NDP and Liberal Coalition

[jbg]

coaltions are, quite obviously, allowed within a Westminister Parliamentary system... again, they offer more stability than might associate with a strictly non-formal coalition that constitutes a minority government.

Absolutely correct. But people in graves are more stable than people in upright positions.

[waldo]

I referred to government stability... not sure the kind of stability and relevance you're speaking to!

[cybercoma]

My point is that coalitions are just not used often in single-member FPTP systems. Nor should they be.

They're used in all kinds of Westminster governments. Canada only had 2 viable parties until the end of the 20th century. The reason they're "not used often" is that there weren't enough parties competing. In other words, there weren't enough political views represented in the House. That doesn't mean they're barred and it doesn't mean there's precedent saying there cannot be a coalition government.

In fact, a government doesn't even need to be made up entirely of members from a single party. I believe it was Pierre Trudeau who took on cabinet ministers from outside the party to have representation in the West.

It happens. It's not barred and it is an appropriate mechanism of Reponsible Government (that is government that is beholden to the confidence of Parliament).

[jbg]

They're used in all kinds of Westminster governments. Canada only had 2 viable parties until the end of the 20th century.

The NDP has been big enough for a long time to prop up or bring down a government. Pearson's minority governments, Trudeau (the smarter) from 1972-4 and Clark's government are key examples. I don't know if the CCF played such a role during the Diefenbaker minority governments.

[cybercoma]

This has nothing to do with anything. Governments are not required to sit as a majority.

[waldo]

This has nothing to do with anything. Governments are not required to sit as a majority.

which is pretty much the single most difficulty the guy has with trying to understand coalition government.

[jbg]

This has nothing to do with anything. Governments are not required to sit as a majority.

which is pretty much the single most difficulty the guy has with trying to understand coalition government.

They don't have to sit as a majority but if a money bill or confidence vote goes the wrong way they don't sit for long. Thus, the need for either a majority, bill by bill support or a formal coalition. Edited October 13, 2014 by jbg

[waldo]

They don't have to sit as a majority but if a money bill or confidence vote goes the wrong way they don't sit for long. Thus, the need for either a majority, bill by bill support or a formal coalition.

and you're bringing some new revelations with that comment... or simply repeating what others have just said?

[cybercoma]

They don't have to sit as a majority but if a money bill or confidence vote goes the wrong way they don't sit for long. Thus, the need for either a majority, bill by bill support or a formal coalition.

Thank you for telling me how my government works. I still don't see what this has to do with coalitions being barred.

[jbg]

Thank you for telling me how my government works. I still don't see what this has to do with coalitions being barred.

Barred may have been the wrong word.Perhaps "rare" or "not customary."

[cybercoma]

Barred may have been the wrong word.Perhaps "rare" or "not customary."

Going back to the earlier discussion, you said people who vote Liberal didn't bargain for an "NDP government" when they get a coalition, so in a sense they're "undemocratic." Coalitions are not undemocratic because they require consensus building. They also require approval for their budgets and legislation from the majority of the House. If a coalition is made up of two parties who comprise the majority of the House, this is more likely. But the fact about our government that is overlooked today is that the executive is NOT the same as the legislative branches. The executive is accountable to all MPs not in the government, including the governing party's backbenchers. There should never be a government so bloated that it consists of hundreds of MPs, such that the executive branch is literally made up of a majority of parliamentarians. That is the only way to get the kind of stability you're talking about, which is actually absolute rule.

[cybercoma]

By the bye, this is why Harper's government is so bloated. He has the largest Canadian Ministry in history at 39 members (cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries). They are all required to vote en masse for legislation, since the government is required to have a unified position. A larger ministry gives more control over Parliament to the PMO.

[overthere]

Executive?

The executive branch in a majority govt is the PMO with input from Cabinet.

In a minority, there may not be an executive branch other than a shaky Cabinet.

A majority in our parliamentary system is absolute rule.

It seems counterintuitive, but it has worked so far.

[cybercoma]

Executive?

The executive branch in a majority govt is the PMO with input from Cabinet.

In a minority, there may not be an executive branch other than a shaky Cabinet.

A majority in our parliamentary system is absolute rule.

It seems counterintuitive, but it has worked so far.

I'm not sure you understand our political system.

The executive branch is not the governing party. The executive branch is the Ministry, including Parliamentary Secretaries.

The executive branch is accountable to the opposition, but also the governing party's own MPs who are not part of the Ministry (often referred to as backbenchers).

These things do not change between a majority and a minority government. They are exactly the same.

[overthere]

By the bye, this is why Harper's government is so bloated. He has the largest Canadian Ministry in history at 39 members (cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries). They are all required to vote en masse for legislation, since the government is required to have a unified position. A larger ministry gives more control over Parliament to the PMO.

Every Cabinet is whipped and required to vote for whatever agenda is presented.

By the bye, this has been true since 1867 in this country.

Normally every govt MP is also whipped since free votes are very rare, and so are the MPs of other parties required to follow orders on legislative votes

I wish people here would stop pretending otherwise. Nothing has changed.

The PMO has control over legislation and the number of Ministers makes no difference whatsoever. The number of MPs does make a difference, obviously.

[waldo]

Every Cabinet is whipped and required to vote for whatever agenda is presented.

you struggled with this earlier... cabinets aren't whipped, as you say.

[waldo]

The PMO has control over legislation and the number of Ministers makes no difference whatsoever. The number of MPs does make a difference, obviously.

this Harper PMO has taken that to a whole greater, never before seen, degree of control.

.

[cybercoma]

Every Cabinet is whipped and required to vote for whatever agenda is presented.

By the bye, this has been true since 1867 in this country.

Normally every govt MP is also whipped since free votes are very rare, and so are the MPs of other parties required to follow orders on legislative votes

I wish people here would stop pretending otherwise. Nothing has changed.

The PMO has control over legislation and the number of Ministers makes no difference whatsoever. The number of MPs does make a difference, obviously.

Cabinets are not whipped. Members of the government are required to take the government's position. If they cannot, they're required to step down from cabinet. In a few rare circumstances, government members were allowed to vote with the conscience. This is exceptional though.

This is different from the whip. Caucus MPs are whipped into voting along party policy. It is possible that a government could become so far removed from its party's roots by being in power that the party's caucus will vote against the government because policies that it tries to pass do not meet the political ideologies or principles of the party. In effect, the party would be whipped to vote against its own party's government. It would be highly unusual for a government to become that far removed from its roots while in power, but it could happen.

[cybercoma]

The PMO has control over legislation and the number of Ministers makes no difference whatsoever. The number of MPs does make a difference, obviously.

This needed to be mentioned on its own.

The size of the Ministry as a proportion of the House absolutely matters. The Ministry must vote the government's position or its members are traditionally required to leave the Ministry. The bigger the ministry, the more members there are to vote with the government as a block. This is controlled by the PMO. More members controlled by the PMO means more control over parliament by the PMO. The Prime Minister chooses the size of the ministry. It's not a fluke that the current one is the largest we've ever had. Which is ironic coming from conservatives, considering ministers are a huge expense. I bet the Libertarians in the party absolutely love that Harper has the largest government in history.

Edited October 13, 2014 by cybercoma

[jbg]

This needed to be mentioned on its own.

The size of the Ministry as a proportion of the House absolutely matters. The Ministry must vote the government's position or its members are traditionally required to leave the Ministry.

How often do non-Cabinet MP's vote against their party, and survive in the caucus and/or get their nomination papers signed?

[waldo]

How often do non-Cabinet MP's vote against their party, and survive in the caucus and/or get their nomination papers signed?

it happens; not that often... see party whips!

[cybercoma]

How often do non-Cabinet MP's vote against their party, and survive in the caucus and/or get their nomination papers signed?

How often do governments veer so far from their party's ideology that this would be necessary? Three members of the Conservative caucus just recently broke rank to vote with the NDP motion to change Standing Order 11(2). So it happens.

Edited October 13, 2014 by cybercoma

[Bryan]

How often do governments veer so far from their party's ideology that this would be necessary? Three members of the Conservative caucus just recently broke rank to vote with the NDP motion to change Standing Order 11(2). So it happens.

True, the Conservative MPs have had much more voting freedom than previous governments.

[overthere]

This needed to be mentioned on its own.

The size of the Ministry as a proportion of the House absolutely matters. The Ministry must vote the government's position or its members are traditionally required to leave the Ministry. The bigger the ministry, the more members there are to vote with the government as a block. This is controlled by the PMO. More members controlled by the PMO means more control over parliament by the PMO. The Prime Minister chooses the size of the ministry. It's not a fluke that the current one is the largest we've ever had. Which is ironic coming from conservatives, considering ministers are a huge expense. I bet the Libertarians in the party absolutely love that Harper has the largest government in history.

In reality, it makes no difference at all in the parliamentary system we enjoy if the government controls 35 votes or 39 or 19 via Cabinet. If they have a majority they control all their caucus via the PMO or at minimum control enough of it to ensure there is never a vote of non-confidence.

There is no requirement under party or Parliamentary rules for Cabinet members to vote with the government, but you are correct that it is traditional. Exceptions have been made for 'votes of conscience' such as the death penalty abolition.

this Harper PMO has taken that to a whole greater, never before seen, degree of control.

.

Complete baloney. Your beloved Chretien -just one example- had complete control of the legislative agenda and his own caucus. And he certainly exercised that control on both.

It really has little to do with the brand of the ruling party, it's the nature of our system.

I know it would shorten your day considerably, but instead of rants against Harper your rage might be better directed against the structure of government we have had for nearly 150 years. I'm just thinking of your health.

True, the Conservative MPs have had much more voting freedom than previous governments.

Could we take a moment to remember Bev Desjarlais?

Thank you.

alth here.

[cybercoma]

The government doesn't control caucus. The executive branch is not the party. The government is not the party. The government is accountable to parliament and that includes backbenchers in the governing party. I'm not sure why the very basic premise of our parliamentary system eludes you.