Will coalition governments now become a norm in Canadian politics?

[SF/PF]

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/

Awww man. I wasted a perfectly good minute reading that article, realizing paragraph by paragraph that I had wasted my time. And then, to add insult to injury, I get to the bottom to see this sentence, openly mocking my wasted minute:

Roy Green hosts a weekend news talk program nationally on the Corus radio network.

From now on, I read articles from the bottom up.

[WWWTT]

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/

[WWWTT]

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/

Instead of any leaders coming out about a coalition durring a campaign,maybe the voters should take a refresher course on how the Canadian parliamentary system works,a brief history and possible outcomes.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Awww man. I wasted a perfectly good minute reading that article, realizing paragraph by paragraph that I had wasted my time. And then, to add insult to injury, I get to the bottom to see this sentence, openly mocking my wasted minute:

From now on, I read articles from the bottom up.

And I wasted my time reading your article

WWWTT

[capricorn]

Does anybody in this bloody country ever bother paying attention to the rest of the world.

This is a gem of a question TB. When asked, too many Canadians can't even name their own Prime Minister. How can we expect mainstream Canadians to be aware of how parliamentary systems in other countries came about or function? Simply put, today's Canadian voters are not accustomed to coalition governments. All they have known is a system where the party with most seats forms government and when they become dissatisfied, they vote them out. Proof is that in the 2008 coalition attempt, Conservative support soared in the polls. This time around, perhaps the opposition should have been more open and up front with the public by explaining to them what constitutes a coalition and how Canada would benefit from it. Now all the voters are left with are sound bites of backroom deals to oust the Conservatives even if the Conservatives once again obtain more seats than each of the other parties. Based on the 2008 backlash against the coalition I foresee a similar backlash here again.

[Jack Weber]

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.

Wait until we get SunTV and the silliness that will flow from that...

Did you see the ambush job that was done to Mulcair a week and a half ago??

The next day the guy gets a show on SunTV...

That's what we have to look forward to...

Edited March 24, 2011 by Jack Weber

[SF/PF]

And I wasted my time reading your article

WWWTT

Proof that I deserve a Chorus radio network show and a column in the National Post, I say.

[Jack Weber]

As long as The Bloq clogs up the available seats,we will probably have to come to the realization that minority governments are probably the norm.And if we want to get better,all encompassing legislation,we are all going to have to accept the fact that some form of coalition governments are going to have to be accepted..

Having said that,I remember Andrew Coyne saying that the problem with that notion is that our current system of government ie. the way we elect politicians, is not designed for intermniable minority parliaments.It's designed for majorites,and because we've had a long period of minority parliaments the ideological squabbles get amplified.

I suppose this goes to some form of Proportional Representation,or some other methos of electing people.If that were to occur,I think we would get a different type of politician with a different mindset.One that would be amenable to finding common ground with supposed opponents,as opposed to alot of the brinksmanship we see now...

[Wild Bill]

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

Nothing is wrong with democracy, per se. It's how you define it that makes it a personal opinion and not a fact. Some folks think our present system IS democratic! Others don't. Where is it written as to who gets to write the definition for Funk & Wagnall's dictionary?

Whatever, I was replying to YOUR point about why people ignore the Greens! I tried to give some reasons that to me make sense.

As for the idea of reform, you're talking to a fervent old Reformer! I won't argue with the idea, just what YOU might propose as a positive reform!

That's why we have parties and elections, to try to represent a majority view. The idea of trying to make EVERY minority viewpoint happy is so futile as to be silly! In fact, it can lead to even LESS democracy, as with the concept of "tyranny of the minority".

[WWWTT]

Nothing is wrong with democracy, per se. It's how you define it that makes it a personal opinion and not a fact. Some folks think our present system IS democratic! Others don't. Where is it written as to who gets to write the definition for Funk & Wagnall's dictionary?

Whatever, I was replying to YOUR point about why people ignore the Greens! I tried to give some reasons that to me make sense.

As for the idea of reform, you're talking to a fervent old Reformer! I won't argue with the idea, just what YOU might propose as a positive reform!

That's why we have parties and elections, to try to represent a majority view. The idea of trying to make EVERY minority viewpoint happy is so futile as to be silly! In fact, it can lead to even LESS democracy, as with the concept of "tyranny of the minority".

Like it or lump it,when you vote for an MP your involvement in democracy is over until the next election.Regardless of the outcome of the election.

And here I am stating a fact not opinion.

If 155+ MPs want to form a majority government then whats the matter with that?

If Harper can't do it is it Laytons problem or Ignatieff's?

If you do not like what the MP's do after they are elected then yes you do have a problem with democracy in Canada.And there is nothing wrong with your opinion.

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

Like it or lump it,when you vote for an MP your involvement in democracy is over until the next election.Regardless of the outcome of the election.

And here I am stating a fact not opinion.

Well yes, but those MPs are going to be very mindful that sooner or later they're going to have to face their constituents, and if they know their constituents think a coalition is akin to signing a contract with the Devil, then they're going to think twice about it. Like I said in another post, one of the (many) things that scuttled the last attempt was the lack of support in the Liberal caucus, and a leader going into coalition negotiations needs to be able to bring his whole caucus along, even if it's kicking and screaming the whole way. To have your caucus splinter over a coalition would be, well, a nightmare scenario with no good outcomes.

[wyly]

That's why we have parties and elections, to try to represent a majority view. The idea of trying to make EVERY minority viewpoint happy is so futile as to be silly! In fact, it can lead to even LESS democracy, as with the concept of "tyranny of the minority".

which is why proportional representation and coalition governments is more democratic, more democracy is always better than less even if it becomes more awkward to use...

no one should be happy to see millions of canadians denied a voice in our democracy decade after decade...we're all apalled when we hear of ME countries where the people have had the same party ruling them for thirty or even forty years but we think nothing of Alberta having conservative governments for the same length of time...because of the undemocratic electoral system we have half of alberta's voters that are massively under represented because they split their vote among several parties...it's not surprising why young people don't vote they know their vote will have no effect under the current system, my own kids pointed this out to me when I asked if they were voting...

Edited March 24, 2011 by wyly

[Wild Bill]

which is why proportional representation and coalition governments is more democratic, more democracy is always better than less even if it becomes more awkward to use...

no one should be happy to see millions of canadians denied a voice in our democracy decade after decade...we're all apalled when we here of ME countries where the people have had the same party ruling them for thirty or even forty years but we think nothing of Alberta having conservative governments for the same length of time...because of the undemocratic electoral system we have half of alberta's provinces voters are massively under represented because they split their vote among several parties...it's not surprising why young people don't vote they know their vote will have no effect under the current system, my own kids pointed this out to me when I asked if they were voting...

You make some strong points Wyly but something about PR systems keeps bothering me. One thing I have no respect for is the idea that was on the ballot here in Ontario last time, where THE PARTIES would pick extra MPPs from a PARTY list, according to a proportion of the popular vote!

Screw that noise! No politician should get to choose MY representative! I don't care if he was good at sucking up to the party brass! The PEOPLE and ONLY the People should pick their riding representatives!

Anything else is elitist crap, in my book!

That aside, I generally feel most comfortable when the majority rules, even when it goes against my own personal choices. At least I can always say that "I didn't vote for him, so don't blame me!"

When people start trying to find ways to appease the minority view, it always seems that much of the time the least number of people end up running the show. That's a very screwy definition of populism, at least to me.

Or maybe I'm just too suspicious!

[ToadBrother]

You make some strong points Wyly but something about PR systems keeps bothering me. One thing I have no respect for is the idea that was on the ballot here in Ontario last time, where THE PARTIES would pick extra MPPs from a PARTY list, according to a proportion of the popular vote!

Screw that noise! No politician should get to choose MY representative! I don't care if he was good at sucking up to the party brass! The PEOPLE and ONLY the People should pick their riding representatives!

You are aware, I hope, that there are different kinds of PR systems. Not all of them are party list systems. STV and ATV, for instance, are vote ranking systems where candidates are still picked by the riding associations, it's just that instead of one tick, you rank your choices in order of preference, or, if you don't want to vote for anyone else, you simply choose only one candidate.

Proportional representation voting systems come in several varieties. Yet again, I feel disturbed at the level of ignorance.

[SF/PF]

You make some strong points Wyly but something about PR systems keeps bothering me. One thing I have no respect for is the idea that was on the ballot here in Ontario last time, where THE PARTIES would pick extra MPPs from a PARTY list, according to a proportion of the popular vote!

Screw that noise! No politician should get to choose MY representative! I don't care if he was good at sucking up to the party brass! The PEOPLE and ONLY the People should pick their riding representatives!

My first reaction to seeing that plan for PR was the same as yours. But after mulling it over for a while, I don't think it would be all that different than our current system.

In a lot of ridings, the real election is the race to see who wins the right to represent the dominant party in that riding. In the riding I live in, Edmonton-Sherwood Park, the Conservative association could proffer a lukewarm corpse and they'd win the seat.

I suppose I agree with your objection in principle, but see no practical difference.

That aside, I generally feel most comfortable when the majority rules, even when it goes against my own personal choices.

A coalition government is often the most in-line with majority rule. The attempted Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition of 2008 included the majority of the popular vote, and the majority of the seats. The Conservative minority government included neither.

[wyly]

You make some strong points Wyly but something about PR systems keeps bothering me. One thing I have no respect for is the idea that was on the ballot here in Ontario last time, where THE PARTIES would pick extra MPPs from a PARTY list, according to a proportion of the popular vote!

Screw that noise! No politician should get to choose MY representative! I don't care if he was good at sucking up to the party brass! The PEOPLE and ONLY the People should pick their riding representatives!

Anything else is elitist crap, in my book!

That aside, I generally feel most comfortable when the majority rules, even when it goes against my own personal choices. At least I can always say that "I didn't vote for him, so don't blame me!"

When people start trying to find ways to appease the minority view, it always seems that much of the time the least number of people end up running the show. That's a very screwy definition of populism, at least to me.

Or maybe I'm just too suspicious!

the exact method used in a PR system can be worked out...for myself as long as the party that reflects my ideals best should be represented if they can muster 10% of the vote, if that means 1 seat in a super riding of of 10 MPs I'd be happy with that, and if that party has 10 people running in the super riding the one with the most votes should get the seat...

[WWWTT]

Well yes, but those MPs are going to be very mindful that sooner or later they're going to have to face their constituents, and if they know their constituents think a coalition is akin to signing a contract with the Devil, then they're going to think twice about it. Like I said in another post, one of the (many) things that scuttled the last attempt was the lack of support in the Liberal caucus, and a leader going into coalition negotiations needs to be able to bring his whole caucus along, even if it's kicking and screaming the whole way. To have your caucus splinter over a coalition would be, well, a nightmare scenario with no good outcomes.

Actually Toad I think you are wrong.The last coalition was only a proposal to twist Harpers arm for a budget favorable to many Canadians.And it worked brilliantly.

In actual fact much bravo can be attributed to this coalition proposed in early 09.

I know many people in the Liberal ranks do not agree with it but whats the alternative?

At some point of time people are going to become aware that the Liberals are putting their needs ahead of the electorate and the consequences could be harsh for them.

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

Actually Toad I think you are wrong.The last coalition was only a proposal to twist Harpers arm for a budget favorable to many Canadians.And it worked brilliantly.

I'm sorry. That looks to me like historical revisionism. I have no reason to accept your version of what happened in November 2008. No one has ever publicly come out and said it. The Tories clearly took it seriously. The Governor General took it seriously. A large chunk of the Liberal caucus took it seriously. This wasn't some sort of trick, some sort of underlined and bolded suggestion, it was the leaders of the three Opposition parties stating that they were going to topple the government and form a coalition. It was clearly inspired by a similar plan that the Tories, the NDP and the Bloc had cooked up four years before.

Edited March 24, 2011 by ToadBrother

[WWWTT]

I'm sorry. That looks to me like historical revisionism. I have no reason to accept your version of what happened in November 2008. No one has ever publicly come out and said it. The Tories clearly took it seriously. The Governor General took it seriously. A large chunk of the Liberal caucus took it seriously. This wasn't some sort of trick, some sort of underlined and bolded suggestion, it was the leaders of the three Opposition parties stating that they were going to topple the government and form a coalition. It was clearly inspired by a similar plan that the Tories, the NDP and the Bloc had cooked up four years before.

Until a proposal becomes reality it will always remain a proposal.This is a fact.And the results are as they are,Are you arguing that the budget that followed this was not in any way influenced by this proposal?

I never suggested that this was a trick.It was well calculated and excecuted to drive a tremendous fear into the conservatives.

It has worked very well.

It is also the shape of things to come in Canadian politics.An introduction to the public.

But the public was not yet ready for it(nor the liberals)

WWWTT

[axelle]

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY I CANNOT START A NEW TOPIC? I WOULD LIKE TO POST SOMETHING ON THIS FORUM BUT IT'S NOT LETTING ME!! HELP!!!

[Jack Weber]

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY I CANNOT START A NEW TOPIC? I WOULD LIKE TO POST SOMETHING ON THIS FORUM BUT IT'S NOT LETTING ME!! HELP!!!

Maybe it's because you are yelling??

Or maybe you migh be trying to sell something??

Don't know...

[Harry]

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?

I did take a look at the polls so I'm not sure what your point is. There's been a bit of a snow job on this coalition issue.

Here's one:

"An Angus Reid Strategies poll on this subject conducted on December 1 and 2, 2008, consisting of online interviews with 1,012 Canadian adults, and with a reported margin of error of 3.1%, showed that 40% of respondents agreed with the statement "The Conservative party does not deserve to continue in government," while 35% agreed with "The Conservative party deserves to continue in government," and 25% were "not sure." On the question "Should the opposition parties get together and topple the Conservative minority government headed by Stephen Harper?", 41% responded No, 36% Yes, and 23% not sure. If the government was defeated in a no-confidence vote, 37% of respondents would support a coalition of opposition parties taking power, 32% favoured holding a new election, 7% favoured an accord rather than a coalition among opposition parties, and 24% were not sure.[112]"

Did Harper announce he was going for an accord/coalition, whatever, before the election in 2004 - of course he didn't, and rightly so. No one is going to do that before an election when no one knows the end results. Maybe Harper will want a coalition with the Liberals after this election. Who knows at this point? With the number of parties now involved in Canadian politics now, of course coalitions are a great idea, and if Harper had joined one we wouldn't be having this election now, would we?

Edited March 24, 2011 by Harry

[wyly]

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY I CANNOT START A NEW TOPIC? I WOULD LIKE TO POST SOMETHING ON THIS FORUM BUT IT'S NOT LETTING ME!! HELP!!!

I don't think it's allowed on your first post...

[ToadBrother]

Until a proposal becomes reality it will always remain a proposal.This is a fact.And the results are as they are,Are you arguing that the budget that followed this was not in any way influenced by this proposal?

Well of course it was a proposal. And of course the budget was effected by it. We now know that the Governor General made it clear to the Prime Minister that when Parliament returned at the end of January 2009, that the budget must be palatable to the Opposition. There was no way that the Coalition could have known that, because the private discussions between the Governor General and Her Prime Minister are just that, private discussions. That's how I know you're full of crap.

I never suggested that this was a trick.It was well calculated and excecuted to drive a tremendous fear into the conservatives.

And this is where the revisionism came in. It wasn't meant to put fear into the hearts of the Tory government. It was meant to replace the Tory government. Even some of its proponents admitted after the fact that the failure was in actually stating publicly what they were trying to do. The folks who came up with the Coalition plan weren't trying to force the Tories' hands on the party funding issue or any other part of the budget, they were outright stating "We're going to have a no confidence vote and replace the Tories as the government."

I have no idea where your version of events comes from. It certainly doesn't come from the events I observed in November and December 2008. Harper didn't go to the GG and prorogue Parliament because he was taking the Coalition's advice. He was doing it to prevent a confidence motion that would have seen his government defeated. Peter MacKay was even at pains at the time to explain why this wasn't going to be a precedent, despite the worry by a number of constitutional experts of just that, that Harper had introduced into Commonwealth constitutional nomenclature the notion that prorogation was now a tool to evade confidence votes. Of course now know that the Governor General had put some severe limitations on the Government in order for her to accede to the Prime Minister's request, which may have been what Mackay was indirectly referring to.

I'm going to be blunt here. You're talking out of your a$$ and just plain making things up. The Coalition was a serious attempt, the first serious attempt in modern Commonwealth history of a coalition of opposition parties to attempt the defeat of a government and replace that government with themselves. Every other time the Sovereign or the Sovereign's representative in any Commonwealth country had dismissed a government and asked someone else to govern was due to constitutional crisis, and in each and every case the new Prime Minister viewed his role to be a caretaker one. That's how the King-Byng Affair was handled and that's how the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis was handled. This was a totally different beast, and while perfectly constitutional, it was not precipitated by a constitutional crisis, but by the desire to create a new government out of an existing Parliament that had every expectation of governing for an extended duration, and not just until a new election could be organized.

You've convinced yourself that somehow the Coalition's blunder in raising the flag before they were in a position to actually form a government was somehow an intentional strategy. That's not what happened, this wasn't a clever plan that worked, it was a botched plan that didn't.

Edited March 24, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Scotty]

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.

You don't think someone considering voting Liberal deserves to know that this party is strongly considering a coalition with separatists and socialists?

You've pretty strongly inferred above that many of those who would vote Liberal would refuse if they knew a coalition was being considered, so what you're saying is that you believe the Liberals, and other parties, should lie to the voters about their intent.