Support for a Coalition Goverment Now at 50%

[gordiecanuk]

Political junkies all had their minds made up from the start....and typically along partisan lines.

"The new poll suggests Canadians' feelings have evolved, with 50 per cent of respondents favouring a coalition government, while 43 per cent are happier with the current Conservative government".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

I started out if favour, but seeing how many people were against the coalition...my support wavered. Any thoughts?

[punked]

It is just showing the move away from Harper

[1967100]

I seriously don't see Ignatieff working with Layton in any way. Iggy is too far to the right. He is more of a moderate Conservative than a socialist NDP. That, plus the fact that the Bloc are in the coalition seriously makes me doubt Iggy would be willing to go through with the deal. He would probably ask for another election for March or April if the government is defeated on the budget, which would make it a good 6 months since the last election (Clark's government fell after 7 months). So, the 50% is irrelavent. Either we stay with Harper or we have an election which could result in either what we have now or Ignatieff as the new PM.

[bluegreen]

I seriously don't see Ignatieff working with Layton in any way. Iggy is too far to the right. He is more of a moderate Conservative than a socialist NDP. That, plus the fact that the Bloc are in the coalition seriously makes me doubt Iggy would be willing to go through with the deal. He would probably ask for another election for March or April if the government is defeated on the budget, which would make it a good 6 months since the last election (Clark's government fell after 7 months). So, the 50% is irrelavent. Either we stay with Harper or we have an election which could result in either what we have now or Ignatieff as the new PM.

I doubt Iggy wants a coalition. I don't think that polls make policy either. In this volatile envirnment, anybody would be nuts to stake everything on the poll of the day.

Based upon Harpers behaviour, i think the GG told him she'll ask the Liberals to form a Gvt. if the house votes no-confidence. In that event, Iggy will 'shoulder the burden', and the public will swallow it. Remember, there doesn't even have to be a formal coalition. The Liberals could rule with NDP, CPC, and/or Bloc support on confidence motions.

Wouldn't that be weird though? The public outcry against the coalition seemed to be opposition to Dion becoming PM after being soundly rejected at the polls. Now that it's Iggy, who has never been tested at the polls (as leader), at all, public sentiment is swinging towards a coalition! Politics is a funny old thing, isn't it?

Edited January 21, 2009 by bluegreen

[Mr.Canada]

I hope Ignatieff votes down Harper, he'll get crucified at the polls. The country is screaming for stimulus and the Liberals will deny that...lol. I'd love to see it, to bad Ignatieff isn't that stupid.

[Barts]

I hope Ignatieff votes down Harper, he'll get crucified at the polls. The country is screaming for stimulus and the Liberals will deny that...lol. I'd love to see it, to bad Ignatieff isn't that stupid.

If Ignatieff votes down Harper, Ignatieff will remain Prime Minister for about three years, in accord with the coalition agreement with the NDP and the BQ, and given the dynamics of election-calling. Three years from now, the recession will have eased, Harper will have left the scene, concerns about the Coalition will have eased or evaporated (except among the western Conservative kool-aid drinkers) and the Liberals (rightly or wrongly) will take credit for piloting the ship of state through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Ignatieff will go to the polls, likely win a majority, and herald in two terms as Prime Minister.

As for the Conservatives, they will have a new leader, and given there is little leadership material to choose from because it's essentially the old Reform Party with its less than intellectually astute gang of angry white red necks, it's doubtful the Conservatives will ever form a government again, unless of course the becomes a progressive Conservative party.

[Molly]

Uh uh. They've had the 'progressive' beaten out of them, and I doubt many 'progressive' conservatives would go back. Once burned, and all.

Ignatief, as a right leaning Liberal, has already reclaimed a great big chunk of the centre, and is poised (if he handles it right) to re-grab the rest of it, and return us to being governed by a party of the centre, with the opposition divided between right and left.

It's nice to see a sane option again, instead of a choice between the rock and the hard place.

[Progressive Tory]

Uh uh. They've had the 'progressive' beaten out of them, and I doubt many 'progressive' conservatives would go back. Once burned, and all.

Ignatief, as a right leaning Liberal, has already reclaimed a great big chunk of the centre, and is poised (if he handles it right) to re-grab the rest of it, and return us to being governed by a party of the centre, with the opposition divided between right and left.

It's nice to see a sane option again, instead of a choice between the rock and the hard place.

I agree. Canadians are definitely warming up to Ignatieff. I have been a card carrying, sign waving, lip smacking supporter of the Coalition since day one, but only as a 'We're watching you" to Harper, to make him act like the Prime Minister of Canada and not the Leader of the Conservative party. I'm changing my view though and now feel that we need Ignatieff to take the reins sooner than later.

What's interesting though in reading Adrienne Clarson's book and the Harper/Duceppe/Layton Coaliton in 2004 that threatened to topple the Martin gov't at the throne speech. Martin asked for an election, she said no and sent him back, he tweaked the throne speech and it passed. However, the spirit of non-confidence remained for the rest of Paul Martin's term.

But what is interesting are Harper's comments: Oct. 7, 2004: "Harper said the negotiated agreement shows that the Liberals understand they have to consult and compromise with the other parties. "I see it as an indication the government got the message of the first few weeks of Parliament which is: this is a minority Parliament. They can't govern as if they have a majority," he said. "They do have to consult. They do have to modify their agenda, particularly when they see widespread consensus among the other parties." Smart man, that Stephen Harper. Too bad he didn't take his own advice. Maybe 4 years later he wouldn't be in this mess.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Molly]

.. or have US in such a mess.

I've never much liked the man, and have always been disturbed by the nutbar right wing streak of the party, but watching that 'update' stirred me to rage.

How dare they play games with the nation?! How bloody DARE they?

That was beyond a throw of the dice. Unfit for office. Hands down.

[Canadian Blue]

Yeah, who knew that politicians play games with the nation....

hold on, isn't that their job. If you don't like politicians playing games with the nation maybe you should support limiting government, no?

By the way, the majority of Canadian's don't think they should be subsidizing political parties with their taxdollars. I'd say the New Democrats will in fact be the biggest loser in this coalition since they had a chance to deal a deathblow to the Liberals. I really wouldn't mind that, more or less because at the very least you have a creed with the NDP, unlike the Liberals who are just a darwinian political machine.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Molly]

You clearly have a higher tolerance for representatives that don't give a ratsass about the well-being of the nation than I do, Blue.

C'est la vie. You're a voter, too. I guess that's how we got where we are.

[Canadian Blue]

You clearly have a higher tolerance for representatives that don't give a ratsass about the well-being of the nation than I do, Blue.

When I hear some guy a hundred miles away talking about how he knows whats good for me I release the safety catch on my pistol. Especially when it's under the auspices of the collectivist creed "the well-being of the nation."

C'est la vie. You're a voter, too. I guess that's how we got where we are.

You're also one of those typical voters that ignores political malfeasance when your party's in charge. I tend to vote based on a simple axis based on who wants more control or less control over my life.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Progressive Tory]

.. or have US in such a mess.

I've never much liked the man, and have always been disturbed by the nutbar right wing streak of the party, but watching that 'update' stirred me to rage.

How dare they play games with the nation?! How bloody DARE they?

That was beyond a throw of the dice. Unfit for office. Hands down.

I agree. Brian Mulroney was considered Canada's worst PM. He loves Harper who has now earned the dubious distinction.

The games have to stop.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/549456

[Canadian Blue]

I agree. Brian Mulroney was considered Canada's worst PM. He loves Harper who has now earned the dubious distinction.

What are you talking about, if it wasn't for Brian Mulroney then Jean Chretien wouldn't have been able to take credit for free trade and erasing the deficit [through the GST].

[Molly]

Brian Mulroney 'rolled the dice', and created the Bloc.

He played awfully fast and loose for the leader of a conservative nation. (And we just won't even mention anything about airplanes.)

[jdobbin]

What are you talking about, if it wasn't for Brian Mulroney then Jean Chretien wouldn't have been able to take credit for free trade and erasing the deficit [through the GST].

We've gone through this before. The GST alone would not have eliminated the deficit. It required spending cuts the like of which we had not seen in the post-war period.

It is true that Mulroney raised taxes 19 times but he never cut spending in a meaningful way.

[Canadian Blue]

Yes, jdobbin, I realize that you think the Liberal Party is infallible and you were opposed to free trade because the LPC opposed it in 1988.

He played awfully fast and loose for the leader of a conservative nation. (And we just won't even mention anything about airplanes.)

It's far better then the consequent Liberal government that abandoned the military after the election thus making us a laughingstock in the world. I also would have preferred Mulroney over the previous Trudeau administration which did far more damage to Canada's unity then any party since.

It is true that Mulroney raised taxes 19 times but he never cut spending in a meaningful way.

He also got rid of a large proportion of crown corporations. However I'm fairly certain you've proven here that you can't really criticize a thing the Liberal Party does, and will blindly follow them in whatever they do.

[Canadian Blue]

Brian Mulroney 'rolled the dice', and created the Bloc.

Yes molly, I don't ever recall a separatist movement in Canada before Brian Mulroney, how astute of you.

[Molly]

Yes, Blue, and the creation of the Bloc had no impact on the stability and ongoing good governance of Canada.

We COULD talk about airplanes and envelopes of money, if you want. Not really necessary though, since the electorate passed the ultimate judgement on Mulroney and the PCs. Poor Kim, left holding that bag of poison apples.

[Canadian Blue]

Yes, Blue, and the creation of the Bloc had no impact on the stability and ongoing good governance of Canada.

For those of us who actually know history, the PQ preceded the Bloc and their was a referendum before the creation of the Bloc Quebecois. That being said Canada was not a utopian paradise like you and Jdobbin paint it out to be before Mulroney. As well Canada's stability and governance would have been unstable if their was no Bloc. More or less because you had both the west and Quebec feeling that they were getting nowhere with federal politics.

We COULD talk about airplanes and envelopes of money, if you want. Not really necessary though, since the electorate passed the ultimate judgement on Mulroney and the PCs. Poor Kim, left holding that bag of poison apples.

We could talk about ADSCAM, but then again you tend to ignore any malfeasance if it comes from your own party. As well Kim Campbell was actually quite honest in the election when she stated it was likely that we wouldn't be having a budget surplus until the lat 90's. She was correct of course, but I don't think you want to tell Jdobbin lest he comes to the grim realization that without a one party dictatorship this country will not eventually look like Mad Max 2.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

As I stated before I support a minimal government to avoid such corruption. The only difference between me and you is that I don't buy into this cult that a politician will make all my dreams come true.

[85RZ500]

C'mon Steve, you can whip up a budget that we would like and the coalition wouldn't.

Let them take charge. The NDP with 6 of their finest on the front row, the Bloc with the veto. Beautifull, these three idiots would tear each other apart. And I can just hear Igg, "now, now, class, be good boys".

Bring it on.

[jdobbin]

Yes, jdobbin, I realize that you think the Liberal Party is infallible and you were opposed to free trade because the LPC opposed it in 1988.

Don't recall saying anything about the Liberals being infallible. Is this just more of the personalizing we see from Conservatives?

He also got rid of a large proportion of crown corporations. However I'm fairly certain you've proven here that you can't really criticize a thing the Liberal Party does, and will blindly follow them in whatever they do.

I'm pretty sure you have not read enough my posts to know anything of the sort but you do know enough to attack personally.

[Canadian Blue]

Don't recall saying anything about the Liberals being infallible. Is this just more of the personalizing we see from Conservatives?

I'm pretty sure you have not read enough my posts to know anything of the sort but you do know enough to attack personally.

No, it's generally a trait with you. That's why you still argue that the GST and NAFTA had nothing to do with our economic recovery. Then if someone does question your allegiance to the Liberals you argue that you're getting "personally attacked" for your apparent belief that Canada requires a one party dictatorship. Or for that matter your belief that Mulroney was worse on the economy than Trudeau, even though the latter brought about far larger deficits in economic good times.

[jdobbin]

No, it's generally a trait with you. That's why you still argue that the GST and NAFTA had nothing to do with our economic recovery.

Didn't argue that either.

Then if someone does question your allegiance to the Liberals you argue that you're getting "personally attacked" for your apparent belief that Canada requires a one party dictatorship.

Now you are really grasping. You *are* personalizing.

I have never said anything about supporting a one party system in this country.

Or for that matter your belief that Mulroney was worse on the economy than Trudeau, even though the latter brought about far larger deficits in economic good times.

I never said anything about Trudeau being better on the economy than Mulroney. Where do you get these things? Are you just making things up as you go along?