying is that those who voted NDP...that they should have no influence on government policy??? Damn...I kinda like things like healthcare and CPP.

What's wrong with parties representing a majority of Canadian voters getting together on a legislative agenda? Obviously nobody will get 100% what they want, I think its called comprimise or something like that. No matter who forms the government, no party in power ever delivers 100% on its campaign promises.

[Mr.Canada]

So what your saying is that those who voted NDP...that they should have no influence on government policy??? Damn...I kinda like things like healthcare and CPP.

What's wrong with parties representing a majority of Canadian voters getting together on a legislative agenda? Obviously nobody will get 100% what they want, I think its called comprimise or something like that. No matter who forms the government, no party in power ever delivers 100% on its campaign promises.

No party is going to scrap Healthcare and CPP. Not even Harper, the boogeyman. The rest of it sounds like how government works now in minority as long as theres no Coalition which the people hate.

[g_bambino]

it does strike me that a significant % of people in this country are not happy with the notion of a coaltion.

I find that intriguing, if it is indeed true (I don't invest much of my faith in polls). If, all together, more people voted for the Liberals and NDP than did for the Conservatives, how could the majority therefore be upset at the idea of being governed by a Liberal-NDP coalition? Such a government, in order to maintain power, would have to meet in an ideological middle ground, and would therefore implement policies that, though neither fully NDP nor fully Liberal in scope, would be at least a left-wing compromise. Surely the larger group of those who didn't vote for the right-wing Conservatives would welcome this more muted, but still left-leaning, cooperation. No?

[g_bambino]

Because the NDP are the plague and the antithesis of what many Liberal supporters value, like free markets, private property and competition.

This may address my earlier post. I wonder, though, wouldn't a coalition that had to necessarily be conciliatory mean that the more extreme policies of either party would be cancelled out, and the government would only be able to work within that middle ground where the two parties do ideologically meet?

[Mr.Canada]

I find that intriguing, if it is indeed true (I don't invest much of my faith in polls). If, all together, more people voted for the Liberals and NDP than did for the Conservatives, how could the majority therefore be upset at the idea of being governed by a Liberal-NDP coalition? Such a government, in order to maintain power, would have to meet in an ideological middle ground, and would therefore implement policies that, though neither fully NDP nor fully Liberal in scope, would be at least a left-wing compromise. Surely the larger group of those who didn't vote for the right-wing Conservatives would welcome this more muted, but still left-leaning, cooperation. No?

Polls in this country are infamously accurate. Harper rose to 44% the day after the Coalition was announced and Dion was turfed a week later. Doesn't sound like a lot of confidence to me.

[gordiecanuk]

I find that intriguing, if it is indeed true (I don't invest much of my faith in polls). If, all together, more people voted for the Liberals and NDP than did for the Conservatives, how could the majority therefore be upset at the idea of being governed by a Liberal-NDP coalition? Such a government, in order to maintain power, would have to meet in an ideological middle ground, and would therefore implement policies that, though neither fully NDP nor fully Liberal in scope, would be at least a left-wing compromise. Surely the larger group of those who didn't vote for the right-wing Conservatives would welcome this more muted, but still left-leaning, cooperation. No?

I just read a story on it:

It predates Ignatieff, so I don't know how that would play into the numbers....how much of the anti-coalition support was anti Dion...I don't know.

What is interesting is that support for a coalition government was equal (at the time this poll was taken) pretty much to what the Tories receieved in popular vote. So if Harper can lead a party with 38 or so percent support....Why not someone else?

[Mr.Canada]

I just read a story on it:

It predates Ignatieff, so I don't know how that would play into the numbers....how much of the anti-coalition support was anti Dion...I don't know.

What is interesting is that support for a coalition government was equal (at the time this poll was taken) pretty much to what the Tories receieved in popular vote. So if Harper can lead a party with 38 or so percent support....Why not someone else?

Very simple, they weren't elected to do so. If the Liberal/NDP/BQ had run as one entity we'd have a Tory majority right now and no prorogue.

[gordiecanuk]

No party is going to scrap Healthcare and CPP. Not even Harper, the boogeyman. The rest of it sounds like how government works now in minority as long as theres no Coalition which the people hate.

Senor Canada....the people "hate" the coalition about as much as they hate the Tories, at least according to polling numbers. (see my prev post).

[M.Dancer]

This may address my earlier post. I wonder, though, wouldn't a coalition that had to necessarily be conciliatory mean that the more extreme policies of either party would be cancelled out, and the government would only be able to work within that middle ground where the two parties do ideologically meet?

I find it hard to fathiom a big tent party like the Liberals has extreme ideas....and the middle ground of the NDP is still confiscation of private property and wealth. A coalition only drives the Liberals left.

With Ignatieff as leader, the only reason I may still vote Conservative is the spectre of a coalition with the Canadian Socialist Workers Party...

[g_bambino]

Very simple, they weren't elected to do so.

[gordiecanuk]

Very simple, they weren't elected to do so. If the Liberal/NDP/BQ had run as one entity we'd have a Tory majority right now and no prorogue.

They would never run as "one party"...they'd just merge like the Progressives and Alliance did. The point was already made, nobody can possibly know about the possibility of a coalition until after the ballots are counted and MPs elected. If the CHP were able to win some seats I'm sure you'd be pleased as punch to seem them join the Cons in forming a coalition to topple a Lib government.

[g_bambino]

I find it hard to fathiom a big tent party like the Liberals has extreme ideas....and the middle ground of the NDP is still confiscation of private property and wealth. A coalition only drives the Liberals left.

With Ignatieff as leader, the only reason I may still vote Conservative is the spectre of a coalition with the Canadian Socialist Workers Party...

Well, I'm definitely no NDP supporter, and I would agree with you that they probably hold more extreme principals than the Liberals; but I can't imagine the Liberal half of a coalition allowing the NDP half to confiscate private property and wealth just to keep the coalition going. Then again, I've always had doubts that this proposed Liberal-NDP coalition could ever last. My most recent posts and questions were just theoretical in nature, pertaining to the views expressed by others here about our constitutional and political system.

[Mr.Canada]

They would never run as "one party"...they'd just merge like the Progressives and Alliance did. The point was already made, nobody can possibly know about the possibility of a coalition until after the ballots are counted and MPs elected. If the CHP were able to win some seats I'm sure you'd be pleased as punch to seem them join the Cons in forming a coalition to topple a Lib government.

Yeah, I see your point and it's probably true. I find it interesting to speak to people who think the Tories are as crazy as I see the NDP to be. Haha.

A nod to the Bambino up above me. Layton is way far left of any previous NDP leader has been.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[capricorn]

Such a government, in order to maintain power, would have to meet in an ideological middle ground, and would therefore implement policies that, though neither fully NDP nor fully Liberal in scope, would be at least a left-wing compromise.

I don't think Canadians want a left-wing of anything and they're smart enough to know that's what they'd get with this coalition. You omitted to mention the Bloc in this left-wing compromise so in fact would be a left-wing-Quebec compromise.

Surely the larger group of those who didn't vote for the right-wing Conservatives would welcome this more muted, but still left-leaning, cooperation. No?

I say no. A more left-wing type government would mean higher taxes in order to lead us further into a nanny state. For the most part, Canadians want to make their own decisions about their own lives with minimum government interference. The further left the Liberals go, the more support they'll lose among ordinary Canadians. I think Ignatieff knows this and will try to steer Liberals more to the center where the majority of Canadians reside.

[gordiecanuk]

Yeah, I see your point and it's probably true. I find it interesting to speak to people who think the Tories are as crazy as I see the NDP to be. Haha.

A nod to the Bambino up above me. Layton is way far left of any previous NDP leader has been.

Herr Canada...you might be suprised to find out, I'm not a die hard supporter of any one party. I've voted Conservative both federally and provincially...as well as Liberal and once upon a time I did vote NDP.

How will I vote in the future? It depends on a number of factors, but mostly it'll be based on which party I think has the right agenda for the country or in the case of provincial politics...the province.

[capricorn]

With Ignatieff as leader, the only reason I may still vote Conservative is the spectre of a coalition with the Canadian Socialist Workers Party...

As long as Ignatieff maintains the threat that he has the coalition in his back pocket, sort of a Big Bertha to hit the Conservatives over the head with, I will keep voting Conservative. The alternative is unfathomable.

[Mr.Canada]

I don't think Canadians want a left-wing of anything and they're smart enough to know that's what they'd get with this coalition. You omitted to mention the Bloc in this left-wing compromise so in fact would be a left-wing-Quebec compromise.

I say no. A more left-wing type government would mean higher taxes in order to lead us further into a nanny state. For the most part, Canadians want to make their own decisions about their own lives with minimum government interference. The further left the Liberals go, the more support they'll lose among ordinary Canadians. I think Ignatieff knows this and will try to steer Liberals more to the center where the majority of Canadians reside.

Fully agreed. In all I spout against Ignatieff, I only do so for partisan reasons and think overall he is good for Canada, in order to pull the spectrum more he the right. Which he will do.

The next election may be close but if Ignatieff even glances to the Coalition during an election he's done. He has to distance himself from it or he'll be a never was.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Iggy will go where no Canadian politician has gone before. He has to if he wants a job.

[bluegreen]

As long as Ignatieff maintains the threat that he has the coalition in his back pocket, sort of a Big Bertha to hit the Conservatives over the head with, I will keep voting Conservative. The alternative is unfathomable.

Hmmm. I'm afraid that you're a little short on logical rigor. I'm afraid you will not be voting for anything whatsoever until the GG calls an election. Last I checked, you only get a vote after the writ is dropped. You just got to vote on the people who actually make the decisions about coalitions etc. We call them our representatives, and we send them off to Ottawa to make these grown up decisions for us. Unless that is, you are a member of Parliament. If that's the case, then you are of course completely entitled to 'keep voting Conservative'

[August1991]

I love it that the left is going crazy. The whole left mindset is this...IF you don't agree with every single thing we say then you're akin to a fascist. LOL.

Mr. Canada, I agree. The religious right and the urban left are both similar in their intolerance.

Canada's English CBC Liberal left is particularly irritating because they pretend to be "normal mainstream Canada". The Toronto CBC does not speak for Canada.

Give it up with the % of the vote BS. This country elects MP's from constituencies, not based on the % of people that voted.

Cameron, your stats are good but you should add that people would not vote as they do if they knew that one party would ally with another.

IOW, voters change their behaviour based on the voting system, and the stakes in play. It is wrong to claim that 68% of voters support the coalition. If the coalition had been the option, I doubt that it would have received 68% of the vote.

If the two parties ran as a coalition and voters knew what it was they were agreeing to beforehand...

Precisely.

Personally I'm sick of voting every year, (more when you add in the 4 other levels of gov't) and would prefer to see a coalition form and then in 1-2 years we can vote again...we never get what we vote for anyway. Harper has broken plenty of his election promises...like everyone before him. If a coalition does form Canadians would have the chance to render judgment in the next election...ho hum, democracy never ends...there's always another vote.

Gordie, how sick are you of paying taxes?

IOW, I think you misunderstand this whole government idea.

Edited December 24, 2008 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

That still forgets that if two smaller groups band together to form one larger than 38%, then the Conservatives no longer have a plurality. The government would then fall, the coalition could commanded the confidence of the House, and could therefore be appointed to government. In such a hypothetical (yet almost real) situation, would all those on this board who seem to agree with Harper's new take on parliamentary democracy then agree that the coalition government had been popularly elected? After all, it would be made of two parties that more than 38% of the population voted for.

_{[ed for better clarity]}

A plurality in Canada is measured according to the number of seats - not the number of votes.....so your argument doesn't make sense. Going strictly by the number of votes and ignoring seats would allow a Toronto Party or an Ontario Party and they would always have the most votes and would run the country in the interests of only their local needs - but lets not get into trying to re-invent the electoral system - that's been discussed in many topics over the last year or two. Our electoral system is what it is, and currently, the coalition has far less seats that the Conservatives (the Bloc is not part of the Coalition).

[eyeball]

Our electoral system is what it is, and currently, the coalition has far less seats that the Conservatives (the Bloc is not part of the Coalition).

Neither is the Bloc part of the Conservatives, heck, its not even conservative.

A coalition will also ensure we don't have a Liberal majority which in my opinion would only be marginally less bad for Canada as a majority Conservative government.

Anything but a majority suits me just fine thanks.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Unfortunately in our system anything but a majority is less than what is needed right now. Minority governments are subject to compromise and falling to opposition parties.

What we need is a united will to do something. Lets just start with one thing and get it done.

[eyeball]

Unfortunately in our system anything but a majority is less than what is needed right now.

Says who?

Minority governments are subject to compromise and falling to opposition parties.

What's wrong with compromising? Governments fall all the time and life still goes on.

What we need is a united will to do something. Lets just start with one thing and get it done.

What we need is a will to do something united. We can start with the one thing we have which is a country - a work in progress not something that will likely never be "done".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I understand what you are saying, and there is indeed much merit in. There is however the current situation of economic crisis hanging over our heads, and a government unable to act decisively is not what we need. We need a government able to act. Our current PM has no concept of compromise at all. Of course, I could be wrong about the PM, but I doubt it.

The one thing that we have is a divided country. That isn't all the PM's fault, but that is the realiy of the event. Quebec has always been on the outside of the equation.