a new coalition

[Cuzzin E]

The Liberals are surging across the country, notably in Quebec, and are at 36% support nationally. The NDP are bleeding support to the Librals and many conservatives are disillusioned with the current government. Ignatieff is going to look to topple the conservatives the first chance he gets, but he doesn't have enough support to do it alone.

Harper doesn't have any room to grow anymore, he's lucky to keep his current supporters. Layton has at most one more kick at the can before his caucus revolts and demands a new leader.

So what is stopping Mr Harper from entering a coalition with the NDP? Give Jack Layton a cabinet seat (something like Public Works or Indian Affairs) and maybe a few other NDPers and sign a 2 year agreement to vote confidence in the new government. Layton would be a hero in his party for achieving what no one else has before, and Harper would have a convenient excuse to continue spending (Jack made me do it!)

This move would also paint Ignatieff as the scary right wing monster and Harper as the centrist leaving the left for Jack alone.

The NDP could then work on strengthening their support in Quebec and Toronto by getting concessions the liberals couldn't get from Harper.

Lets face it, consecutive minority governments are the future, and after next election another coalition will be formed. The only thing the cons & ndp have in common is an important one, the liberals are enemy #1.

[Progressive Tory]

So what is stopping Mr Harper from entering a coalition with the NDP? Give Jack Layton a cabinet seat (something like Public Works or Indian Affairs) and maybe a few other NDPers and sign a 2 year agreement to vote confidence in the new government. Layton would be a hero in his party for achieving what no one else has before, and Harper would have a convenient excuse to continue spending (Jack made me do it!)

There are several problems with your suggestion. First off, did you forget Harper's campaign against the 'socialists'? He's barely clinging to his base now, so by his own admission is returning to the 'faith, family, freedom' ideology. We know he used Jack Layton (and Gilles Duceppe) in 2004, when he formed his coalition to topple Paul Martin, but has since denied it; despite the fact that the letter and tape prove otherwise.

This 'coup' would probably just drive conservative supporters, especially red tories, to the Liberals.

Besides that, Jack Layton hates Stephen Harper. It would never happen. At the very least, we could see the NDP and Liberals unite, but the Conservatives and NDP? Not very likely.

[normanchateau]

So what is stopping Mr Harper from entering a coalition with the NDP?

Mr. Harper saw what forming a coalition did to Dion. Dion's own party threw him out with lightning speed.

[Cuzzin E]

Mr. Harper saw what forming a coalition did to Dion. Dion's own party threw him out with lightning speed.

Well, much of that had to do with the Bloc being part of the equation.

[Randy Nicholas]

Lets face it, consecutive minority governments are the future, and after next election another coalition will be formed. The only thing the cons & ndp have in common is an important one, the liberals are enemy #1.

This is about as likely to happen as Stephan Harper resigning as Prime Minister.

The enemy of my enemy may be my friend, but it takes more than that to keep a stable coalition in power, or even get it off the ground.

[normanchateau]

Well, much of that had to do with the Bloc being part of the equation.

And much of it had to do with polls showing that Harper would win a majority if Dion formed a coalition. I suspect polls would show Ignatieff wining a majority if Harper formed a coalition, Bloc or no Bloc.

[Randy Nicholas]

And much of it had to do with polls showing that Harper would win a majority if Dion formed a coalition. I suspect polls would show Ignatieff wining a majority if Harper formed a coalition, Bloc or no Bloc.

Do you think that has to do with a prevailing misunderstanding of parliamentary politics? Are people just opposed to a coalition because we haven't had one before? Or is there another reason?

[Cuzzin E]

Do you think that has to do with a prevailing misunderstanding of parliamentary politics? Are people just opposed to a coalition because we haven't had one before? Or is there another reason?

I don't think anyone has anything against a coalition, but the conservatives moved swiftly with their disinformation campaign ("it's not democratic") that moved public opinion against it, as well as people being uncomfortable with having the Bloc in government.

For what it's worth, I think the next election will see a short-lived conservative minority followed by a lib-ndp coalition. Harper will resign & Liberals will win a majority when the coalition is no longer convenient.

[Riverwind]

Do you think that has to do with a prevailing misunderstanding of parliamentary politics? Are people just opposed to a coalition because we haven't had one before? Or is there another reason?

It is not complicated.

The coalition upsets three significant groups of canadians:

1) Conservative voters.

2) Right wing Liberal voters.

3) People with concerns about what the BQ was promised behind those closed doors.

3) likely overlaps 1) + 2) but the sum of the 3 represents a clear majority of canadians.

Group 2) is especially significant because they will switch to the conservatives if the liberals ver to far to the left.

[eyeball]

It is not complicated.

The coalition upsets three significant groups of canadians:

1) Conservative voters.

2) Right wing Liberal voters.

3) People with concerns about what the BQ was promised behind those closed doors.

3) likely overlaps 1) + 2) but the sum of the 3 represents a clear majority of canadians.

Group 2) is especially significant because they will switch to the conservatives if the liberals ver to far to the left.

A clear majority? I doubt it. A coalition suits the wishes of the more significant group of Canadians who voted against the right-wing.

The BQ is clearly the only thing saving Canada from a so-called majority government these days so more power to them I say. We need a few more parties like them scattered around the country.

[normanchateau]

Do you think that has to do with a prevailing misunderstanding of parliamentary politics? Are people just opposed to a coalition because we haven't had one before? Or is there another reason?

I think the answer to your first two questions is yes and largely explains the opposition. That the third party "in" the coalition was the Bloc I think was a bogus rationale employed by those who wrongly believe that only the party which got the most votes can form the government.

[Progressive Tory]

Well, much of that had to do with the Bloc being part of the equation.

The Bloc was part of Harper's coalition in 2004. They only propped up the 2008 coalition, but were never officially a part of it.

I don't know what Stephen Harper promised Gilles Duceppe in 2004, but it must have been huge for the Bloc to join the Conservatives.

Harper proposed coalition with Bloc Quebecois in 2004

Once, When Not PM, Mr. Harper Was A Coalition Man

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

From a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson signed by all three opposition leaders: Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper (September 9, 2004)

Jack Layton got burned by Harper already. He won't make another deal with the devil anytime soon.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Randy Nicholas]

It is not complicated.

The coalition upsets three significant groups of canadians:

1) Conservative voters.

2) Right wing Liberal voters.

3) People with concerns about what the BQ was promised behind those closed doors.

3) likely overlaps 1) + 2) but the sum of the 3 represents a clear majority of canadians.

Group 2) is especially significant because they will switch to the conservatives if the liberals ver to far to the left.

Well, the thing is, most things are complicated, and when they aren't, they've been oversimplified, such as what you have done here.

My question also did not have to do with WHO is opposed to coalitions, but WHY. Every argument I've ever heard has betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of the parliamentary system. To claim that the Bloc have no right in government is to argue the persecution of half of the second largest province in this country. That's just absurd. The Bloc are there because they represent the wishes of the people who voted for them, and they are no less valuable than voters in ontario, alberta, bc, or any other province, and their agenda is no less valid, however silly it seems to the rest of us.

That S. Harper was able to illegitimately cling to power by feeding and spreading ignorance about the system will go down as one of the most disappointing and shameful moments in our political history, at least in my memory.

[Wild Bill]

The Bloc was part of Harper's coalition in 2004. They only propped up the 2008 coalition, but were never officially a part of it.

I don't know what Stephen Harper promised Gilles Duceppe in 2004, but it must have been huge for the Bloc to join the Conservatives.

Put yourself in the Bloc's shoes, PT!

The Bloc knows they will never be the government. All they care about is what they can get for Quebec and eventually to have Quebec separate. Their biggest rival at the polls in 2004 wasn't the Alliance or the tiny shred of PC's left. It was the Liberals!

So a deal with Harper meant they could concentrate their guns on their more serious enemy, the Liberals.

[85RZ500]

I for one was not opposed to the coalition, in fact I would have loved it. Imagine Layton, Duceppe, and Ignatief trying to agree, get along, etc, etc. Would have lasted a month, maybe two, then imploded in a big messy way.

Harper missed the boat on that one, should have let it happen.

And the Bloc, financed by the country that they would like to tear apart. And speaking only one language in ther HofC when they insist on a bilingual country. A hypocritical blight on a beautifull province.

Edited March 31, 2009 by 85RZ500

[Progressive Tory]

So a deal with Harper meant they could concentrate their guns on their more serious enemy, the Liberals.

You are absolutely right. However, again the issue is why were they 'separatists' in 2008, and not in 2004, when Stephen Harper actually needed them, not to just prop up his coalition but to join it? The Bloc's mandate has not changed since 2004, or for that matter since 2000 when Stockwell Day sought them out for his coalition.

Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance

Then again, with the Bloc's main concern, and I agree, being what's in it for Quebec; what was in it for Quebec? What did Stephen Harper promise them? Guess we'll have to wait until Gilles Duceppe gets out of politics and writes a 'tell all' book.

After Harper's hypocrital campaign to save his job, however, I don't see anyone trusting him again in even a minor agreement, let alone a coalition.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Progressive Tory]

That S. Harper was able to illegitimately cling to power by feeding and spreading ignorance about the system will go down as one of the most disappointing and shameful moments in our political history, at least in my memory.

I suspect that's one of the reasons why he's slipping in the polls. Once the dust settled and we learned just how hypocritical the whole thing was, he's completely lost what little integrity he had left. The West is propping him up, so his main concern at present is appeasing them. The rest of the country is clearly losing confidence in his ability to govern.

[Progressive Tory]

I for one was not opposed to the coalition, in fact I would have loved it. Imagine Layton, Duceppe, and Ignatief trying to agree, get along, etc, etc. Would have lasted a month, maybe two, then imploded in a big messy way.

It would have lasted 18 months as per the written contract. But you're right. Harper lost his last best chance at a majority, and maybe even ever forming another gov't. He would have scored more points attacking a huge deficit then having to defend one. He just didn't want to have to wait a year and half. It had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the Bloc.

[fellowtraveller]

Is there a specific reason Progressive Tory is continually allowed to span this forum with post after post after post in succession?

The creature has little to add in the first instance, then answers its own post with another, then another.....

[Progressive Tory]

Is there a specific reason Progressive Tory is continually allowed to span this forum with post after post after post in succession?

The creature has little to add in the first instance, then answers its own post with another, then another.....

I thought it was a discussion on coalitions. We need to adress all recent ones to see why they didn't work.

2000 - Stockwell Day's Alliance Party and Bloc

2004 - Stephen Harper's Conservatives with Bloc and NDP

2008 - Jack Layton's NDP with Liberals. This one was only supported by the Bloc for confidence issues.

All relate to the current suggestion of a Coalition with the Conservatives and NDP, and why Jack Layton won't be fooled again.

I bring up 2000 and 2004 whenever someone isn't aware of their existence.

[waldo]

Is there a specific reason Progressive Tory is continually allowed to span this forum with post after post after post in succession?

The creature has little to add in the first instance, then answers its own post with another, then another.....

if... you don't agree with something stated, the onus is on you to counter - or... you could ignore - or... you could put up a whining feeble complaint with derogatory references... like you just did.

clearly PT has an ability to grate on certain types around here - typically, the rubber-boot crowd doesn't do well with her well researched and thought out posts, particularly one's that put them back on the heels... of their rubber-boots.

[Progressive Tory]

if... you don't agree with something stated, the onus is on you to counter - or... you could ignore - or... you could put up a whining feeble complaint with derogatory references... like you just did.

clearly PT has an ability to grate on certain types around here - typically, the rubber-boot crowd doesn't do well with her well researched and thought out posts, particularly one's that put them back on the heels... of their rubber-boots.

Thank you.

[normanchateau]

I for one was not opposed to the coalition, in fact I would have loved it. Imagine Layton, Duceppe, and Ignatief trying to agree, get along, etc, etc. Would have lasted a month, maybe two, then imploded in a big messy way.

Harper missed the boat on that one, should have let it happen.

That would have meant Harper temporarily giving up power instead of grovelling to the GG and begging her to let him keep his job.

So much for the pre-election perception of Harper being a strong leader.

[Wild Bill]

if... you don't agree with something stated, the onus is on you to counter - or... you could ignore - or... you could put up a whining feeble complaint with derogatory references... like you just did.

clearly PT has an ability to grate on certain types around here - typically, the rubber-boot crowd doesn't do well with her well researched and thought out posts, particularly one's that put them back on the heels... of their rubber-boots.

She doesn't really grate so much. She seems llike a nice enough person. It's just that she's very, very, very, very, very, VERY predictable in her arguments!

No offense meant, PT. We are all entitled to our opinions. It's just that sometimes I swear I could quote your posts before I read them!

Harper bad, Ignatieff good (and cute!), today's Tories have an evil agenda just for the fun of being evil...

It's like arguing with a Witness at your door on a weekend morning. You might enjoy chewing over the subject matter but then it becomes obvious that there's no point. Faith cannot be shaken by debate, evidence or reason. To someone who is more objective, this comes as a disappointment and a frustration.

This happens a lot on many discussion boards. It's just a part of human nature. If it bothers you, it's best to just move on. There's no point in trying to be a rock against the waves. You just get worn down over the years.

Much better to be a surfboard!

[waldo]

This happens a lot on many discussion boards. It's just a part of human nature.

if by "this", you mean attempts to marginalize some posters - yes, "that" happens a lot on many discussion boards. I do believe the effectiveness of the poster in question is directly proportional to the degree of raised concern emanating from the "other camp"... accordingly, we can say the effective quotient is very high!