The Gang of Three

[August1991]

Will this agreement hold?

Harper, Duceppe, Layton gang up on PM PM

I think the G-G dissolution thing is a way to blame PM PM if we have another election.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I couldn't help but notice that these three parties were strangely keen to avoid another election.

I got to wondering why, and figured that they each had decided they had no prospects of doing any better than where they are now.

Which brings up the next question ... if that's how they feel, what the heck do they think they are about?

[August1991]

Here is the Tory press release, here is the NDP press release and finally the BQ communiqué.

All three are identical. (Even the election date error is the same in the Tory and NDP versions, but not the BQ.)

Nice little kicker too:

"Our joint proposal is constructive and is intended to tackle the democratic deficit, a goal that Paul Martin seems to cherish so much. If he is consistent and if he really understood the message sent by the voters, Prime Minister Paul Martin will have no choice but to welcome our suggestions," said the three leaders.

The Liberals will have to go along with this because the three could form a coalition government, make the enabling legislative changes and then resign.

[idealisttotheend]

I couldn't help but notice that these three parties were strangely keen to avoid another election.

I heard on the CBC that it was partly a financial issue, the Liberals have an adequet war chest and the other three are hurting.

I think you are also right though that they don't expect a different result. I think it's pretty much a choice between the status quo and the Liberals gaining ground.

I suppose our resident Quebecers will know much better than I, but it looks like it will be a cold day in hell before the Conservatives make a breakthrough in Quebec necessary to a majority for them. In fact I think it is considerably more likely that that the Liberals or the NDP as a junior coalition partner will take ground in the West at the Conservatives expense than the Conservatives taking ground in Quebec or even metropolitian Ontario. I don't think a majority is possible for the Conservatives at present but a Liberal one may be. So they don't want an election because they know that the only different result they are likely to get is a Liberal majority.

Maybe it is this realization that has Harper in hiding and looking so shell shocked. Layton has to try to find a way to be seen as electable, something other than an opportunity for vote splitting by the centre (remember '88) and deal with the progressive threat of the the Greens and he doesn't want an election. Only Ducceppe has Zen, he has no expectations to meet, the beauty and tragedy of the Bloc I guess.

I think the G-G dissolution thing is a way to blame PM PM if we have another election.

I think you are absolutely right about that.

I don't think it's constitutional though is it? Aren't matters of confidence a perogerative of the PM on the government side?

[kimmy]

I think quite obviously the opposition parties don't want to go to the polls until the Liberals give the public a reason to want to.

If the Liberals are forced to disolve parliament over something unimportant, then it looks like the opposition parties have forced the situation by playing petty politics and that will hurt them at the polls.

As for the whole notion, good for the opposition parties. On election night, PM Martin pledged that he would strive to work constructively with the Opposition "because Canadians expect it." And all of the opposition parties promised to go to parliament to try to cooperate in the best interest of Canadians. Well, this certainly sounds like a good first step. It might force Martin to honor his talk about "addressing the democratic deficit" and working constructively with the opposition. And it should give the opposition parties the power to advance causes that their constituents care about.

It should be very interesting to see how things work out.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

I couldn't help but notice that these three parties were strangely keen to avoid another election.

I heard on the CBC that it was partly a financial issue, the Liberals have an adequet war chest and the other three are hurting.

I think you are also right though that they don't expect a different result. I think it's pretty much a choice between the status quo and the Liberals gaining ground.

I suppose our resident Quebecers will know much better than I, but it looks like it will be a cold day in hell before the Conservatives make a breakthrough in Quebec necessary to a majority for them. In fact I think it is considerably more likely that that the Liberals or the NDP as a junior coalition partner will take ground in the West at the Conservatives expense than the Conservatives taking ground in Quebec or even metropolitian Ontario. I don't think a majority is possible for the Conservatives at present but a Liberal one may be. So they don't want an election because they know that the only different result they are likely to get is a Liberal majority.

Maybe it is this realization that has Harper in hiding and looking so shell shocked. Layton has to try to find a way to be seen as electable, something other than an opportunity for vote splitting by the centre (remember '88) and deal with the progressive threat of the the Greens and he doesn't want an election. Only Ducceppe has Zen, he has no expectations to meet, the beauty and tragedy of the Bloc I guess.

I think the G-G dissolution thing is a way to blame PM PM if we have another election.

I think you are absolutely right about that.

I don't think it's constitutional though is it? Aren't matters of confidence a perogerative of the PM on the government side?

Good final question there. My hunch is not necessarily.

Confidence vote awaits Grit

[Cartman]

Here is the Tory press release, here is the NDP press release and finally the BQ communiqué.

All three are identical. (Even the election date error is the same in the Tory and NDP versions, but not the BQ.)

Wow...well done. I would love to be a fly on the wall when these three meet. I remember when a few premiers formed a similar alliance against Trudeau. Didn't work well.

[maplesyrup]

Well, what percentage of the vote did the Liberals get anyway Mr Democratic Deficit?

Seeing as they weren't worth the paper they were written on, and he had absolutely no intention of carrying them out, I can see many of PM Martin's election promises coming back to haunt him.

[caesar]

Well, what percentage of the vote did the Liberals get anyway Mr Democratic Deficit?

More than any of the other parties; And that is all that counts for now.

[Bro]

I think quite obviously the opposition parties don't want to go to the polls until the Liberals give the public a reason to want to.

Not fessing up to ad scam fiasco,which was promised to be resolved before an election was called,would be a very good reason to call another election.

Then again,ignorant Canadian voters elected them without holding them responsible,yet again.

I still think elections Canada should be investigated from one end to the other.Are Canadians really this stupid to vote in a party accused of defrauding the public purse,

without some real answers?Well,they're back in,does not

speak well for our intelligence as a voting population.

[takeanumber]

Then again,ignorant Canadian voters elected them without holding them responsible,yet again.

I suppose you are so much wiser than the collective will of the people. Did somebody say Mugabe?

------------------------

Alright.

My problem with free votes and MP autonomy are three fold.

1. Many people vote for the party platform, the leader, or their local candidate. Studies (Blais et al, 2002, Carty Cross and Young, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) show that people vote mainly for the leader and/or the party platform, with the local candidate not really taking a huge chunk of the reasoning.

Therefore, giving MP's more autonomy diminishes the ability of most voters to evaluate who to vote for based on national policy at best, regional policy at worst.

2. The size of Canadian federal constituencies do not allow adequate rural access to their MP's, and especially not for urban access to their MP's that would make such a system of 'loose fish' effective.

The proper size of each consituency to make such a loose fish system acceptable would be 15,000 to 30,000 people per constiuency, resulting ina House of some 750-1500 members.

I could live with a number this large.

3. The party-public interface is broken. It would need to be repaired before anything could be done about the leader-heavy nature of the system.

-------------------

[Bro]

And like it is,Canadians vote on perhaps one person or issue,not taking into account the detrimental effect their one issue vote has on Canada as a whole.

I guess some Canadians are very greedy as well.

[maplesyrup]

Proposed reforms means House leaders' meeting won't be routine

Times, they are a changin' on Parliament Hill. This should prove to be delightfully devisive.