Coalition Government

[wyly]

the results in GB should put Harper's coup talk to rest...our parliament is based on the UK system and now the Conservatives and Labour are actively and openly pursuing the Liberals for a coalition...if the conservatives succeed they can form a government if Labour does they can retain power, that's how democracy works...Harper and the CPC are trying to re-invent democracy to serve their own interests...

[Machjo]

the results in GB should put Harper's coup talk to rest...our parliament is based on the UK system and now the Conservatives and Labour are actively and openly pursuing the Liberals for a coalition...if the conservatives succeed they can form a government if Labour does they can retain power, that's how democracy works...Harper and the CPC are trying to re-invent democracy to serve their own interests...

Harper in a nutshell:

[wyly]

We must realize Canadian politics are much more partisan and polarized than UK politics. Each party feels it must save face by not showing itself to be weak, to stand on 'principle' at all costs, etc. Canadian politics are totally polarized.

Some solutions I could see would be:

1. remove party names from ballots. That's probably the most important of all symbolically so as to emphasize that we are voting in not parties, but MPs. As such, these MPs are free to associate with any or not party, and so are free to build coalitions. As long as party names appear on ballots, parties will always argue that we'd voted not for MPs but for parties, and as such party loyalty must remain, along with the problems this creates. So definitely the most important step symbolically is to remove party names from ballots.

2. De-officialize political parties. They ought to get no legal recognition whatsoever beyond that of any other incorporated not-for-profit organization. That too would help make Parliament non-Partisan. It's already reached the point a few years ago where when I see a party name under the candidate's name on my ballot, I cringe.

I'm not completely up on the history of our political system but I was under the impression that originally that is how it was intended to be...

and taking the party name off the ballot would force people to actually investigate the candidates and the issues and not blindly follow party loyalty...and it would also force candidates into the open and present their thoughts publicly rather than ride their party's coat tail hiding from public appearances...the very thought of some candidates like Rob Anders speaking publically terrifies the CPC...

[Machjo]

I'm not completely up on the history of our political system but I was under the impression that originally that is how it was intended to be...

taking the party name off the ballot would force people to actually investigate the candidates and the issues and not blindly follow party loyalty...and it would also force candidates into the open and present their thoughts publicly rather than ride their party's coat tail hiding from public appearances...the very thought of some candidates like Rob Anders speaking publically terrifies the CPC...

This would certainly change things. I already cringe when I see a party name under a candidate's name on my ballot, so much so that it makes me look to see if there's an independent candidate, even if I like the candidate in question with the party name under his. If you removed party names from ballots, I wouldn't be as averse to voting for party members. Some people might even already be boycotting elections just for this; it really wouldn't surprise me.

If you removed party names from ballots, more of these thinkers would come back to vote, whereas those who vote party X as a knee-jerk reaction would stop voting. In other words, we'd have more thinkers voting and more dunces staying home.

[wyly]

This would certainly change things. I already cringe when I see a party name under a candidate's name on my ballot, so much so that it makes me look to see if there's an independent candidate, even if I like the candidate in question with the party name under his. If you removed party names from ballots, I wouldn't be as averse to voting for party members. Some people might even already be boycotting elections just for this; it really wouldn't surprise me.

If you removed party names from ballots, more of these thinkers would come back to vote, whereas those who vote party X as a knee-jerk reaction would stop voting. In other words, we'd have more thinkers voting and more dunces staying home.

well I'm all for it but I know the political paries will not be, they all count on the dunce vote to some degree, the conservatives moreso than the others...

[ToadBrother]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/07/uk-election-minority.html

As you might already be aware the UK election is over and it looks like it's a hung parliament (minority as we call it). This is the first minority they've had in Britain since the 70's. Now it looks very much like some type of coalition government will be formed in the very near future. Surprisingly there'll be no "emergency" nationwide PM address, or propaganda about how undemocratic this is and that all that is good and holy is threatened by such a despicable and unholy alliance. No the British are far more pragmatic about such matters than we are apparently, and likely the general populace is more aware of the workings of their system.

My question is, since it appears as though we will be in a minority government for some time to come why not settle on a coalition. Now I expect a full litany of rhetoric such as "run as a coalition if you want to form one." That's not the way the party system works. If you have to form an alliance to gain a majority, and some semblance of stability, then do so. The CPC could very easily form a majority coalition government much like their predecessors did during WW1. I suppose the CPC is still hoping against hope that they will eventually be delivered a majority, but polls indicate that won't happen any time in the very near future.

There are a number of reasons. The biggest is simple electoral math. The Tories only need an alliance with the Liberal Democrats to get over the hump. The coalition between the NDP and the Liberals in Canada still required a third party, the Bloc, which makes things infinitely more complex and politically dangerous.

Gordon Brown may find the same difficulty if he, for instance, tries to forge a coalition that involves the SNP, which is also a separatist party. Although the shared features of both our constitutions give the Prime Minister the first kick at the cat in such a situation, Harper was able to make the argument to the GG that he could create a stable government (which he has, more or less, managed to do). It's very unclear at this point, considering Labour's loss of seats, that Brown could make the same argument. While the Queen would be obliged if Brown insists that he can form a government, I think if the Conservatives and the LibDems cut a deal, in particular one that sees LibDem MPs in cabinet, Brown's ability to form a government would be all but shot.

A similar situation might have happened here in 2008 if the NDP had won more seats. If the NDP had had enough seats to allow either the Tories or the Liberals to form a government, either by formal coalition or simply by an agreement of co-operation, you might very well have seen, as odd as it seems, a Conservative-NDP coalition. Certainly some Tories were musing in that direction, and the NDP didn't seem any more bashful than they would have at a Liberal coalition.

[ToadBrother]

the results in GB should put Harper's coup talk to rest...our parliament is based on the UK system and now the Conservatives and Labour are actively and openly pursuing the Liberals for a coalition...if the conservatives succeed they can form a government if Labour does they can retain power, that's how democracy works...Harper and the CPC are trying to re-invent democracy to serve their own interests...

To be fair, they were trying to survive. I can't and won't approve of the 2008 prorogation, simply because it creates a terrible precedent, nor can I approve of the pretty shameless lying that went on, right here in these forums at times, by Tory supporters. The situations are not the same. In Britain, right now the jostling and bargaining is going on just days after an election as all sides try to figure out who will be the government. In the 2008 situation here, the Tories were already the government, and while it was of their own doing, they had already been serving in that capacity for weeks. As I've said over and over, if the Coalition had wanted to overthrow the Tories, they needed to keep quiet and not shout it out on the streets.

Alternatively, if they had had any brains between them, they could have negotiated the deal in the dying days of the election, and then would have been able to make the argument that they could form a government, whereas the Tories could not. Harper, as the incumbent PM, still had first dibs, just as Gordon Brown does now, but may have seen that in the situation where two other parties have shaken hands and now have a Parliamentary majority, forming a stable ministry was impossible.

Of course, the issue facing the British Tories and LibDems will be the same as those facing a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition. The constitution permits you to form a government, but what will your supporters and the voters in general think. There are a number of hard right Tories in Britain who are already making noises that they dislike this coalition. Worse, in Britain then for any government that would have won our 2008 election is a massive austerity package which has going to be rolled out, because Britain is basically broke. The Tory-LibDem coalition could very well get tarred with that, even though it is inevitable whoever wins, and when the time comes, Labour may be able to take it back when a disillusioned electorate tosses the coalition out.

That's not even touching on issues of stability. In our system stable coalitions are exceedingly rare, only really happening during times of substantial crisis. In Britain, the most successful coalitions were the National Governments of WWI and WWII, when everyone agreed that the crises were too great to have Parliament factionalized. In fact, I'd argued in 2008 as the economy faltered that there might be an argument for our own national government, and I still think Canadians would have been much more appreciative of the political classes if they had made such an agreement, rather than playing a game of constitutional chicken.

[ToadBrother]

We don't need to follow anyone, we are doing fine by ourselves ,why do you believe we need ''to follow'' someone else?

He's simply suggesting that, as we share pretty much the same system, that a coalition in one country suggests a coalition would have been possible in another. And he's right. I guarantee you if the NDP had won enough seats to guarantee the Tories a majority via coalition, we would have seen a Tory-NDP coalition, just as Britain will likely see a Tory-LibDem coalition.

[ToadBrother]

Here's another thought, in the US they have only two parties, so they know that whoever is in will probably be out in the next election. Here is Canada we have three parties but we have the same problem as the US. The Tories are in now but one election will come and take them out and the Liberals will replace and it goes back and forth. I would like a rude awaking to the two parties and see the NDP hold a minority government just to tell the other two NOT to take things for granted. I would also like one of the parties to press the Bloc to swear their allegiance to Canada and the Queen or leave.

Both the US system and the Westminster system function best when you have two parties. You can, to a certain degree, have minor parties winning a few seats. Believe me, Congress would become just as odd and dysfunctional as we are and Britain is about to be if some third party managed to grab up a whole bunch of seats.

[Smallc]

Congress would become just as odd and dysfunctional as we are and Britain is about to be if some third party managed to grab up a whole bunch of seats.

Oh, I don't know, I think it many ways it's already more dysfunctional. Everyone in congress and the US Senate is like a party of one, and they all want their take.

[wyly]

Both the US system and the Westminster system function best when you have two parties. You can, to a certain degree, have minor parties winning a few seats. Believe me, Congress would become just as odd and dysfunctional as we are and Britain is about to be if some third party managed to grab up a whole bunch of seats.

functional or democratic...if all you want is optimal funtction then a one party system is best...but democracy is what we want, regardless how awkward it may be, if the people decide they want ten parties in the house then ten it is...

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, I don't know, I think it many ways it's already more dysfunctional. Everyone in congress and the US Senate is like a party of one, and they all want their take.

Two points:

1) The US Senate is part of Congress (House + Senate)

2) You assertion about "everyone" in the US Congress is born of ignorance about why voters send them to Washington for "their take".

[Machjo]

well I'm all for it but I know the political paries will not be, they all count on the dunce vote to some degree, the conservatives moreso than the others...

I'd have to disagree. I'd say the older the party, the more history it has, the more likely it is to have dunces voting for it. It may be that the first generation in their family voted candidate, and it just so happened that the candidate they'd vote for was of that party. The following generations began voting party the same way many Canadians cheer on the Habs at a party game, as part of history and tradition. On that front, the Liberal Party is likely the greatest beneficiary from this kind of tradition voting, the NDP after that, and the Conservatives, a relatively newer party, following that (though granted many likely just transfered their traditional voting habits from the Progressive Conservatives).

I'm sure they all benefit from the dunce vote, though I'd guess that the older the party tradition, the greater the benefit. That's one reason I'm opposed to party politics. With parties, a complete idiot in the right party could be guaranteed a win while a genius standing as an independent or member of a fringe party will normally be crushed. If you remove party names from the ballots, it could even out the odds at least a little.

To take last election as an example, both the Liberal and Conservative Candidates were complete idiots. The NDP candidate, well, I couldn't even reach her for comment, so I'm not going to vote for someone I know so little about. The Green Party candidate was a little more intelligent than the others, though not much better. I really wanted to vote none of the above. I finally cast a blank ballot at the last minute. Thinking back on it, I'm not sure if maybe I'd been too harsh on the Green candidate and should have voted for him anyway as the lessor of a bunch of idiots. Comparatively speaking, he still stood far ahead of the Liberal and conservative candidates intellectually. Especially the Conservative candidate was nothing more than a party hack who could do nothing more than eulogize his leader.

[ToadBrother]

functional or democratic...if all you want is optimal funtction then a one party system is best...but democracy is what we want, regardless how awkward it may be, if the people decide they want ten parties in the house then ten it is...

If that were the case, Italy would have been the best place in the world for much of its post-War history. But reality says that you cannot make a jurisdiction too hard to govern. As with all things there must be a balance. The executive branch must have some capacity to manage the day-to-day operations of government. Weigh down your legislative branch too much, for example with a huge number of parties and ever-shifting alliances, governance itself becomes extremely difficult. This was one of the chief reasons for the evolution of the party system within the Westminster System. In the first century or so after that period Parliament was an incredibly chaotic place, and Parliament had a difficult time managing what it itself had asserted was its core function, to hold the Crown to account. Slowly, out of the Whigs and Tories (which, back in the 18th century had even less meaning than Democrat and Republican), you began to see a shift towards stronger party allegiances, towards strong leaders. It, of course, undermined to some extent the somewhat freer more cavalier aspects of Parliament, but laid the bedrock for a very effective form of government. It wasn't and still isn't perfect, and certainly the parties often become the end itself rather than the means to an end. I think we could all do well to alter the system, but when I look at the perverse amount of influence that small, narrowly focused parties can have in countries like Israel, I think there is a point when you can go too far.

[Machjo]

Even if we give the benefit of the doubt concerning the benefit of political parties in the political system, certainly it would be wise to not overdo it. Removing party names from ballots would at least weaken party allegiances somewhat. And if there really is some valid reason for the existence of parties, then I'm sure they could survive that, no?

[Keepitsimple]

Tornto star 100% left, G and M'80/20 left, mike harris (cfra) CBC 110% LEFT and this is just a start, when canwell is sold and the group that owns the star I think will be buying it, National post 70/30 right but that will change very shortly if the star group buys it.I forgot the sun 90% advertising. LOL

The biggest media problem is the Toronto Star. Unfortunately, they are the widest read paper in Canada and they are completely, 100% Liberal - and as far Left Liberal as you can go. They do not just report the news - almost all their articles are "editorialized" and opinionated. At least the G & M and the National Post save their opinions for the Columnist and editorial sections. The Star is simply outrageously over the top - not only in their support for the Liberals but in their clear detesting of the Conservatives. A Liberal announcement or story is simply that - an announcement or story....with maybe a small "critics" comment at the end. Anything to do with the Conservatives is opinionated and laced with "critics" comments. The Star did not even report the Frank Graves story - one that was alive on TV and other papers for 3 or 4 days - not one line from The Star because it put the Liberal party in a bad light. OK, I'm finished. Whew - glad I got that off my chest.

[wyly]

The biggest media problem is the Toronto Star. Unfortunately, they are the widest read paper in Canada and they are completely, 100% Liberal - and as far Left Liberal as you can go. They do not just report the news - almost all their articles are "editorialized" and opinionated. At least the G & M and the National Post save their opinions for the Columnist and editorial sections. The Star is simply outrageously over the top - not only in their support for the Liberals but in their clear detesting of the Conservatives. A Liberal announcement or story is simply that - an announcement or story....with maybe a small "critics" comment at the end. Anything to do with the Conservatives is opinionated and laced with "critics" comments. The Star did not even report the Frank Graves story - one that was alive on TV and other papers for 3 or 4 days - not one line from The Star because it put the Liberal party in a bad light. OK, I'm finished. Whew - glad I got that off my chest.

I've never even seen a copy of the Star in my entire life let alone read one so it's influence in the west is about zero, the national post is nothing less than a super paper with regional outlets following it's conservative lead from coast to coast...

[wyly]

I'd have to disagree. I'd say the older the party, the more history it has, the more likely it is to have dunces voting for it. It may be that the first generation in their family voted candidate, and it just so happened that the candidate they'd vote for was of that party. The following generations began voting party the same way many Canadians cheer on the Habs at a party game, as part of history and tradition. On that front, the Liberal Party is likely the greatest beneficiary from this kind of tradition voting, the NDP after that, and the Conservatives, a relatively newer party, following that (though granted many likely just transfered their traditional voting habits from the Progressive Conservatives).

I'm sure they all benefit from the dunce vote, though I'd guess that the older the party tradition, the greater the benefit. That's one reason I'm opposed to party politics. With parties, a complete idiot in the right party could be guaranteed a win while a genius standing as an independent or member of a fringe party will normally be crushed. If you remove party names from the ballots, it could even out the odds at least a little.

To take last election as an example, both the Liberal and Conservative Candidates were complete idiots. The NDP candidate, well, I couldn't even reach her for comment, so I'm not going to vote for someone I know so little about. The Green Party candidate was a little more intelligent than the others, though not much better. I really wanted to vote none of the above. I finally cast a blank ballot at the last minute. Thinking back on it, I'm not sure if maybe I'd been too harsh on the Green candidate and should have voted for him anyway as the lessor of a bunch of idiots. Comparatively speaking, he still stood far ahead of the Liberal and conservative candidates intellectually. Especially the Conservative candidate was nothing more than a party hack who could do nothing more than eulogize his leader.

true enough I've met many Canadians whose only reason for voting they way they do is because "my dad voted that way"...my kids respect my opinions, I tell them to make up their own minds and not blindly follow my lead...

I still hold that conservative supporters trail the supporters of other parties in education, conservative support is strongly rural and rural regions don't abound in uni grads...there have been polls to back this up, even in the US the average level of education recieved goes up the further to the left the leanings...

Edited May 8, 2010 by wyly

[ToadBrother]

Even if we give the benefit of the doubt concerning the benefit of political parties in the political system, certainly it would be wise to not overdo it. Removing party names from ballots would at least weaken party allegiances somewhat. And if there really is some valid reason for the existence of parties, then I'm sure they could survive that, no?

You know, something about this has always bothered me, but I could never put my finger on it. Now I think I've figured it out. It assumes voters are complete morons. The only way I could see it working is if you banned all party advertising, otherwise everyone with any interest in voting is going to know who the major party candidates are. It probably would also serve to confuse over smaller parties. What you're gambling on here is that people are too dull-witted or at least too ill-informed to know what party the candidate belongs to.

[Bryan]

I still hold that conservative supporters trail the supporters of other parties in education, conservative support is strongly rural and rural regions don't abound in uni grads...there have been polls to back this up, even in the US the average level of education recieved goes up the further to the left the leanings...

There's a lot of leftist indoctrination in many universities. It's institutionalized brainwashing.

[ToadBrother]

I've never even seen a copy of the Star in my entire life let alone read one so it's influence in the west is about zero, the national post is nothing less than a super paper with regional outlets following it's conservative lead from coast to coast...

I'd hardly call it a super paper. I was amused at how all those conservative editorialists didn't say anything after the Speaker slapped the Tories down.

[Bryan]

I'd hardly call it a super paper. I was amused at how all those conservative editorialists didn't say anything after the Speaker slapped the Tories down.

Sure they did. Lots of commentary about it in the paper, the blogs, and the podcasts.

[Keepitsimple]

I've never even seen a copy of the Star in my entire life let alone read one so it's influence in the west is about zero, the national post is nothing less than a super paper with regional outlets following it's conservative lead from coast to coast...

Look for one - they're out West somewhere I think. Any one will give you an idea of what I'm talking about - just how they "report" the news - it's like all their reporters just got out of High School and are cheerleaders for the Liberals. It has a tremendous influence in Toronto and is one of the main reasons why the Liberals hold just about all the seats. Regardless, they have the highest subscriptions of all the papers. Even if you're not a Conservative supporter, you8'll chuckle at how they phrase all the headlines, what letters-to-the-editor they publish, their editorials....but mostly how they opinionate and editorialize all of the political news.

[wyly]

I'd hardly call it a super paper. I was amused at how all those conservative editorialists didn't say anything after the Speaker slapped the Tories down.

why champion a defeat when you're clearly wrong...they want to move past it as quickly as possible, the same reason the conservatives are being so compromising, they don't want this public slap down in the news longer by dragging it out...

and it is a super paper...all the papers in the Can-west chain follow the lead of the National Post they're not independents, they all toe the conservative line...

[waldo]

The Star did not even report the Frank Graves story - one that was alive on TV and other papers for 3 or 4 days - not one line from The Star because it put the Liberal party in a bad light. OK, I'm finished. Whew - glad I got that off my chest.

reporting a non-story?

oh wait... torstar... just for you Simple!

Graves, who polls for the CBC and is one of this capital’s most respected go-to analytical resources, has apologized for a too-vivid characterization of the Conservative core constituency. But no apology is necessary for the quality of his work or catalytic value of his insights.

Whatever price Liberals put on his free advice, Graves set heads nodding here with his observation of a cultural crossfire pitting “cosmopolitan versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy.” Beyond tendencies that surface in some Conservative policies, those who don’t trust the Prime Minister see an itinerary taking the country places it hasn’t been and doesn’t want to go.

Flanagan, once Harper mentor and campaign architect, has revealed that strategy often enough and in ample enough detail to make the Prime Minister wince. Incremental conservatism, deconstructed in the Calgary professor’s thought-provoking books and essays, has much in common with the behaviour of a frog in laboratory water warming from soothing to boiling. Lulled into complacency, the witless amphibian misses the opportunity to leap free before it’s too late.

Lacking Graves’ “incendiary” language and the equally fiery response of Conservative spin masters, Flanagan’s analysis attracts less attention. But between them, pollster and academic not only locate the opposed poles of federal politics they define the push-me, pull-you now wearying voters.

Federal elections and opinion surveys since 2004 chart a clear majority tilting towards the sector of the political spectrum Graves identifies as cosmopolitan and most central Canadians, if not those in other regions, would recognize in the mirror. Extending the experiment metaphor to its limits, Conservatives still haven’t convinced enough of us to stay in the pot long enough to let them really turn up the heat.

It’s not clear if Canada will ever become the country of Conservative fantasies. Harper’s next election will be his fourth and likely last as leader if the incremental conservatism he mostly practices fails to secure the victory the party needs to accelerate its ideology. Any subsequent leadership campaign would test the current Conservative coalition as original Reformers appeal to core beliefs and former Tories try to position the party somewhere nearer the traditional Canadian political sweet spot.