A Democratic Coalition?

[Machjo]

A Democratic Coalition?

What would be your thoughts on a bipartisan coalition (let's call it the Democratic Coalition comprising a Liberal Conservative Party and a Social Democratic Party for now).

In ridings in which the Coalition's position is not very secure, the local Coalition riding association would run only one candidate from the party with the greatest chance of winning. In more secure ridings, a candidate from each of the two parties would run.

The Liberal Conservative Party would present two platforms during any election, one a governing platform, the other an opposition platform. Its governing platform would be based on the assumption that it formed government. This platform would focus on reducing the size and scope of the government but would never promise tax reductions or no tax increase, that being conditional on a balanced budget.

Its opposition platform, taking into account that it would be in opposition, would focus on ensuring that any social democratic government live up to its spirit. For example, it would push to ensure any tax increase exempt the poorest, that media funding shift from English and French to vouchers or sign languages, indigenous languages, or the languages of other disadvantaged communities, that infrastructure funding shift from cars to transit, the unemployed getting skills training getting priority over building a new museum, etc. Always looking out for the most disadvantaged members of society.

The Social Democratic Party would also have a governing and an opposition platform. Its governing platform would be to raise taxes or other revenue, expenditure always being conditional on the budget. Its opposition platform being to ensure that the liberal conservative government also live up to the spirit of liberal conservativism, such as ensuring expenditure cuts focus on the least disadvantaged (such as cutting English and French CBC revenue before sign-language revenue for example, assuming it is not planning to cut all funding), ensuring that aid to the poor and unemployed be cut last, first on the chopping block being sports funds, media, and other non-essentials.

Though these two parties could be very far apart ideologically, they might be able to find enough commonality in such a coalition to ensure amicable relations.

[waldo]

given the outright lies peddled by Harper Conservatives when a possible 2008 post-election coalition was being considered... lies about Canada's democracy being denied... lies about Canadian's votes being stolen, many Canadians have had their understanding of the legitimacy of coalition government warped/tarnished by those Harper Conservative moves of desperation in attempting to retain government. In that regard, Elections Canada should pursue a significant education route to instruct Canadians on the workings of their Parliamentary system and the legitimacy of coalition governments... pre or post elections. Oh wait, Harper Conservatives stripped educating Canadians from the prior mandate of Elections Canada!

what Harper Conservatives took away from the role of Elections Canada:

Public education and information programs

18. (1) The Chief Electoral Officer may implement public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights.

Communication with the public

(2) The Chief Electoral Officer may, using any media or other means that he or she considers appropriate, provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information relating to Canada’s electoral process, the democratic right to vote and how to be a candidate.

[Topaz]

There;s nothing wrong with a coalition IF its more for the good of the country rather than an advantage of a party. Even Harper had a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004. I don't think its wise of Justin to say no to one, at least,until after the election result are in, he may hold the power. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/03/30/coalition_monkey_continues_to_dog_harper.html

[Keepitsimple]

given the outright lies peddled by Harper Conservatives when a possible 2008 post-election coalition was being considered... lies about Canada's democracy being denied... lies about Canadian's votes being stolen, many Canadians have had their understanding of the legitimacy of coalition government warped/tarnished by those Harper Conservative moves of desperation in attempting to retain government.

Oh my Waldo! Oh my! What lies were these? The fact that the Bloc Quebecois would hold the balance of power - because even combined, the Liberals and NDP did not have enough MPs? The fact that the premise of the coalition was based on wanting more stimulus.....and that the coalition did not want to lose their taxpayer-funded per-vote subsidy? Oh - and besides that, the PM would be Stephane Dion! Can you even begin to imagine what might have unfolded for Canada in the face of the economic crisis and global security issues?

Canadians overwhelmingly saw through the charade - but it seems that a cloud of cognitive dissonance still engulfs you!

Edited August 19, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[socialist]

There;s nothing wrong with a coalition IF its more for the good of the country rather than an advantage of a party. Even Harper had a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004. I don't think its wise of Justin to say no to one, at least,until after the election result are in, he may hold the power. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/03/30/coalition_monkey_continues_to_dog_harper.html

The candidate selection process is broken in all parties . I liked it a lot better when riding association nominated candidates and party officials had to work with them . Now party insiders pick candidates with predictable results.

[Peter F]

Oh my Waldo! Oh my! What lies were these? The fact that the Bloc Quebecois would hold the balance of power - because even combined, the Liberals and NDP did not have enough MPs? The fact that the premise of the coalition was based on wanting more stimulus.....and that the coalition did not want to lose their taxpayer-funded per-vote subsidy? Oh - and besides that, the PM would be Stephane Dion! Can you even begin to imagine what might have unfolded for Canada in the face of the economic crisis and global security issues?

Canadians overwhelmingly saw through the charade - but it seems that a cloud of cognitive dissonance still engulfs you!

But how does that counter Waldo's claim of Conservative Lies re Democracy and vote stealing?

The fact that the BQ agreed to be part of support the coalition was Democratic and not stealing any votes from anyone.

The fact that the coalition would have Mr. Dion as PM was Democratic and not stealing any votes from anyone.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Peter F

[cybercoma]

The candidate selection process is broken in all parties . I liked it a lot better when riding association nominated candidates and party officials had to work with them . Now party insiders pick candidates with predictable results.

A rare point of agreement between us. The party should be accountable to its membership, not the other way around.

[Keepitsimple]

But how does that counter Waldo's claim of Conservative Lies re Democracy and vote stealing?

The fact that the BQ agreed to be part of the coalition was Democratic and not stealing any votes from anyone.

The fact that the coalition would have Mr. Dion as PM was Democratic and not stealing any votes from anyone.

Technically, you are right.....but at the time, over 70% of Canadians did not approve of that technicality. Our founding fathers never foresaw - or could even imagine the day that a party like the Bloc - whose over-riding purpose was to promote the break-up of the country - would hold the balance of power in a coalition government. If the Bloc had not existed - or the NDP and Liberals had enough MPs to form a government on their own - Harper's arguments would not have held water - but that wasn't the case. Canadians spoke on the matter - loud and clear.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Peter F]

A Democratic Coalition?

What would be your thoughts on a bipartisan coalition (let's call it the Democratic Coalition comprising a Liberal Conservative Party and a Social Democratic Party for now).

.....

Though these two parties could be very far apart ideologically, they might be able to find enough commonality in such a coalition to ensure amicable relations.

They don't need to do that before/during an election. They run on their individual parties platforms/supposed platforms and get as many members elected as they possibly can. THEN they form a coalition (if needed). Its actually a lot less complicated this way .

Its a lot less complicated because what you suggest would require quite a bit of time to put together: Who's party would withdraw from which ridings? What is the Liberal-Conservative party policy on what? etc. This would require some sort of national convention where it would be determined and broadly disseminated what exactly the running members policy is. One can only imagine the press heyday during an election with Liberal-conservative members contradicting each other from day to day without such a policy convention.

Better a back-room deal After the election when everybody involved knows who's got what coming to the table. And the end result will be pretty much the same.

[Peter F]

Technically, you are right.....but at the time, over 70% of Canadians did not approve of that technicality. Our founding fathers never foresaw - or could even imagine the day that a party like the Bloc - whose over-riding purpose was to promote the break-up of the country - would hold the balance of power in a coalition government. If the Bloc had not existed - or the NDP and Liberals had enough MPs on their own - Harper's arguments would not have held water - but that wasn't the case. Canadians spoke on the matter - loud and clear.

Oh, I think our founding fathers very clearly foresaw a party like the Bloc coming to power - very clearly. Thus all the Confederation conferences and agreements on numbers of senators and Supreme court requirements etc. Our founding fathers had the Bloc dominating all their discussions!

Harpers arguments didn't hold water and could never hold water - they were lies and bullshit.

What did hold water is that the coalition raising its ugly head caused conservatives - elated with winning the election - to lose their collective minds!

Oh noes! the Blok! Oh noes Stephan Dion! Oh noes our votes and victory are being stolen! followed by a bunch of bull**** about Lack of Democracy.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Charles Anthony
edited out expletive

[cybercoma]

But how does that counter Waldo's claim of Conservative Lies re Democracy and vote stealing?

The fact that the BQ agreed to be part of the coalition was Democratic and not stealing any votes from anyone.

The fact that the coalition would have Mr. Dion as PM was Democratic and not stealing any votes from anyone.

The Bloc didn't agree to be part of the coalition. They agreed to support the coalition forming government. Only the NDP and Liberals were parties to the coalition.

[Peter F]

The Bloc didn't agree to be part of the coalition. They agreed to support the coalition forming government. Only the NDP and Liberals were parties to the coalition.

Yes that is quite right. I should have said that the BQ agreeing to support the coalition was democratic and not stealing votes from anyone.

[Keepitsimple]

Yes that is quite right. I should have said that the BQ agreeing to support the coalition was democratic and not stealing votes from anyone.

It never went to the GG......so it may indeed have proven to be anti-democratic. The "Coalition" of Liberals and NDP did not have enough seats. If the Bloc was not part of the coalition, how could a government be formed? The Governor General would likely have said to the Bloc - either you are in - or you're out. The Bloc did not want to be part of the coalition because they did not want to be viewed as part of the Canadian government - something they were fighting to separate from.

And you seem to think that this farce was not only democratic - but the right thing to do?

[cybercoma]

It never went to the GG......so it may indeed have proven to be anti-democratic. The "Coalition" of Liberals and NDP did not have enough seats.

A minority government doesn't have enough seats. The government doesn't need a majority of seats. It only needs the support of the majority of parliament. That's how our system works. Edited August 19, 2015 by cybercoma

[waldo]

Oh my Waldo! Oh my! What lies were these? The fact that the Bloc Quebecois would hold the balance of power - because even combined, the Liberals and NDP did not have enough MPs? The fact that the premise of the coalition was based on wanting more stimulus.....and that the coalition did not want to lose their taxpayer-funded per-vote subsidy? Oh - and besides that, the PM would be Stephane Dion! Can you even begin to imagine what might have unfolded for Canada in the face of the economic crisis and global security issues?

I already spoke to the lies that Harper Conservative Cabinet Ministers (touring across Canada)... and Harper... were spreading; again, "democracy denied... Canadians votes being stolen, etc.". Your response is the embodiment of those lies... it is emblematic of my main point that Canadians understanding of the legitimacy of (pre or post election) coalition government has been eroded/tarnished/twisted/warped by those actions of Harper Conservatives.

of course, those Harper Conservative lies were simply the first of the efforts Harper deployed in an attempt to retain government... he ramped that up to a whole new level when he perogied Parliament to usurp the Coaltion... and, (no) surprise, he had an obliging Governor General.

as is your way, you are deflecting/distracting from the main point of discussion concerning the legitimacy of coalition government within Canada's parliamentary system. To your direct fabrications: the BQ held no "balance of power" in the structured coalition - they were not officially a part of it and only offered support in terms of advising they would not support non-confidence actions the Harper Conservatives might choose to undertake. As a money bill, the fiscal update from Harper Conservatives was a matter of confidence... Opposition parties notice of non-confidence was based upon, "an absence of fiscal stimulus, the suspension of federal civil servants ability to strike, the suspension of the right for women to seek recourse from the courts for pay equity issues and changes to election financing rules."

.

[Keepitsimple]

I already spoke to the lies that Harper Conservative Cabinet Ministers (touring across Canada)... and Harper... were spreading; again, "democracy denied... Canadians votes being stolen, etc.". Your response is the embodiment of those lies... it is emblematic of my main point that Canadians understanding of the legitimacy of (pre or post election) coalition government has been eroded/tarnished/twisted/warped by those actions of Harper Conservatives.

So you thought the Stephane Dion led coalition, supported by the Bloc would have been better for Canada? As insane as that would have been, you're entitled to your opinion..... but I'm glad that Harper was as forceful as he was in denouncing the farce that it was. And hey - Canadians know very well what a minority government is - just don't ask them to accept the Bloc as part of their government. In short - if the Liberals, NDP and Greens can collectively win more seats than the Conservatives - go for it. That's fair.....but again, be careful what you wish for.

[waldo]

So you thought the Stephane Dion led coalition, supported by the Bloc would have been better for Canada? As insane as that would have been, you're entitled to your opinion..... but I'm glad that Harper was as forceful as he was in denouncing the farce that it was. And hey - Canadians know very well what a minority government is - just don't ask them to accept the Bloc as part of their government. In short - if the Liberals, NDP and Greens can collectively win more seats than the Conservatives - go for it. That's fair.....but again, be careful what you wish for.

like I said, "Your response is the embodiment of those lies... it is emblematic of my main point that Canadians understanding of the legitimacy of (pre or post election) coalition government has been eroded/tarnished/twisted/warped by those actions of Harper Conservatives." You continue the lies by purposely over-emphasizing the BQ role within that forming coalition - it's what advocates and supporters of those lies do in presuming to de-legitimatize coalition government within Canada... notwithstanding, of course, the citizens of Quebec who voted for the BQ in its role as an advocate for Quebec... not for anything to do with separation.

.

[Keepitsimple]

like I said, "Your response is the embodiment of those lies... it is emblematic of my main point that Canadians understanding of the legitimacy of (pre or post election) coalition government has been eroded/tarnished/twisted/warped by those actions of Harper Conservatives." You continue the lies by purposely over-emphasizing the BQ role within that forming coalition - it's what advocates and supporters of those lies do in presuming to de-legitimatize coalition government within Canada... notwithstanding, of course, the citizens of Quebec who voted for the BQ in its role as an advocate for Quebec... not for anything to do with separation.

.

Spin it all you want Waldo....Canadians do not want the Bloc anywhere near the levers of government. Your beloved coalition could not have existed without their support.

[waldo]

Spin it all you want Waldo....Canadians do not want the Bloc anywhere near the levers of government. Your beloved coalition could not have existed without their support.

the only spin/fabrication is yours! As you know, but won't acknowledge, the BQ had no direct/active participation within the structure of that potential coalition. You're simply choosing to perpetuate yet another lie.

.

[Smallc]

Then they shouldn't have been sitting at the table.

[waldo]

Then they shouldn't have been sitting at the table.

they weren't "sitting at the policy/decision" table... but good on ya for presuming to join in perpetuating the lie

[Smallc]

Then why this? Why the signature?

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/coalition.jpg?w=620

[cybercoma]

Spin it all you want Waldo....Canadians do not want the Bloc anywhere near the levers of government. Your beloved coalition could not have existed without their support.

They were elected democratically by Canadiens.

[cybercoma]

Then why this? Why the signature?

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/coalition.jpg?w=620

Because the Prime Minister needs the support of the House when they're a minority government, as the LPC/NDP coalition would be. Don't play dumb. Edited August 19, 2015 by cybercoma

[Keepitsimple]

the only spin/fabrication is yours! As you know, but won't acknowledge, the BQ had no direct/active participation within the structure of that potential coalition. You're simply choosing to perpetuate yet another lie.

.

You're spinning like a top. How would the coalition gain the confidence of the house without the Bloc's active/direct support? Your "coalition" would be stillborn in Rideau Hall. Tell me how this is a lie. Tell me how the Liberals and NDP could march into the GG's office with fewer seats than the Conservatives and ask to form a government in place of the Tories?