What is a coalition government?

[WWWTT]

In reality a coalition government is every single minority or majority government elected to parliament in Canada federally and provincially.

In other words a political party,such as the conservatives, are really a coalition of MP's united under one banner.The same goes for all other parties with one exception-independants.

This fact has bein lost to most people.

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

In reality a coalition government is every single minority or majority government elected to parliament in Canada federally and provincially.

In other words a political party,such as the conservatives, are really a coalition of MP's united under one banner.The same goes for all other parties with one exception-independants.

This fact has bein lost to most people.

WWWTT

No, over the past months since Dion fell in flames we political junkies here on MLW have long since picked the concept of a coalition government to death.

We really are just preaching to our own choir. It doesn't matter! What's important is what the majority of Canadians feel when they go to cast their ballot! Last time, polls OVERWHELMINGLY showed that Canadians would have viewed a coalition to kick out a minority Harper government as just a "lawyer's trick" to use a technicality in the rules to stage a power grab. Although no one party had a true majority, ALL of the proposed coalition partners were LOSERS!

The public made it plain that THAT SORT of coalition would offend them mightily! If the Opposition had tried and even succeeded, it was obvious that they would have had their butts kicked severely next election.

The public doesn't care about tricks with semantics or definitions. It's plain that they would rather have a minority of whoever won the most seats than a government of all who had the LEAST seats! Deeper polling seemed to indicate that they don't mind the usual form of minority government 'coalition', where one party got more seats than any and another party agrees to prop them up in any house votes. The important difference here is that the party with the most seats DOES still lead!

Waving a rulebook at the people and telling them they shouldn't get angry because of some obscure rule only infuriates them.

And rightly so!

Edited March 24, 2011 by Wild Bill

[ToadBrother]

Waving a rulebook at the people and telling them they shouldn't get angry because of some obscure rule only infuriates them.

And rightly so!

First of all, it's hardly obscure. Coalition governments are a well understood potential outcome of Westminster parliaments. Canadians have little direct familiarity with them, and the Brits have only marginally more experience. Yet the Brits, while not exactly warming to the idea, accepted it as the inevitable outcome of electing a hung Parliament.

Second of all, attitudes have shifted since 2008. While it's not clear that Canadians want a coalition per se, it's clearly not the political poison that it was in late 2008.

But I see little reason to discuss other than as a possibility because until the election is done with and the results known, there's nothing other than hypothetical situations to discuss. Even if the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc are pondering it, they're all going to fight the battle to win as many seats as possible, because even in a coalition, the number of seats you bring to the table is going to determine how much influence you have.

My base assumption is that the Tories will retain the largest number of seats, not at majority, to my mind, but a minority and since convention says he gets first dibs on trying to form a government, if there was to be a coalition, it probably wouldn't be talked about until a hypothetical defeat over the Throne Speech (as g_bambino pointed out is necessary pretty much immediately after this election). At that point, the Governor General might likely see that back-to-back elections just weeks apart would be far too onerous on the electorate and the public purse and would, as you put it, use his "obscure" powers to appoint the Liberals as the government, either on a vote-by-vote basis like the Tories have been doing, or maybe in some form of coalition (whether formal or simply an agreement to support by the Bloc and NDP).

Whether Canadians like it or not, if this minority situation continues, no matter how obscure and meaningless you may try to assert all of this to be, it may very well become a reality despite it all. Certainly the Brits, who hadn't even pondered a coalition in since the mid-1970s were suddenly faced last year with one despite it all.

Maybe Canadians should have paid a bit more attention in Social Studies classes.

Edited March 24, 2011 by ToadBrother

[WWWTT]

No, over the past months since Dion fell in flames we political junkies here on MLW have long since picked the concept of a coalition government to death.

We really are just preaching to our own choir. It doesn't matter! What's important is what the majority of Canadians feel when they go to cast their ballot! Last time, polls OVERWHELMINGLY showed that Canadians would have viewed a coalition to kick out a minority Harper government as just a "lawyer's trick" to use a technicality in the rules to stage a power grab. Although no one party had a true majority, ALL of the proposed coalition partners were LOSERS!

The public made it plain that THAT SORT of coalition would offend them mightily! If the Opposition had tried and even succeeded, it was obvious that they would have had their butts kicked severely next election.

The public doesn't care about tricks with semantics or definitions. It's plain that they would rather have a minority of whoever won the most seats than a government of all who had the LEAST seats! Deeper polling seemed to indicate that they don't mind the usual form of minority government 'coalition', where one party got more seats than any and another party agrees to prop them up in any house votes. The important difference here is that the party with the most seats DOES still lead!

Waving a rulebook at the people and telling them they shouldn't get angry because of some obscure rule only infuriates them.

And rightly so!

Ya I got a real problem with your opinion here wild bill.

First of all the majority of Canadians do not even freakin vote.Second of all an opinion poll is not an election.And thirdly don't go on about some obscure rules of parliament.When you vote in Stoney Creek(nice town by the way)did you ever see Steven Harpers name on the ballot?And why is that?Its because this is Canada not the United States and we have a different type of system here that is more(not completely) democratic.

WWWTT

[M.Dancer]

In other words a political party,such as the conservatives, are really a coalition of MP's united under one banner.The same goes for all other parties with one exception-independants.

Ummmmm..yeah..right.

[ToadBrother]

Ummmmm..yeah..right.

Well, he's right... to a degree. The current Conservative government is just the latest iteration of the Tory-Progressive alliance that been around for a long long time. The latest marriage is new enough that you can still see the wrinkles, but with each passing election, the likelihood of the progressive and conservative wings of the party (the "Red" and "Blue" Tories of yonder days) becomes less and less. As much as some of the old Reformers may dislike that Harper has compromised most of their old platform to maintain the coalition and keep a hand on government, I can't see this particular coalition falling apart, because all that would do is once again guarantee the Liberals the majorities that Chretien enjoyed.

[Wild Bill]

Ya I got a real problem with your opinion here wild bill.

First of all the majority of Canadians do not even freakin vote.Second of all an opinion poll is not an election.And thirdly don't go on about some obscure rules of parliament.When you vote in Stoney Creek(nice town by the way)did you ever see Steven Harpers name on the ballot?And why is that?Its because this is Canada not the United States and we have a different type of system here that is more(not completely) democratic.

WWWTT

Well, those that don't vote make themselves irrelevant! Also, it's true that an opinion poll is not an election but it can be invaluable in predicting an electoral outcome!

That's what feeds Nick Nanos' kids!

As for directly voting for the PM, of course we don't. We have a British-descended system that works "First Past the Post". IMHO, this is a democractic system and I prefer it. I'm far from the only one. Others, like perhaps yourself, might prefer some form of proportional representation. Many other folks do as well.

It's rather hard to say what is more or less democratic in our political system, since really it's often a matter of personal preference. One can always make an argument as to why one way is better than another. As a Reformer, I don't find ANY of our parties that democratic, including the new CPC, which I have said many times is really just a clone of the old Progressive Conservatives. Any trace of Reform in the new CPC has been wiped out and chucked "down the memory hole". Harper and his crew will often refer to Mulroney but since he took office I don't think he has ever mentioned Preston Manning's name in public!

Whatever, my point is that just because someone like yourself doesn't think that highly of the Canadian voter doesn't change if he's likely to vote one way or another. Our own preferences are irrelevant as well. Anyone who wants to work on a campaign team has to learn very quickly to be objective or he will simply become another loser!

[Harry]

WWWTT,

Thanks for starting this thread.

It's quite clear this minority government topic is quickly becomming one of the hot button issues for the coming electoral campaign, and rightly so. It now appears that Harper, who is now beginning to be on thin ice on the ethics file, will get burned for his hypocrisy here, which will end up costing him seats.

What was Stephen Harper up to in 2004?

"If I held that attitude, then I wouldn’t have attended a meeting to which I was invited by Mr. Harper when he was the leader of the opposition and Mr. Martin had been recently elected. The House hadn’t even begun to sit and he said, “Come and have a meeting with me and Mr. Duceppe and let’s make sure the Governor General understands that Mr. Martin doesn’t necessarily get to be the Prime Minister just because he has the most seats. And I’d like you to join with me in making sure that the Governor General understands that there are other alternatives here.” I attended that meeting, I signed that letter as a matter of fact, in good faith, perhaps others weren’t signing it in good faith, I don’t know. But you can be sure that that letter will be available for all Canadians to see if we start running into hypocritical positions from certain corners or certain political leaders."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/24/what-was-stephen-harper-up-to-in-2004/

In 2004 where Harper in opposition, he was actively engaged with the Bloc and the NDP to bring down the Liberals. And now Harper is complaining that the opposition is doing the very same thing. This is a hoot and our PM is already starting to be ridiculed for this. I can just see some of the oposition ads now - "This is your PM but please, please don't do as I do, just do as I say".

A lot of silly word games are going on. Deals, accords, agreements, coalitions. These are all basically the same thing. Arrangements to help get legislation passed in a minority Parliament. And Harper does it all the time.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Harry

[SF/PF]

The public made it plain that THAT SORT of coalition would offend them mightily! If the Opposition had tried and even succeeded, it was obvious that they would have had their butts kicked severely next election.

To be fair, I think the public backlash had as much to do with the way the situation was framed, as the coalition itself.

[M.Dancer]

Well, he's right... to a degree. The current Conservative government is just the latest iteration of the Tory-Progressive alliance that been around for a long long time. The latest marriage is new enough that you can still see the wrinkles, but with each passing election, the likelihood of the progressive and conservative wings of the party (the "Red" and "Blue" Tories of yonder days) becomes less and less. As much as some of the old Reformers may dislike that Harper has compromised most of their old platform to maintain the coalition and keep a hand on government, I can't see this particular coalition falling apart, because all that would do is once again guarantee the Liberals the majorities that Chretien enjoyed.

Parties have shared published policies, voted on by the members of the party. Coalitions have loose agreements decided by the leaders which are as good as the polls last.

Parries can merge...but that depends on themembership....coalitions? No so much

[Wild Bill]

To be fair, I think the public backlash had as much to do with the way the situation was framed, as the coalition itself.

Maybe! I'm not sure. I think the Dion factor also didn't help. Here was a man with the lowest approval rating of any Liberal leader in history trying to usurp the party that beat him at the polls and put himself into power, albeit as the head of a coalition!

One minute the Canadian people would have overwhelmingly rejected him and the very next he'd be sitting as PM, without any input from the Canadian people at all!

The people weren't Constitutional scholars and didn't need to be to hate such an idea. Ignatieff was quite right when he distanced himself from the idea. He knew it was electoral poison.

TB has spoken on how people aren't as adverse to the idea today as we were during the last election. He's probably right in principle but I still think it would be a very risky thing to try. At all costs, if it looked like a mere power grab I think ordinary people might light torches and storm the castle! The problem for the Opposition is that as long as the Tories got more votes than any one of their parties, even though they lacked enough for a majority, to form a coalition and usurp them might be legal but it would piss off all those Tory voters, who numbered more than those who had voted for any one of the other parties! Where would those parties look for new supporters next election?

No, somehow they would have to sell it as "being for the good of the country". THAT would be an interesting spiel to watch!

[ToadBrother]

TB has spoken on how people aren't as adverse to the idea today as we were during the last election. He's probably right in principle but I still think it would be a very risky thing to try. At all costs, if it looked like a mere power grab I think ordinary people might light torches and storm the castle! The problem for the Opposition is that as long as the Tories got more votes than any one of their parties, even though they lacked enough for a majority, to form a coalition and usurp them might be legal but it would piss off all those Tory voters, who numbered more than those who had voted for any one of the other parties! Where would those parties look for new supporters next election?

Let's explore my thought experiment. I put forward again a hypothetical situation, but judging by things, one that is not in the realm of the impossible or improbable.

We go to the polls on May 2. Canadians basically elect the same Parliament that we have now; the Conservatives shy of a majority, but still with a hefty seat count of 130 or 140 or thereabouts. The Governor General asks Stephen Harper to form a new government, and off he goes to prepare the Speech from the Throne, which dutifully a few weeks later the Governor General reads to Parliament. Then everyone votes on it, the Opposition parties refuse to support the Throne Speech and the Tory government falls. As my expert fellow poster, g_bambino has pointed out, the Prime Minister cannot evade this by proroguing Parliament because Parliament cannot be prorogued until it has sat.

At this point the Governor General is faced with two choices; to either call another election within weeks of the last one, with no guarantee that the same Parliament won't be returned, or to ask someone else to form a Government. I think the choice would be very clear. Precedent and tradition dictate that the Governor General ask the party with the next largest number of seats, presumably the Liberals, to form a government. The Liberal leader can now choose whether he's going to try to run things on a vote-by-vote basis, pursue an agreement with the Bloc and the NDP (an agreement with the Tories would seem politically impossible, at least from the Tory side) to guarantee they will back the Government, or to attempt for a formal coalition with the Bloc and the NDP, or a compromise between these two in having a formal coalition with the NDP with the Bloc agreeing not to defeat the Government (this was what was proposed in 2008).

Now I'm simplifying things slightly. There are other possibilities. If Harper realizes there is a strong possibility that his Government will not survive the Throne Speech, he may go to the NDP with a very very tempting budget (in fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there's one already prepared for just such a circumstance). If he's feeling particularly brave, he might even suggest a vote agreement with the NDP, and maybe even some sort of a formal coalition with Jack Layton as Deputy PM and the NDP getting some cabinet posts (this would be essentially the same formula that the Tories and Liberal Democrats came up with last year in the UK).

I'm wondering if the coalition supporters around here, who seem to be assuming that it will be some version of Liberal-NDP-Bloc are considering the possibility of a Conservative-NDP coalition. I'm further wondering if they would be quite so thrilled at the idea of coalitions if Harper was to pull a stunt like that.

Edited March 24, 2011 by ToadBrother

[SF/PF]

Maybe! I'm not sure. I think the Dion factor also didn't help. Here was a man with the lowest approval rating of any Liberal leader in history trying to usurp the party that beat him at the polls and put himself into power, albeit as the head of a coalition!

One minute the Canadian people would have overwhelmingly rejected him and the very next he'd be sitting as PM, without any input from the Canadian people at all!

How much popular vote does a party have to be recieve to not be "overwhelmingly rejected?"

TB has spoken on how people aren't as adverse to the idea today as we were during the last election. He's probably right in principle but I still think it would be a very risky thing to try.

It would be suicide during an election for sure. But suppose the election returns another Conservative minority, and the opposition brings them down over the thrown speech. A coalition formed at that point wouldn't be all that damaging to any of the parties, provided that they managed to govern effectively for a reasonable amount of time. If things had been running smoothly for a year or two, I seriously doubt that very many would still care about the coalition.

The problem for the Opposition is that as long as the Tories got more votes than any one of their parties, even though they lacked enough for a majority, to form a coalition and usurp them might be legal but it would piss off all those Tory voters, who numbered more than those who had voted for any one of the other parties!

But not more than all of the other parties. A coalition would be the only government that could rightly claim to represent the will of the people.

Where would those parties look for new supporters next election?

They would look to pick up votes from the people that aren't firmly attached to one party or another.

[WWWTT]

Let's explore my thought experiment. I put forward again a hypothetical situation, but judging by things, one that is not in the realm of the impossible or improbable.

We go to the polls on May 2. Canadians basically elect the same Parliament that we have now; the Conservatives shy of a majority, but still with a hefty seat count of 130 or 140 or thereabouts. The Governor General asks Stephen Harper to form a new government, and off he goes to prepare the Speech from the Throne, which dutifully a few weeks later the Governor General reads to Parliament. Then everyone votes on it, the Opposition parties refuse to support the Throne Speech and the Tory government falls. As my expert fellow poster, g_bambino has pointed out, the Prime Minister cannot evade this by proroguing Parliament because Parliament cannot be prorogued until it has sat.

At this point the Governor General is faced with two choices; to either call another election within weeks of the last one, with no guarantee that the same Parliament won't be returned, or to ask someone else to form a Government. I think the choice would be very clear. Precedent and tradition dictate that the Governor General ask the party with the next largest number of seats, presumably the Liberals, to form a government. The Liberal leader can now choose whether he's going to try to run things on a vote-by-vote basis, pursue an agreement with the Bloc and the NDP (an agreement with the Tories would seem politically impossible, at least from the Tory side) to guarantee they will back the Government, or to attempt for a formal coalition with the Bloc and the NDP, or a compromise between these two in having a formal coalition with the NDP with the Bloc agreeing not to defeat the Government (this was what was proposed in 2008).

Now I'm simplifying things slightly. There are other possibilities. If Harper realizes there is a strong possibility that his Government will not survive the Throne Speech, he may go to the NDP with a very very tempting budget (in fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there's one already prepared for just such a circumstance). If he's feeling particularly brave, he might even suggest a vote agreement with the NDP, and maybe even some sort of a formal coalition with Jack Layton as Deputy PM and the NDP getting some cabinet posts (this would be essentially the same formula that the Tories and Liberal Democrats came up with last year in the UK).

I'm wondering if the coalition supporters around here, who seem to be assuming that it will be some version of Liberal-NDP-Bloc are considering the possibility of a Conservative-NDP coalition. I'm further wondering if they would be quite so thrilled at the idea of coalitions if Harper was to pull a stunt like that.

In principle I agree with you Toad.However I think that the coalition are looking for seats from what the conservative hold now.Such as Saskatchewan,Alberta,BC,Manitoba and Ont.

And not necessarily in this upcoming election but over the next 6-10yrs.

Its going to be hard to pry those seats away from them.

We will not see any party making a coalition with Harper ever.If there was a chance it would have happened long ago.

No this is going to be a long drawn out battle.It will cost Harper his time in politics and after the coalition toppels the Harper minority he will resign and many of his henchmen will flee to other perties like the libs and ndp.

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

In principle I agree with you Toad.However I think that the coalition are looking for seats from what the conservative hold now.Such as Saskatchewan,Alberta,BC,Manitoba and Ont.

And not necessarily in this upcoming election but over the next 6-10yrs.

Its going to be hard to pry those seats away from them.

We will not see any party making a coalition with Harper ever.If there was a chance it would have happened long ago.

No this is going to be a long drawn out battle.It will cost Harper his time in politics and after the coalition toppels the Harper minority he will resign and many of his henchmen will flee to other perties like the libs and ndp.

WWWTT

This looks more like wishful thinking than anything else. You seem to be under the assumption that any of the parties would be actively seeking some sort of permanent merger, not a Coalition, and that isn't going to happen.

And you should never ever discount Harper's ability to come back from even his own mistakes. Yes, he's as partisan as they get, but when he's not being foolhardy, he's also damned clever. I wonder how many PMs in our history would have tried the prorogation stunt in 2008 to evade the collapse of their government. I would not be the least bit surprised if he had a budget up his sleeve with Jack Layton's name all over it, and what's more, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Jack Layton accepted it. Such an offer would be too tempting for Layton, it would get him as near the top as any CCF/NDP leader has ever got, or is likely ever to get.

I'm not saying it's going to happen absolutely, but I think simply discounting it because you have this narrative you like better is foolish, and demonstrates, to my mind, your own partisan thinking. If you look at it from a purely strategic angle, without all the partisan fluff, it might be awfully tempting to just simply bring the NDP into the fold, thus killing any possibility of a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition.

And this idea that Conservative strongholds like Alberta and Saskatchewan are going to magically turn to the coalition is about the must absurd thing I've ever heard. These are the areas where the coalition is likely to be most hated.

[WWWTT]

This looks more like wishful thinking than anything else. You seem to be under the assumption that any of the parties would be actively seeking some sort of permanent merger, not a Coalition, and that isn't going to happen.

And you should never ever discount Harper's ability to come back from even his own mistakes. Yes, he's as partisan as they get, but when he's not being foolhardy, he's also damned clever. I wonder how many PMs in our history would have tried the prorogation stunt in 2008 to evade the collapse of their government. I would not be the least bit surprised if he had a budget up his sleeve with Jack Layton's name all over it, and what's more, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Jack Layton accepted it. Such an offer would be too tempting for Layton, it would get him as near the top as any CCF/NDP leader has ever got, or is likely ever to get.

I'm not saying it's going to happen absolutely, but I think simply discounting it because you have this narrative you like better is foolish, and demonstrates, to my mind, your own partisan thinking. If you look at it from a purely strategic angle, without all the partisan fluff, it might be awfully tempting to just simply bring the NDP into the fold, thus killing any possibility of a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition.

And this idea that Conservative strongholds like Alberta and Saskatchewan are going to magically turn to the coalition is about the must absurd thing I've ever heard. These are the areas where the coalition is likely to be most hated.

Time will only tell toad.

And you are forgetting one big thing.And that is Harper is far past his expirery date.I never said he was not smart.I will say he is not brilliant.Never has bein never will be.He has done nothing to prove that he is has or was or ever.Period.Just because the media may have mentioned that once or twice is not something to be given much merit.

And if you think the Liberals and the NDP are not gonna hit home(Alberta,Saskatchewan)then it is you who is dilusioned with partisan biased influence.

The knives are getting sharpened in the conservative ranks,ready,waiting for the right moment.

WWWTT

[RNG]

Two points. First, I am amazed at how well the UK coalition government seems to be working.

Secondly, I visit several US based political forums and am always appalled at how partisan they are. But it seems to me that that is becoming more and more prevelant up here too. Unfortunate.

I'm in a real quandry about who to vote for this time around. I'm economically right wing, socially centered, but Harper has been infuriating me lately and Iggy is just a joke. Sucks to be me.

[ToadBrother]

Two points. First, I am amazed at how well the UK coalition government seems to be working.

It's clung together longer than many expected, though there have been some severe bumps. The student funding crisis damned near brought them down. The real test is coming very soon as Osborne prepares to release his dreaded austerity budget. The bits that have been released so far, like the defense cut backs, have caused some anger in the Tory ranks. This is what I refer to when I say that the Prime Minister in a coalition government isn't just faced with having to keep the junior partners happy, but with the equally daunting task of keeping his own caucus united.

[ToadBrother]

Time will only tell toad.

And you are forgetting one big thing.And that is Harper is far past his expirery date.I never said he was not smart.I will say he is not brilliant.Never has bein never will be.He has done nothing to prove that he is has or was or ever.Period.Just because the media may have mentioned that once or twice is not something to be given much merit.

Harper may be past his expiry date, although I'd debate that too, I think unless the Tories suffer major losses, he probably shares the pedestal with Duceppe for the Federal leader that is on the safest ground as far as party and caucus support. It's Iggy and Layton who have the most to worry about, not Harper.

And if you think the Liberals and the NDP are not gonna hit home(Alberta,Saskatchewan)then it is you who is dilusioned with partisan biased influence.

Alberta and Saskatchewan are the birthplace of Reform. They may not always be happy with Harper, but the Liberals and NDP have and will continue to have very little influence. The battleground is Ontario, the Maritimes and to some extent Quebec. There may be some play in BC, but the Prairies, most ridings are Tory to the bone.

The knives are getting sharpened in the conservative ranks,ready,waiting for the right moment.

WWWTT

That may be, but that doesn't mean that the Reform heartland is going to vote for a coalition. They're as strongly Conservative as any place can be. Maybe they'll look to an ouster instead of to Harper, but they will vote Conservative in droves no matter what.

[Scotty]

It would be suicide during an election for sure. But suppose the election returns another Conservative minority, and the opposition brings them down over the thrown speech. A coalition formed at that point wouldn't be all that damaging to any of the parties, provided that they managed to govern effectively for a reasonable amount of time. If things had been running smoothly for a year or two, I seriously doubt that very many would still care about the coalition.

The odds against any such coalition lasting even one year are pretty steep.

And all three parties would know that. Which means they would all three be looking to make themselves look good to their supporters and potential supporters. The NDP can't be seen as sell-outs, so they would need to zealously pursue their agenda in exchange for support. The BQ can't be seen as sell-outs either. They're all for Quebec, none for Canada. They need to wring as much money and power for Quebec as possible. And keep in mind that everything they get damages the Liberals, and to some extent, the NDP in the eyes of the rest of Canada, in the election which will soon follow. It also damages the Liberals in that improving the fortunes of the BQ damages the Liberals in Quebec. Also, everything the NDP accomplishes, every program or initiative they get enacted, helps them at the expense of the Liberals in any following election. So all you guys salivating at the prospect of your party getting into power in a coalition should realize you could be trading very short term gain for very long term pain.

In other words, such a coalition, as shaky and short-term as it's likely to be, has the potential for disastrous electoral reverses for the Liberals, and to a lesser extent, the NDP and BQ. And bear in mind that with all three of them known as 'the government' the only other alternative to 'the government' becomes to the Tories, which means a lot of support could be headed their way if people don't like this coalition government.

[ToadBrother]

In other words, such a coalition, as shaky and short-term as it's likely to be, has the potential for disastrous electoral reverses for the Liberals, and to a lesser extent, the NDP and BQ. And bear in mind that with all three of them known as 'the government' the only other alternative to 'the government' becomes to the Tories, which means a lot of support could be headed their way if people don't like this coalition government.

Or not... You can't possibly predict how Canadians would feel after a year or two.

I'm seeing a whole bunch of anti and pro Coalition posters prognosticating on things that they cannot possibly know. It's a bizarre situation to try to predict how people will feel in six or twelve months about something like a coalition.

But there are other possibilities, like Iggy trying to govern on a vote-to-vote basis. I can see him trying that as well.

Edited March 25, 2011 by ToadBrother

[WWWTT]

Or not... You can't possibly predict how Canadians would feel after a year or two.

I'm seeing a whole bunch of anti and pro Coalition posters prognosticating on things that they cannot possibly know. It's a bizarre situation to try to predict how people will feel in six or twelve months about something like a coalition.

But there are other possibilities, like Iggy trying to govern on a vote-to-vote basis. I can see him trying that as well.

I think that Canadians are generally predictable.They have bein acting in the same manner for the last 20 or so years.

When Cretien was in power he had a nickname teflon John.

It seems to be a general rule that any political party in power when times are good are automatically given 10% in polls,opinion and election.

I do not believe this will be any different if a coalition was in power.

Question is will each of the participating parties still recieve an automatic 10% in the polls?

WWWTT