Coalition Government

[Bryan]

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.

More seats are being added outside of Quebec. You don't think that is going to diminish the impact of the Bloc on federal politics?

If the CPC goes forward with removing subsidies to political parties, the Bloc would be hit harder than any other party. You don't think that would diminish their impact? Who knows what other kinds of "gotcha" legislation the government has in mind down the road?

Lots of other things could happen. Quebecers could get tired of having the majority of Quebec's seats go to a party that has no ability to do anything for Quebec when they're not part of government. People do change their allegiances. The founder of the Bloc was himself once a federal Conservative. Our Governor General was once a separatist. Our Prime Minister, the very stereotype of a Calgary Conservative, was once an Ontario Liberal.

[Smallc]

Our Governor General was once a separatist.

Now that isn't necessarily true.

[g_bambino]

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.

You take my statement on the possiblity of coalition government in Canada as some attack on your cherished Québécois nation and fire back with the usual souverainiste historical revisionism and patriotic sloganeering. Bizarre.

Nobody said anything about eternity except you, August. Of course nothing is eternal. But, so long as the Canadian parliament is structured as it presently is, coalition governments are achievable. Current political circumstances do nothing to undermine that fact, especially when it's considered that political landscapes shift much, much quicker than the institutions of governance.

[sp]

Edited May 12, 2010 by g_bambino

[jbg]

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 ...

If the parties remained the BQ, the NDP, the LPC, the Greens and the CPC, i.e. a manageable number of parties, perhaps PR would work. The problem, again, comes with fringe parties.

Also, how would you organize a leadership debate with such a likely unwieldly number of parties, leaders and candidates for PM?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Also, how would you organize a leadership debate with such a likely unwieldly number of parties, leaders and candidates for PM?

Move to Italy?

[wyly]

If the parties remained the BQ, the NDP, the LPC, the Greens and the CPC, i.e. a manageable number of parties, perhaps PR would work. The problem, again, comes with fringe parties.

why are small parties a problem? either we're a full democracy or we are not...if we start limiting parties for the sake being manageable lets just simplify it to one party rule...

Also, how would you organize a leadership debate with such a likely unwieldly number of parties, leaders and candidates for PM?

leadership debate was media invented spectacle not written down as part of our democratic process, the UK never had a leadership debate ever until just this past election...

a public televised debate is a waste of time, the participants are tightly controled and rehearsed by professional handlers in which the participants do little but posture and rehash the same talking points we've heard before the debate...

[Dave_ON]

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...

Obviously you're new here, you should read over the posting rules, porper name use only. Whatever you think of a person, do them the common courtesy of using their proper name.

Do not use diminutives or character substitutions in proper names that are not recognized by the original person to whom the reference is being made. For example, Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not identify himself as Stevie therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Stevie. Likewise, Paul Martin does not identify himself as Mr. Dithers, therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Mr. Dithers.

In the discussion forums, such infractions will be considered as third-party insults

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.

As for the rest, is it your position that it was a mere two years of good conservative governance that put us in a good position to weather the storm? I would suggest that it was a series of policies put in place by previous governments. It was not Mr. Harpers fault that the financial crisis occurred, nor is he the one solely responsible for how well we faired during it.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Dave_ON

[Argus]

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.

Really? Most Lefties have always reckoned the Sun chain to be the evil of all evils as far as the media is concerned. Yet Sun media was among the first major business organizations in Canada to grant benefits, right up to pension rights, to same sex couples.

Tell me which social policy beliefs the NDP champion which the majority of the media is hostile to. So far as I can see most media champion minority rights of every description, and the very best story they can find is someone being unkind to minorities. Media champions the poor, and looks down upon any cuts to benefits or entitlements. The media generally plays up cuts to things like feminist groups (while rarely mentioning that hundreds of feminist groups are funded) or gay parades, or arts groups and uses such cuts as a condemnation of the evil tories. The media seems mostly pro-choice, and agressively hostile to the point of holding contempt for anti-abortion groups and attitudes. The media is rarely happy about money going to business, or cuts to taxes for business. Every time there is a budget the media goes to interview single mothers and poverty groups so they can condemn the lack of additional money/cuts to benefits.

So do please tell me how the general media are so much to the right of NDP policy beliefs.

[Argus]

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.

No, then there'd be a dozen bloqs. You know, the British National Party, the next thing to being Nazis, ran the most horrifically awful, amateurish, discombobulated election campaign imaginable. Their web site guy shut it down in a snit on the even of the election. Their publicity guy was charged with making death threats against their leader.

Even so if prop were in place now a dozen BNP MPs would be heading into Westminster.

With anything like a capable campaign that would be two or three dozen.

[Argus]

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.

Prop rep means rule by committee. It means endless, endless discussions and meetings and compromises on every little thing, and it means expensive catering to single issue parties on issues the majority of the population doesn't support.

[Dave_ON]

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.

Agreed the coalition with "separatists" didn't help, however neither did the hyperbolic misinformation about a coalition government being somehow "undemocratic" or a coup. Don't get me wrong I didn't want Dionne as PM but I also didn't want our current PM to bald face lie and spread misinformation about the nature of our system. For whatever else can be said about Mr. Harper I find his utter contempt for parliament, his flippant attitude for the fundamental structure of our democracy, and his general autocratic style all very hard to swallow.

The fact that social conservatives hold more sway in the party than I'm comfortable with aside my main issue with the CPC, isn't so much their policies as much as it is Mr. Harper himself. I may not particularly care for Mr. Ignatieff but given the alternatives what choice do I truly have?

The truly positive thing about the coalition in GB is that it puts to rest all the wrangling on how coalitions are not democratic or even conceivable in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. In all honesty Mr. Harper shouldn’t have burned the coalition bridge, especially considering he was so quick to cross it back when Mr. Martin was PM.

[ToadBrother]

The truly positive thing about the coalition in GB is that it puts to rest all the wrangling on how coalitions are not democratic or even conceivable in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. In all honesty Mr. Harper shouldn’t have burned the coalition bridge, especially considering he was so quick to cross it back when Mr. Martin was PM.

It certainly shows that some Tory supporters were either morons or liars, and the few I dealt with suggest the Tories very actively were sending out astroturfers to make claims about our constitutional system that were pure fabrication. That is, I guess, how political wars are won now, by sending out your most fanatical, and possibly most moronic supporters into the Internet as willingly little saboteurs, and because knowledge of our system of government appears so lacking, people lap it up.

But let's not get too ahead of ourselves. This coalition hasn't even been around for 24 hours yet. There's a lot of territory between now and the five years Cameron and Clegg are saying it will last, and it will be very painful territory. The UK has to get its books in order, it has to massively cut down the budget deficit, it has to keep its ahead above water if Greece ultimately does default. The one thing that Britain should be very happy about right now is that it does have some limited insulation from a severe EU collapse in that it isn't part of the currency union.

[Dave_ON]

But let's not get too ahead of ourselves. This coalition hasn't even been around for 24 hours yet. There's a lot of territory between now and the five years Cameron and Clegg are saying it will last, and it will be very painful territory. The UK has to get its books in order, it has to massively cut down the budget deficit, it has to keep its ahead above water if Greece ultimately does default. The one thing that Britain should be very happy about right now is that it does have some limited insulation from a severe EU collapse in that it isn't part of the currency union.

Agreed which is precisely why I think they will make it work do or die. They really haven't a choice at this juncture. There are tough choices that need to be made and that won't be particularly popular and they need a stable government to ensure it happens. It may not be smooth by any stretch but so long as it's effective in the end I don't think that will really matter.

[ToadBrother]

Agreed which is precisely why I think they will make it work do or die. They really haven't a choice at this juncture. There are tough choices that need to be made and that won't be particularly popular and they need a stable government to ensure it happens. It may not be smooth by any stretch but so long as it's effective in the end I don't think that will really matter.

In the end, the biggest challenge for both men will be their own parties. The Conservatives, for the most part, seem more supportive of the coalition than the LibDems, and if Clegg does end up becoming nothing more than a sort of defacto superwhip for the LibDem caucus, it could in a year or two lead to the departure of the LibDems from the Coalition.

This appears to be Labour's hope, that by getting into bed with the Conservatives, the LibDems will so sully themselves that their supporters will come knocking on Labour's door as the most natural place to park their vote, and they could be right.

[jbg]

why are small parties a problem? either we're a full democracy or we are not...if we start limiting parties for the sake being manageable lets just simplify it to one party rule...

The problem with fringe parties comes with minority and/or coalition governments. First, there is the possibility of joke parties or candidates. This is one example (link). Joke or fringe parties are indeed no laughing matter if some nutcase can push or derail legislation because he or she controls a crucial vote or two. That is how Israel has some pretty extreme pro-Orthodox legislation in a country where most people aren't very religious. In other words it can easily be anti-democratic.

leadership debate was media invented spectacle not written down as part of our democratic process, the UK never had a leadership debate ever until just this past election...

a public televised debate is a waste of time, the participants are tightly controled and rehearsed by professional handlers in which the participants do little but posture and rehash the same talking points we've heard before the debate...

The debates do serve a useful function of at least ensuring some voter communication that is not controlled by the handlers. It's not perfect but it's better than a totally controlled "Nixon" type of campaign.

[wyly]

The truly positive thing about the coalition in GB is that it puts to rest all the wrangling on how coalitions are not democratic or even conceivable in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. In all honesty Mr. Harper shouldn’t have burned the coalition bridge, especially considering he was so quick to cross it back when Mr. Martin was PM.

which demonstrates the lack of political sophistication of the average voter...coalitions have been part of European democracies for decades, just not the British one...coalitions/multiple parties is absolutely democratic and the more people/parties that have a say in government the more democratic the system...

[g_bambino]

which demonstrates the lack of political sophistication of the average voter...

It's more than a lack of political sophistication, it's a total unfamiliarity with our constitutional framework. Most Canadians seem to have this deluded belief that we're governed by an inferior copy of the American system, wherein the prime minister is a differently titled president, chosen not by the governor general according to the majority of MPs, but through direct election by the majority of the people.

Harper capitalised on this ignorance when offering the nation his response to the opposition's proposed coalition in 2008. Sadly, not only did he mislead, but he must have done so willingly, given his evident knowledge of the Westminster system when he was part of an opposition that proposed a coalition in 2005.

[+]

Edited May 13, 2010 by g_bambino

[Keepitsimple]

Prior to the Liberals and NDP considering coalition supported by the Bloc, when did our media ever talk about a coalition government? The answer is never. The only talk was that the Liberals should consider merging with the NDP. There has never been a true coalition government at the Federal level in Canada. To talk in this thread as if a coalition government was a valid option that could be understood and accepted by Canadians is sheer lunacy. Here's an article by CBC that tried to explain coalitions in Canada:

Opposition Ottawa is rife with talk about a possible coalition government of some sort involving the Liberals and the NDP to replace the Stephen Harper Tories at the earliest opportunity, ostensibly because the minority Conservatives are not moving quickly enough to help Canada's failing economy.

But how might such a coalition work? Who would lead it? The Liberals are in the process of replacing failed leader Stéphane Dion at the moment. The NDP controls only 37 seats and won just 18 per cent of the vote in the most recent election six weeks ago.

And what role would the Bloc Québécois play? Its legislative support, at least, would be necessary for any Liberal-NDP coalition to succeed as those two parties control just over a third of the seats in the House.

Carleton political science professor Jonathan Malloy (Courtesy Jonathan Malloy)

To explore these issues and others, CBC News contacted Carleton University political scientist Jonathan Malloy. He spoke with online writer Muriel Draaisma about the possibility of a coalition government in Canada and some of the precedents.

How would a coalition of Liberals and the NDP and possibly the Bloc work as a viable government?

It's very hard to envision how it might work because there is really no precedent for it, particularly at the federal level. There have been some coalition governments in Canada, but they are extremely rare. There are so many different unknowns.

First, who would lead it? If the Liberals had a permanent leader, then that would be clear. There is talk of an interim leader. But it's quite unclear who would actually lead it.

Second, how much of a coalition would it be? A true coalition is one where all the political parties have members of cabinet and they work very much at that level. We have never seen that federally.

How would a coalition actually be formed here?

It's hard to outline the steps because this is all uncharted waters. Certainly, the government would have to be formally defeated in the House of Commons first. Then Prime Minister Stephen Harper would have to tell the Governor General that he has lost the confidence of the House. Then it gets really fuzzy.

In a different situation, what would happen is the prime minister could maybe recommend another election or another party. The Governor General would then logically turn to the leader of the next largest party in House of Commons, the Liberal party. That would, of course, be Stephane Dion and she could ask him to form a government.

But Dion has [announced he will resign] as leader, so that's certainly shaky to say the least. The Liberals don't have a permanent leader at the moment, so it's really unclear exactly what the steps would be. It's really uncharted waters.

Hasn't this been mapped out? Don't we have rules governing these matters?

No, we have a largely unwritten constitution on these matters. That's the whole point of our parliamentary system. This stuff is not precisely written down. It does evolve and is flexible with the times.

Does Canada have any history of coalition governments?

There's the one in 1917 when a lot of Liberals left the Liberal Party to join the Conservative Party to form a new Union Government. That wasn't really a coalition. That was more people leaving their party. That wouldn't technically qualify as a coalition.

When you see coalition governments in other countries, it is where different members of cabinet are from different political parties and it's all parcelled out. Right at the cabinet table, you have different political parties.

It involves a lot of complex negotiations. We have never seen anything like that in Canada, except for that little Saskatchewan example.

There may be other examples in distant history but certainly nothing in recent history.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[g_bambino]

Prior to the Liberals and NDP considering coalition supported by the Bloc, when did our media evertalk about a coalition government? The answer is never.

And how we're governed is decided by the media?

It may have been silent in 2004 about the proposal for a coalition government hashed out by the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois (then again, it may not have been), but that doesn't mean the proposal never occurred. The media was quite vocal about that same proposition by late 2008:

However, the Liberals retaliated by saying that Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe presented precisely the same proposal to former Governor-General, Adrienne Clarkson, in 2005

Ignatieff touted to lead Liberal-NDP coalition

Her Majesty’s Official Opposition teams up with separatists to topple democratically elected government... in 2005 – and you'll never guess who was leading the charge!

Her Majesty’s Official Opposition teams up with separatists to topple democratically elected government...

Then-opposition leader Harper appeared at a news conference with Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe - you know, the guy who wants to destroy the country - and NDP leader Jack Layton to announce that the three of them had conspired - sorry, agreed - on a list of demands that would give them a larger role in governing... The three opposition leaders also wrote to then governor-general Adrienne Clarkson urging her to "consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority" in the event the Martin government lost a confidence vote.

PM is no stranger to opposition coalition plans

But in September 2004, a month before Paul Martin's minority Liberal government was set to meet Parliament for the first time. Harper, the newly minted leader of the Official Opposition, joined with NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe to send this letter to then Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson.

Harper's scorched-earth tactics burn Tories

And in September 2004, Harper wrote a joint letter with Layton and Duceppe to the governor general asking Adrienne Clarkson to consider letting the Conservatives form a government if the Liberals fell. No election would be necessary.

Gov-Gen hurries home to weigh Harper's fate

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.

A trip down minority government memory lane

They fired back with charges of hypocrisy, citing a letter to former governor general Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, signed by then opposition leaders Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton that discussed the prospects of dissolving Parliament if the government of Paul Martin, the prime minister, was to be defeated. The letter stated that the opposition parties, which constituted a majority in the House, have "been in close consultation" and that if Clarkson was asked to dissolve Parliament, she should "consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

Dion coalition would 'weaken' Canada: Harper

Harper himself signed a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, claiming the right to form a government if Paul Martin's minority Liberals could be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons. His ostensible partners would have been NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe -- now derided by Harper as the "socialist" and the "separatist" in Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's coalition.

Harper wrong on democracy claims: experts

There has never been a true coalition government at the Federal level in Canada.

Au contraire:

Since Confederation there has... been one federal coalition government in Canada’s history: the Union Government of World War I, which lasted from 1917-1920.

First Q&A on coalition governments

To talk in this thread as if a coalition government was a valid option that could be understood and accepted by Canadians is sheer lunacy.

It's a valid option, all right.

As strange, unheralded and unwieldy as the proposed Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition may be, constitutional experts are unanimous that its installation as an alternative government is well within the letter of Canada's parliamentary system.

Gov-Gen hurries home to weigh Harper's fate

Whether or not Canadians accept it, into which factors the question of whether or not they understand it, is another matter altogether.

[waldo]

It's a valid option, all right.

Whether or not Canadians accept it, into which factors the question of whether or not they understand it, is another matter altogether.

yes, whether or not they understand it... in the face of a Conservative spin-machine on overdrive, one that chose to label a coalition as a coup, as undemocratic, as an unholy alliance... of socialists & separatists. A Conservative spin-machine on overdrive that chose to negate/ignore it's own like initiative - the 2004 proposal for a coalition government hashed out by the Conservatives, NDP, and BQ.

[Keepitsimple]

And how we're governed is decided by the media?

It may have been silent in 2004 about the proposal for a coalition government hashed out by the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois (then again, it may not have been), but that doesn't mean the proposal never occurred. The media was quite vocal about that same proposition by late 2008:

Hey....all I did was show you what the CBC reported....obviously you think you are more informed that the CBC and it's Political Science consultant. Perhaps you didn't read what they said about Canada's only Federal "coalition":

Does Canada have any history of coalition governments?

There's the one in 1917 when a lot of Liberals left the Liberal Party to join the Conservative Party to form a new Union Government. That wasn't really a coalition. That was more people leaving their party. That wouldn't technically qualify as a coalition.

When you see coalition governments in other countries, it is where different members of cabinet are from different political parties and it's all parcelled out. Right at the cabinet table, you have different political parties.

It involves a lot of complex negotiations. We have never seen anything like that in Canada, except for that little Saskatchewan example.

There may be other examples in distant history but certainly nothing in recent history.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

And how we're governed is decided by the media?

It may have been silent in 2004 about the proposal for a coalition government hashed out by the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois (then again, it may not have been), but that doesn't mean the proposal never occurred.

Hey....I'm just offering what the CBC and it's Political Scientist said and perhaps you missed the point about Canada's only federal "coalition" to have ever governed:

Does Canada have any history of coalition governments?

There's the one in 1917 when a lot of Liberals left the Liberal Party to join the Conservative Party to form a new Union Government. That wasn't really a coalition. That was more people leaving their party. That wouldn't technically qualify as a coalition.

When you see coalition governments in other countries, it is where different members of cabinet are from different political parties and it's all parcelled out. Right at the cabinet table, you have different political parties.

It involves a lot of complex negotiations. We have never seen anything like that in Canada, except for that little Saskatchewan example.

There may be other examples in distant history but certainly nothing in recent history.

[g_bambino]

[P]erhaps you missed the point about Canada's only federal "coalition" to have ever governed.

No, I didn't. The opinion offered is out of synch with the majority, which says the government through World War I was a coalition. That, among other things, proves what some people keep saying here to be false.

Coalition governments are also, on occasion, formed when a single party has a clear majority in the legislature. This type of coalition usually occurs as the result of a national crisis or emergency, such as war or widespread civil unrest... Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden’s government during World War I serves as an example of this sort of coalition.

Coalitions in National Crises

At the national level, the only coalition has been Sir Robert Borden's 1917 Union Government.

Coalition Government

On May 25 he proposed to Liberal leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier that the Liberals and Conservatives form a coalition government to carry through the measure... On Oct 12 Borden announced the formation of a Union government made up of 12 Conservatives, 9 Liberals or independents, and one labour representative.

Union Government

Borden proposed a coalition government of Liberals and Conservatives for the duration of the war. The Liberal party was split over conscription; some accepted Borden's invitation to join his Cabinet. The Union government won the election of 1917, but not without a cost.

Sir Robert Laird Borden > Biography

Fearing that he might be beaten in that year’s election, he proposed that the Liberals and Conservatives form a coalition government... Borden began to recruit Liberal members of Parliament into what he called a Union Government... On the Prairies the Union coalition won 41 of 43 seats.

World War I: the war at home

That aside, I'd also be intrigued to hear how it is that the Canadian parliament cannot produce a coalition government when the very parliament it's modelled on (the British) can.

[+]

Edited May 13, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

yes, whether or not they understand it... in the face of a Conservative spin-machine on overdrive, one that chose to label a coalition as a coup, as undemocratic, as an unholy alliance... of socialists & separatists. A Conservative spin-machine on overdrive that chose to negate/ignore it's own like initiative - the 2004 proposal for a coalition government hashed out by the Conservatives, NDP, and BQ.

Indeed. As I said, Harper's words to the country, plus the propaganda metted out from party headquarters via assembled groups of slavish, unthinking Conservative supporters, was reprehensible. As it was put here:

Other scholars are virtually unanimous in their agreement. They say Harper's populist theory of democracy is more suited to a U.S.-style presidential system, in which voters cast ballots directly for a national leader, than it is to Canadian parliamentary democracy.

"He's appealing to people who learned their civics from American television," said Henry Jacek, a political scientist at McMaster University.

[Timothy17]

That aside, I'd also be intrigued to hear how it is that the Canadian parliament cannot produce a coalition government when the very parliament it's modelled on (the British) can.

[+]

I don't recall a single soul saying Coalition Governments can't happen or be done. This line of argument seems to require an elitist mentality. It assumes Canadians are by an large dumb and ignorant and as a consequence the mob over-reacted and killed a legitimate, lawful Coalition. Problem is opinion polls have no effect on Parliament's operations, and therefore the Coalition could have formed the Gov. What killed the coalition was the opinion polls when they realized their idea would not be supported by the electorate and they would have inherited a government that was despised.

What was succesfully argued in the past is that a Coalition Government should not happen or be done, and I agreed, largely because I do not like the NDP or its leader. I wasn't comfortable with him having so much power.

That's what killed the Coalition for me.

Now, if we were to have another election, and the Libs, Bloc and NDP told the electorate that forming a minority gov would be part of their agenda, and outlined what they would work together on, then they would have a legitimate mandate from the electorate to form a Gov. It wouldn't scare or startle anyone or be perceived as a surprise power grab, and all the "anti-democratic" rhetoric from the Conservatives would fall on deaf ears.