Coalition Government

[g_bambino]

coalitions options can not and are never presented to the electorate in an election as each party is campaigning on the assumption that they should govern alone...only the results of the election can determine whether a coalition is feasible or which party is will or will not take part in that coalition...

Exactly.

[Timothy17]

Let me stop you right there, Canadians do not vote in any government.

That sounds extreme.

If you in all earnestness believe this then you don't understand our system.

Alright, now I am getting weary of this. Again, this sounds more and more like elitism. I do understand our system. I know what a Westminster system is and how Parliament functions. Please stop insinuating that I am ignorant.

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.

I believe that Parliament and Parliamentarians should respect the will of their electorates. The Coalition was not their will. Justifying any seizure or transfer of power with a systematic exploit is dangerous. The system serves us, not the other way around. This is understood. We are a democratic society expressed in a Parliament; now everyone and anyone can freely argue about the quality of Parliament, few would argue about democracy. It's democracy that produces the Parliament, and Parliament is measured by how well it serves democracy. What the Coalition did was grossly unpopular and for good reason. The Coalition was not unpopular because Canadians are ignorant or stupid. It was unpopular because they expect their goverment, their Parliament, to behave in a certain way. Again, while the system might permit a possibility, that does not make the possibility acceptable. It ultimately undermines the credibility of the system as a vehicle for democracy.

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.

I understand you are passionate here, but please, that is an obvious insult not only to my intelligence but also to my patriotism.

and we simply "Canadianize" our government titles. It is parliament that has a mandate from the people, not the Government.

Again, please consider how odd that sounds. Government is formed in and of Parliament, it therefore has a mandate from the people. The difference in this instance is that the proposed Coalition had no mandate from the electorate. It was a new creature introduced by a sitting Parliament; unquestionably Parliament's composition would have been different had the electorate been aware of a Coalition possibility. Reason, reason, reason. It was the will of the opposition party leaders to form a Coalition government, not the electorate. Everyone knew this.

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.

I wasn't arguing the system. I was arguing that the nature of the action was contrary to Canada's sense of democracy. The Prime Minister had every right to use public opinion, via the media, to bring Parliament in line. He knew Canadians did not want a Coalition government. He did not break the law by saying Parliament is doing something you, the electorate, never wanted. What was immaterial to Canadians was that the system permitted the action; what was material to them was Parliament obey their will.

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.

Rhetorical tripe is worthless if it doesn't carry weight with the people. It did carry weight. His argument was better than the coalition's. His argument was in line with what Canadians wanted and expected. The Coalition was not. The Coalition used the parliamentary system to broker a power grab; Harper used that same parliamentary system, combined with the media and public opinion to put a stop to the action.

To conclude, simply because something is possible in our Parliamentary system does not at once make it right or acceptable. The opposition leaders should have realized they were risking the credibility of the Westminster system in the eyes of Canadians by their action. I understand they felt they had little choice; nonetheless, that is exactly how Canadians felt when they took action, like we had no choice but to accept whatever it was those three party leaders felt fit to bestow on Canada.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Timothy17

[g_bambino]

[T]he proposed Coalition had no mandate from the electorate.

Except that the majority of the electorate voted for the parties that formed the coalition.

[c/e]

Edited May 14, 2010 by g_bambino

[Timothy17]

Except that the majority of the electorate voted for the parties that formed the coalition.

[c/e]

Yes, except that the coalition was not why they voted for their party. Had that been the case, then the Coalition would have formed the government without any public outrage.

[ToadBrother]

I believe that Parliament and Parliamentarians should respect the will of their electorates. The Coalition was not their will. Justifying any seizure or transfer of power with a systematic exploit is dangerous.

So how does that work when you have a minority government. The majority of Canadians, by a considerable margin, didn't want a Tory government either.

The system serves us, not the other way around.

Which says nothing in and of itself.

This is understood. We are a democratic society expressed in a Parliament; now everyone and anyone can freely argue about the quality of Parliament, few would argue about democracy. It's democracy that produces the Parliament, and Parliament is measured by how well it serves democracy. What the Coalition did was grossly unpopular and for good reason. The Coalition was not unpopular because Canadians are ignorant or stupid. It was unpopular because they expect their goverment, their Parliament, to behave in a certain way. Again, while the system might permit a possibility, that does not make the possibility acceptable. It ultimately undermines the credibility of the system as a vehicle for democracy.

From what I could tell, it wasn't "grossly" unpopular. It was certainly, according to polls, well over 50%, but it wasn't like 75% of Canadians who were against it. You're overstating your case

Again, please consider how odd that sounds. Government is formed in and of Parliament, it therefore has a mandate from the people.

The very notion of a "mandate" doesn't exist in our system, save in a very generalistic form. Again, we vote for a Parliament, it is Parliament that gives a government a mandate.

The difference in this instance is that the proposed Coalition had no mandate from the electorate. It was a new creature introduced by a sitting Parliament; unquestionably Parliament's composition would have been different had the electorate been aware of a Coalition possibility. Reason, reason, reason. It was the will of the opposition party leaders to form a Coalition government, not the electorate. Everyone knew this.

You claim to understand our system, and then invoke what are essentially American ideas of government.

I wasn't arguing the system. I was arguing that the nature of the action was contrary to Canada's sense of democracy. The Prime Minister had every right to use public opinion, via the media, to bring Parliament in line.

The Prime Minister, as leader of the Opposition, had proposed exactly the same idea, knowing full well that it is entirely constitutional, does not constitute a coup, and is in fact an expression of Parliament's ancient rights, won from the tyrant Charles I by blood, bullet and steel. While the Prime Minister himself never exactly lied, his supporters most certainly did, showing either sheer stupidity or deep dishonesty.

He knew Canadians did not want a Coalition government. He did not break the law by saying Parliament is doing something you, the electorate, never wanted. What was immaterial to Canadians was that the system permitted the action; what was material to them was Parliament obey their will.

Does that apply to Harper as well? After all, he's done things in defiance of the popular will.

The fact is that we have a minority government. If the coalition did not enjoy popular support, neither does the Tory government. You seem to want a special application of polling numbers to support your claim, but ignore the exact same reference point going in the other direction.

Rhetorical tripe is worthless if it doesn't carry weight with the people. It did carry weight. His argument was better than the coalition's. His argument was in line with what Canadians wanted and expected. The Coalition was not. The Coalition used the parliamentary system to broker a power grab; Harper used that same parliamentary system, combined with the media and public opinion to put a stop to the action.

The power grab was constitutional. Parliament is supreme, not the government, and government only serves at the will of Parliament. It has been this way for well over three hundred years.

To conclude, simply because something is possible in our Parliamentary system does not at once make it right or acceptable.

Indeed. That could apply to the prorogation of 2008, the first time in the history of our entire system of government that a government used prorogation to defy the will of Parliament. Again, you apply this outrage to the group you like, but have compartmentalized your own favorite party's deep abuses of the system.

The opposition leaders should have realized they were risking the credibility of the Westminster system in the eyes of Canadians by their action.

You mean more than a bunch of lying Tory astrotufers outright telling falsehoods about how the system works?

I understand they felt they had little choice; nonetheless, that is exactly how Canadians felt when they took action, like we had no choice but to accept whatever it was those three party leaders felt fit to bestow on Canada.

You complain about emotional appeals, but what I've seen is practically pathological compartmentalization.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Yes, except that the coalition was not why they voted for their party. Had that been the case, then the Coalition would have formed the government without any public outrage.

Then they would have had their say during the next election. That's how our system works. Since minority governments are pretty rare to begin with, there's not exactly a lot of hard and fast rules about how they should work, so appealing to these frankly non-Westminster notions of "mandate" and "popular will" seems rather odd.

What's even funnier is that the 2008 stunt was pretty much inspired by Harper's own 2003 attempt. Perhaps Harper should be driven from government, since he seems to have as little respect for the popular will as the 2008 coalition leaders.

Just look at the election last week in Britain. No one voted for a Conservative-LibDem coalition. But there it is, even though some Conservatives and LibDems are outraged. Maybe it won't last and both parties will be punished. Maybe it will last and both parties will be punished in five years. The fact is that we don't live in a direct democracy, and more to the point, polls by EKOS and Angus Reid do not constitute elections.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[wyly]

I believe that Parliament and Parliamentarians should respect the will of their electorates. The Coalition was not their will.

how do you know what the will of the electorate was? was there a referendum that only you are aware of?...the clear majority voted for a government other than the CPC...once elected it's no longer our decision but that of the MP's...

The Coalition was not unpopular because Canadians are ignorant or stupid.

no it's because they're stupid...claims of coalitions being undemocratic and coup verify their stupidity...

Again, please consider how odd that sounds. Government is formed in and of Parliament, it therefore has a mandate from the people. The difference in this instance is that the proposed Coalition had no mandate from the electorate. It was a new creature introduced by a sitting Parliament; unquestionably Parliament's composition would have been different had the electorate been aware of a Coalition possibility. Reason, reason, reason. It was the will of the opposition party leaders to form a Coalition government, not the electorate. Everyone knew this.

and that's how it works in many countries, coalitions form, break apart and reform an election need only happen if no functioning coalition is possible...

I wasn't arguing the system. I was arguing that the nature of the action was contrary to Canada's sense of democracy.

no you're arguing your understanding of democracy, don't include those of us who understand it in your misunderstanding...

like we had no choice but to accept whatever it was those three party leaders felt fit to bestow on Canada.

we have no choice... just as we have no choice when Harper reneges on election promises that he may feel fit to bestow on Canada...once elected we give power to MP's make any change they see fit...

[Timothy17]

So how does that work when you have a minority government. The majority of Canadians, by a considerable margin, didn't want a Tory government either.

Agreed. I actually like the present composition of parliament exactly because it mitigates the CPC's ability to enforce their party's agenda.

Which says nothing in and of itself.

I think a statement that the system should serve us, and not the other way around, deserves a better rebuttal.

From what I could tell, it wasn't "grossly" unpopular. It was certainly, according to polls, well over 50%, but it wasn't like 75% of Canadians who were against it. You're overstating your case

Over 50%. That's a majority in democracy and a super-majority in the first past the post system.

The very notion of a "mandate" doesn't exist in our system, save in a very generalistic form. Again, we vote for a Parliament, it is Parliament that gives a government a mandate.

No, it exists in the minds of Canadians, and therefore becomes a political reality.

You claim to understand our system, and then invoke what are essentially American ideas of government.

I invoke what are essentially North American ideas. You wrote something about pathological compartamentalization...

The Prime Minister, as leader of the Opposition, had proposed exactly the same idea, knowing full well that it is entirely constitutional, does not constitute a coup, and is in fact an expression of Parliament's ancient rights, won from the tyrant Charles I by blood, bullet and steel.

I admire your historical knowledge.

That being said, had Harper gone through with it I imagine their would have been a similar uproar, assuming the Canadian people were decidedly against it, as they were with the Coalition. This argument only strengthens my point of Canadians expecting Parliament to be an expression of their will. You don't like Harper's proposal anymore than anyone liked Dion's.

While the Prime Minister himself never exactly lied, his supporters most certainly did, showing either sheer stupidity or deep dishonesty.

We don't need to demonize and insult.

Does that apply to Harper as well? After all, he's done things in defiance of the popular will.

I agree he has. But name me one Head of Government or State who hasn't. You're right, we should always demand better from our leaders and representatives, but unless Jesus comes back a Canadian politician I doubt we will have an impeccable politician at the helm.

The fact is that we have a minority government. If the coalition did not enjoy popular support, neither does the Tory government. You seem to want a special application of polling numbers to support your claim, but ignore the exact same reference point going in the other direction.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The power grab was constitutional. Parliament is supreme, not the government, and government only serves at the will of Parliament. It has been this way for well over three hundred years.

So what if it was Constitutional? So is using the media, espusing rhetoric, proroguing Parliament; that doesn't make it a popular or even a good idea. That doesn't make it right. You are reinforcing my point that Canadians expect Parliament to behave and obey their wishes as a priority to all other things.

Indeed. That could apply to the prorogation of 2008, the first time in the history of our entire system of government that a government used prorogation to defy the will of Parliament. Again, you apply this outrage to the group you like, but have compartmentalized your own favorite party's deep abuses of the system.

They aren't my favorite party. I was a liberal until recently, and in many respects still am. I am your definition swing voter. I don't like the Conservative party's atmosphere, culture or posture.

You mean more than a bunch of lying Tory astrotufers outright telling falsehoods about how the system works?

No, I certainly didn't.

You complain about emotional appeals, but what I've seen is practically pathological compartmentalization.

As I pointed out above, you are as guilty of that as I am. I repeat my point: In Canada, Parliament is expected to obey the will of Canadians, and simply because our system permits an action does not make it right or even acceptable. This is not some American idea; it is a firmly Canadian one.

[wyly]

Just look at the election last week in Britain. No one voted for a Conservative-LibDem coalition. But there it is, even though some Conservatives and LibDems are outraged. Maybe it won't last and both parties will be punished. Maybe it will last and both parties will be punished in five years.

it may or may not last and no party will be punished for being part of the coalition but how the coalition performs...a few party members may be upset and some supporters may leave but they should cancel each other out, but that's ok too because that's how democracy works...

in countries with the PR system and coalition governments are common parties are still judged on their performance not necessarily the coalition(unless it sucked)...

The fact is that we don't live in a direct democracy, and more to the point, polls by EKOS and Angus Reid do not constitute elections.

correct... and had the coalition gained power and governed successfully for a year or two any polls based on previous lies put out by the CPC on the legitimacy of the coalition action would have been corrected and forgotten...

[ToadBrother]

Over 50%. That's a majority in democracy and a super-majority in the first past the post system.

It was polling figures, not electoral figures. Are you now asserting that polling results have the same weight as elections?

No, it exists in the minds of Canadians, and therefore becomes a political reality.

With a considerable amount of help from lying astroturfers and a Prime Minister who himself tried to pull the same stunt five years before.

I invoke what are essentially North American ideas. You wrote something about pathological compartamentalization...

Now you're inventing whole new classes of political structure? This isn't compartmentalization, it's fantasy land.

I admire your historical knowledge.

It's not just historical, it's constitutional. It's the way our system works.

That being said, had Harper gone through with it I imagine their would have been a similar uproar, assuming the Canadian people were decidedly against it, as they were with the Coalition. This argument only strengthens my point of Canadians expecting Parliament to be an expression of their will. You don't like Harper's proposal anymore than anyone liked Dion's.

Actually, to my mind, both were legitimate. While coalitions are very rare in pure Westminster Parliaments, they certainly are not unheard of.

I agree he has. But name me one Head of Government or State who hasn't. You're right, we should always demand better from our leaders and representatives, but unless Jesus comes back a Canadian politician I doubt we will have an impeccable politician at the helm.

And your compartmentalization reappears. If it is okay for Harper to, for instance, use prorogation for the first time in the history of any of Her Majesty's realms to evade a confidence motion, in effect setting a new constitutional precedent that may in fact be transportable not just to later Canadian parliaments, but in fact, to other Westminster Parliaments (remember, even though the Statute of Westminster severed the Dominion Parliaments, constitutional experts from all the realms still peak over each others shoulders), how is it somehow more wrong that a well-known means by which a new government can take over from an old one without an election?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

What I mean is that the normal shorthand of Parliament, where the government is formed by the party that has a majority of seats in the House is just that, a sort of shorthand. What counts is that Parliament selects the government. The shorthand is that if you have the majority of seats, well, obviously those members will give you the ability to go to the Governor General and say "I can form a government". But in a minority situation, that shorthand no longer applies. Now the will of Parliament becomes significantly more important, and if Parliament decides it has no confidence in your government, because you no longer control the majority of seats, you no longer control what happens after that. Because minority governments are pretty rare, and actual formal coalitions are even rarer, the rules surrounding them get obscured somewhat, but never the less, the rules are there. Nothing the coalition proposed to do was unlawful or unconstitutional, certainly they were less controversial from a constitutional perspective than, say, using a Reserve Power to shut down the House for two months or claiming that the Bill of Rights 1689 no longer applied to the current government over access to AFghan detainee documents.

So what if it was Constitutional?

That's a pretty typical Tory attitude. It seems to apply to damned near everything they do nowadays.

So is using the media, espusing rhetoric, proroguing Parliament; that doesn't make it a popular or even a good idea. That doesn't make it right. You are reinforcing my point that Canadians expect Parliament to behave and obey their wishes as a priority to all other things.

My major issue with what you say is that the will of the people was never actually determined. Polls by private outfits are not electoral polls. They may give you a window, within a margin of error, of what the electorate is thinking.

No, I certainly didn't.

I never said you did.

As I pointed out above, you are as guilty of that as I am. I repeat my point: In Canada, Parliament is expected to obey the will of Canadians, and simply because our system permits an action does not make it right or even acceptable. This is not some American idea; it is a firmly Canadian one.

Repeating this mantra doesn't make it true. People vote for a Parliament, Parliament chooses the government. That people are misinformed is not an excuse for reality. The Coalition was lawful. If it was unpopular, then the people would have had their say, just as the people will have their say about the Tories own highly questionable, indeed much more questionable deeds from a constitutional perspective.

[myata]

What you rave about is, yes.

Wow. This gets you right into the hall of fame (of empty devoid of intelligence rhethorics), right ahead of the earlier achievement by TB here (you managed it in less words; although I'm not sure whether it should go the other way around; I mean should expressing zero thought in more words count as a greater achievement, due to higher - potentially -mental stress?). Anyways, congrats, well deserved!

What makes you sound so ridiculous is that you're an anarchist who stupidly believes himself to be a humanitarian; you seem to have actually convinced yourself that the key to a better life for all people is the elimination of the millennia-old understanding that a sound, prosperous society relies on a maintained balance somewhere between full individual freedom and full individual control.

Is that preponderous deliberation meant to translate as "people cannot be trusted to make their own choices in the political system (of that sound prosperous society)"?

By removing the "artificial" strictures the individual members of society collectively place upon themselves, each person, with "all the freedom there is on principal," becomes able to do whatever they want whenever they want by their "sovereign conscious choice". The necessary balance is eradicated, the community falls into chaos, and, instead of bettering society, you've destroyed it.

No, of course putting another checkbox in the election box, and recording and implementing that choice in practice would completely undermine, no totally explode the foundations of a "balanced" society. Wait, could them peons still be trusted to listen to songs other than approved for the good of "balanced" society? Watch more than two TV channels? Buy more than two brands of cars? All very serious questions for you folks to ponder carefully, enjoy!

[ToadBrother]

correct... and had the coalition gained power and governed successfully for a year or two any polls based on previous lies put out by the CPC on the legitimacy of the coalition action would have been corrected and forgotten...

Look, I think the coalition was a stupid idea. It's clear even from the Afghan detainee issue that the Tory government will ultimately fold when it's confronted with the combined might of the Opposition. I doubt the Coalition would have even lasted very long, seeing as how detested it was by a fairly large fraction of Liberal MPs. It's quite possible that it would always be unpopular, and that, at the end of the day, the voters would have expressed their outrage by giving the Tories a majority.

But this idea that 1. the Canadian political system should be force-fitted into an American-style governing system because "that's what Canadians expect" and 2. that private pollsters hired by media outlets somehow constitute legitimate expressions of popular will troubles me greatly. It expresses to me everything that is wrong with the way things run in this country, that we not only overlook the ignorance of the electorate, we somehow should legitimize it, and just as importantly that pollsters can be asserted to be a branch of the government, that the government should choose its course, and in general Parliament as a whole, should do what it does based on a random sample of 1,500 Canadians.

I'm not saying polls are invalid, but I'm saying they are damned dangerous things to run a democracy on. But if we are to take the popular will is a guide, then the Tories had even less popular support than the Coalition. If a constitutionally legitimate expression of Parliament's will is wrong because polls say it's wrong, then how can a minority government which has only once come within pissing distance of the magic 40% needed to even conceive of getting a majority suddenly have more legitimacy.

Timothy, I'm afraid, is guilty of extreme compartmentalization. He seems utterly unwilling to apply his logic in either direction. If pollsters' statistical calculations now constitute the popular will, then why is there a Tory government right now?

[Timothy17]

how do you know what the will of the electorate was? was there a referendum that only you are aware of?...the clear majority voted for a government other than the CPC...once elected it's no longer our decision but that of the MP's...

It was not the will of the electorate. They didn't elect an unforseen, unexpected Coalition. They elected their parties respectively. There was no Coalition option before them, and when there was, they were decidedly opposed to it; therefore, I confidently say, the Coalition was not the will of the people.

no it's because they're stupid...claims of coalitions being undemocratic and coup verify their stupidity...

I have not a little more faith in the Canadian people.

and that's how it works in many countries, coalitions form, break apart and reform an election need only happen if no functioning coalition is possible...

We are not discussing other countries; I am not even talking about them. I am interested in mine.

no you're arguing your understanding of democracy, don't include those of us who understand it in your misunderstanding...

No, I am pretty sure a super majority of Canadians believe Parliament ought obey their will and express their wishes.

we have no choice... just as we have no choice when Harper reneges on election promises that he may feel fit to bestow on Canada...once elected we give power to MP's make any change they see fit...

As you know, I disagree. The Westminster system includes unwritten but understood rules. That Parliament is not a hired agent who can, once hired, do whatsoever it pleases even if contrary to the will of its client is not only illogical, I would venture that it is even an unwritten rule in Canada that Parliament, as I have argued, always obey the will of the people as a first priority. It is expected Parliament will behave in a predictable manner, and not make some wild spectacle of itself, especially if that doesn't reflect reality "on the ground." We don't believe in runaway Parliaments, whether they are allowed to run away or not is immaterial. Parliamentarians, possessing the faculty of reason, have no warrant to divorce themselves from the will of the people, as if they were incapable of sensing or knowing it. They have the freedom to, of course, but not the right to, and the Coalition fiasco, in my opinion, has demonstrated that.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Timothy17

[wyly]

Look, I think the coalition was a stupid idea. It's clear even from the Afghan detainee issue that the Tory government will ultimately fold when it's confronted with the combined might of the Opposition. I doubt the Coalition would have even lasted very long, seeing as how detested it was by a fairly large fraction of Liberal MPs. It's quite possible that it would always be unpopular, and that, at the end of the day, the voters would have expressed their outrage by giving the Tories a majority.

we agree to disagree on this...I liked it, a coalition government representing over 60% of the electorate working together on common points of agreement to govern responsibly appeals more to me than a government of 35% playing constitutional games....

But this idea that 1. the Canadian political system should be force-fitted into an American-style governing system because "that's what Canadians expect" and 2. that private pollsters hired by media outlets somehow constitute legitimate expressions of popular will troubles me greatly. It expresses to me everything that is wrong with the way things run in this country, that we not only overlook the ignorance of the electorate, we somehow should legitimize it, and just as importantly that pollsters can be asserted to be a branch of the government, that the government should choose its course, and in general Parliament as a whole, should do what it does based on a random sample of 1,500 Canadians.

I'm not saying polls are invalid, but I'm saying they are damned dangerous things to run a democracy on. But if we are to take the popular will is a guide, then the Tories had even less popular support than the Coalition. If a constitutionally legitimate expression of Parliament's will is wrong because polls say it's wrong, then how can a minority government which has only once come within pissing distance of the magic 40% needed to even conceive of getting a majority suddenly have more legitimacy.

Timothy, I'm afraid, is guilty of extreme compartmentalization. He seems utterly unwilling to apply his logic in either direction. If pollsters' statistical calculations now constitute the popular will, then why is there a Tory government right now?

agreed, the only poll that matters is the one that occurs on election day not knee-jerk reactionary polls commissioned by political parties based on misinformation presented to an uninformed public...

but opinion polls presented rationally to an informed public avoiding "pitchfork and torches" mob mentality can be beneficial tool to gauge public opinion...

Edited May 14, 2010 by wyly

[ToadBrother]

It was not the will of the electorate. They didn't elect an unforseen, unexpected Coalition. They elected their parties respectively. There was no Coalition option before them, and when there was, they were decidedly opposed to it; therefore, I confidently say, the Coalition was not the will of the people.

The Tory government wasn't the will of the electorate either, but because our constitution works on certain precepts, the Tories could form a government, even where the will of the people, strictly speaking, is defied.

This is you exhibiting your compartmentalization again and again and again.

[Timothy17]

It was polling figures, not electoral figures. Are you now asserting that polling results have the same weight as elections?

You brought up the polling figures; not I. The Coalition was simply unpopular, the polls reflected what was already known.

With a considerable amount of help from lying astroturfers and a Prime Minister who himself tried to pull the same stunt five years before.

It's a stunt? I thought it was Constitutional.

Now you're inventing whole new classes of political structure? This isn't compartmentalization, it's fantasy land.

Sounds like a good description of Canadian politics to me.

It's not just historical, it's constitutional. It's the way our system works.

Are you refering to the "blood and steel" bit you mentioned?

Actually, to my mind, both were legitimate. While coalitions are very rare in pure Westminster Parliaments, they certainly are not unheard of.

Again, simply because the system permits does not make it right.

And your compartmentalization reappears. If it is okay for Harper to, for instance, use prorogation for the first time in the history of any of Her Majesty's realms to evade a confidence motion, in effect setting a new constitutional precedent that may in fact be transportable not just to later Canadian parliaments, but in fact, to other Westminster Parliaments (remember, even though the Statute of Westminster severed the Dominion Parliaments, constitutional experts from all the realms still peak over each others shoulders), how is it somehow more wrong that a well-known means by which a new government can take over from an old one without an election?

There's something entertaining about the idea of a less popular government ousting a more popular one. In extreme cases of abuse, this I could see. Like if it were a last ditch effort to save democracy from Hitler's National Socialists. But I don't think Harper's CPC is setting out to destroy democracy and take over the world.

What I mean is that the normal shorthand of Parliament, where the government is formed by the party that has a majority of seats in the House is just that, a sort of shorthand. What counts is that Parliament selects the government.

I think Canadians have pretty well negated a Parliament's freedom to create a soup dejour at their whim and fancy. Again, it may be par for the course elsewhere, but Canadians expect Parliament to reflect their will, and obey their wishes. The Coalition fiasco is proof of that. It is perfectly lawful for them not to; nonetheless, that doesn't make it right or acceptable.

The shorthand is that if you have the majority of seats, well, obviously those members will give you the ability to go to the Governor General and say "I can form a government". But in a minority situation, that shorthand no longer applies. Now the will of Parliament becomes significantly more important, and if Parliament decides it has no confidence in your government, because you no longer control the majority of seats, you no longer control what happens after that. Because minority governments are pretty rare, and actual formal coalitions are even rarer, the rules surrounding them get obscured somewhat, but never the less, the rules are there. Nothing the coalition proposed to do was unlawful or unconstitutional, certainly they were less controversial from a constitutional perspective than, say, using a Reserve Power to shut down the House for two months or claiming that the Bill of Rights 1689 no longer applied to the current government over access to AFghan detainee documents.

Sounds fuzzy and obscured. Doesn't sound right to me. But then, I am one of those silly average Joe's who need a what-for about understanding that Parliament can run amock whether I, or most or even all of us like it or not. Because it's Constitutional.

That's a pretty typical Tory attitude. It seems to apply to damned near everything they do nowadays.

You would know better than I.

My major issue with what you say is that the will of the people was never actually determined. Polls by private outfits are not electoral polls. They may give you a window, within a margin of error, of what the electorate is thinking.

I think they were thinking the Coalition was a surprise that nobody wanted.

Repeating this mantra doesn't make it true. People vote for a Parliament, Parliament chooses the government. That people are misinformed is not an excuse for reality. The Coalition was lawful. If it was unpopular, then the people would have had their say, just as the people will have their say about the Tories own highly questionable, indeed much more questionable deeds from a constitutional perspective.

The Coalition was misinformed, and soon corrected, in that Canadians have expectations for Parliament, and those expectations are the reality, just as much as our Constitutional Westminster system is also the reality. You seem to still think I am arguing like I thought the Coalition was illegal or unconstitutional; I know it was neither. The Coalition could have seized power and become the government against everyone's desires or wishes, and it is exactly that which Canadians detest. I am arguing as ever that in Canada it is understood that Parliament obeys the will of the people, and a systematic possibility does not veto reason or common sense.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Timothy17

[ToadBrother]

agreed, the only poll that matters is the one that occurs on election day not knee-jerk reactionary polls commissioned by political parties based on misinformation presented to an uninformed public...

but opinion polls presented rationally to an informed public avoiding "pitchfork and torches" mob mentality can be beneficial tool to gauge public opinion...

Look, the Tories have never got above about 37% according to the polls that Timothy holds so dear. As I recall, approval for the Coalition sat at somewhere around 39% to 40%, still a minority of Canadians but in fact higher than the Tories highest polling numbers. If polls, as Timothy seems to assert, represent some sort of exprssion of the electorate's political will, a Coalition of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc in fact was more legitimate than the Tory government.

Clearly Timothy's view is absurd, and it is absurd precisely because of the way our constitution works. Our constitution does not require governments to be formed by parties that have the support of the majority of Canadians. In fact, it's hard for even majority governments to get elected with over 50% voter approval. The last election that that happened in was 1984, when, at least according to Wikipedia, Mulroney's Tories managed to get a shocking 50.04% of the popular vote. Before that it was 1958, when Diefenbaker's Tories got 53.66% of the popular vote. In fact here's a breakdown of governments that actually won greater than 50% in an election in Canada:

1984 - Progressive Conservatives - Brian Mulroney - 50.04%

1958 - Progressive Conservatives - John Diefenbaker - 53.66%

1940 - Liberals - Mackenzie King - 51.32%

1917 - Unionists - Robert Borden - 56.93%

1904 - Liberals - Wilfred Laurier - 50.88%

1900 - Liberals - Wilfred Laurier - 50.25%

Out of 40 general elections since Confederation, only six governments have actually managed to achieve greater than 50%. And these are the real polling numbers, not some survey.

[ToadBrother]

You brought up the polling figures; not I. The Coalition was simply unpopular, the polls reflected what was already known.

No, the polling figures produced what was known. Short of another general election, how could you possibly know that Canadians would ultimately reject the Coalition? You don't. Nobody knows, just as nobody knows whether British voters will ultimately reject the Conservative-LibDem coalition. It may very well be thrown out on its ear, be so hated and so reviled that it fragments long before the five year date.

It is precisely because our system is not based on popularity polls, but rather based on constitutional conventions designed to produce governments, that the Tory government is legitimate, that the British Conservative-LibDem coalition is legitimate, and, if they could have lasted a couple of months, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition would have been legitimate. As horrible as it sounds, what Canadians think in between elections takes a second seat to the will of Parliament. That is the fundamental nature of all representative democracies.

The Coalition was misinformed, and soon corrected, in that Canadians have expectations for Parliament, and those expectations are the reality, just as much as our Constitutional Westminster system is also the reality. You seem to still think I am arguing like I thought the Coalition was illegal or unconstitutional; I know it was neither. The Coalition could have seized power and become the government against everyone's desires or wishes, and it is exactly that which Canadians detest. I am arguing as ever that in Canada it is understood that Parliament obeys the will of the people, and a systematic possibility does not veto reason or common sense.

But the only way you know the Coalition was unpopular was because pollsters determined through random surveys that it was unpopular. Those same surveys indicate that the Tories have never enjoyed even the unpopular numbers that were determined for the Coalition. By your logic, the Tory government is even more illegitimate than the coalition was.

You can't have it both ways here. Either the coalition was legitimate because it was constitutional, just as a Tory minority gaining power was legitimate despite an even poorer showing, or the coalition was illegitimate because of polling numbers, in which case the Tories are also illegitimate.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[wyly]

It was not the will of the electorate. They didn't elect an unforseen, unexpected Coalition. They elected their parties respectively. There was no Coalition option before them, and when there was, they were decidedly opposed to it; therefore, I confidently say, the Coalition was not the will of the people.

I've known since I was high school(and that was a looong time ago) that coalitions are acceptable and possible in our system you saying it is not speaks volumes...any time the people vote a minority situation they give approval for a potential coalition and it is up to the MP's alone to make that decision...

I have not a little more faith in the Canadian people.

you're an example of why your faith is misplaced...

[Timothy17]

But the only way you know the Coalition was unpopular was because pollsters determined through random surveys that it was unpopular. Those same surveys indicate that the Tories have never enjoyed even the unpopular numbers that were determined for the Coalition. By your logic, the Tory government is even more illegitimate than the coalition was.

No, I know the Coalition was unpopular because it was unpopular then as it is still unpopular now. It's synonymous with fiasco. Do you honestly think if we started hearing talk of a "Coalition" again, Canadians would do anything except roll their eyes and strike their palms on their foreheads? That random disconnect between Parliament and the living will of the people is exactly what Canadians detest. That is undemocratic for Canadians; it is, as I have said, contrary to Canada's sense of democracy.

You can't have it both ways here. Either the coalition was legitimate because it was constitutional, just as a Tory minority gaining power was legitimate despite an even poorer showing, or the coalition was illegitimate because of polling numbers, in which case the Tories are also illegitimate.

This kind of back and forth is what I meant about Parliament not having some right to veto reason and common sense. Canadians have expectations for our Parliament, based on a long relationship with it. It was no surprise the Tories formed minority governments. What is and would be a surprise would be the Tories not forming the government due to a sudden, unexpected and undefined Coalition suddenly seizing the reigns. Benevolent as their intent might be, Canadians do not like or want to be relegated to mere spectators in the political process, and there is no reason why we must be. Parliament is not a Gladiator ring in Canada: It is not a casting of the die; it is not Caesar crossing the rubicon, with the Canadian people being told to take it and then, later, being asked to decide whether or not they like it. October surprises are an American thing, not a Canadian one.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Timothy17

[wyly]

Look, the Tories have never got above about 37% according to the polls that Timothy holds so dear. As I recall, approval for the Coalition sat at somewhere around 39% to 40%, still a minority of Canadians but in fact higher than the Tories highest polling numbers. If polls, as Timothy seems to assert, represent some sort of exprssion of the electorate's political will, a Coalition of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc in fact was more legitimate than the Tory government.

excellent point...

there's a good example of a micro-coalition going on right here in the forum...yourself, myata and I have differences but still common point of agreement and none of us agrees with Timothy ...and that's how coalitions work, agree on key points and compromise on smaller differences...democracy in action, when there is a honest will to work together coalitions work...

[ToadBrother]

No, I know the Coalition was unpopular because it was unpopular then as it is still unpopular now. It's synonymous with fiasco. Do you honestly think if we started hearing talk of a "Coalition" again, Canadians would do anything except roll their eyes and strike their palms on their foreheads? That random disconnect between Parliament and the living will of the people is exactly what Canadians detest. That is undemocratic for Canadians; it is, as I have said, contrary to Canada's sense of democracy.

So let me get this straight. You know because you know. What are you, a freakin' magician? I mean, do you have some device that allows to formulate the average opinion?

You seem like a reasonably intelligent lad, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you know your argument has devolved beyond the point at which it could even be called stupid. Your reasoning is circular, and even doing it straight reveals your refusal to accept both sides of the coin.

Coalitions are perceived as a possibility in WEstminster Parliaments. They are rare, but only marginally moreso than minority governments. It's a principle with some precedent. Period. History also indicates that such coalitions do not last in a strict Westminster system, but that's rather besides the point.

The Coalition was a legitimate idea, maybe one that would have lead to humiliation at the polls, but governments have had that happen for any number of reasons. You, my friend, are guilty of what is called special pleading.

This kind of back and forth is what I meant about Parliament not having some right to veto reason and common sense. Canadians have expectations for our Parliament, based on a long relationship with it. It was no surprise the Tories formed minority governments. What is and would be a surprise would be the Tories not forming the government due to a sudden, unexpected and undefined Coalition suddenly seizing the reigns. Benevolent as their intent might be, Canadians do not like or want to be relegated to mere spectators in the political process, and there is no reason why we must be. Parliament is not a Gladiator ring in Canada: It is not a casting of the die; it is not Caesar crossing the rubicon, with the Canadian people being told to take it and then, later, being asked to decide whether or not they like it. October surprises are an American thing, not a Canadian one.

Repeating your argument doesn't make it any better. The Coalition was, in fact, more popular, by the polls, than the Tory government has ever been. I know because I actually looked, rather than simply using the magic of logical fallacies to, how shall I say, assert the point.

[wyly]

What is and would be a surprise would be the Tories not forming the government due to a sudden, unexpected and undefined Coalition suddenly seizing the reigns.

well that's a creative spin...prorogue parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote, when did confidence votes become illegimate? governments fall to a non-confidence votes often, the opposition if it is able and willing can form the government without going to the polls...

the only thing unexpected was the CPC daring the opposition to vote non-confidence and having their bluff called...

Edited May 14, 2010 by wyly

[ToadBrother]

well that's a creative spin...prorogue parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote, when did confidence votes become illegimate? governments fall to a non-confidence votes often, the opposition if it is able and willing can form the government without going to the polls...

the only thing unexpected was the CPC daring the opposition to vote non-confidence and having their bluff called...

If Timothy were to back away from his more extreme language I might even tend to agree with him, to a point.

Let's take the 2008 prorogation, a horrible act, even if it did confer a temporary advantage to the Tories. I can condemn it, even as I admit that it is, in fact, constitutional (Sir John A. MacDonald did something similar to avoid censure over the Pacific Scandal, but it wasn't in fact an evasion of a confidence vote). I decry the Tory action but will not debate that it was constitutionally permissible.

But Timothy is essentially asserting that the coalition was illegitimate on the grounds that a majority of Canadians, though apparently not a majority as determined by pollsters, but a majority determined because he "knows" were against it.

The fact is that Parliament, in whole or in part, does act at times in defiance of the public will, if the public will is defined as "what most of us think when a pollster calls a statistically meaningful sample size". It is the nature of government that you cannot please all the people all the time, and sometimes you can't please most of the people. But if that makes an action of Parliament illegitimate, then Parliament has done an incredible number of illegitimate things.

But clearly legitimacy is not based on opinion polls, much less on some random poster's gut instincts as to what the public will accept. Legitimacy is based on constitutionally proscribed possibilities. Some of those possibilities are frequently invoked (ie. the party winning the majority of seats forms the government pretty much automatically), some of those possibilities are relatively rare (ie. in a minority situation, it is not necessarily the government with the largest number of seats that forms a government, but the incumbent party if it can make the argument that it can form a working government). Legitimacy of any action is solely defined by the constitution. This holds true for every single representative democracy throughout history. Representative democracies create a barrier between the will of the electorate and government itself, with the constraining factor being electoral success.

The coalition was a legitimate, and not unheard of use of constitutional precepts that are centuries old. It is rare simply because minority governments are rare under the FPTP system. To say, somehow, that because the people didn't want it, it should not happen practically de-legitimizes the weight of the constitution itself.

[bloodyminded]

The fact is that Parliament, in whole or in part, does act at times in defiance of the public will, if the public will is defined as "what most of us think when a pollster calls a statistically meaningful sample size". It is the nature of government that you cannot please all the people all the time, and sometimes you can't please most of the people. But if that makes an action of Parliament illegitimate, then Parliament has done an incredible number of illegitimate things.

I would venture to say every Parliament. Without exception. Another great point, of many in this thread, TB.