Will coalition governments now become a norm in Canadian politics?

[WWWTT]

This recent topling of the conservatives has many people scratching their heads wondering why now.

Many old schoolers use to liberal or conservative majority seem to be the most baffled.

But if your thinking of forming a coalition it makes all the sence in the world.

Harper is on shaky ground.

There are five major parties in Canada and four with representation in the lower house.The days of a one on one fight are long gone and to survive your gonna need friends.The conservatives are really hurting in this department and the opposition smells blood.After all the opposition consist of mostly left wingers.

And it looks like the opposition really want to bruise up Harper in the process with this non confidence motion

In my opinion Canada is long overdue for political reform and a coalition will provide some much needed relief in this department

WWWTT

[M.Dancer]

There are five major parties in Canada ....

There are?

Really, there are two national parties, one regional and one for the emotionally distraught...

[ToadBrother]

There are some issues to consider here.

1. By tradition (though it has not been invoked in Canada, so perhaps its a weaker constitutional principle here than elsewhere), the incumbent PM, even if he loses the largest group of seats in the House, gets first kick at the can. I mentioned the February 1974 general election in the UK where the incumbent, Harold Wilson's Labour government, becoming PM again, despite the fact that Labour had less seats than Edward Heath's Conservatives. I can well imagine Stephen Harper testing that principle. He seems keen to see just how far the constitution will let him go.

2. If Iggy gets into a position where he holds the most seats in power, he might just decide to try to run the show on his own, like Harper has done. He may have to find support vote to vote, but at least he will not be relying on the NDP or the Bloc.

3. There may be potential political ramifications to a Coalition government. While I think the Coalition in the UK has softened attitudes here on the idea, and it no longer seems the anathema the Tories tried to cast it as in 2008, that doesn't mean, at the end of the day, the electorate will ultimately buy it. For the NDP, at least, what has happened with the Liberal Democrats in the UK may be instructive (the LibDems basically being a social democrat party like the NDP) in that they have actually seen support slip since the Coalition was formed. As well, there are things to consider for the Liberals. David Cameron has discovered the difficulties of not only having to please the junior partner in the coalition, but trying to keep the wolves in his own party at bay. For him personally, there are monumental risks if the LibDems force him too much to the left. One possibility that has been floated in the last four or five months is that the centrist LibDems like Nick Clegg (the leader of the LibDems and Deputy PM) may in fact join the Tories if the Coalition falls apart. Another possibility is that ultimately a large number of Tories and LibDems ultimately cannot swallow it any more and the coalition breaks apart, leaving a severely wounded Tory minority and likely leading to a new election.

4. Coalitions are a very mixed bag. On the one hand, there are lots of pictures of smiling, happy senior ministers holding hands and making sweet sweet love to one another. On the other hand, underneath is a boiling turmoil filled with backroom deals to keep the whole thing afloat.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Battletoads]

There are?

and one for the emotionally distraught...

That would be the cons right? Makes sense, since large parts of their crime platform is based off appeals to emotion.

[M.Dancer]

That would be the cons right? Makes sense, since large parts of their crime platform is based off appeals to emotion.

Oh absolutely....besides we know that the criminals are not really bad and will no doubt turn their lives around if we only love them more...

[August1991]

Many old schoolers use to liberal or conservative majority seem to be the most baffled.

But if your thinking of forming a coalition it makes all the sence in the world.

Harper is on shaky ground.

There are five major parties in Canada and four with representation in the lower house.

What you are in effect advocating is that the NDP and Liberals should work together with possibly the support of the Bloc. Any such suggestion will see the popular support for the Liberals collapse.

Many Liberal voters do not want to see Jack Layton anywhere near power. That is why they vote Liberal, and not NDP. It is even more far-fetchhed that such a coalition could announce in advance that it would rely on the Bloc to stay in power.

The mere suggestion of such a coalition, during a campaign, will ensure a Harper majority.

-----

In simple terms, the federal Liberal and NDP are not yet ready to unite in a single party.

Edited March 24, 2011 by August1991

[wyly]

five major parties? there should be at least six, the conservatives have an extreme rightwing loons hiding among the moderates, they are in fact a coalition of right wing parties....unlike the the center left parties, Liberals, bloc, NDP, greens at least we know who is who with them and where they stand, while conservatives muzzle their extreme right wackos so we have no idea what lurks in the dark depths of the regime...

minorities are now likely to be the norm more than majorities so it time to become a real democracy and bring in proportional representation and let everyone take part in the democratic process...

Edited March 24, 2011 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[buttercup]

That would be the cons right? Makes sense, since large parts of their crime platform is based off appeals to emotion.

Yup. And the right claims appeal to emotion does not belong in policy when in comes to guns restrictions (the nra does this, I'm sure the conservatives follow) but when it is their legislation they want emotion involved. Hypocrites!

[ToadBrother]

What you are in effect advocating is that the NDP and Liberals should work together with possibly the support of the Bloc. Any such suggestion will see the popular support for the Liberals collapse.

Many Liberal voters do not want to see Jack Layton anywhere near power. That is why they vote Liberal, and not NDP. It is even more far-fetchhed that such a coalition could announce in advance that it would rely on the Bloc to stay in power.

The mere suggestion of such a coalition, during a campaign, will ensure a Harper majority.

I think you may find the mood has shifted slightly, but the Opposition parties, if they are pondering a Coalition, now know better than to dealing with it prior to an election.

-----

In simple terms, the federal Liberal and NDP are not yet ready to unite in a single party.

The whole point of a coalition is that all the parties that form it retain their own identity, their own caucuses, their own internal structure. The Cabinet is generally populated by members from all parties and the whips pretty much bend to the authority of the shared leadership structure, but when the writ is dropped, they all become independent again.

Edited March 24, 2011 by ToadBrother

[youshouldknowbetter]

They won't be become a norm by any means. But it would be normal to assume that another Liberal NDP coalition is in the works based on the notion that there will be another Tory minority elected. In fact, Ignatieff and Layton might even bring them down after the throne speech. Funny enough, that might be the impetus that the population will need to elect a majority government.

[Wild Bill]

They won't be become a norm by any means. But it would be normal to assume that another Liberal NDP coalition is in the works based on the notion that there will be another Tory minority elected. In fact, Ignatieff and Layton might even bring them down after the throne speech. Funny enough, that might be the impetus that the population will need to elect a majority government.

If it wouldn't have been that impetus before a coalition it's guaranteed it would be after such a term!

Government usually works glacially slowly under it's normal structure. Could you imagine what would happen if everything had to be worked out amongst all the coalition partners? How long would it take to get everybody onside, with all the very different values of each of the parties? What would happen if one party absolutely refused? Or felt that a particular Bill would cost them too much of their voter support for their own individual demographic?

It would be worse than a "pizza" Parliament! It would be a "McCain's FROZEN Pizza" Parliament!

[Shakeyhands]

It's unbelievable how many times we have heard the coalition word so far, and the electionering hasn't even really started. I imagine we'll all be pretty tired of hearing it soon.

[August1991]

The whole point of a coalition is that all the parties that form it retain their own identity, their own caucuses, their own internal structure. The Cabinet is generally populated by members from all parties and the whips pretty much bend to the authority of the shared leadership structure, but when the writ is dropped, they all become independent again.

Fair enough but in the context of Canada, a coalition system as you describe would turn us into a North American Belgium where it takes months after an election to know who is PM.

Some Liberal voters may have no objection to seeing Layton in cabinet but enough of them do that mere talk of a coalition would ensure a Conservative majority since they would switch their votes. If you add in Bloc support, you'll have Harper polling in the high 40s or over 50.

There's a reason that the NDP and Liberals have never united.

Edited March 24, 2011 by August1991

[M.Dancer]

five major parties? there should be at least six, .

At least 7. The NDP have a small contingent that are actually quite rational...

[WWWTT]

Fair enough but in the context of Canada, a coalition system as you describe would turn us into a North American Belgium where it takes months after an election to know who is PM.

Some Liberal voters may have no objection to seeing Layton in cabinet but enough of them do that mere talk of a coalition would ensure a Conservative majority since they would switch their votes. If you add in Bloc support, you'll have Harper polling in the high 40s or over 50.

There's a reason that the NDP and Liberals have never united.

Harper in the high 40s or over 50% public support?

Never man!

That's absolutely ridiculous

The conservatives are lucky to even see the high 30s as is.I'll even put money on it.

Not just that public opinion polls come to you,on election day you have to go to the poll.Big difference there.

Everybody here also forgot about the greens.Allbeit they do not have a seat,there's still the possibility of picking some up and maybe in the future having a voice in the lower house.

I am proposing that after the coalition topples the Harper minority,Harper will call it quits.The conservatives will pick up the pieces and put someone strong forward to replace him.But by this time the economy will be building steam and the coalition will be reaping in the rewards and the conservatives may be even publicly criticized for trying to oppose the best thing for Canada since the BNA act of 1867.

WWWTT

[August1991]

Harper in the high 40s or over 50% public support?

Never man!

That's absolutely ridiculous

Take a look at polls in December 2008 after the Liberals/NDP attempted a coalition with Bloc support.

But look. If you think that it's such a good idea, why not have Ignatieff and Layton announce now that they plan to form a coalition government after the election?

Edited March 24, 2011 by August1991

[Saipan]

This recent topling of the conservatives has many people scratching their heads wondering why now.

I must've missed the recent election

[Wild Bill]

Everybody here also forgot about the greens.Allbeit they do not have a seat,there's still the possibility of picking some up and maybe in the future having a voice in the lower house.

I am proposing that after the coalition topples the Harper minority,Harper will call it quits.The conservatives will pick up the pieces and put someone strong forward to replace him.But by this time the economy will be building steam and the coalition will be reaping in the rewards and the conservatives may be even publicly criticized for trying to oppose the best thing for Canada since the BNA act of 1867.

WWWTT

I think your predictions are coloured by your own likes and dislikes, which don't appear to be mainstream.

Particularly about the Greens. You have to understand that first of all, most younger folks don't vote! Some get active and most have strong opinions but on election day they mostly have other things to do. This is a plain fact, borne out by numbers. It's just the way it is.

The Greens get much more support from younger folks than from the older crowd. Yet it is that older crowd that is much more likely to vote! There's a cultural sense of duty in that demographic. Even when they're not that happy about their choices they still feel obligated to vote.

I submit that amongst that older crowd the Greens don't have the best image! They are strongly identified with being eco-warriors. To a 40 year old man or woman that usually means someone who wants to save the planet but doesn't have a practical idea on how to do it.

The big difference is that in the early part of our lives we have more freedom in our time and fewer responsibilities, particularly financial. As we get older we get bogged down with our job, a mortgage and providing for our kids. These are tough financial times and most families are struggling. Most "green" programs have a perception of being more expensive than the status quo, at least initially. The usual defense is that "what will it cost if we all fry and starve?" or "In the long run green alternatives will prove to be cheaper, once all the peripheral costs are factored in."

To a mom or dad trying to make the pay cheque stretch to the end of the week, those defenses are just so much hot air! They don't believe the situation is as bad as the Greens say it is and they simply can't afford to consider 'the long run' when they are in debt for the short run.

Everybody wants to save the planet but if the question is "How much are YOU willing to pay?" the numbers instantly plummet. Not because of greed but simply because we are in tough times and people feel they can't afford it.

This might not be an entirely fair picture of the Greens but it is a popular one in that older voting demographic. So far I've listened to Elizabeth May and she never seems to provide the actual details of how to make an idea WORK! Lots of talk about how important it is and how we should all feel a sense of community but when push comes to shove - little or nothing about how an idea could be made to actually accomplish the specific goal.

Can you imagine what it's like for a 40 year old housewife to listen to a Green spokesperson on some talk show saying that she should be taking a bicycle or public transit? She likely has small children she has to take with her 'cuz she can't afford day care and has to buy groceries in family amounts far too large to take home on the bus, let alone on that bike!

Until the Greens get a lot more specific and practical in their proposals they are not going to make many inroads into that older demographic crucial to winning elections. Eventually they may get there. After all, when you first start out it's very hard to attract the best people.

However, they are NOT going to get there THIS election!

Edited March 24, 2011 by Wild Bill

[noahbody]

But by this time the economy will be building steam and the coalition will be reaping in the rewards and the conservatives may be even publicly criticized for trying to oppose the best thing for Canada since the BNA act of 1867.

I thought the best thing since the BNA act of 1867 was the Ignatief-supported fCarbon Tax? Where do you think the Canadian economy would be today if that had been put into place?

[scribblet]

The gov't hasn't been toppled yet....

Interesting piece here about the coalition question, voters need an answer before the election - bet we don't get one LOL

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/24/roy-green-the-central-election-question-is-coalition-yes-or-no/

[ToadBrother]

Fair enough but in the context of Canada, a coalition system as you describe would turn us into a North American Belgium where it takes months after an election to know who is PM.

Huh? It would turn us into what pretty much every coalition government in a Westminster-styled Parliament is. It's not peculiar to Belgium. For a really distorted example, look to Israel.

As problematic as the language divide can be in Canada, if the Bloc was willing to cut a deal with both the Tories and Liberals, I don't think they're the Canadian version of the Walloons. The problem in Belgium was that nobody actually wanted to do a deal.

Some Liberal voters may have no objection to seeing Layton in cabinet but enough of them do that mere talk of a coalition would ensure a Conservative majority since they would switch their votes. If you add in Bloc support, you'll have Harper polling in the high 40s or over 50.

There's a reason that the NDP and Liberals have never united.

I'm curious. Where exactly are you getting your numbers from? I'm sure there is a reasonable large group of Liberals who find the idea noxious, but I'd like to see where it's sufficiently large to do the damage you describe. All indications over the last year indicate that Canadians in general, at least, are less averse to a coalition than they were in early 2009.

Edited March 24, 2011 by ToadBrother

[WWWTT]

Take a look at polls in December 2008 after the Liberals/NDP attempted a coalition with Bloc support.

But look. If you think that it's such a good idea, why not have Ignatieff and Layton announce now that they plan to form a coalition government after the election?

Take a look at the polls after Harper prorouged parliament,both times.

Take a look at the polls after Ignatief was elected to the liberal leadership.

Polls are not an election

Elections come after 36 days of "in your face campaigning"

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

The gov't hasn't been toppled yet....

Interesting piece here about the coalition question, voters need an answer before the election - bet we don't get one LOL

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/24/roy-green-the-central-election-question-is-coalition-yes-or-no/

I'm sorry, in what Westminster Parliament do voters get an answer on a coalition prior to an election? Voters elect the Parliament. Parliament chooses the Government. You can't possibly negotiate a coalition prior to knowing the results because you have no idea what the exact formulation will be.

Does anybody in this bloody country ever bother paying attention to the rest of the world. I realize the National Post feels a need to continue being a Conservative mouthpiece, but that's so incredibly idiotic and so uninformed as to suggest to me the writer is either suffering some sort of temporary amnesia or is simply a halfwit.

Edited March 24, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Take a look at polls in December 2008 after the Liberals/NDP attempted a coalition with Bloc support.

That was two years ago. If you could publish some numbers from the last six to nine months, you might convince me.

But look. If you think that it's such a good idea, why not have Ignatieff and Layton announce now that they plan to form a coalition government after the election?

Because sensible leaders don't even talk coalition until they know how many seats they've got.

[WWWTT]

I think your predictions are coloured by your own likes and dislikes, which don't appear to be mainstream.

Particularly about the Greens. You have to understand that first of all, most younger folks don't vote! Some get active and most have strong opinions but on election day they mostly have other things to do. This is a plain fact, borne out by numbers. It's just the way it is.

The Greens get much more support from younger folks than from the older crowd. Yet it is that older crowd that is much more likely to vote! There's a cultural sense of duty in that demographic. Even when they're not that happy about their choices they still feel obligated to vote.

I submit that amongst that older crowd the Greens don't have the best image! They are strongly identified with being eco-warriors. To a 40 year old man or woman that usually means someone who wants to save the planet but doesn't have a practical idea on how to do it.

The big difference is that in the early part of our lives we have more freedom in our time and fewer responsibilities, particularly financial. As we get older we get bogged down with our job, a mortgage and providing for our kids. These are tough financial times and most families are struggling. Most "green" programs have a perception of being more expensive than the status quo, at least initially. The usual defense is that "what will it cost if we all fry and starve?" or "In the long run green alternatives will prove to be cheaper, once all the peripheral costs are factored in."

To a mom or dad trying to make the pay cheque stretch to the end of the week, those defenses are just so much hot air! They don't believe the situation is as bad as the Greens say it is and they simply can't afford to consider 'the long run' when they are in debt for the short run.

Everybody wants to save the planet but if the question is "How much are YOU willing to pay?" the numbers instantly plummet. Not because of greed but simply because we are in tough times and people feel they can't afford it.

This might not be an entirely fair picture of the Greens but it is a popular one in that older voting demographic. So far I've listened to Elizabeth May and she never seems to provide the actual details of how to make an idea WORK! Lots of talk about how important it is and how we should all feel a sense of community but when push comes to shove - little or nothing about how an idea could be made to actually accomplish the specific goal.

Can you imagine what it's like for a 40 year old housewife to listen to a Green spokesperson on some talk show saying that she should be taking a bicycle or public transit? She likely has small children she has to take with her 'cuz she can't afford day care and has to buy groceries in family amounts far too large to take home on the bus, let alone on that bike!

Until the Greens get a lot more specific and practical in their proposals they are not going to make many inroads into that older demographic crucial to winning elections. Eventually they may get there. After all, when you first start out it's very hard to attract the best people.

However, they are NOT going to get there THIS election!

Of course I am biased in my opinions.I never claimed to be unbiased.

The point I am trying to make with this thread is that political reform is strongly needed in Canada to properly reflect the diversity in opinion integral to the Canadian landscape.And a coalition strongly reflects this.Not a conservative minority.

Whats wrong with democracy?

WWWTT