Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Except that under our system (and I personally hate this, but that's the way it is), you're voting for an individual, not for a party. Whatever that person chooses to do, whether it's cross the floor, join a coalition, or vote for or against some crazy measure, it's out of our control. (I'd prefer a system where you elect a party seat, and for the entire life of that government, the seat remains owned by that party.)

I am the complete opposite. I would prefer that there were no parties at all, and that the person who you elect would represent his constituents to the government rather that the other way around. You could have a national vote for the PM (like the Americans do) or you could let the elected members elect a PM. Either way it is better than what most do now, which is to vote for whoever represents the party of the person you would like to be PM.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, forming a coalition to pass a certain bill is very different from forming a coalition to govern the damn country.

A minority government has no choice but to get support from the opposition. Which usually means it needs to concede on certain things.

Like agreeing with the NDP on EI.

Its still not the same as 3 parties trying to form a coalition to knock the ruling government out of power and take over without an actual election.

I think you're arguing the wrong point.

The Conservatives made a proposal that they claim would be best for the country - temporarily extending EI benefits for long tenured workers, which I don't think is anathema to Conservatives in general, unlike reducing the requirement period or extending benefits in general. They did not adopt the NDP or Bloc EI position, nor to my knowledge did they negotiate with the NDP and Bloc like they did back in Paul Martin's days - all hypocritical vilification aside.

The NDP and Bloc have decided that this portion of their EI reform agenda (or other considerations like hanging the Liberals or not losing seats if you're the NDP or even the belief that an election would be worse than a few more weeks/months of conservative government) is worth propping the government up for the time being. So they will.

The point is that the government is still proposing what they will and the opposition is deciding what they will do in response - support the government or have an election.

There is no coalition here any more than there was a Liberal-Conservative coalition in the Spring. Maybe there's a glimmer of that cooperative minority democracy thing going on here but really I suspect the motivations on all sides are more sinister.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by John Doe

I am the complete opposite. I would prefer that there were no parties at all, and that the person who you elect would represent his constituents to the government rather that the other way around. You could have a national vote for the PM (like the Americans do) or you could let the elected members elect a PM. Either way it is better than what most do now, which is to vote for whoever represents the party of the person you would like to be PM.

I agree - or at the very least I'd like to see free votes on everything; that way you could vote for the person you think best represents you, and just use party affiliation as a guide to that person's likely general world view. The current system is what gets people like Rob Anders elected, even though most people in his riding can't stand him.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by John Doe

And nobody voted for a Conservative Prime Minister who said that he would run a $50 billion plus deficit.

Not going to disagree with you there.

Originally Posted by John Doe

To insinuate that this PM has the "majority vote" of canadians is nothing but a fallacy.

So, since nobody has a "majority vote", who gets to be the PM? Somebody representing the party that received the most votes, or somebody representing a party that doesn't exist and didn't receive any votes?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So, since nobody has a "majority vote", who gets to be the PM? Somebody representing the party that received the most votes, or somebody representing a party that doesn't exist and didn't receive any votes?

The leader that has the confidence of the House of Parliament, just like it always has been.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I agree - or at the very least I'd like to see free votes on everything; that way you could vote for the person you think best represents you, and just use party affiliation as a guide to that person's likely general world view. The current system is what gets people like Rob Anders elected, even though most people in his riding can't stand him.

The trouble I have with this line of thinking comes from a lack of attention in the voting public. Trying to divine what a prospective MP's likely voting tendancy (or even keeping track of their voting history) is beyond the ken of most people out there.

To look at an analogy, do you know what your City Alderman's voting history is? I would bet that most Calgarians don't because the minutiae are not worth the time investment. Without a whipped vote and being able to distill a policy platform down to a statement like "They will keep taxes low and will strengthen the military" or "They are better for the environment and will pay for my kid's daycare", politics would become more arcane and inaccessible for most people.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

The trouble I have with this line of thinking comes from a lack of attention in the voting public. Trying to divine what a prospective MP's likely voting tendancy (or even keeping track of their voting history) is beyond the ken of most people out there.

To look at an analogy, do you know what your City Alderman's voting history is? I would bet that most Calgarians don't because the minutiae are not worth the time investment. Without a whipped vote and being able to distill a policy platform down to a statement like "They will keep taxes low and will strengthen the military" or "They are better for the environment and will pay for my kid's daycare", politics would become more arcane and inaccessible for most people.

What's to stop candidates from distilling their platforms down to the same level though? I don't necessarily think you're wrong (in fact you're probably right about the lack of attention in the voting public) - I just get a bit frustrated by a system where the people who get elected often aren't the best candidates, but rather the people who were able to get the nomination from the right party, particularly since in large parts of the country (including most of Alberta and Toronto) most people seem to always vote for the same party they've always voted for before, regardless of current platforms.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by John Doe

The leader that has the confidence of the House of Parliament, just like it always has been.

"Anybody but Harper" doesn't automatically equate to the confidence of the House of Parliament.

[starseed]

Kind of off topic, but it is about Canadian politics:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/G...tics-7495.aspx

Real was a politician with a lot of integrity, I would say he certainly is in the top 10 in the list of the best federal politicians in the house of commons. I obviously thoroughly hate his separatist stance, but I wish more politicians were as honest and cooperative as him.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

The trouble I have with this line of thinking comes from a lack of attention in the voting public. Trying to divine what a prospective MP's likely voting tendancy (or even keeping track of their voting history) is beyond the ken of most people out there.

To look at an analogy, do you know what your City Alderman's voting history is? I would bet that most Calgarians don't because the minutiae are not worth the time investment. Without a whipped vote and being able to distill a policy platform down to a statement like "They will keep taxes low and will strengthen the military" or "They are better for the environment and will pay for my kid's daycare", politics would become more arcane and inaccessible for most people.

As the saying goes, you get the government that you deserve. Unfortunately, we obviously don't deserve much!

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by calculoso

"Anybody but Harper" doesn't automatically equate to the confidence of the House of Parliament.

True, but it does mean that Harper didn't have the support of the majority of the House of Commons.

[octothorp]

New Ekos poll today has very good news for Conservatives, showing them leading in Ontario beyond the margin of error. Also shows the NDP holding steady. Definitely the worst poll in months from the Liberal perspective.

The only good news for the Liberals is looking at those soft support numbers; there's a question here about what respondents would like to see in an outcome, and some form of liberal government (either minority or majority) outperforms some form of conservative government in every province except alberta, sask and manitoba.

From a conservative perspective, maybe you want to play hardball and see if you can get the NDP and Bloc to force an election, though it's still questionable whether you can improve on last election's results.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-conte...ember-17_1.pdf

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by octothorp

New Ekos poll today has very good news for Conservatives, showing them leading in Ontario beyond the margin of error. Also shows the NDP holding steady. Definitely the worst poll in months from the Liberal perspective.

The only good news for the Liberals is looking at those soft support numbers; there's a question here about what respondents would like to see in an outcome, and some form of liberal government (either minority or majority) outperforms some form of conservative government in every province except alberta, sask and manitoba.

From a conservative perspective, maybe you want to play hardball and see if you can get the NDP and Bloc to force an election, though it's still questionable whether you can improve on last election's results.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/0779-full-report-_september-17_1.pdf

The big reason why the Liberals are getting punished is because generally Canadians don't want an election. Playing hardball can be interpreted as implicitly forcing an election, and hence all that support goes away.

[GirlySports]

Ironically, Liberals have now forced the minority government to work the way it's supposed to. By working together and voting issue by issue. Liberals can't say they will no longer support the government ever. What if there is an issue they like? Will they vote against it just because?

The Bloc and NDP will vote accordingly, they don't want an election and it's an opportunity to make the Liberals (their main rivals) look stupid. They see EI reform as beneficial to their policies and to the country so they vote yes.

I think in the long term this will be political suicide for Ignatieff.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Ironically, Liberals have now forced the minority government to work the way it's supposed to. By working together and voting issue by issue. Liberals can't say they will no longer support the government ever. What if there is an issue they like? Will they vote against it just because?

The Bloc and NDP will vote accordingly, they don't want an election and it's an opportunity to make the Liberals (their main rivals) look stupid. They see EI reform as beneficial to their policies and to the country so they vote yes.

I think in the long term this will be political suicide for Ignatieff.

What stops the Liberals from voting for a bill that they like? They'll bring in their own bill to take down the government, and if that's unsuccessful (it probably will be), they're under no obligation to continue to vote against the government.

It's remarkably difficult to commit political suicide in Canada. Appearing weak through your own words (Dion, Turner) or attempting an over-the-top character assassination (Kim Campbell) are pretty much the only way you can hang yourself. You certainly can't do it by saying one thing and doing another. Nobody (or very few people) still begrudge Harper for passing a law about regular elections and then using a loophole in that same law to call one when it suited him. Similarly, Ignatieff's unsuccessful coup is unlikely to be remembered.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by octothorp

What stops the Liberals from voting for a bill that they like? They'll bring in their own bill to take down the government, and if that's unsuccessful (it probably will be), they're under no obligation to continue to vote against the government.

It's remarkably difficult to commit political suicide in Canada. Appearing weak through your own words (Dion, Turner) or attempting an over-the-top character assassination (Kim Campbell) are pretty much the only way you can hang yourself. You certainly can't do it by saying one thing and doing another. Nobody (or very few people) still begrudge Harper for passing a law about regular elections and then using a loophole in that same law to call one when it suited him. Similarly, Ignatieff's unsuccessful coup is unlikely to be remembered.

That's true. But I still think it'll makes Ignatieff look stupid if they brought in their own bill and it failed.

I think the government will get stronger as they actually have to present laws that the one of the other parties would have to agree on and the Liberals just look like a party trying to disrupt parliament. I would like to see if and when the Liberals agree to vote on something in the next few months.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by octothorp

What stops the Liberals from voting for a bill that they like? ...

Didnt MI say the Libs was no longer going to support the Cons? If he then goes and supports the Cons the cons have video evidence of him "flip-flopping"

I still dont know why you have a press conference and say that without and iron-clad way to bring down the govt.

[ernie]

It appears that the Liberals will now help the other three parties fast track the EI bill through the House.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1291563/


And in other news the body bags do seem to be part of routine supply re-stocking.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1291664/

[starseed]

However NDP MP Joe Comartin was quoted in today's Windsor Star suggesting the bill is not living up to how it was described by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley.
“We just don't see how they claim it will cost $900-million and benefit 190,000 people,” Mr. Comartin was quoted as saying.
Ms. Davies said her party does have concerns with the bill and at this point is not committing to support the bill into law. She says the NDP will support the bill's passage into committee so that MPs can call expert witnesses to analyze the proposed measures.

Perhaps it wont even pass... maybe the opposition will say it is too weak then call an election anyway.

This would not be surprising, because the numbers the conservatives used to calculate the Liberal EI plan was 4 times the actual cost according to third party officials.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Didnt MI say the Libs was no longer going to support the Cons? If he then goes and supports the Cons the cons have video evidence of him "flip-flopping"

I still dont know why you have a press conference and say that without and iron-clad way to bring down the govt.

"Mayor Quimby is soft on crime. He even let Sideshow Bob out of prison - a man twice convicted for attempted murder. Can you trust Mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob for Mayor."

By which I mean, you can't criticize your opponent for supporting you unless you want to look like an even bigger idiot. I don't think that argument would fly with many Canadians except for those that are already conservative supporters. It's certainly not going to be the issue that decides the next election.