Hidden agenda

[PIK]

Are the libs, ndp,and the bloc planning a coalition again.46% of canada wants the gun reg gone as do most MP's if they were allowed to vote the way they want. So they must know they are going to lose some seats over thus, but it makes you wonder if they think, they won't lose enough to give harper a majority, but yet still have the numbers to take over after another harper minority goverment.

[waldo]

Are the libs, ndp,and the bloc planning a coalition again.46% of canada wants the gun reg gone as do most MP's if they were allowed to vote the way they want. So they must know they are going to lose some seats over thus, but it makes you wonder if they think, they won't lose enough to give harper a majority, but yet still have the numbers to take over after another harper minority goverment.

not to worry PIK... as I noted, yesterday, the lil' leprechaun is on the case, feverishly working to unearth what hides under your bed

I think that's quite the wrong way to look at it. What we have had since the spring of 2009 is an unofficial coalition.

unofficial? Well then... the lil' leprechaun makes it official! In a speech today, Harper Conservative Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, invoked "the coalition" no less than 14 times... choosing to interestingly label it as the "Michael Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition".

in the coming days, be afraid... be very afraid... of Harper Conservatives failing and wailing about the tyranny and insidiousness of "the coalition".

The risk of an unnecessary election

Ladies and gentlemen, an unnecessary election would put all of this at risk. Not just Canada’s amazing accomplishments in recent years.

Not just our hard-won, world-leading status. But also our long-term growth and prosperity.

The ability to invest in the priorities of Canadians. The quality of life of our children and grandchildren.

Throughout the recession, the Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition has demanded we raise taxes. Demanded we take more money from the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

Their leader has vowed to reverse tax cuts for job-creating businesses. He refuses to rule out raising the GST back up to seven percent. He refuses to rule out a carbon tax – an idea he came up with, a job-killing tax on everything, rejected by Canadians in the last election.

He even supports a new tax on iPods. (waldo edit: WTF!)

Under an Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois government, nothing would be safe. No part of our economy would be spared. No taxpayer would avoid the hit.

What’s the supposed benefit? The coalition promises massive, new, permanent entitlement programs. Programs we can’t afford. Programs that would make more room for government, and less room for growth.

We can’t afford such risky economic management. The costs are too high.

[segnosaur]

Are the libs, ndp,and the bloc planning a coalition again.46% of canada wants the gun reg gone as do most MP's if they were allowed to vote the way they want.

I doubt any coalition is planned.

The Liberals would never vote to kill the registry because they were the ones who brought in the registry in the first place (and it would look bad to kill the program you brought in.)

Most members of the NDP will support the registry because they want to increase their share of urban voters (who have a more favorable view of the registry than rural voters). And, lets face it, "gun control" is an issue that tends to get left-wing support.

The conservatives may want to bring up the "coalition" boogey man, but given that any association with the Bloc would probably be a disaster at this point, its likely just rhetoric.

[Alta4ever]

I doubt any coalition is planned.

The Liberals would never vote to kill the registry because they were the ones who brought in the registry in the first place (and it would look bad to kill the program you brought in.)

Most members of the NDP will support the registry because they want to increase their share of urban voters (who have a more favorable view of the registry than rural voters). And, lets face it, "gun control" is an issue that tends to get left-wing support.

The conservatives may want to bring up the "coalition" boogey man, but given that any association with the Bloc would probably be a disaster at this point, its likely just rhetoric.

If the liberal plus NDP seats outnumber the conservatives in the next election look out.

[waldo]

If the liberal plus NDP seats outnumber the conservatives in the next election look out.

did you share the same concerns when Harper courted his 2004 coalition with the NDP (and the BQ)?

[PIK]

I doubt any coalition is planned.

The Liberals would never vote to kill the registry because they were the ones who brought in the registry in the first place (and it would look bad to kill the program you brought in.)

Most members of the NDP will support the registry because they want to increase their share of urban voters (who have a more favorable view of the registry than rural voters). And, lets face it, "gun control" is an issue that tends to get left-wing support.

The conservatives may want to bring up the "coalition" boogey man, but given that any association with the Bloc would probably be a disaster at this point, its likely just rhetoric.

come on now, don't tell me they have not talked about it again, it would be foolish not to.

[waldo]

come on now, don't tell me they have not talked about it again, it would be foolish not to.

if only there was something behind it... other than your speculation and the ramped up attempts by Harper Conservatives to percolate 'fear and foreboding'.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

come on now, don't tell me they have not talked about it again, it would be foolish not to.

The only way to achieve any real change in the status quo is to drive forward a coalition agenda. Start the process by letting elected representatives know exactly how they got to where they are, elected. Let them know they can be removed just as easily and at the first opportunity prove it to them. Hire and fire at least a couple by design and by then those seeking office will know and understand the rule. There is only one by the way, and that is to vote the way the people that voted them into their representative status determine. Vote against the interests and best wishes of the electorate and see what happens.

Alas, I hold out no hope for democratic reform any time soon. It will take a few election cycles if we started today, that means years of seemingly wasted efforts being made by seemingly random people. In truth, it will take no less than a public realization of the impact of functional change to mitigate sufficient political will in order to achieve such a goal. In my books, the risk is worthy of the reward and that to me rates as an extremely lofty and desirable goal.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Jerry J. Fortin

[Michael Hardner]

If the liberal plus NDP seats outnumber the conservatives in the next election look out.

Please explain.

[Evening Star]

Yeah, I'm not sure I get what that means either. Political parties have the right to form coalitions in parliamentary democracy, which everyone should be aware of. This is not a secret. Being able to win the support of a majority of elected MPs is what it means to win an election in our political system. Why would anyone doubt that opposition parties might try to form a coalition in the event of a hung parliament or minority government?

[Evening Star]

Mind you, I've always thought Ignatieff to be far closer to Harper than Layton, ideologically, so I'm not sure if he actually would form a coalition with the NDP. It's certainly not unthinkable though.

[segnosaur]

Yeah, I'm not sure I get what that means either. Political parties have the right to form coalitions in parliamentary democracy, which everyone should be aware of. This is not a secret. Being able to win the support of a majority of elected MPs is what it means to win an election in our political system. Why would anyone doubt that opposition parties might try to form a coalition in the event of a hung parliament or minority government?

Because, at this point in time (with our current political climate), any coalition to provide a majority will likely involve the Bloc. Given the fact that the Bloc is known for their separatist beliefs, the "rest of Canada" might end up viewing parties joining such a coalition as "consorting with traitors".

(And yes, I do recognize that the conservatives courted Bloc support in the past... however, political rhetoric since then has made such coalitions politically dangerous.)

[Evening Star]

Oh, I'd be a little sceptical about a coalition involving the Bloc as well. I was responding to Alta4ever's comment, which seemed to refer the possibility of a Liberal-NDP coalition.

[Alta4ever]

did you share the same concerns when Harper courted his 2004 coalition with the NDP (and the BQ)?

nope because an alliance of socialists and conservatives won't work.

But socialists with socialists, look out.

[Alta4ever]

Please explain.

IF the seat count of the liberals and NDP added together out number the seat count of the conservatives election night we will see a liberal ndp coalition.

[Alta4ever]

Oh, I'd be a little sceptical about a coalition involving the Bloc as well. I was responding to Alta4ever's comment, which seemed to refer the possibility of a Liberal-NDP coalition.

I don't like the prospects of the NDP anywhere close to power.

[wyly]

Are the libs, ndp,and the bloc planning a coalition again.46% of canada wants the gun reg gone as do most MP's if they were allowed to vote the way they want. So they must know they are going to lose some seats over thus, but it makes you wonder if they think, they won't lose enough to give harper a majority, but yet still have the numbers to take over after another harper minority goverment.

that means 54% of canadians want the long gun reg so what part of the democratic process don't you understand?

the long reg despite what the conservatives are trying to make of it is not a big enough issue to give the conservatives a majority...

[wyly]

Because, at this point in time (with our current political climate), any coalition to provide a majority will likely involve the Bloc. Given the fact that the Bloc is known for their separatist beliefs, the "rest of Canada" might end up viewing parties joining such a coalition as "consorting with traitors".

the conservative ranks has more than a few western separatists among them some of them post in this forum, until there is an actual separation all separatists be they from Quebec or ALBERTA are Canadians and have a democratic right to push their agenda...

(And yes, I do recognize that the conservatives courted Bloc support in the past... however, political rhetoric since then has made such coalitions politically dangerous.)

the Bloc despite being separatists want to make the government work as best they can for their constituents just as any MP from Alberta or Ontario does..

[Wild Bill]

Mind you, I've always thought Ignatieff to be far closer to Harper than Layton, ideologically, so I'm not sure if he actually would form a coalition with the NDP. It's certainly not unthinkable though.

You have to remember, such a coalition would mean the Liberals would be the senior partner and would essentially be back in power.

The Liberal Party has historically shown on many occasions that they have a fierce lust for power. They don't call them the "Natural Governing Party" for nothing!

It might seem wrong to many Canadians for such a Bloc to happen. The two parties with lesser number of votes taking power, ousting the one with the most votes. We are used to minority governments but a Lib/NDP coalition, both with less votes than the CPC, would be strange to most of us. It would likely be perfectly legal but we'd be in uncharted waters as far as how well the Canadian people would accept it. We might get upset and thrash the coalition parties next election or we all simply might yawn! Or a combination of the two. It would be Ignatieff and Layton who would be taking the big risk.

Whatever, I'm just saying that the Liberals just might not be able to resist!

[Evening Star]

No, they probably wouldn't resist, you're right, and imo they shouldn't. You may be right about public opinion. I don't know why the Canadian public should oppose such a move (and favour a minority government that won maybe 30-35% of the popular vote) but a number of people do seem to think it's wrong for some reason.

People rarely seem to mention the Liberal-NDP Accord in 1980s Ontario. That seems like an obvious precedent to me and wasn't even a full coalition! Anyway, it was popular and successful.

[Wild Bill]

No, they probably wouldn't resist, you're right, and imo they shouldn't. You may be right about public opinion. I don't know why the Canadian public should oppose such a move (and favour a minority government that won maybe 30-35% of the popular vote) but a number of people do seem to think it's wrong for some reason.

People rarely seem to mention the Liberal-NDP Accord in 1980s Ontario. That seems like an obvious precedent to me and wasn't even a full coalition! Anyway, it was popular and successful.

Minority governments and such accords have an important difference. In a minority government the Party that got the most seats takes power. They don't have enough seats to hold a majority so they are vulnerable to being voted down in a confidence vote at any time. So they make a deal with one of the other parties who can bring them enough votes to sit in a majority situation and thus we have a stable government.

In that situation the important factor is that the party that received the most popular support DOES govern! They of course are beholden to a partner but it does appear that the party with the most votes won, even if it wasn't a majority.

The coalition proposed during Dion's reign and perhaps after the next election is very different! Even though the CPC had or would have the MOST seats they would NOT get to take power! The Liberals, the NDP and perhaps the Bloc if necessary would band together. The Liberals would likely hold the most seats of the 3 and they would take power, propped up by the others. In such a case, the party with the most seats does NOT take power and the party with less does! The coalition is formed of parties who ALL did not win more seats than the Tories!

This is what I mean by a strange situation. Your party can win the most seats yet not take power. Your party can receive fewer seats yet still take power! To the average voter, the question would be "Oh, its weird I guess but if its legal, what the heck!" versus "This is a lawyer's trick to seize power over the will of the majority!".

I almost would like to see it happen, just to see how my fellow Canadians would act! We might see the start of a new common practice in our elections or we might see the most energized anti-Liberal and NDP reaction in our history!

[PIK]

that means 54% of canadians want the long gun reg so what part of the democratic process don't you understand?

the long reg despite what the conservatives are trying to make of it is not a big enough issue to give the conservatives a majority...

My mistake, ,only 40% want it, the rest don't care.Not everybody votes one way or another,alway people that don't care, my mistake for thinking something that simple, people would get it. Edited September 22, 2010 by PIK

[segnosaur]

Because, at this point in time (with our current political climate), any coalition to provide a majority will likely involve the Bloc. Given the fact that the Bloc is known for their separatist beliefs, the "rest of Canada" might end up viewing parties joining such a coalition as "consorting with traitors".

the conservative ranks has more than a few western separatists among them some of them post in this forum....

Dedicated "Western separatists" (those who actually want to remove Alberta or other provinces out of Canada) are at best a minority movement and at this point do not appear to hold any significant power in any of the major federal parties. On the other hand, the Bloc Quebecois does hold a significant number of seats in Quebec, and they have (as their policy) the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.

...until there is an actual separation all separatists be they from Quebec or ALBERTA are Canadians and have a democratic right to push their agenda...

You're right... the Bloc Quebecois (heck any party) has a perfectly legal right to push for the separation of their province from the rest of Canada.

However, I (as a Canadian citizen) have the right to say that such policies regarding separation are wrong. Furthermore, I also have the right to view anyone who supports the Bloc Quebecois (either because they favor separation, or because they happen to like other elements of their platform) as contributing to the potential destabilization and breakup of Canada.

[Evening Star]

Minority governments and such accords have an important difference. In a minority government the Party that got the most seats takes power. They don't have enough seats to hold a majority so they are vulnerable to being voted down in a confidence vote at any time. So they make a deal with one of the other parties who can bring them enough votes to sit in a majority situation and thus we have a stable government.

In that situation the important factor is that the party that received the most popular support DOES govern! They of course are beholden to a partner but it does appear that the party with the most votes won, even if it wasn't a majority.

The coalition proposed during Dion's reign and perhaps after the next election is very different! Even though the CPC had or would have the MOST seats they would NOT get to take power!

Yes, I fully understand the idea. This is what happened in Ontario in 1985:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rae#1985_election_and_the_Liberal-NDP_Accord

The PCs won the most seats but the NDP backed the Liberals instead and David Peterson became premier. Like I said, that accord was successful and popular so it does make sense to me as a precedent. It is not a lawyer's trick to seize control over the will of the majority. It is an expression of the will of the majority if two parties who together have majority support can work together and accommodate the interests of each others' constituencies.

[Evening Star]

I mean, what alternative would a potential swing voter prefer in the event that the Liberals and NDP were willing to work together but neither party could conscientiously support the Conservatives, even if the Conservatives won more seats in a minority parliament? For one opposition party to hold its nose and back the Cons? Endless elections until we arrived at a more decisive result?