Coalition and the BLOC

[Bryan]

But those are legal arguments. The practical side - as Wild Bill said - is that any coalition that includes the Bloc - and subsequently bows to the Bloc's demands (which will come without fail) - would surely pay the price for many years and may be the death knell for the Liberals. How sad that the Libs have to even consider such a move.

Agreed. The legality of such a coalition is almost irrelevant. The only real issue is the voters' appetite for it. If the people like something unconstitutional, they'll support it anyway, if they don't, they won't. No voters' support means no seats. A party that's willing to risk long term damage in exchange for short term chaos would have to be in even more immediate trouble than the polls and the media are telling us.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Bryan

[ToadBrother]

Agreed. The legality of such a coalition is almost irrelevant.

But it isn't, because one of the Tory talking points was that it was a coupe. It may have been a bad idea (one, mind you, that Harper thought of and tried to implement first), but it wasn't a coupe. It is a legitimate right of Parliament to install any government it so chooses.

The only real issue is the voters' appetite for it. If the people like something unconstitutional, they'll support it anyway, if they don't, they won't. No voters' support means no seats. A party that's willing to risk long term damage in exchange for short term chaos would have to be in even more immediate trouble than the polls and the media are telling us.

Frankly I think the Coalition, if it hadn't been an internally hemorrhaging train wreck, could probably have done a reasonable job of selling its virtues.

The problem the Tories have now is that the UK seems to be selling the idea of a coalition, by accident, here in Canada. Their ability to use terms like "coupe" are going to be very limited if the Liberals and the NDP decide to get hitched and topple them.

[Wild Bill]

The problem the Tories have now is that the UK seems to be selling the idea of a coalition, by accident, here in Canada. Their ability to use terms like "coupe" are going to be very limited if the Liberals and the NDP decide to get hitched and topple them.

There is an important difference between the two scenarios, TB. In the UK the coalition is between the party that did win the most seats and one of the opposition "losers". Here at home the situation is likely to be a coalition of two "losers" to upseat the winner!

Surely that will have an effect on popular opinion!

[Smallc]

There is an important difference between the two scenarios, TB. In the UK the coalition is between the party that did win the most seats and one of the opposition "losers". Here at home the situation is likely to be a coalition of two "losers" to upseat the winner!

There is no 'winner' as such in forming a parliament. It really doesn't matter who has the most seats, but rather who commands the confidence of the house.

[ToadBrother]

There is an important difference between the two scenarios, TB. In the UK the coalition is between the party that did win the most seats and one of the opposition "losers". Here at home the situation is likely to be a coalition of two "losers" to upseat the winner!

Surely that will have an effect on popular opinion!

As I said, there are precedents for parties with less seats than the party that lost confidence forming a government. As to its popularity, as Churchill once said "dogs know the appropriate use of polls." Defining things in terms of popularity, particularly in a political system where even a party that forms a majority rarely (it's only happened eight times since Confederation) has over 50% of the popular vote at any given time seems bizarre to me. The Tories have come close, but have never even broken the magic 40% since reunification.

Again, I'm not defending a Liberal-NDP or a Liberal-NDP-kinda-Bloc coalition. I'm defending two notions; one that Parliament alone chooses the government and secondly that obsessing over opinion polls will do little. The proposed coalition (which, so far as I can tell, has no support from Iggy) may be a disaster, may even be the most unpopular government ever, or it might, over a couple of years, prove its salt and work. I don't have much faith in that, and I still think the Tory-LibDem coalition in the UK, while off to a good start, has a lot of very rough road before it can sell itself as a success. It's only started down that road as it starts announcing some pretty severe pension cuts and tax hikes, and the love affair the British public seem to have with Cameron and Clegg could sour pretty damned quickly.

As I said before, what the UK coalition has done in Canada has demonstrated in clear terms that coalitions in our system can happen. Yes, I know, you being a die-hard Tory supporter will repeat Harper's "coalition of losers", and yet Harper seemed perfectly happy to give that a go six years ago. Coalitions are perfectly legitimate and just as defensible on constitutional grounds as majority governments. And the only poll that counts is that one that the voter ticks on election day. All the others are there to charge up slow news days.

[Bryan]

There is no 'winner' as such in forming a parliament. It really doesn't matter who has the most seats, but rather who commands the confidence of the house.

Good luck ever commanding the confidence of the house if you pull that one out. Voters decide who wins. Crossing them to prove you're right is a career limiting move.

[ToadBrother]

Good luck ever commanding the confidence of the house if you pull that one out. Voters decide who wins. Crossing them to prove you're right is a career limiting move.

No, voters don't decide who win. Voters decide who goes to Ottawa to represent them. Parliament decides who wins. The large majority of voters did not vote Tory, and still seem determined not to vote Tory. In fact, the vast majority of majority governments don't even get the majority of the popular vote (I counted eight such instances since Confederation).

Whether or not the voters would ultimately punish, say, a Liberal-NDP coalition is an unknown. What is known is that the Tories are no closer to forming a majority government than they were in 2006 and 2008, clearly do not enjoy the support of more than roughly a third of all Canadians, and can hardly proclaim that they somehow have more legitimacy than any other bloc of Parliamentarians who decide to turf them and try forming a government themselves.

We ain't Americans, so why do you guys keep trying to impose American-style notions on us? Hell, even in the United States, the president is not elected by popular vote.

Edited June 9, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

Good luck ever commanding the confidence of the house if you pull that one out. Voters decide who wins. Crossing them to prove you're right is a career limiting move.

I'm sorry, but working within our system to form an alternative government isn't crossing anyone.

[fellowtraveller]

She had no choice but to follow the advice of the Prime Minister.

Utterly false.

Why would she take all morning to rubberstamp his orders to her, when the normal meeting is about ten minutes?

I noticed you avoided the reality that it is only the custom and tradition that the GG follow the PMs advice, not any sort of requirement.

And these were the very 'extraordinary circumstances' that would allow her to take her own course- which she clearly did by choosing prorogation over a new election- an election that Harper wanted badly at that point and did not get..

[ToadBrother]

Utterly false.

Why would she take all morning to rubberstamp his orders to her, when the normal meeting is about ten minutes?

I noticed you avoided the reality that it is only the custom and tradition that the GG follow the PMs advice, not any sort of requirement.

And these were the very 'extraordinary circumstances' that would allow her to take her own course- which she clearly did by choosing prorogation over a new election- an election that Harper wanted badly at that point and did not get..

The only thing I avoided was the fantasy land conversation between the GG and the Prime Minister you have in your head. The invocation of Reserve Powers in defiance of a Prime Minister whose government enjoys the confidence of Parliament is so extremely rare in the last two hundred years that even those moderately familiar with the Westminster constitutional system can list them off without thinking.

Let's be clear. You have absolutely no idea what the conversation amounted to. You only know that Harper went in to advise the GG to prorogue Parliament, and that she subsequently did that. We also know that the Glorious Revolution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights 1689 rendered the Sovereign (and by extension their vice-regal representatives in the other Realms) effectively under Parliament's thumb, with only the most exceptional circumstances (such as, say, a deadlock in the Senate as happened in Australia in 1975 or Sir Charles Tupper in Canada refusing to step down after losing an election and clearly losing the confidence of the House).

This fantasy-land notion that the GG wouldn't let the Bloc into the government is entirely of the imagining of people like you. You have no way to prove anything you've claimed, and I have the weight of 300 hundred years of constitutional history to back up what I'm saying.

Or, in short, you're just making it up. You don't know what you're talking about.

[bloodyminded]

This fantasy-land notion that the GG wouldn't let the Bloc into the government is entirely of the imagining of people like you. You have no way to prove anything you've claimed, and I have the weight of 300 hundred years of constitutional history to back up what I'm saying.

Or, in short, you're just making it up. You don't know what you're talking about.

Holy cow.

I'm certainly no fan of the Bloc, to put it mildly; but if I really believed that the GG "wouldn't let the Bloc into the government," I'd have to seriously reconsider what kind of system we've got here.

[fellowtraveller]

The only thing I avoided was the fantasy land conversation between the GG and the Prime Minister you have in your head

Yes, you must be right. Harper told her what to do in the first sixty seconds, then they talked hockey for the next four hours.

The invocation of Reserve Powers in defiance of a Prime Minister whose government enjoys the confidence of Parliament

And why would Harper even pay her a visit if a crisis of confidence was not imminent? Hmmmm?

You only know that Harper went in to advise the GG to prorogue Parliament, and that she subsequently did that

No, I do not know that is what took so long. If there had been a confidence vote, Harper would have been there to tender his resignation. In the abscence of an actual vote, he went there to ask for an immediate election, which was refused. His fallback(without which he;d have been unemployed immediately after) was to ask for the prorogation, which kept him alive and gave him some time.

She was under no obligation to grant that either, but it was better than the alternative given the obvious attitude of the country towards the Coalition.

This fantasy-land notion that the GG wouldn't let the Bloc into the government is entirely of the imagining of people like you

And where do you get the utterly idiotic notion that the Bloc could not be a legal part of a coalition government? Not from me, you lying sack of shit. Of course the Bloc could be part of it, every one of their MPs is duly elected. But WITHOUT A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE THE NOTION WAS NEVER SUBJECT TO A DECISION BY MADAME JEAN. Dion never made the trip to Rideau Hall. If she had refused an election, which she did, and also refused prorogation, then she'd have accepted the proposal by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc to form a government. Of course.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm sorry, but working within our system to form an alternative government isn't crossing anyone.

If it was just the Liberals and NDP outnumbering Conservatives in Parliament, there would be no problem at all.....but I think most Canadians shrink from the idea that the Bloc would form part of the ruling Coalition. That's the sticking point. You'll notice that talk from the opposition is only about a Liberal/NDP merger or coalition - they are petrified to include the Bloc in any mention of a coalition. And in fact, the Bloc do not want to be part of the official coalition because they do not want to be seen as being part of the Canadian Government. So all they say is that "we'll support a coalition if it's in the best interests of Quebec". In the context of today's Parliamentary make-up, it would be a Liberal/NDP/Bloc Coalition - and that's the way that Canadians should and will look at it. No country has ever had a Coalition partner that is dedicated to the break-up of the country.

[Smallc]

Support does not equal partnership. Tory talking points are no more valid now than they were in 2008.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

Yes, you must be right. Harper told her what to do in the first sixty seconds, then they talked hockey for the next four hours.

And why would Harper even pay her a visit if a crisis of confidence was not imminent? Hmmmm?

No, I do not know that is what took so long. If there had been a confidence vote, Harper would have been there to tender his resignation. In the abscence of an actual vote, he went there to ask for an immediate election, which was refused. His fallback(without which he;d have been unemployed immediately after) was to ask for the prorogation, which kept him alive and gave him some time.

She was under no obligation to grant that either, but it was better than the alternative given the obvious attitude of the country towards the Coalition.

And where do you get the utterly idiotic notion that the Bloc could not be a legal part of a coalition government? Not from me, you lying sack of shit. Of course the Bloc could be part of it, every one of their MPs is duly elected. But WITHOUT A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE THE NOTION WAS NEVER SUBJECT TO A DECISION BY MADAME JEAN. Dion never made the trip to Rideau Hall. If she had refused an election, which she did, and also refused prorogation, then she'd have accepted the proposal by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc to form a government. Of course.

Do you actually have any evidence at all as to what was discussed? No, you don't. No one does. Harper didn't give specifics, the GG didn't.

Like I said, you've created this faerie tale of what went on that meeting, but you don't know, and neither do I. What I do know is that for the GG to refuse the request of a Prime Minister who still enjoys the confidence of Parliament is so exceedingly rare that there are at best four or five examples throughout the old Empire and the Commonwealth in the last two centuries.

The answer is no, because the rule of our system, that the Sovereign or their Vice-regent

[ToadBrother]

No country has ever had a Coalition partner that is dedicated to the break-up of the country.

Except that the Libs and NDP weren't the first ones to think of it. The inspiration for the 2008 attempt was the 2006 attempt. If it was good enough for the Tories, why isn't it good enough for the Liberals and NDP?

[Keepitsimple]

Except that the Libs and NDP weren't the first ones to think of it. The inspiration for the 2008 attempt was the 2006 attempt. If it was good enough for the Tories, why isn't it good enough for the Liberals and NDP?

Because all Harper did was send a letter to the GG reminding her that one of her options was to consult with the opposition parties about forming a government. There were no negotiations with either the NDP or the Bloc as to how they would actually put together a coalition, if it ever came to that. Dion's aborted coalition had in fact divided up the spoils with Cabinet seats (5, I believe) for the NDP and a veto for the Bloc. I'll take Harper's word that he would never have given the Bloc any sort of veto over how Canada was run.

[Smallc]

Because all Harper did was send a letter to the GG reminding her that one of her options was to consult with the opposition parties about forming a government. There were no negotiations with either the NDP or the Bloc as to how they would actually put together a coalition, if it ever came to that.

Right...that's why the letter was from all 3 parties....and the other people in the discussions said that some negotiations went on. Nice try though.

[ToadBrother]

Because all Harper did was send a letter to the GG reminding her that one of her options was to consult with the opposition parties about forming a government. There were no negotiations with either the NDP or the Bloc as to how they would actually put together a coalition, if it ever came to that. Dion's aborted coalition had in fact divided up the spoils with Cabinet seats (5, I believe) for the NDP and a veto for the Bloc. I'll take Harper's word that he would never have given the Bloc any sort of veto over how Canada was run.

Clearly they would have had to deal with the Bloc. This ludicrous idea that anyone in the current climate can somehow govern by ignoring the Bloc is pure lunacy. I realize that Harper's coalition attempt is an embarassment for you Toryites now, but it seems pretty pathetic to try to minimize it or pretend somehow that a coaltion involving the Tories and NDP wouldn't have been walking over to the Bloc to shake hands.

[Keepitsimple]

Clearly they would have had to deal with the Bloc. This ludicrous idea that anyone in the current climate can somehow govern by ignoring the Bloc is pure lunacy. I realize that Harper's coalition attempt is an embarassment for you Toryites now, but it seems pretty pathetic to try to minimize it or pretend somehow that a coaltion involving the Tories and NDP wouldn't have been walking over to the Bloc to shake hands.

We'll never really know because it never happened - never came close - never even made it as a big media story.....but the Liberal/NDP/Bloc agreement did happen - and they all signed up....and they shook hands....and they smiled. Big difference.....and it does minimize it.

[Molly]

Big difference.....and it does minimize it.

Only for those desperately seeking a way to make it go away. It's either okay or it isn't.

I see nothing at all wrong with proposing coalition, but if you do, then you should be embarrassed to defend one while condemning the other.

[Keepitsimple]

Only for those desperately seeking a way to make it go away. It's either okay or it isn't.

I see nothing at all wrong with proposing coalition, but if you do, then you should be embarrassed to defend one while condemning the other.

If the Harper coalition had actually reached some sort of agreement....and if they had ceded any sort of control to the Bloc.....I could not have supported such actions.....so much so that I probably would have gone back to voting Liberal in the following election (yes, I've voted Liberal before). But it never got that far. Having said that, I'm disappointed that even the letter was sent. Now I feel the same way about a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition.....and the taste of the last proposed coalition is still in my mouth - giving the Bloc a veto.....is a powerful thing tantamount to blackmail - if you don't do what they say, the government will fall.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Molly]

In other words, you couldn't possibly support them if they'd actually succeeded in doing what they were trying to do.

That's my problem, too. I can't support the Conservatives when they successfully accomplish what they try to do, either.

[madmax]

giving the Bloc a veto.....is a powerful thing tantamount to blackmail - if you don't do what they say, the government will fall.

Harper was the one trying to use the Bloc in 2004 and it was JackLayton who killed the deal by walking away. The BQ and Harper were very close and Harper was itching to toss out Martin at the Throne speech.

Regardless, the truth its in the Coalition Agreement of 2008 the BQ didn't have "Veto" power over anything nor any more power then the currently do in parliment. Infact the Coalition would have handcuffed them from acting like they had veto power because the guidelines for the Coalition were already worked out. Thus we wouldn't be under threat of election or have election fatigue.

Its all water under the bridge as

1) Ignatieff rejected his signature as did all the MP LPC members.

2) Harper licked his wounds, stopped acting like a jackass and got on with governing in a responsible manner. Perhaps you have forgotten what a JERK he was behaving like. His desire for power was trumping all rational thought and it took something extreme to put bring him down to earth.

In the long run, everything worked out as parliment WILL function.

It has been Prime Mininsters Harpers own actions that have cost him a Majority.

That said, he doesn't mind climbing in the bedsheets of the BQ.

There is more in common amongst the BQ with the CPC then there is with the LPC and NDP.