Political Drama: Canadian Coalition of the Centre-Left

polaris

For those who don't know - here is a summary:

We just had another election 2nd in 2 years. The ruling Conservative party under a Minority gov't sought a majority mandate from Canadians. They broke their own law but calling for an election in the hopes of capitalizing on a weak opposition and to avoid the backlash from an impending economic slowdown. The way it is in Canada - there is only one right wing party. The other parties are either Centre or Leftish in their policies. So, with a 38% vote - the Conservatives yet again found themselves in a Minority gov't. Unable to push their right wing agenda thru - their first goal in parliament was to keep the opposition parties down by putting forth an economic mandate that included many controversial plans. In a surprise move - the other parties are mobilizing now to form a coalition which would include support from a separtist party that only has seats in Quebec.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/546315

*************

anyhoo - this thread is for discussion as the story unfolds

rebornFixer

Needless to say, I have a ton of thoughts about this situation ... Its probably best if I number them ...

1) Overall, I think that this kind of political combat is the very last thing Canada needs right now, in the midst of economic crisis. What we really need is cooperation between the parties, not this sort of powergrabbing BS. Harper made a huge mistake when he tried to cut public funding for political parties, and the Conservatives' approach should have included clear stimulus measures for dealing with the economy instead. Poor judgment, really.
2) The idea of a coalition between the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP, assuming such a thing is even workable, is pretty revolting to me. I am not going to lie ... I would like to see more integrity from the Libs and NDP than working with separatists, even if their political agendas do intersect. I do not think the Liberals are trustworthy in the first place, and now my opinion of the NDP is not much better. On the surface, the whole thing looks an awful lot like sacrificing principles for the purpose of grabbing power, in the absense of any evidence that a coalition government of this sort could do any better than Harper's Conservatives, economically-speaking. I also find it concerning that people like Chretien are involved behind the scenes. That corrupt old goof has already wielded power, for a long time, and all it got us was the Sponsorship scandal and years of political stagnation.
3) If indeed the government falls, my view is that another election is more consistent with democratic principles than simply letting people WHO WERE NOT ELECTED TO LEAD THE GOVERNMENT take over. If indeed the public has lost faith in Harper, he would lose another election, as well he should. Even if our laws permit a transition to a coalition government without another election (and unfortunately they do), such a state of affairs should not be allowed to come to pass. There are higher democratic principles at stake here ... People should elect any and all governments. If a government falls in the House to a nonconfidence vote, the right thing to do is to put it back to the people.

Another election would be expensive, and people are already burned out on politics right now. But IMO, it is the only acceptable solution should Harper's crew fall. While many people obviously voted for the Liberals, the Bloc (ugh), and the NDP, would these same people vote for a coalition between the three?

rebornFixer

One more quick point ... The party situation in Canada is not as simple as one right-wing party and everyone else as paragons of progress ... Historically, the Liberals and Conservatives have been centrist, with small leanings left or right depending on whose calling the shots in the party at any given point in time. The NDP are clearly leftist, and the Bloc, while socially progressive, are also rabidly pro-Quebec, at least mildly xenophobic (with regards to the rest of Canada and anyone who deosn't speak French), and soundbyte politicians who thrive on scaring people in Quebec (and other Canadians, apparently) into voting for them and/or supporting their policies.

Admittedly, I am biased. Someone from Quebec might give a more objective assessment of the separatists.

Kel Varnsen

reborncareerist wrote:

Needless to say, I have a ton of thoughts about this situation ... Its probably best if I number them ...

1) Overall, I think that this kind of political combat is the very last thing Canada needs right now, in the midst of economic crisis. What we really need is cooperation between the parties, not this sort of powergrabbing BS. Harper made a huge mistake when he tried to cut public funding for political parties, and the Conservatives' approach should have included clear stimulus
measures for dealing with the economy instead. Poor judgment, really.

That is sort of what I was thinking; there seem to be idiots on all sides. I don't really have a problem with cutting political funding (since I thought the parties spent way too much on crappy commercials last election), although I do think there should have been more stuff on the economy. I am also kind of annoyed that the government may fall on their first big vote, it would have been nice for them to at least try to pass a few things before this happened.

reborncareerist wrote:

2) The idea of a coalition between the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP, assuming such a thing is even workable, is pretty revolting to me. I am not going to lie ... I would like to see more integrity from the Libs and NDP than working with separatists, even if their political agendas do intersect. I do not think the Liberals are trustworthy in the first place, and now my opinion of the NDP is not much better. On the surface, the whole thing looks an awful lot like sacrificing principles for the purpose of grabbing power, in the absense of any evidence that a coalition government of this sort could do any better than Harper's Conservatives, economically-speaking. I also find it concerning that people like Chretien are involved behind the scenes. That corrupt old goof has already wielded power, for a long time, and all it got us was the Sponsorship scandal and years of political stagnation.

The idea of the Bloc getting in on a coalition bothers me too, since it is an idea that is just built for failure. If it goes ahead there will be even more pandering to Quebec then usual and as soon as this coalition does something they don't like there will be a non-confidence vote and we will have another election. I would rather see the libs and the NDP making more of an effort to come to a compromise with the conservatives. Then again I kind of don't think a party whose number 1 goal is essentially overthrowing the existing Canadian government should be allowed in parliament.

rebornFixer

Kel Varnsen:

I feel the same way about the Bloc as you do ... However, I also view them as part of the price one pays for democracy ... They are allowed to be there because people put them there, and while I have my opinions, I also have to concede that their presence is legit. Speaking as the product of a long line of pro-Canada French Canadians (I grew up in the West, mind you), I think more needs to be done to weaken the Bloc from the inside (i.e., at the level of the voters in Quebec), and the onus is on Quebec federalists to do this.

And you're right ... This path that Layton and Dion are on leads directly to more concessions for Quebec.

Kel Varnsen

reborncareerist wrote:

I feel the same way about the Bloc as you do ... However, I also view them as part of the price one pays for democracy ... They are allowed to be there because people put them there, and while I have my opinions, I also have to concede that their presence is legit. Speaking as the product of a long line of pro-Canada French Canadians (I grew up in the West, mind you), I think more needs to be done to weaken the Bloc from the inside (i.e., at the level of the voters in Quebec), and the onus is on Quebec federalists to do this.

I see what you are saying about them being the price you pay for democracy. But on the other hand, I am pretty sure that MP's are required to take an Oath of Allegiance, which is to the Queen. Now how can you take that Oath if your goal is to create your own country whose head of state is not the queen?

polaris

interesting points ...

what i find to be centre of this is that harper has shown in his 2 years that he isn't interested in working with the other parties ... it's his way or the highway ... he got away with it because the liberals had no backbone for those 2 years ... now, they tried to push through such a partisan agenda and it's come back to haunt them ... another key thing to note is that if the sponsorship scandal continues to be the only thing one can associate with the liberal party why not the huge abuses that are coming to light under the conservatives ... have you guys seen the bills associated with travel and expenses by this harper gov't!?? ... it's ridiculous ...

if the conservatives weren't so two-faced - i could side with them on some issues but they have shown in their time in power is that they are liars - which is not a surprise to us in Ontario because the Harris years were the exact same thing ... the economic update was not only a clearly partisan attack but it was also filled with fraudulent information ... all the leading economists from the banks were calling it fraud - they are cooking the books ... flaherty cooked the books in ontario and he's doing it again ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

exact same thing ... the economic update was not only a clearly partisan attack but it was also filled with fraudulent information ... all the leading economists from the banks were calling it fraud - they are cooking the books ... flaherty cooked the books in ontario and he's doing it again ...

I am curious why it is a partisan attack. They were cutting funding to all parties, including their own, weren't they? It is not like they were only cutting funding to the opposition.

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am curious why it is a partisan attack. They were cutting funding to all parties, including their own, weren't they? It is not like they were only cutting funding to the opposition.

everyone knows that the conservatives are a fundraising machine ... their connections to big business has allowed them to spend more than anyone on the last election ... the liberals having gone thru a leadership race and now another one to come ... they are cash-strapped ... the greens rely on grassroots funding ... this is clearly an attempt at kicking at the parties while they are down ... party insiders will tell you that as well ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

everyone knows that the conservatives are a fundraising machine ... their connections to big business has allowed them to spend more than anyone on the last election ... the liberals having gone thru a leadership race and now another one to come ... they are cash-strapped ... the greens rely on grassroots funding ... this is clearly an attempt at kicking at the parties while they are down ... party insiders will tell you that as well ...

But how much money do these parties need? Last election I saw way more TV election ads than I thought were necessary for any of the parties (most of them terrible but still on all the time, in primetime no less), and still we had record low turnout.

Drowned Out

polaris wrote:

everyone knows that the conservatives are a fundraising machine ... their connections to big business has allowed them to spend more than anyone on the last election ... the liberals having gone thru a leadership race and now another one to come ... they are cash-strapped ... the greens rely on grassroots funding ... this is clearly an attempt at kicking at the parties while they are down ... party insiders will tell you that as well ...

The Cons are the only financially viable party at this time. Cutting public funding would have bankrupted all of the other parties, from what I've read. This makes me think that the funding issue was put in the economic update as a strawman, something that they could cave on and still push the rest of it thru...unfortunately for them, the opposition seem to be having no part of it. But again, this is Harper trying to take advantage of a weak opposition. The Cons are the only party that can afford another election, and Harper knows that even if his ground is getting shakier, the Libs still have no leadership and the country will likely never vote in an NDP govt.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Bloc already say they would not be part of a coalition? Can it still work without them?

rebornFixer

Drowned Out wrote:

The Cons are the only financially viable party at this time. Cutting public funding would have bankrupted all of the other parties, from what I've read. This makes me think that the funding issue was put in the economic update as a strawman, something that they could cave on and still push the rest of it thru...unfortunately for them, the opposition seem to be having no part of it. But again, this is Harper trying to take advantage of a weak opposition. The Cons are the only party that can afford another election, and Harper knows that even if his ground is getting shakier, the Libs still have no leadership and the country will likely never vote in an NDP govt.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Bloc already say they would not be part of a coalition? Can it still work without them?

Most of the media reports have suggested that the Bloc is on board, but they themselves have been curiously silent on the matter.

Drowned Out

reborncareerist wrote:

Most of the media reports have suggested that the Bloc is on board, but they themselves have been curiously silent on the matter.

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2008/12/01/pf-7591186.html


The Liberals and New Democrats had agreed to jointly govern for two-and-a-half years, said an NDP source involved in the talks. But the Bloc Quebecois, which would not officially be part of the coalition, was not prepared to give them that long a lease on life.

The coalition government would depend on Bloc support because the Liberals and NDP together don’t command a majority in the Commons.


I'm confused.

Kel Varnsen

Drowned Out wrote:

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2008/12/01/pf-7591186.html


The Liberals and New Democrats had agreed to jointly govern for two-and-a-half years, said an NDP source involved in the talks. But the Bloc Quebecois, which would not officially be part of the coalition, was not prepared to give them that long a lease on life.

The coalition government would depend on Bloc support because the Liberals and NDP together don’t command a majority in the Commons.


I'm confused.

So basically who ever can offer the biggest blank cheque to quebec and the bloc gets to stay in power (since by my math Conservatives and Bloc would also have a majority in the house). That sounds pretty awful.

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

But how much money do these parties need? Last election I saw way more TV election ads than I thought were necessary for any of the parties (most of them terrible but still on all the time, in primetime no less), and still we had record low turnout.

it is my opinion that the public image of stephane dion was a huge factor in the demise of the liberal party in the most recent election ... it is also my opinion that stephane dion is the most honest and honourable politician to run out of harper, layton and duceppe ... the conservatives started running negative ads on dion as soon as he became leader ... they also started running campaign ads prior to actually calling an election ... in essence, they got a head start and they could only do that with the extra cash they have ...

fundraising is everything in politics ... look at obama in the states ...

polaris

Drowned Out wrote:

The Cons are the only financially viable party at this time. Cutting public funding would have bankrupted all of the other parties, from what I've read. This makes me think that the funding issue was put in the economic update as a strawman, something that they could cave on and still push the rest of it thru...unfortunately for them, the opposition seem to be having no part of it. But again, this is Harper trying to take advantage of a weak opposition. The Cons are the only party that can afford another election, and Harper knows that even if his ground is getting shakier, the Libs still have no leadership and the country will likely never vote in an NDP govt.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Bloc already say they would not be part of a coalition? Can it still work without them?

they would not be part of the coalition in that they would NOT have any cabinet seats but that they would support the coalition ... at the end of the day - Harper's policies are not good for Canada ... he's tax cut our surplus for a rainy day to the point where we don't have anything to work on during this economic time ... every other plan he's put forth is aimed at addressing his personal ideologies ... although the bloc is a separatist party they vote accordingly on all issues that affect the country ...

polaris

wow ... press conference now ...

this actually looks like this will happen ... this is crazy shit ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

it is my opinion that the public image of stephane dion was a huge factor in the demise of the liberal party in the most recent election ... it is also my opinion that stephane dion is the most honest and honourable politician to run out of harper, layton and duceppe ... the conservatives started running negative ads on dion as soon as he became leader ... they also started running campaign ads prior to actually calling an election ... in essence, they got a head start and they could only do that with the extra cash they have ...

fundraising is everything in politics ... look at obama in the states ...

Obama who I believe raised all his own money and decided not to take government funding. If negative ads hurt Dion's chances wouldn't it be better if the each party had less money?

Plus as far as liberals having less corporate cash, weren't they the ones who passed laws to limit (or perhaps even outlaw) donations from corporations?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

linkage:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081130/conservative_budget_081201/20081201?hub=TopStories

"In a historic political move, the leaders of the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Quebecois signed a formal agreement Monday to co-operate as a coalition government for the next 18 months.

"I'm pleased to announce we are ready to form a government," said Dion, adding that the new government will govern "effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times."

""We are at one, the three of us, that the only person who can lead the party is the duly elected leader of the party Mr. Stephane Dion," Ignatieff said.

Rae described the meeting as historic, positive, upbeat and moving. "


Go Canada!

dignin

a day to rejoice!! i guess it is ABC afterall.....the pie on Harpers face is awesome, ruling like a majority when finally he gets burned.

Songburst

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

linkage:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081130/conservative_budget_081201/20081201?hub=TopStories

"In a historic political move, the leaders of the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Quebecois signed a formal agreement Monday to co-operate as a coalition government for the next 18 months.

"I'm pleased to announce we are ready to form a government," said Dion, adding that the new government will govern "effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times."

""We are at one, the three of us, that the only person who can lead the party is the duly elected leader of the party Mr. Stephane Dion," Ignatieff said.

Rae described the meeting as historic, positive, upbeat and moving. "


Go Canada!

This is not good. Hopefully enough elected Liberals cross the floor over this debacle to prevent this from coming to fruition. This is the result of the personal agenda of a few men, and not the will of the voters of Canada.

If the no-confidence vote goes through, the best result would be another election which would ensure the Conservatives a majority government and petty shit like this would be stopped at a time when petty politics should be the last thing on everybody's agenda.