Coalition Government

[Timothy17]

Indeed. As I said, Harper's words to the country

Oh no! Mr. Harper cast a spell on Canadians? Damn those popcorn loving, hockey-watching Canadians who are so easily bewitched by the leader of their country!

plus the propaganda metted out from party headquarters via assembled groups of slavish, unthinking Conservative supporters, was reprehensible.

Hyperbole.

Harper seized and used the shock and surprise of a sudden and unexpected government in Ottawa. His strategy was the devil you know versus the devil you don't, and most Canadians were more comfortable with the one they knew, which is more of an insult to the Coalition, considering Mr. Harper's popular image, than it was to the Conservatives. I strictly recall Mr. Martin's vicious campaign to demonize Harper and the Conservatives. Every single political party has its pamphleteers and party headquarters. That only one (the Conservatives) engages in "reprehensible" activity is silly. All political parties engage in "reprehensible" activity, and thankfully the Canadian electorate usually punishes that activity when and if they don't agree with it. They didn't agree with the Martin Liberals' characterization of Harper just as they didn't agree with Kim Cambpell's characterization of Jean Chretien.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Timothy17

[g_bambino]

I don't recall a single soul saying Coalition Governments can't happen or be done.

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.

A coalition government today would involve the Bloc - and that would kill the coalition immediately... Who says that the Bloc will be less eternal (or sustainable, to use a modern word) than the British [sic] monarchy?

We here can't have... coalitions.

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.

Well, Canadians are, by and large, ignorant of the system by which they're governed; the whole coalition affair in 2008 was very enlightening on just how clueless so many people were about parliament, how governments are chosen, the governor general, and all that. As has been mentioned, Harper attempted to play on this ignorance to his benefit, making an effort to convince the otherwise mostly perplexed populace that, a la US system, he was a popularly elected leader under threat from coup of parliamentarians who hadn't been elected prime minister president.

Ultimately, though, the mob (significant parts of which, on both sides, did overreact) had nothing to do with the demise of the coalition. Internal instability within the Liberal party coupled with ideological differences between the collated parties meant the idea fizzled before parliament reconvened in January 2009.

[c/e]

Edited May 13, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Hyperbole.

Oh?

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da

Pronunciation: \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\

Function: noun

3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.

Harper said in December 2008:

The Canadian government has always been chosen by the people... The opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent and without your vote...

which is a complete untruth, issued to the public via national media for no other purpose than to further Harper's cause and damage the coalition's. Its premise was then repeated by anti-coalition protesters, who evidently never considered questioning the validity of the edict issued from the Conservative party leader.

[Timothy17]

Internal instability within the Liberal party coupled with ideological differences between the collated parties meant the idea fizzled before parliament reconvened in January 2009.

[c/e]

Thankfully they didn't form the government, then. Harper was right in this argument: the opposition wasn't fit to govern as a Coalition. It may have been a gamble on his part, but it was the right one.

[ToadBrother]

Prior to the Liberals and NDP considering coalition supported by the Bloc, when did our media ever talk about a coalition government?

When Stephen Harper tried to do the same thing in 2003.

[ToadBrother]

Thankfully they didn't form the government, then. Harper was right in this argument: the opposition wasn't fit to govern as a Coalition. It may have been a gamble on his part, but it was the right one.

I tend to agree with you, but the issue for me was the lie that somehow a coalition replacing a government that had lost confidence was somehow illegal or a coup. Either a lot of Tory supporters are complete morons with no knowledge of our system of government, or they're liars.

[g_bambino]

Thankfully they didn't form the government, then. Harper was right in this argument: the opposition wasn't fit to govern as a Coalition. It may have been a gamble on his part, but it was the right one.

Absolutely. The coalition was a comedy of errors from the outset, beginning with their premature announcement of a coalition, before they'd had the opportunity to vote non-confidence in the Cabinet. But the debate here isn't about whether or not the proposed Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition in 2008 was a good idea, it's over the fact that coalitions are entirely possible in Canada; contrary to what Harper said, those who moved to form a coalition in 2008 were well within their constitutional limits to do so, regardless of how politically stupid the idea was.

[Timothy17]

Oh?

Harper said in December 2008:

which is a complete untruth, issued to the public via national media for no other purpose than to further Harper's cause and damage the coalition's. Its premise was then repeated by anti-coalition protesters, who evidently never considered questioning the validity of the edict issued from the Conservative party leader.

Frankly, I agree with his "edict". Canadians did not vote the Coalition into power. They voted exactly as they voted and that was reflected in the composition of parliament. Now you can charge that the minority government was feasible under the Westminster system, and therefore legitimate; however, it's right there that Canadians disagreed. They had no intention of voting the minority parties into governing power. The "agreements" made by the minority parties ultimately produced a new party -a most unpopular one- with a new platform, that had no mandate because no one voted for it. That is contrary to Canada's sense of democracy. It might be lawful but it's not what we wanted. The "it's the system like it or not" kind of argument makes Bush getting elected in 2001 by the Supreme Court, even though he had fewer overall votes, look perfectly legitimate and democratic.

Canadians may have a Westminster system; however, that does not mean we tacitly support all the possibilities that system permits. Canadians did not like the Coalition. They did not like what it represented: three party leaders agreeing amongst themselves to replace the present government with a brand new one. Our Westminster system was never so humiliated and discredited then when the Coalition fiasco began. People were angry with their governmental system; so it's no surprise they rejected a notion that simply because the system permits what it was then doing, it was therefore acceptable.

Now, had the minority parties campaigned with a coalition government platform and agenda, then Harper's arguments would have been nonsense. It wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they would form the government. As it was, it surprised everyone, so Harper's arguments gained traction. That was his gain at the other parties' expense.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Timothy17

[bloodyminded]

That's why if you really like to follow politics, you need to read more than one paper. There's always three sides to every story - in politics, it's the Left, the Right and the Truth.

I'd go a little further, and say there's four: the Left, the Right, the "Moderate," and the Truth.

[bloodyminded]

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

Personal and unproveable anecdotes aren'[t too useful when discussing the institutional biases of news media.

And in fact, Dancer's use of personal anecdotes is an attempt to obscure the institutional biases, which are, by definition, pro-business, pro-establishment, pro-foreign policy status quo. Pro-Power, in short.

Even if the anecdotes were true (and I highly doubt they are), they are nonetheless political fictions, as they rather arbitrarily omit far more important factors.

[Keepitsimple]

But the debate here isn't about whether or not the proposed Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition in 2008 was a good idea, it's over the fact that coalitions are entirely possible in Canada;

There is no question that coalitions are possible here in Canada but there are several aspects to that technical question - not the least of which would be what the GG's ruling might be. If the GG's ruling went beyond technicalities and encompassed what was best for Canada, then one could argue that you could never include a party whose mandate was to leave Canada.....and without the Bloc, the Liberals and NDP combined had far less seats than the Conservatives and thus had no authority to form a government - let alone a mandate from Canadians. If you'll remember, Dion and Layton were both afraid to formally include the Bloc in the coalition - so they reaced an "agreement" where the Bloc would "support" their legislation for 18 months - as long as it was good for Quebec - which means what exactly? A blind man could see that one way or the other, the Bloc would blackmail its coalition partners for even more money and power for Quebec. There was never a non-confidence vote so we'll never know how the GG would have ruled.....but I must admit that it would have been interesting. When the Liberals and NDP have more combined seats than the Conservatives, then I will have no problem with those two parties attempting to form a coalition.....and in doing so, they can reap the rewards or pay the penalty in the following election. Include the Bloc....sorry, no way.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[wyly]

Now, had the minority parties campaigned with a coalition government platform and agenda, then Harper's arguments would have been nonsense. It wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they would form the government. As it was, it surprised everyone, so Harper's arguments gained traction. That was his gain at the other parties' expense.

Harper campaigned on promises fixed elections, income trust he never kept, why? because once elected it is his decision not that of his constituents...the same applies to coalitions, once elected MPs can do what they wish, if they decide a coalition is in peoples best interest or not is their decision not the constituents, we elect them to make those decisions...

...every election has the possibility of a legal coalition, I've known that since I was kid how is it Canadians are so ignorant?...campaigning with intention to form a coalition is stupid because you don't know ahead of time the results of the election or who the potential partners may be, why would a party trying to achieve a majority campaign for a coalition, it's self defeating, the goal is always to govern alone...consideration for coalitions can only happen after the election not before by parties who can agree on common points, the same process that is at work within each political party...

Edited May 13, 2010 by wyly

[myata]

But the debate here isn't about whether or not the proposed Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition in 2008 was a good idea, it's over the fact that coalitions are entirely possible in Canada; contrary to what Harper said, those who moved to form a coalition in 2008 were well within their constitutional limits to do so, regardless of how politically stupid the idea was.

I think that Harper has demonstrated very aptly that possibility of coalitions is as much - and probably much more than, a constitutional limit as 1) understanding and acceptance of this model of governance by the public; and 2) willingness of parties to accept compromises for the sake of stable government and achieving common agenda.

In this country we have very little of either, so you're quite correct in saying that possibility of coalitions becomes more a matter of constitutional theory, than of practical governance.

Is it good for the country? Let's see, we've had over decade of Liberal rule that was about little more than, well, "we rule", then five or so years of Harper addressing non existent or meaningless agendas (as that ephemerial accountability that nobody seem to really want). That brings us to about two decades in which no real acts no results have been achieved, federally, keeping everybody happy nonetheless. I already explained that it's a very natural outcome in the system where meaningful choice is limited to exactly two options, the parties that are fully controlled by their partocracies and for whom the most rewarding strategy is to sit it out and wait for the major screwup by their counterpart, which would invariably come, sooner or later. We are going to see that slow dance play out before our eyes over and again until we find will to change the system, or until our democracy finally degenerates into a meaningless spectacle as happened any number of times before us in history.

[wyly]

Is it good for the country?

it's fantastic for our country and democracy...once Canadians get it into their heads it's perfectly ok then factions within parties will be safe to split of...the moderates in the CPC will be able to go back to their PC roots the same applies for the liberals and the NDP, a coalition of center moderates becomes a possiblity in which the potential loons of the extreme right and left can be marginalized...

[g_bambino]

Canadians did not vote the Coalition into power. They voted exactly as they voted and that was reflected in the composition of parliament... [H]owever, it's right there that Canadians... had no intention of voting the minority parties into governing power. The "agreements" made by the minority parties ultimately produced a new party -a most unpopular one- with a new platform, that had no mandate because no one voted for it.

Canadians, voting exactly as they voted, did not vote the Conservatives into power; the majority of voters elected the opposition parties. Thus, if those parties in opposition have enough in common to facilitate cooperation, they're each clearly sacrificing little of the platforms on which they were elected, and the will of the majority of Canadians is actually expressed. That's not undemocratic, as Harper painted it.

Of course, the parties in question in 2008 didn't have terribly much in common, besides all being left-aligned and abhorring the Conservatives; hence, it was a stupid idea to try and form a coalition amongst themselves. The Prime Minister seems to have been right to point out the inanity of a government cobbled together out of the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc (though, in 2004 he apparently had no issue with some alliance between the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc), but it was highly disingenuous of Harper to tell Canadians that the opposition's shifting of confidence from him to another individual was undemocratic; a pure, bald-faced lie.

[myata]

it's fantastic for our country and democracy...once Canadians get it into their heads it's perfectly ok then factions within parties will be safe to split of...the moderates in the CPC will be able to go back to their PC roots the same applies for the liberals and the NDP, a coalition of center moderates becomes a possiblity in which the potential loons of the extreme right and left can be marginalized...

Majoritary system makes it nigh impossible though. Smaller parties and factions are severely punished for the benefit of the ruling two. Diversity of representations comes, well, with meaningful representation, otherwise we still end up with two ruling behemoths interested in their corporate agendas and interests much more than what it does for the country.

[Argus]

it's fantastic for our country and democracy...once Canadians get it into their heads it's perfectly ok then factions within parties will be safe to split of...the moderates in the CPC will be able to go back to their PC roots the same applies for the liberals and the NDP, a coalition of center moderates becomes a possiblity in which the potential loons of the extreme right and left can be marginalized...

Yeah, like in Israel in Italy. The fact is Prop Rep normally produces unstable, incompetent governments which have very short shelf spans. Most of the political and economic problems in Europe are because of prop rep. It results in extremely expensive government as each and every component of the coallitions have to be paid off with pet programs and policies. Every new law is a half-baked compromise made up by a committee of people who are generally working against each other.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, like in Israel in Italy. The fact is Prop Rep normally produces unstable, incompetent governments which have very short shelf spans. Most of the political and economic problems in Europe are because of prop rep. It results in extremely expensive government as each and every component of the coallitions have to be paid off with pet programs and policies. Every new law is a half-baked compromise made up by a committee of people who are generally working against each other.

I think Britain's potential solution, the Alternative Voting system, is probably the best compromise. It allows for some more PR-like elements to the voting system without sacrificing the stability that comes from First-past-the-Post. You have to admit there is some legitimacy to the argument that ignoring vast swathes of votes simply because a party couldn't concentrate its support in key ridings doesn't exactly fulfill the democratic principle.

At the same time I tend to agree with you that at least certain kinds of PR systems like those in Italy (though I have to admit Berlusconi has managed to build a fairly stable coalition) and Israel (which is an example of an utterly haywire electoral system) argue against the purer PR systems. I think AV and STV are both examples of systems that still give a great likelihood of a majority government, but do allow smaller parties (but not utterly fringe parties) some voice in Parliament.

There's no such thing as a perfect voting system. It is mathematically impossible, at least in a representative democracy.

[myata]

There's no such thing as a perfect voting system. It is mathematically impossible, at least in a representative democracy.

"Perfect" system is impossible, yet each system responds to the choices imposed by the society. We value stability over choices, and ultimately, diversity and freedom of representation. This results in (mostly) stable majority governments that very rarely represent majority of voters. As three hundred years back, we have exactly two meaningful choices: for or against the ruling government, everything else is a throwaway.

Proportional system of course puts people choices first, and makes stability (forming and reforming coalition) a result and consequence of it.

So this has nothing to do with the perfection of the system and everything - with society's choices, its confidence, self esteem. Do we want a system that would create artificial stability by limiting our choices? Or can we just express our will, fully and without restriction, and make our system respond to the decisions we made in a transparent, flexible and efficient manner, by building and rebuilding majority coalitions based on the current makeup of society's political views? The choice is ours and it's the same choices we make in our regular lives, you can have stability, predictability and boredom, or freedom, choices, and yes once in a while wild ride, but very rarely, both.

[Dave_ON]

Frankly, I agree with his "edict". Canadians did not vote the Coalition into power. They voted exactly as they voted and that was reflected in the composition of parliament. Now you can charge that the minority government was feasible under the Westminster system, and therefore legitimate; however, it's right there that Canadians disagreed. They had no intention of voting the minority parties into governing power.

Let me stop you right there, Canadians do not vote in any government. If you in all earnestness believe this then you don't understand our system. Canadians elected MP's who form a parliament, and it is parliament, not Canadians directly who decides who forms the government. We get to vote for one representative in our riding, not who becomes PM, or who forms the cabinet or who the speaker of the house is, all these are decided by parliament alone. It is theirs to choose who forms the government, and if the majority of them decide that Mr. Harper is not the PM, guess what? He's not the PM, as parliament, not the PM or the government is supreme.

Canadians may have a Westminster system; however, that does not mean we tacitly support all the possibilities that system permits. Canadians did not like the Coalition. They did not like what it represented: three party leaders agreeing amongst themselves to replace the present government with a brand new one. Our Westminster system was never so humiliated and discredited then when the Coalition fiasco began. People were angry with their governmental system; so it's no surprise they rejected a notion that simply because the system permits what it was then doing, it was therefore acceptable.

Our support, or lack thereof, of the system is quite immaterial on this point. The fact remains our system functions in a certain way and has functioned thus fur hundreds of years. Again you are wrong and are a prime example of the lack of knowledge that seems to be rampant in Canada today. You appear to be under the belief that we are America Jr. and we simply "Canadianize" our government titles. It is parliament that has a mandate from the people, not the Government. The Government is by convention as the party with the most seats, there is nothing that says this has to be. It is convention, not the people that selects the government, whether that party can maintain the confidence, and therefore the mandate, of parliament is another matter entirely.

Now, had the minority parties campaigned with a coalition government platform and agenda, then Harper's arguments would have been nonsense. It wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they would form the government. As it was, it surprised everyone, so Harper's arguments gained traction. That was his gain at the other parties' expense.

Harper's arguments were nonsense regardless of how the LPC/NDP/BLOC campaigned as it is a flagrant lie. Did the coalition surprise and alarm everyone, why of course it did. That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Harper was counting on the fears and ignorance of the general populace, and in this case it paid off. You can dislike the coalition all you want, leave it at that, but please don't repeat the rhetorical tripe that Mr. Harper and the CPC were feeding everyone when the fiasco began.

[ToadBrother]

Proportional system of course puts people choices first, and makes stability (forming and reforming coalition) a result and consequence of it.

I do not think the kind of fringe party dominance in Israeli coalitions is putting the peoples' choice first. Quite the opposite, it allows small minorities to dictate major pieces of policy. I have no problem with certain kinds of PR or PR-like systems like AV or STV, but the kind of full-blown PR that lead to decades of instability in Italy and to a lunatic religious fringe in Israel basically deciding issues like development in the Occupied Territories, even in defiance of the countries that are Israel's closest allies, is not a sign of a healthy democracy.

There are other issues. I don't like German-style party list PR. I do not like that members of a legislature would be effectively cut off from direct representation of a constituency, instead chosen by party apparatchik. I would only be in favor of electoral reform that kept a link between a representative and their constituency.

I did support STV in BC, even though I wasn't overly fond of multi-member "super-ridings", mainly because that was measured against the ability to essentially "score" my choices. In gave some of the strength of PR, that is a closer match between overall vote percentages and representation in the legislature, without sacrificing direct riding representation. AV does have the ranking aspects of STV, but maintains essentially the same riding structure, but is not quite as good at making vote percentages proportionate to seat representation.

I might even lean towards the Australian system, which in the lower house is identical to ours, but the upper house being elected by a PR electoral system. Still, that system did lead to the Australian Constitutional Crisis back in 1975, so it too has its flaws.

But make no mistake, First-past-the-post systems have one definitive advantage in that they tend to create much more stable governments, at the sacrifice of parties who cannot concentrate their support sufficiently to actually win ridings.

Everything in electoral systems is about compromise. Where First-past-the-post does mean there can be major disconnects between overall voter percentages, even within a riding, and who ultimately wins a seat in the legislature, pure PR systems like that used in Israel can confound the popular will by essentially ensuring coalitions that give disproportionate power to minor parties. In fact, I'd say, on the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it's these small ultra-orthodox one-note religious parties that the main parties have to cut deals with to form functional coalitions that are a major stumbling block. We'd probably have had peace in the region fifteen years ago if their Parliament was constituted by a First-past-the-post-system. That is something to ponder when you're talking electoral changes.

[myata]

I do not think the kind of fringe party dominance in Israeli coalitions is putting the peoples' choice first. Quite the opposite, it allows small minorities to dictate major pieces of policy. I have no problem with certain kinds of PR or PR-like systems like AV or STV, but the kind of full-blown PR that lead to decades of instability in Italy and to a lunatic religious fringe in Israel basically deciding issues like development in the Occupied Territories, even in defiance of the countries that are Israel's closest allies, is not a sign of a healthy democracy.

I do not believe that problems in Israel are caused necesarily by their electoral system. Large part of population is ambivalent toward continuation of their government's policies, otherwise they would not elect these parties favouring aggressive policies with combined majority representation.

And of course truly marginal parties can be eliminated via representation threshold - better still, combined with some sort of redistributing their votes to other parties via alternative vote. In any case it would cut off only counted %% points of representation as opposed to something like a third in our system (and even that is a low mark because it's a big question whether 35% of voters would keep voting Liberal if they had other choices leading to meaningful representation).

All in all, it all comes back to the same old and basic question: do you believe yourself being capable of making the best choice for you, and have full confidence in it whatever it may be? Or do you need somebody else, on the outside, to dictate, massage, and adjust your choice for stablity, because you can't really be trusted, etc, yada for any other worthy reason? What you do is what you get.

P.S Most democracies in the world have matured enough to realise that democracy can only be as good as people's committment to it. We're still on the way there.

[PIK]

All it does is give the crazies in the extreme right and left some power and that should never be allowed to happen. leave it the way it is.

[ToadBrother]

I do not believe that problems in Israel are caused necesarily by their electoral system. Large part of population is ambivalent toward continuation of their government's policies, otherwise they would not elect these parties favouring aggressive policies with combined majority representation.

I love this. "It can't be the responsibility of the electoral system, because that means my assumptions are wrong. Therefore something else is to blame."

You have this amazing capacity to open your mouth, say a great deal, and yet not know a damned thing. One only has to know something of the Israeli or Italian demographics to understand why PR systems in those countries have produced either ineffectual or crazy governments. There is indeed, it turns out, too much democracy.

And of course truly marginal parties can be eliminated via representation threshold - better still, combined with some sort of redistributing their votes to other parties via alternative vote. In any case it would cut off only counted %% points of representation as opposed to something like a third in our system (and even that is a low mark because it's a big question whether 35% of voters would keep voting Liberal if they had other choices leading to meaningful representation).

Alternative Vote is not really a PR system. It is a vote distribution system that has emulates some facets of PR. Basically, it's a ranking version of First-past-the-post

All in all, it all comes back to the same old and basic question: do you believe yourself being capable of making the best choice for you, and have full confidence in it whatever it may be? Or do you need somebody else, on the outside, to dictate, massage, and adjust your choice for stablity, because you can't really be trusted, etc, yada for any other worthy reason? What you do is what you get.

That's not what it comes down to all. What it comes down to is a functional, responsive, democratic system of government. As we've seen, there are certain combinations of voter trends and demographics and electoral systems that can produce startling bad governments, election after election after election.

P.S Most democracies in the world have matured enough to realise that democracy can only be as good as people's committment to it. We're still on the way there.

And now we're back to the mindless T-shirt sloganeering.

[ToadBrother]

All it does is give the crazies in the extreme right and left some power and that should never be allowed to happen. leave it the way it is.

I think if the British adopt AV, they'll have made a reasonable compromise. I don't agree with full blown PR systems. But myata has an obsession with coalition governments that can only come from someone who knows nothing about them.