Coalition Government

[madmax]

It was a truism at the G&M that the management were conservatives, the editors were liberals, the journalists were NDPers and the columnists were commies.

sounds more like a fictional stereotype.

I know personally and have known more than a few senior editors of Canadian national news magazines and the business press, not one has ever voted right of the NDP. The one exception is Terry Corcoran.

Senior Editors of Business Press voted NDP

If any Senior Editors of any media held an NDP perspective or values, the public, and likely the NDP would know this by now. LOL. Its just not the case. Besides that, the NDP is not considered "left" by those on the left. However, the NDP does not have any media cheerleaders in this country, unlike the Conservatives and Liberals who benefit from Corporate media of CTV & Global and there respective newsprint media.

You anecdotal evidence is mere hearsay at this point has no basis in demostratable fact and its totally unlikely that you could NAME ONE EDITOR of a business press that voted NDP.

However, its pretty easy to rhyme off those media support for Conservatives and Liberals in each Province and across the country. There isn't enough space in the forum to print the list, its well over 10,000 characters.

Care to name your handful? Care to name point towards a few thousand media that support the NDP.

I am sure Bellmedia, nope, erm, Canwest, erm nope, erm, hey aren't these corporate medias enjoying the Canadian Bankruptcy laws? And why would they dare challenge their masters when it is the government that protects their very existance or they would have been wiped out a decade ago.

[M.Dancer]

You anecdotal evidence is mere hearsay at this point has no basis in demostratable fact and its totally unlikely that you could NAME ONE EDITOR of a business press that voted NDP.

I could name 4.

[M.Dancer]

If any Senior Editors of any media held an NDP perspective or values, the public, and likely the NDP would know this by now.

Why? Do the NDP have a Psychic operations wing?

[waldo]

I could name 4.

Do the NDP have a Psychic operations wing?

do you?

[M.Dancer]

do you?

I don't need psychic powers to let me know what my friends thoughts are.

[PIK]

We get what we deserve, you tell the truth in canada and we voters will crucify them at the polls. But what I can't get ,is the people that would change goverment right now after what we've been thru, do people really think iggy or the libs are ready to jump in, not even close IMO. Do we just elect people because they are warm and fuzzy. Most complaints I hear about harper is personality, who cares if he gets the job done. And look at the world ,we have done well, and europe is going down the tubes and yet people say we should be more like them. How many goverments have italy had in the last 10 years ,1 or 2 goverments a year and italy is almost ready to do a greece. People also complain about harper muzzling his people, well guess what the major problem people have with the libs right now is you can't trust what they say and you can blame chretien for allowing his ministers to say anything they wanted knowing he was not going to come thru on thier promises and then the ''red book'' Harper is not a people person, but I think he done a great job and the leaders of the world are taking notice.Till the libs ,get a new leader or the cons change, leave him be.

[waldo]

I don't need psychic powers to let me know what my friends thoughts are.

ok, ok... if they're your friends, that's a whole different matter.

[myata]

A false claim

supported by a false claim

"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."

[http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/547281]

[g_bambino]

"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."

[http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/547281]

Which proves

We here can't have... coalitions

To be false.

[myata]

To be false.

Of course it doesn't. Only that those of us who have turned 90 and lived through two major wars could have had it. Democracy is that thing, you use it, or you lose it.

[g_bambino]

Of course it doesn't.

Of course it does. You said we in Canada can't have coalition governments, but then pointed out that Canada's had a coalition government (in the "glancy picture book past", no less). Just because you personally haven't seen one doesn't mean it's impossible. Are you capable of seeing beyond the end of your own nose?

[jbg]

The more parties you have to satisfy, the more narrow, parochial interests the government will have to champion. Coallition governments make bad governments, generally, and unstable governments.

They work even worse with proportional representation where you wind up with numerous parties and almost no accountability. Just ask any Israeli or Italian.

More to the point, the Brits knew this could be a strong possibility during the election. Canada's Conservatives formed a government, and a few months later, the three stooges got together to try and take over on a pretext because the goernment threatened their milk teat. Moreover, you had the unapalatable prospect of a ridiculed leader (Dion) being the head banana with a highly distrusted socialist clinging to his shoulder like a demented monkey, and a seperatist without the slightest interest in the well-being of Canada as a whole on his other shoulder. Only really dumb people liked that prospect.

Great analysis. The only trouble if you applied that to the U.S. is someone would call you a racist.

By the way, your title threat is a bit of a minsnomer. We don't know the British CAN make it work as they haven't even tried yet.

It's already worked through its announcement. For the last several hours it has been just bonnie there.

[August1991]

Of course it does. You said we in Canada can't have coalition governments, but then pointed out that Canada's had a coalition government (in the "glancy picture book past", no less). Just because you personally haven't seen one doesn't mean it's impossible. Are you capable of seeing beyond the end of your own nose?

A coalition government in 1915 was one thing. A coalition government today would involve the Bloc - and that would kill the coalition immediately.

The UK does not have such a party (the Scottish and Welsh national parties are not relevant in numbers) so a coalition is possible.

The Harper-haters conveniently forget that what killed the Dion-Layton coalition was the tacit inclusion of the Bloc, not the idea of a coalition.

[Smallc]

And you still seem to ignore the fact that politics is not static. The Bloc will not always be such a factor, and it's doubtful that they can become more of one.

Here is a scenario: the UK is now talking about switching to PR. If we were to do the same in say, 25 years or so, the Bloc would (even with similar support levels) become far less meaningful.

[g_bambino]

And you still seem to ignore the fact that politics is not static. The Bloc will not always be such a factor...

Exactly. Why people think the here and now is forever and the past means never again is beyond me.

[August1991]

And you still seem to ignore the fact that politics is not static. The Bloc will not always be such a factor, and it's doubtful that they can become more of one.

That's like saying if you don't fly in airplanes, you won't die in a plane crash. Well, people fly in airplanes and that's unlikely to stop.

IOW smallc, you beg the question. Under what conditions will the Bloc, as you put it, not "be such a factor"? When? How?

Curious minds await an answer.

[jbg]

Here is a scenario: the UK is now talking about switching to PR. If we were to do the same in say, 25 years or so, the Bloc would (even with similar support levels) become far less meaningful.

Under that scenario, I could form, say, the "purple" party, make subsidized infant care my sole agenda, garner the necessary 3% of the vote and voila, I'm a potential trader of influence in the formation of a government. Is encouraging the formation of parties that are borderline frivilous a good idea?

[August1991]

Exactly. Why people think the here and now is forever and the past means never again is beyond me.

I have been encouraging (even predicting) the demise of a British monarch as Canada's Head of State.

Who says that the Bloc will be less eternal (or sustainable, to use a modern word) than the British monarchy? I would argue that francophones in northern North America have a resilience that betters the British royal family. The French in North America have been speaking French longer than the current British Royal family has spoken English.

Edited May 12, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

That's like saying if you don't fly in airplanes, you won't die in a plane crash. Well, people fly in airplanes and that's unlikely to stop.

Actually, the two statements are nothing alike.

IOW smallc, you beg the question. Under what conditions will the Bloc, as you put it, not "be such a factor"? When? How?

I have no idea, but it will happen, you can almost bet on it.

[Smallc]

Under that scenario, I could form, say, the "purple" party, make subsidized infant care my sole agenda, garner the necessary 3% of the vote and voila, I'm a potential trader of influence in the formation of a government. Is encouraging the formation of parties that are borderline frivilous a good idea?

Well, I'm no sure. In the past, I didn't support proportional representation. Now, I think there might be something to it, at least in some ways. It would better represent the will of the people, and a threshold could be put in place to keep out the most fringe like of parties.

[August1991]

I have no idea, but it will happen, you can almost bet on it.

That's wishful thinking. It's like David Suzuki saying, "People will stop flying in airplanes. I have no idea why. But it will happen."

Call it the Bloc or any other name, Quebec is a fact of life of federal Canadian politics.

[Smallc]

Quebec is a fact of life of federal Canadian politics.

Most definitely. That isn't necessarily true of the Bloc. The Bloc and Quebec are not one. The Bloc actually doesn't enjoy that much support, our system just makes it look like they do, and even a small change in their support levels (in the negative direction) could have a huge impact.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

In fact, looking at the trends, the Bloc (over the long term) has falling support, and with each election, it's support makes up a smaller and smaller piece of the Canadian total:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Québécois#Election_results

It's fortunes were only improved as a result of the Sponsorship Scandal, and the memory of that is, without a doubt, beginning to fade.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Smallc

[wyly]

Well, I'm no sure. In the past, I didn't support proportional representation. Now, I think there might be something to it, at least in some ways. It would better represent the will of the people, and a threshold could be put in place to keep out the most fringe like of parties.

why a threshold to keep out the fringe? what is the point of denying people the right to representation because of your definition of fringe?...

division of total number seats of seats by 100 is a simple way to decide the number of seats...308 seats works out to 3 seats for every one percent of the popular vote...

instead we have a dysfunctional democracy where the BQ with only 9.9% of the popular vote has 49 seats, the Greens with 6.78% has zero seats and the NDP with 18% has 37...this is really F***** up ...

there are millions of Canadians without representation, millions who never bother to vote because they will never in their lifetime have the opportunity to elect someone who represents their point of view...the two parties who share power and those who support them want nothing to do with a democratic reform that gives fair representation to all Canadians...

[Smallc]

why a threshold to keep out the fringe? what is the point of denying people the right to representation because of your definition of fringe?...

It's a common component of PR systems. It's done in order to maintain stability within a parliament. I think a threshold requiring even 1% isn't really that unreasonable.