Coalition Deal To Topple Minority Tory Govt- [Update Parliament Prorogued until Jan]

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

I'll let Leader of the Opposition Stephen Harper answer that question.

Harper: We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians. What the government has to do, if it wants to govern for any length of time, is it must appeal primarily to the third parties in the House of Commons to get them to support it.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/harper.html

And that is exactly what the Liberals are NOT going to be doing. They have essentially made the CPC the largest fringe party in the history of Canadian politics. They may as well not even show up in the House of Commons anymore.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

I suppose part of the difference between us is that I only see 2 viable parties because I define the term "viable" to mean "capable of forming the government" as opposed to "capable of participating effectively in government."

Indeed, that does seem to be our difference of opinion. I think both are correct though. Only two parties are viable options of governing, however four are viable options for significant bases of support.

The problem, really, is that each party has it's own base, so it isn't like one or the other is disappearing anytime soon.

The Bloc is what has completely rearranged politics. I don't think there is any doubt that without the separatist party, we'd be in a comfortable Conservative majority. But since they don't really fit any one slot on the spectrum like the other three do, they kinda throw everything out of whack.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

I'm not sure it would be as bad as many people think. I imagine that's the prevailing opinion in blue-soaked Alberta, but don't forget that the Conservatives have not yet earned the trust of the rest of the country: how else to you explain their failure to earn a majority when their main opposition was so clearly floundering?

A lot of people will still vote for the Liberals because (1) Harper's attack on political financing is exactly the type of neo-con assault on democracy that they always worried he'd carry into effect with a majority, and Harper just confirmed their fears, and (2) as I stated before, there is the potential here for the re-emergence of the Liberals under a new leader, with a new "willing to stand up to Harper" image.

Of course, on the other hand, you could be right.

The 30 Billion dollar stimulus plan is simply a way to siphon money into ontario and quebec, then watch the next one is some carbon tax scheme that will fund this subsidy. NEP part II.

In the mean time the 30 billion dollar waste of money stimiulates interest rates which is the exact opposite of what Canada needs. Other than that I don't see much of a big deal either.

[flip]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Typically, coalitions are not formed with the idea that they will last long. They usually just form in times of crisis in order to pass certain measures that are seen as important. For example, the Borden/Laurier coalition was formed so that they could pass conscription during WWI. After the war, the coalition fell.

Doesn't this go against your previous post which stated that coalitions are an accepted part of Canadian politics.

It is clear that coalitions are NOT part of Canadian politics except in times of extreme importance. This is not one of those times.

I hope the coalition fails miserably and the Conservatives destroy the competition in the next election.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The 30 Billion dollar stimulus plan is simply a way to siphon money into ontario and quebec, then watch the next one is some carbon tax scheme that will fund this subsidy. NEP part II.

In the mean time the 30 billion dollar waste of money stimiulates interest rates which is the exact opposite of what Canada needs. Other than that I don't see much of a big deal either.

I think that's a different issue from the one I was responding to.

Although maybe its a useful illustration of how distrust can flow both ways.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Indeed, that does seem to be our difference of opinion. I think both are correct though. Only two parties are viable options of governing, however four are viable options for significant bases of support.

The problem, really, is that each party has it's own base, so it isn't like one or the other is disappearing anytime soon.

The Bloc is what has completely rearranged politics. I don't think there is any doubt that without the separatist party, we'd be in a comfortable Conservative majority. But since they don't really fit any one slot on the spectrum like the other three do, they kinda throw everything out of whack.

I think we should just agree to agree then.

[Kerplunk]

I’m not really sure how to feel about this. Although I’m all for a coalition government if the current one isn’t working, I cringe at the thought of the NDP getting anywhere near Federal coffers.

That being said, two things really upset my. One is that, as far as I can tell, the current government is working. The Conservatives introduced something other parties objected to (no matter if they should have or not), and from what I understand they took it out of the mini budget. Sounds like democracy in action, so why are they trying to blow it up? Seems like a power grab.

So now the opposition is trying to become the official government by basically forming three parties into one (a simplification, I know). My problem is that each of these parties campaigned in the last election separately, with different platforms. Now instead of having the party making the decisions accountable to the electorate based on those platforms, they could very well do whatever the hell they want, then turn around and claim they had to compromise with the other parties involved. They have no published, detailed plan for the next year, other than “lets throw money at the economy”. If they want to become the government, they should be required to give a fully detailed plan of what they intend to introduce and spend over the next year. If they can’t do that, they don’t deserve to be the government and another election should be called.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

I'm not sure it would be as bad as many people think. I imagine that's the prevailing opinion in blue-soaked Alberta, but don't forget that the Conservatives have not yet earned the trust of the rest of the country: how else to you explain their failure to earn a majority when their main opposition was so clearly floundering?

A lot of people will still vote for the Liberals because (1) Harper's attack on political financing is exactly the type of neo-con assault on democracy that they always worried he'd carry into effect with a majority, and Harper just confirmed their fears, and (2) as I stated before, there is the potential here for the re-emergence of the Liberals under a new leader, with a new "willing to stand up to Harper" image.

Of course, on the other hand, you could be right.

Asking a political party to raise their own funds instead of being propped up by taxpayer doallars...is now a "neo-con" assualt on democracy?

Good grief.

I guess that means that Obama is a "neo-con" then? Right?

No wonder liberal thinking has me in a constant state of bewilderment.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by flip

Doesn't this go against your previous post which stated that coalitions are an accepted part of Canadian politics.

It is clear that coalitions are NOT part of Canadian politics except in times of extreme importance. This is not one of those times.

I hope the coalition fails miserably and the Conservatives destroy the competition in the next election.

How does it go against it? The possibility for coalitions is there and always has been. People shouldn't be offended when the tactic it is actually used. In fact, our very first Prime Minister formed coalitions, so even if rare, it is still an accepted part of the Canadian political system.

The precedent was set a long time ago.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

I think we should just agree to agree then.

[browna]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

I'll let Leader of the Opposition Stephen Harper answer that question.

Harper: We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians. What the government has to do, if it wants to govern for any length of time, is it must appeal primarily to the third parties in the House of Commons to get them to support it.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/harper.html

I missed the part where Harper said:

"If all else fails, its clear we just need to go against the wishes of the many who voted for us and our values over the other parties out there, and through backdoor deals, with complete disregard to above said voters, simply align ourselves with parties on the opposite end of the policital spectrum, including with the party that wishes to succeed from Canada, and sort out the details about who from the group of us will attempt to run the country, later"

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Jade

I said they didn't campaign that they would do so, which they should have to give canadians the choice in the elections. Turns out they said they wouldn't.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../politics/home

They can't use the 'and then the need arose later' claim, because they haven't given other options the chance. Said they wouldn't do it, and yet already have one in place before the government can do anything to cause it. For all the 'conservatives have a hidden agenda' fearmongering the liberals do, they are the only ones who seem to have one.

The quoted article has Dion balking at the notion of a coalition with the NDP on the basis that the NDP's proposed business tax would be harmful to the economy:

Mr. Dion, speaking after an address to a Vancouver-area business crowd today, said he could not work with Mr. Layton in this way because the NDP leader wants to hike taxes on business.

“We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period,” the Liberal leader said.

Dion won't be a hypocric or liar so long as the NDP has changed that policy.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by flip

Doesn't this go against your previous post which stated that coalitions are an accepted part of Canadian politics.

It is clear that coalitions are NOT part of Canadian politics except in times of extreme importance. This is not one of those times.

I hope the coalition fails miserably and the Conservatives destroy the competition in the next election.

That might be one reason why the GG could nix it. Forming a coalition because you don't like someone or craving power are much different reasons than a serious national emergency, like being knee deep in a little something history refers to "the war to end all wars."

This constitues a failure for the sitting government to survive. That means, back to the polls. With minority governments looking more likely in the future, its essential that the GG gets this right.

Skirting democracy because of electoral costs is no excuse. If we have to have yearly elections, so be it. I think it may be time to rethink our system though, and I don't just mean the electoral system.

[flip]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How does it go against it? The possibility for coalitions is there and always has been. People shouldn't be offended when the tactic it is actually used. In fact, our very first Prime Minister formed coalitions, so even if rare, it is still an accepted part of the Canadian political system.

The precedent was set a long time ago.

That is a pretty thin precedent. A coalition government, like the one formed now has not happened in more than 100 years. That sounds like a weak precedent to me.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

That might be one reason why the GG could nix it. Forming a coalition because you don't like someone or craving power are much different reasons than a serious national emergency, like being knee deep in a little something history refers to "the war to end all wars."

This constitues a failure for the sitting government to survive. That means, back to the polls. With minority governments looking more likely in the future, its essential that the GG gets this right.

Skirting democracy because of electoral costs is no excuse. If we have to have yearly elections, so be it. I think it may be time to rethink our system though, and I don't just mean the electoral system.

I was thinking something similar. If this mess plunges us into a full blown constitutional crisis, it could end up serving us well. I'd love to see the west vote to withdraw from the constitution. Wouldn't that cause some drama?

Ultimately though, I think that the GG will allow the coalition, for a myriad of reasons that could include anything from the belief that cerebrus could form a stable government to the desire not to go back to the polls so soon to her liberal and Quebec separatist roots. Just pick whatever reason(s) fit best your opinion of her.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by flip

That is a pretty thin precedent. A coalition government, like the one formed now has not happened in more than 100 years. That sounds like a weak precedent to me.

It should also be noted that when Borden formed the Union Coalition... it didn't push the party with the most seats out of office... it buttressed the governing party to show solidarity in the war effort and to get conscription passed. Not all the Liberals supported it either.

This will be the first time the party with plurality will be forced out of government for a group of parties that came in after.

[LouCypher]

While I cant claim that I follow Canadian politics very closely other then around election times and when I vote I must say our system of government sure has its way of overriding democracy. Regardless of which party you vote for you can rest assured our government will find a way to ensure your votes don't count or maybe count for to much or perhaps lead to our government collapsing and reforming in mere weeks or days.

In hundreds of other countries this might lead to chaos,rioting,coup's and who knows what. Not in Canada though, we have it all figured out in a round about way.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

That might be one reason why the GG could nix it. Forming a coalition because you don't like someone or craving power are much different reasons than a serious national emergency, like being knee deep in a little something history refers to "the war to end all wars."

Depending who you ask, the current economic situation could become the biggest crisis this country has seen since the last deperession, in which case it qualifies imo as an emergency.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Depending who you ask, the current economic situation could become the biggest crisis this country has seen since the last deperession, in which case it qualifies imo as an emergency.

Tough to judge until its in the rear view mirror. Where it could end much like the economic downturn of the 1980s did. One side of the country with a much different view than the other due to political reasons. It could also be an economic hiccup for Canada, since our housing and banking sectors are relatively stable and safe.

Who knows, the coalition might have a brilliant solution. They could also exacerbate the problem into a depression. I hope for democracy they don't get the chance unless they win their mandate in an election.

[Ford Prefect]

Time for the Jack and Gilles jokes ...

Jack and Gilles went up the Hill
To seize the reins of power.
Jack went down on Stehpane’s crown,
And Gilles came soon thereafter.

Then up Jack got and home did trot
With his head full of dreams of grandeur;
To Old Dame Steph who patched his nob
With whispers of greed and power.

Now Jack did laugh and Gilles did cry
But Gilles’ tears did soon abate;
When Jack did say that they should steal
More of Alberta’s wealth.