waldo Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 ...but why wouldn;'t both Harper and Ignatieff try and exhort the troops into getting a majority? except... the emergence of the real Harper within that video, 'exhorting' the troops into getting a majority, was in the context of beating back the "unholy coalition"... needing to "teach them a lesson". Nobody does petulant/angry like the real Harper when he emerges from his facade! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Many times, I'd guess.Though not as many times as he'll say 'coaltion of socialists and separatists". I hope he goes crazy with it. Probably a real winner in Quebec. Why wouldn't Harper speak of a majority both privately and publicly? Mainly because he usually says it conjunction with how he needs to get rid of judges and civil servants so that he can set a real Conservative agenda. What that agenda is though is usually couched with terms such as: We aren't planning on making changes to areas like... I know the CBC and your buds over at Liberal Party Battle Control Room are trying to make much of the secret video, but why wouldn;'t both Harper and Ignatieff try and exhort the troops into getting a majority?Isn't that their wholly public goal every election? The alternative is to proclaim "I intend to lose". It is the inflammatory language that Harper likes to toss in there for the English crowd. I'm sure it goes over well with some of the electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Me too.Those photos of a grinning Idiot, Socialist and Separatist shaking hands are pure gold. I hope the BQ has pictures of Harper at the hotel meeting with them when they had their coalition talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I bet a lot of Canadians don't know that Canada already had a coalition government back it the late 1800's. This is nothing new to Canada, only to present day Canadians. Iggy has said no coalition but that doesn't mean he can't do what Harper did to bring down the government. The fear of the coalition isn't going to work, the fear of Iggy being more Americans isn't going to work and if you look back on the Harper years in power, you would find more harmonizing being done to the US than ever before. So now, the next stage is to juge the Tories on accountabilty, right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Actually, the coalition was during WWI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I don't know Smallc. I heard on Power Play that the only formal coalition government we ever had was during WWII. The Star had this article last year which leaves me a little confused on the matter. Since Confederation there has only been one federal coalition government in Canada’s history: the Union Government of World War I, which lasted from 1917-1920. This was a coalition between the Conservative Party, led by Robert Borden, and Liberals and independents.Faced with strong opposition to conscription and with other major difficulties during WWI, Borden sought to broaden his wartime political base by bringing several conscriptionist Liberals and other public figures into his government. In the December 1917 general election, this government won a decisive victory over Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberals. The Union coalition did not long survive its triumph: the end of the war brought many Liberals back to their old affiliation, while other Unionists supported the new Progressive party. http://www.thestar.com/Article/547281 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I don't know Smallc. I heard on Power Play that the only formal coalition government we ever had was during WWII. I was sure that he had said WWI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I was sure that he had said WWI. King had support from the Progressives in 1925. The Liberals actually won few seats that election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 King had support from the Progressives in 1925. The Liberals actually won few seats that election. I don't think it was actually a formal coalition though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I don't think it was actually a formal coalition though. It has to be if the Governor General let the party with the second most votes become government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I was sure that he had said WWI. Then you are right, I heard wrong. The Star article confirms it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Then you are right, I heard wrong. The Star article confirms it. He may have misspoke and I may have simply heard what I expected to hear. I'm not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 It has to be if the Governor General let the party with the second most votes become government. It would have to be promised support, but I don't think it would have to be an actual coalition. It's all about confidence. The person who has it can theoretically control parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 It would have to be promised support, but I don't think it would have to be an actual coalition. It's all about confidence. The person who has it can theoretically control parliament. Promised support is a coalition. That is how it has been described historically. The Conservatives were outraged. King didn't even win his seat that election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Promised support is a coalition. That is how it has been described historically. So then the Bloc was part of the coalition as per the agreement in December? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) This website itself only describes two examples of coalitions in Canadian history. One before Confederation (as described by someone else here and mistakenly corrected by me - I thought they were talking about after Confederation), and the one from the end of WWI to 1920. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/coali...ernments-canada Edited September 11, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 So then the Bloc was part of the coalition as per the agreement in December? If it contained promises made in exchange from the Liberals to retain that support, yes. I didn't see that as part of the agreement and Duceppe said he didn't want to be part of the government. Do you recall that? He said he was in favour of a stable government and that he would vote accordingly. In that way, it is close to what the Liberals had prior to 1925. There was no agreement with the Progressives not to bring the government down so no coalition. However, King was careful to ensure the Progressives had no reason to vote him down early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 This website itself only describes two examples of coalitions in Canadian history. One before Confederation (as described by someone else here and mistakenly corrected by me - I thought they were talking about after Confederation), and the one from the end of WWI to 1920. It isn't the only view academics have of coalitions: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...on_govts_081202 Conservatives win 116 seats to 99 for King's Liberals, but the support of 24 Progressives allows King to hold on to power without having to form a genuine coalition.Eight months later, King's request to dissolve Parliament is rejected by Lord Byng of Vimy, the governor general, who invites the Conservatives to form a government. King wins subsequent election in September 1926. In many people's eyes, it was still a coalition since the Governor General awarded government to the second party who had an agreement of support from another party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I wouldn't call it a coalition. Even the article you posted said it wasn't a genuine coalition. Really, if that was a coalition, then the Bloc was part of the Coalition in December. I don't buy it in either case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I'm not a the biggest CPC fan, but the strategies the CPC are using against The Liberals & Ignatieff (questioning Iggy's residency in Canada, and his support for the coalition) IMO are good ones because they will likely work & because they are valid issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I wouldn't call it a coalition. Even the article you posted said it wasn't a genuine coalition. Really, if that was a coalition, then the Bloc was part of the Coalition in December. I don't buy it in either case. What do you think the Governor General based his decision on? A guess that the Progressives would support the Liberals for government and that they had a coalition stable enough to last a while? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 A promise of support doesn't constitute a coalition. It's certainly not a standard view of one. For there to be a coalition, there usually have to be a sharing of government power. Otherwise, the Bloc was part of the coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 A promise of support doesn't constitute a coalition. It's certainly not a standard view of one. For there to be a coalition, there usually have to be a sharing of government power. Otherwise, the Bloc was part of the coalition. And some disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Some may, but history doesn't really seem to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Some may, but history doesn't really seem to. When academics disagree, it doesn't seem history is so clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.