2011 Canadian Election Thread

[SebC]

If Liberal minority government automatically means coalition, who would be a minority Conservative government's coalition partner? Who is it now?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well in reality I'm just not terribly afraid of a coalition. Its really just a little more formal arrangement as far as what we've seen over the past five years. I just don't want that coalition to include the BQ formally. Needing their support issue to issue is just the nature of the situation. The CPC would be in that exact spot if they didn't get Liberal or NDP votes.

Not really. The Liberals knew that they were too weak to go to the polls, and so did the Conservatives. As a result, the Conservatives acted like they had a majority and the Liberals propped up their government to avoid an election. Occasionally, concessions had to be made, but not nearly to the extent that a coalition would require. As I said, a coalition government affects everything and renders all party platforms irrelevant. You would have to really, really dislike the Conservatives to claim that this isn't an issue.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well in reality I'm just not terribly afraid of a coalition. Its really just a little more formal arrangement as far as what we've seen over the past five years. I just don't want that coalition to include the BQ formally. Needing their support issue to issue is just the nature of the situation. The CPC would be in that exact spot if they didn't get Liberal or NDP votes.

That's a pretty disingenuous sentence though. The Conservatives (if current polling numbers are somewhat accurate) would require a few more votes, perhaps as few as 3, to pass any vote. Those three votes could come from any party.

The Libs and/or NDP would REQUIRE the support of the Bloc to pass anything and everything. There is a major difference in needing support from one of the other parties on an issue by issue basis, and needing the support of the BQ for everything. That support will not come - frankly based on the current polling numbers for the BQ in PQ - CAN NOT COME unless and until there are MAJOR MAJOR concessions to the BQ and, by inference the PQ.

The surge of the NDP has shown that the BQ is losing its relevance to the voting public in Quebec. If they can't squeeze every possible concession out of a minority coalition with the NDP/Libs, what good are they? Might as well have voted for the NDP/Libs in the first place, or voted for the Conservatives and get an actual voice in government.

That's not a situation anyone should be comfortable with.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well in reality I'm just not terribly afraid of a coalition. Its really just a little more formal arrangement as far as what we've seen over the past five years. I just don't want that coalition to include the BQ formally. Needing their support issue to issue is just the nature of the situation. The CPC would be in that exact spot if they didn't get Liberal or NDP votes.

I'm not afraid of a coalition either.

When you have a multi-party system and no party has the majority, then where a particular party stands on most specific issues is secondary to the ability of the parties to find compromises on those issues. A coalition by its nature is a vow to compromise on things in order to get things done.

Why people feel that in a minority situation one party should be able maintain their stubborness on issues and still govern is a mystery to me. Any time there is a minority government, it means that the majority do not actually agree with the governing party's stance on issues. I don't get how that situation is more desirable than a coalition.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by SebC

If Liberal minority government automatically means coalition, who would be a minority Conservative government's coalition partner? Who is it now?

Different situation with a governing party being a few seats short of a majority and being able to count on many Liberals not actually showing up for work while getting some cooperation on an issue by issue basis, and a party with less than 100 seats trying to secure long term committments from a weakened seperaist movement trying to prove it is still relevant.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

If Liberal minority government automatically means coalition, who would be a minority Conservative government's coalition partner? Who is it now?

Ideally it would be the Libs IMO..as then you have the balance of the center left and the center right hopefully meeting in the middle...unfotunately the Libs are running so far left this time, it may not be any different than the NDP and the CPC agreeing.

god help us all if Layton gets any large piece of it though...the economy would be ransacked within a couple years.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not afraid of a coalition either.

When you have a multi-party system and no party has the majority, then where a particular party stands on most specific issues is secondary to the ability of the parties to find compromises on those issues. A coalition by its nature is a vow to compromise on things in order to get things done.

Why people feel that in a minority situation one party should be able maintain their stubborness on issues and still govern is a mystery to me. Any time there is a minority government, it means that the majority do not actually agree with the governing party's stance on issues. I don't get how that situation is more desirable than a coalition.

Do you not agree that the party with the lrgest amount of seats as voted in by Canadians should have the larger share of their ideas and policies implemented? If not...why not? That would a whole lot more democratic than having 3 parties all getting their stuff done when it was clear by the voters of the country that is not what they wanted.

Its the old saying...."to the victors go the spoils", or in this case i guess,
" to the biggest victor go most of the spoils".

[SebC]

Originally Posted by old-fart

The Libs and/or NDP would REQUIRE the support of the Bloc to pass anything and everything.

Not of they get support from the Conservatives. Stupid Conservatives, putting so much power in the hands of the Bloc.

Slava is correct: the Conservatives would be in the same is situation without Lib or NDP support as the Libs + NDP would be in without support of the Cons. If the only difference is that the Libs are willing to work with the Cons but the Cons won't work with the Libs, is that really a reason to reward the Cons?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Do you not agree that the party with the lrgest amount of seats as voted in by Canadians should have the larger share of their ideas and policies implemented? If not...why not? That would a whole lot more democratic than having 3 parties all getting their stuff done when it was clear by the voters of the country that is not what they wanted.

Its the old saying...."to the victors go the spoils", or in this case i guess,
" to the biggest victor go most of the spoils".

I actually do agree with this, but with the caveat that in a minority they have to find some common ground with the other party/parties to get things done. If the people vote and don't give you a majority then you have to work within the limited mandate you've been afforded....it's not under-handed or anti-democratic. Those are the rules if the system and apply to all parties equally.

[SeoulFire]

Got back from advance voting a bit ago - hopefully there will be a majority so I don't have to do this again in a year or so.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Not really. The Liberals knew that they were too weak to go to the polls, and so did the Conservatives. As a result, the Conservatives acted like they had a majority and the Liberals propped up their government to avoid an election. Occasionally, concessions had to be made, but not nearly to the extent that a coalition would require. As I said, a coalition government affects everything and renders all party platforms irrelevant. You would have to really, really dislike the Conservatives to claim that this isn't an issue.

Its not a matter of hating one party or another, but this is only an issue because the CPC has made it one. Clearly if they came out and just put their ideas on the table they aren't confident enough in enough people supporting them, so they resort to this ridiculous "unnecessary election" and "coalition" talk.

Would the election have been completely unnecessary if they get their majority?

If they end up with a minority and become opposition (because the coalition comes to fruition) then are they already saying that they'll vote against every single measure that's brought forward? (thats basically their position, otherwise the BQ would be irrelevant).

Its a sad state of affairs in general, because of the three main parties could actually compromise and work from the common ground (there are definite commonalities in their platforms and policies) then they could basically make the BQ obsolete. Clearly the will isn't really there to do that though. Instead Harper wants the BQ there to help split the votes in Quebec and thereby make his road to a majority a little easier.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its not a matter of hating one party or another, but this is only an issue because the CPC has made it one. Clearly if they came out and just put their ideas on the table they aren't confident enough in enough people supporting them, so they resort to this ridiculous "unnecessary election" and "coalition" talk.

Would the election have been completely unnecessary if they get their majority?

If they end up with a minority and become opposition (because the coalition comes to fruition) then are they already saying that they'll vote against every single measure that's brought forward? (thats basically their position, otherwise the BQ would be irrelevant).

Its a sad state of affairs in general, because of the three main parties could actually compromise and work from the common ground (there are definite commonalities in their platforms and policies) then they could basically make the BQ obsolete. Clearly the will isn't really there to do that though. Instead Harper wants the BQ there to help split the votes in Quebec and thereby make his road to a majority a little easier.

How much debt would a coalition cost Canadians? Both the conservatives and the liberals have been known to buy election votes in the past. Harper has spent money himself to woo votes. I honestly can't see a coalition government doing anything but, bleeding money. Two thirds of them are all about spending money(NDP; Bloq). The liberals are moving in that direction themselves if you believe they will keep all their election promises. Do you honestly think that a coalition has any chance of moving towards a balanced budget?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How much debt would a coalition cost Canadians? Both the conservatives and the liberals have been known to buy election votes in the past. Harper has spent money himself to woo votes. I honestly can't see a coalition government doing anything but, bleeding money. Two thirds of them are all about spending money(NDP; Bloq). The liberals are moving in that direction themselves if you believe they will keep all their election promises. Do you honestly think that a coalition has any chance of moving towards a balanced budget?

Well frankly I don't know if any of them are fiscal conservatives anymore. That is absolutely one of the biggest problems for me making a decision on who to vote for.

I know that its easy to say that its Harper, but his track record is one of a huge spender (and thats prior to the 2008 crisis!). Even if you leave that out and get to just the current budget, he's running around doling out money during the campaign in the billions of dollars that are nowhere to be found in the budget. Add to that these totally ridiculous tax credits for living on the North side of the Bow River, but east of Whitehorse (or what ever the dumb qualification is) and you have a complete mess. Now you have people saving receipts for $500 to save $85....and then someone has to administer the whole bloody thing...so much for small bureaucracy and fiscal prudence. Couple that dumb thinking with the fact you can't rid of these damn things down the road (cue the "what?! you're against volunteer firefighters???!!! comments if you ever dreamt of it) and there you have it: not only is it a stupid vote-buying proposition, but its one that will take forever to remove, if ever.

Now that I'm onto this topic in my head, why are we giving credits to volunteer firefighters? Lots of people (myself included) volunteer for a lot of worthwhile causes and service organizations. Why aren't they all getting a tax credit for donating their time and energy?

Anyway, for me being a fiscal conservative and choosing someone to vote for this time around is a decision that is incredibly frustrating.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Slava

Now that I'm onto this topic in my head, why are we giving credits to volunteer firefighters? Lots of people (myself included) volunteer for a lot of worthwhile causes and service organizations. Why aren't they all getting a tax credit for donating their time and energy?

Because the shelves you're stocking at the Food Bank can't burn you to death?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Anyway, for me being a fiscal conservative and choosing someone to vote for this time around is a decision that is incredibly frustrating.

There is only one party with even a minor semblance of being fiscally conservative, and thats the Conservative Party.

The entire coalition of losers and the great majority of Harper's spending was foisted on us all by defeating a budget that the losers deemed was far FAR too fiscally conservative.

Can't believe you'd even write that statement....should it have been in green text?

[FlamesAddiction]

I would love to get the opinions of people who have experience with coalitions.

I know we have a few posters from Finland on here, hopefully they will bite on the topic. They are typically pointed to as the model for how coalitions can work positively. Australia is also known for having a stable and effective coalitions.

Since our system is based on the British system, has anyone heard anything good or bad about their recent coalition?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because the shelves you're stocking at the Food Bank can't burn you to death?

Its not danger pay?

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

There is only one party with even a minor semblance of being fiscally conservative, and thats the Conservative Party.

The entire coalition of losers and the great majority of Harper's spending was foisted on us all by defeating a budget that the losers deemed was far FAR too fiscally conservative.

Can't believe you'd even write that statement....should it have been in green text?

You're confusing fiscal conservative with spending less. You can definitely be a fiscal conservative and have a debt. In some situations its the preferred way to operate. The CPC might be closest fiscally, but that is a far cry from actually fiscal conservatives. Frankly Paul Martin was more of a conservative than Harper and Flaherty have proven to be.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

There is only one party with even a minor semblance of being fiscally conservative, and thats the Conservative Party.

The entire coalition of losers and the great majority of Harper's spending was foisted on us all by defeating a budget that the losers deemed was far FAR too fiscally conservative.

Can't believe you'd even write that statement....should it have been in green text?

The 2008 budget update may have been fiscally "conservative" (although I'd argue it was fiscally moronic, as it predicted no recession), but the three Conservative budgets that preceded it spent lavishly.

By platform, the Cons are more fiscally responsible () than the Libs, but by record, the Libs are more fiscally responsible than the the Cons.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

You're confusing fiscal conservative with spending less. You can definitely be a fiscal conservative and have a debt. In some situations its the preferred way to operate. The CPC might be closest fiscally, but that is a far cry from actually fiscal conservatives. Frankly Paul Martin was more of a conservative than Harper and Flaherty have proven to be.

AFAIK, being fiscally conservative is pretty much defined by avoiding deficit spending. If the Conservatives were allowed to pass their original budget, there wouldn't even be a smidgen of discussion as to their fiscal priorities.

AFAIK, Paul Martin is not running in this election.

I maintain my point. If you are a true fiscal conservative, there is only one option in this election.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its not a matter of hating one party or another, but this is only an issue because the CPC has made it one. Clearly if they came out and just put their ideas on the table they aren't confident enough in enough people supporting them, so they resort to this ridiculous "unnecessary election" and "coalition" talk.

I just don't understand you. You claim that the CPC is delving into unnecessary rhetoric by talking about the opposition's plans to form a coalition (something they have done in the past and have openly stated they would be willing to do again). You say that we should just be looking at the issues (thereby claiming that a coalition is not an issue), yet just last week you were saying that people should be wary of a hidden social agenda that the CPC has. It seems that if the rhetoric is coming from the left, you have no problem giving it serious thought and claiming that it has merit. Undecided indeed...

As for a coalition only being an issue because the CPC says it is one, give me a break. The majority of Canadians polled say that they don't want one, and that's coming from supporters of all parties. Clearly this goes just beyond CPC rhetoric.