Will the Harper Government Survive This Week?

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

For one thing, there wouldn't have been socialists or separatists in the cabinet.

What would the separatists have been demanding back then? More money for Quebec, recognition of its unique status? They've already got that. So what will they want now?

In addition, let's not forget one of the problems people had with the Lib-NDP-BQ coalition was that the putative leader, the Liberal Party leader, was considered to be weak and ineffective. To many people that meant a coalition between the socialists and the separatists, with a wimpy, hand-wringing Liberal PM being smacked around by both of them. I put it to you that people would see the same situation now.

Whatever his faults, no one ever accused Harper of being weak.

I'm not attempting to defend the coalition. I thought both plans were premature and poorly thought out. It's the Tories who have been at such pains to explain why the 2004 and 2008 plans were SOOOO different. The point of underlining the 2004 proposal is that the Tories had little problem doing business with the Bloc, nor has the Bloc's separatist nature stopped the Tories from co-operating with them so far. The fact of the matter is, when you push away all the rhetoric is the real politik of the situation is that the Bloc holds a healthy chunk of seats and unless someone gets a majority, a formal coalition or at least trying to get them on side for a vote-by-vote consensus is the reality. Trying to argue that somehow it's wrong to do business with the Bloc is absurd, because it is so incredibly impractical.

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

The Bloc are a legitimate political party democratically elected in Canada, and if you want to call them separatists, then Harper's Party can just as easily be called Canada's Tea Party.

And have been sprinkled with more than a few Albertan seperatist types...

Firewall,anybody?

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

You're right...I don't.

Well, you might as well wish for pink ponies with wings, because this is the system we've got, and judging by the difficulty of invoking major changes, it's the system we'll have long after you and I are dead. I tire of people who make demands that are so obviously improbable that they might as well be wishing that Jesus Christ show up in a starship to take us to the Promised Land. Better to want sensible, sober and achievable reforms in mind, rather than "I want a two party state so we don't get minorities", which is so far into fringe territory that it puts you in the same place as the poster around here who wants us to have a Prime Minister like Francisco Franco.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

Scotty · March 23, 2011

The Bloc are a legitimate political party democratically elected in Canada, and if you want to call them separatists, then Harper's Party can just as easily be called Canada's Tea Party.

I don't know how to break it to you, but they call themselves separatists. In fact, separatism is their only reason for existence. On the other hand, the so-called Tea Partiers, are on the far right side of the Republican Party, whereas the Conservatives under Harper are to the Left of the Democrats.

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

I'm not attempting to defend the coalition. I thought both plans were premature and poorly thought out. It's the Tories who have been at such pains to explain why the 2004 and 2008 plans were SOOOO different. The point of underlining the 2004 proposal is that the Tories had little problem doing business with the Bloc, nor has the Bloc's separatist nature stopped the Tories from co-operating with them so far. The fact of the matter is, when you push away all the rhetoric is the real politik of the situation is that the Bloc holds a healthy chunk of seats and unless someone gets a majority, a formal coalition or at least trying to get them on side for a vote-by-vote consensus is the reality. Trying to argue that somehow it's wrong to do business with the Bloc is absurd, because it is so incredibly impractical.

Yeah,but it really helps the Con's and their "Standing Up For Canada!" bumper sticker sloganeering....

Scotty · March 23, 2011

I'm not attempting to defend the coalition. I thought both plans were premature and poorly thought out. It's the Tories who have been at such pains to explain why the 2004 and 2008 plans were SOOOO different. The point of underlining the 2004 proposal is that the Tories had little problem doing business with the Bloc, nor has the Bloc's separatist nature stopped the Tories from co-operating with them so far. The fact of the matter is, when you push away all the rhetoric is the real politik of the situation is that the Bloc holds a healthy chunk of seats and unless someone gets a majority, a formal coalition or at least trying to get them on side for a vote-by-vote consensus is the reality. Trying to argue that somehow it's wrong to do business with the Bloc is absurd, because it is so incredibly impractical.

There is a difference between doing business with them on a case by case basis, and putting them in the cabinet and giving them veto power over legislation.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

There is a difference between doing business with them on a case by case basis, and putting them in the cabinet and giving them veto power over legislation.

And the 2008 proposal didn't have them in Cabinet either. The Bloc is pragmatic enough to realize that the Liberals, in particular, are going to have members who have serious problems with Bloc ministers.

The difference between the 2004 and 2008 proposals is in the fevered minds of Tory supporters.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

Molly · March 23, 2011

There is a difference between doing business with them on a case by case basis, and putting them in the cabinet and giving them veto power over legislation.

You might have to explain what that difference might be. On a practical level, I don't see one. Either their consent must be achieved, or their consent must be achieved. Pick one.

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

There is a difference between doing business with them on a case by case basis, and putting them in the cabinet and giving them veto power over legislation.

And what makes you think that in 2004 that would not have happened??

Because in 2004,they would have been the 2nd most powerful element in that coalition...

BornAlbertan · March 23, 2011

Ug. A two party state? You want to actually give political parties a constitutional dimension? I can't think of a worse mistake. Democracy is best served by a plethora of voices, not by shoe-horning everyone into two vast and ideologically meaningless lumpss.

I agree....a plethora of voices is good. But when they are all screaming their own agenda, all you do is split votes and end up with 3 elections in 7 years because their is a hissy fit in the sandbox when one of those voices doesn't get what they want.

That is why yes, I do favour the American system. The parties pick their candidates and they whittle it down to one...and then the people choose their leader. The only way that happens in this country is if you buy a party membership and choose the party leader...and then vote for that parties representative in your riding. It is also rather shameful to have to vote for a complete tool of an MP because you want a certain person to be PM.

Scotty · March 23, 2011

Yeah,but it really helps the Con's and their "Standing Up For Canada!" bumper sticker sloganeering....

Okay, I'm not a 'facilitator' of any kind, but I'm getting tired of the use of that word. Things are bound to become more heated here as the election begins, and I think I should remind everyone that the use of 'cons' to describe the Conservative Party is against the rules.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

And what makes you think that in 2004 that would not have happened??

Because in 2004,they would have been the 2nd most powerful element in that coalition...

Underlying the whole 2004 letter was the notion that the three Opposition parties coming to an accord to govern. Yes, it was slightly more open-ended in that it didn't provide the actual formulation of the coalition, but it was the same damned underly concept. The Tories are being utterly duplicitous in calling the 2004 agreement any different in substance than the 2008 agreement.

BornAlbertan · March 23, 2011

What a shocker..

Let me guess??

An American style congressional system??

It is in every way superior to the Westminster parliamentary model.

Scotty · March 23, 2011

Underlying the whole 2004 letter was the notion that the three Opposition parties coming to an accord to govern. Yes, it was slightly more open-ended in that it didn't provide the actual formulation of the coalition, but it was the same damned underly concept. The Tories are being utterly duplicitous in calling the 2004 agreement any different in substance than the 2008 agreement.

It was different. It was also different in that I think most people would have trusted Harper in 2004 to stand up to the BQ a lot more than they trusted Dion in 2008, or than they'd trust Ignatieff today.

And as I said, you'll hear a lot about it now as strategic rhetoric, to force Ignatieff to deny that he will go into any such coalition. That will make the Tories safer after another minority win.

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

Okay, I'm not a 'facilitator' of any kind, but I'm getting tired of the use of that word. Things are bound to become more heated here as the election begins, and I think I should remind everyone that the use of 'cons' to describe the Conservative Party is against the rules.

If you're going to be thin skinned about things,you might want to bow out...

I did capitalize Con's because I did'nt feel like typing Conservatives...

Of course,some of us are really tired of the "seperatist/socialist coalition drivel,but we don't complain....

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

It is in every way superior to the Westminster parliamentary model.

Then do us a favour and move...

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

I agree....a plethora of voices is good. But when they are all screaming their own agenda, all you do is split votes and end up with 3 elections in 7 years because their is a hissy fit in the sandbox when one of those voices doesn't get what they want.

And I say, bring it on. What you call "hissy fits", I call the fundamental expression of democratic will. If I had my way, I'd remove most of the formalized recognition of political parties entire and return us (with more ethical controls, of course) to the 18th century Parliamentary system.

That is why yes, I do favour the American system. The parties pick their candidates and they whittle it down to one...and then the people choose their leader. The only way that happens in this country is if you buy a party membership and choose the party leader...and then vote for that parties representative in your riding. It is also rather shameful to have to vote for a complete tool of an MP because you want a certain person to be PM.

The two party state you find in the American system is an unofficial convention that has grown over the last couple of centuries. The US Constitution makes absolutely no mention of political parties, they exist as ethereally in the US as they do in Canada. There is nothing theoretically stopping third parties from taking over and supplanting the Republicans and Democrats, other than that the American people seem satisfied with the current state of affairs, although there have been some near-misses for third parties at a couple of points.

So not even your preferred system is actually built the way you think it is.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

GWiz · March 23, 2011

And what makes you think that in 2004 that would not have happened??

Because in 2004,they would have been the 2nd most powerful element in that coalition...

Nice to see you back Jack...

Exactly right, the BLOC was a direct part of the Harper-Duceppe-Layton coalition... Not so in '08...

Ain't gonna happen regardless this TIME around, unless maybe post election depending on the outcome...

Scotty · March 23, 2011

It is in every way superior to the Westminster parliamentary model.

I disagree. You have to remember that the US system was set up by paranoids desperately afraid of a dictatorship. It was deliberately designed with opposing centers of power. That has led to a godawful mess in terms of getting legislation through, and a massive pork barrel type government where every vote has to include deals with this or that group or senator or congressman. When you add in the fact that most of those politicians are in the pockets of various lobby and corporate groups you have an idea of why that country is heading so rapidly downhill.

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

Well, you might as well wish for pink ponies with wings, because this is the system we've got, and judging by the difficulty of invoking major changes, it's the system we'll have long after you and I are dead. I tire of people who make demands that are so obviously improbable that they might as well be wishing that Jesus Christ show up in a starship to take us to the Promised Land. Better to want sensible, sober and achievable reforms in mind, rather than "I want a two party state so we don't get minorities", which is so far into fringe territory that it puts you in the same place as the poster around here who wants us to have a Prime Minister like Francisco Franco.

I got a two week vacation for pointing the obvious out to the Franco loving poster in question...

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

It was different. It was also different in that I think most people would have trusted Harper in 2004 to stand up to the BQ a lot more than they trusted Dion in 2008, or than they'd trust Ignatieff today.

Most people in Canada have not saw fit to trust Stephen Harper at all. Your confusing your partisan support for the general public will.

And as I said, you'll hear a lot about it now as strategic rhetoric, to force Ignatieff to deny that he will go into any such coalition. That will make the Tories safer after another minority win.

As was pointed out after the Tories and LibDems formed their own coalition, the time to talk of coalitions is after an election (or conceivably, after a government has fallen), not before. Even in Westminster countries where PR voting systems are in place and coalition governments are pretty much guaranteed, you don't see the political parties announcing coalition plans prior to the votes being counted, because to do so is absurd. Until you know how the seat counts go, how can you determine the nature of the coalition or even if there will be one.

While there was likely some low-level communication between the LibDems and the two major parties (Conservatives and Labour) in the lead up to the election, it wasn't until the constitution of the new Parliament was known that any real negotiations began. Before that, no sane leader, particularly the leader of the two parties with the only significant chance of forming a majority, would ever contemplate serious negotiations. To do so is to basically tell your supporters and your opponents, and any voter considering voting for your party, that you expect, in essence, to lose.

Scotty · March 23, 2011

If you're going to be thin skinned about things,you might want to bow out...

I did capitalize Con's because I did'nt feel like typing Conservatives...

Of course,some of us are really tired of the "seperatist/socialist coalition drivel,but we don't complain....

I'm not being thin-skinned. I'm pointing out what the rules say. I realize it can be used as short-hand without intending insult, but it has also been used in a very obviously pejorative manner and so it is against the rules. Simple as that. Calling Ignatieff 'iggy' is similarly against the rules. So is misspelling Liberals as 'lieberals'.

The use of 'separatist' or 'socialist' on the other hand, is perfectly valid. As is Tories, if your fingers are lazy.

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

Nice to see you back Jack...

Exactly right, the BLOC was a direct part of the Harper-Duceppe-Layton coalition... Not so in '08...

Ain't gonna happen regardless this TIME around, unless maybe post election depending on the outcome...

I'm back from my Mr.C assisted vacation...

I'm not in disagreement with Scotty over the seperatist element of any coalition.I did'nt support the idea in '08 because of that.But I don't see how the demands from the Bloc would be any different with Harper leading that coalition than Stephan Dion.They would play thier cards with Harper just like they would have with Dion..

And to think otherwise smacks of pie in the sky partisanship....

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

While there was likely some low-level communication between the LibDems and the two major parties (Conservatives and Labour) in the lead up to the election, it wasn't until the constitution of the new Parliament was known that any real negotiations began. Before that, no sane leader, particularly the leader of the two parties with the only significant chance of forming a majority, would ever contemplate serious negotiations. To do so is to basically tell your supporters and your opponents, and any voter considering voting for your party, that you expect, in essence, to lose.

And I need to add, the only countries that limit the number of political parties that can vie for office are dictatorships. To demand that any potential candidate pick one of two affiliations is a violation of that key liberty; the freedom of association.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

The use of 'separatist' or 'socialist' on the other hand, is perfectly valid. As is Tories, if your fingers are lazy.

You're right, we should use a politer and more appropriate description, like Right Wing Despisers of Parliamentary Democracy and the Westminster System.