Coalition

[esdras]

My frustration is in the media. They tend to favour the liberals and NDP in Ontario. So to me most of what I read has a liberal bias to it.

The only way reason we are getting a more centre view is that with Dion mis steps they can not support the liberals like they do.

I guess it depends on which form of media, or which station you watch. The bulk of our written media is owned by Sun Media which is a division of Quebecor, one of the largest supporters of the Conservative Party. The Toronto Sun is extremely Conservative biased, Christine Blizzard in particular. CHCH had a point-counterpoint show on last night that was very anti-coalition biased, with the host continuously interupting the NDP rep, and questioning the Liberal rep. CBC though is Liberal.

For the most part, I've been relatively impressed with the media being critical of all politicians on this one. Sure, some will still be entirely partisan, but not as much this time.

I've been really impressed by the Globe - usually Conservative - they have hit both sides hard.

 

[kesharn81]

thanks for the info - useful thread...

this seems useful information...thanks for sharing...

 

[Csaks]

Let me start out by stating I do not want Stephane Dion to be PM of Canada.

I am very disappointed in Stephen Harper in that I feel he is lying to Canadians. He is deliberately misleading citizens on the legitimacy of the parlimentary tactics (ie calling it an undemocratic coup). The Liberal/NDP tacts are legal, and constitutional.

No one in Canada voted for a Conservative or Liberal government. We all voted for MP's in each of our ridings. The Conservatives happened to elect the most number of MP's (but not a majority). However, since the Conservatives held power in the previous government, the Governor General gave them the first opportunity to form a government (by convention, the Conservatives would have to seek the confidence of the House of Commons, it order to retain power).

However, even if you believe the coalition government proposal was undemocratic, it was only a proposal. The only person who actually executed an undemocratic proposal was Stephen Harper, who convinced the Governor General to suspend Parliament - which is the ultimate in undemocratic acts. If this was a 3rd world country, there would be a United Nations vote to condemn the government.

I'm disappointed in Harper as he has been hypocritcal in his actions:
1) criticizied the coalition proposal as undemocratic, when his party tried a similar tact previously with the BQ
2) suggested it would be a coup d'etat for the Liberal/NDP coalition to take power without an election, when he himself wanted to do the same thing during Paul Martin's government.

While most politiicans have acted and said idiotic / stupid things over the past week, the Prime Minister of Canada must be held to a higher standard. He/she must always put the interests of Canada first. In my opinion, Harper has put his own interests first.

Just a question here.

Why is what Harper is doing any more "wrong" than what the other two are up to?

Are both things not legal under our system?

The way I see it both sides are playing dirty pool and acting like a bunch of 5th graders fighting over crayons.

Not impressed at all, with any of them.

 

[digskat]

Just a question here.

Why is what Harper is doing any more "wrong" than what the other two are up to?

Are both things not legal under our system?

The way I see it both sides are playing dirty pool and acting like a bunch of 5th graders fighting over crayons.

Not impressed at all, with any of them.

Exactly. Harper is showing unbelievable arrogance, a minority government needs to work with the rest of parliament to make anything work, yet he is trying to hammer everything down their throats. While our economy should be the #1 issue, he comes out with political funding??????????? Dion/Duceppe are jumping into bed with their bitter enemies.......each other, in pure desparation. You lost, he won't play nice.......do a vote of non-confidence, vote down his motions, get him out if need be, but have some class, don't abandon everything you supposedly stand for. Layton is merely grasping at straws, his 37 seats is needed for the coalition, but he won't have much of a voice, and he has to know it.
Plain and simple
Harper = Arrogance
Coalition= Desparation

I'd rather we had the non-confidence vote, and had a summer election. Maybe then we would get a group of '5th graders' that will play nicer.

 

[TheZue]

I'd rather we had the non-confidence vote, and had a summer election. Maybe then we would get a group of '5th graders' that will play nicer.

I totally agree. I hate to say it but it actually makes me want to join a party and push for new leadership. I hate how our parties choose their leaders too. Sometimes the US does do things better than we do, the primaries are long but at least more people have a voice in how people are picked.

 

[esdras]

I totally agree. I hate to say it but it actually makes me want to join a party and push for new leadership. I hate how our parties choose their leaders too. Sometimes the US does do things better than we do, the primaries are long but at least more people have a voice in how people are picked.

I'm not sure how that would work in Canada - considering how many parties there are. It works differently in the U.S., depending on what state you reside you may only be able to vote in a primary if you are "registered" as a supporter of a particular party. I think most states leg "Registered Independents" vote in all primaries. Their system has some complexities as well - maybe no better or worse than ours, just different.

Any changes to how Canadians select a PM (we don't really, we vote for MP's, and the leader of the party with the most MP's that usually forms the government becomes PM - and the party selects their leader) would probably require a constitutional amendment. Other options, including an elected GG, or an elected Senate, where the Senate leader could counter the PM in some way - or perhaps the Senate leader could serve as GG - whatever, all would require Constitutional Amendments.

Considering how totally screwed up things are at the moment, the LAST thing Canada needs right now is to open up debates regarding Constitutional amendments. You think things are divisive now?!?! This is nothing compared to what that would cause.

 

[declansdad]

I believe it was put in there to stop sponsorship scandals.

I'm not sure what you mean. There were limits put in place that limit fund-raising donations but the funding that Harper tried to eliminate is not part of that legislation.

 

[TheZue]

I'm not sure how that would work in Canada - considering how many parties there are. It works differently in the U.S., depending on what state you reside you may only be able to vote in a primary if you are "registered" as a supporter of a particular party. I think most states leg "Registered Independents" vote in all primaries. Their system has some complexities as well - maybe no better or worse than ours, just different.

Any changes to how Canadians select a PM (we don't really, we vote for MP's, and the leader of the party with the most MP's that usually forms the government becomes PM - and the party selects their leader) would probably require a constitutional amendment. Other options, including an elected GG, or an elected Senate, where the Senate leader could counter the PM in some way - or perhaps the Senate leader could serve as GG - whatever, all would require Constitutional Amendments

Considering how totally screwed up things are at the moment, the LAST thing Canada needs right now is to open up debates regarding Constitutional amendments. You think things are divisive now?!?! This is nothing compared to what that would cause.

Oh I know, but our system blows...I've always felt that way. At least they don't have to spend money to register with a party. And even then, if you go ahead and spend money and join a party you still probably won't get any say in the leader. And to make it more confusing the parties all have their own rules on it. We will NEVER get a grass roots candidate in our system, we will only get people who have shmoozed the ranks of their given party. So somebody like Chuck Strahl; who pissed off the elite but the general party still likes never get elected...and it's not even a numbers issue but more about WHO he annoyed. Also if the rules were more inclusive the candidates might be better and people might be more involved instead of waiting around to see who the parties picked which is a very distant and removed process from the general population right now.

As for changes to how the house picks the PM I don't think that will EVER happen...we'd have to switch to a republic and considering Quebec never signed the charter it'll be a cold day in hell before that happens.

 

[declansdad]

Oh I know, but our system blows...I've always felt that way. At least they don't have to spend money to register with a party. And even then, if you go ahead and spend money and join a party you still probably won't get any say in the leader. And to make it more confusing the parties all have their own rules on it. We will NEVER get a grass roots candidate in our system, we will only get people who have shmoozed the ranks of their given party. So somebody like Chuck Strahl; who pissed off the elite but the general party still likes never get elected...and it's not even a numbers issue but more about WHO he annoyed. Also if the rules were more inclusive the candidates might be better and people might be more involved instead of waiting around to see who the parties picked which is a very distant and removed process from the general population right now.

As for changes to how the house picks the PM I don't think that will EVER happen...we'd have to switch to a republic and considering Quebec never signed the charter it'll be a cold day in hell before that happens.

I will take our system of the US anyday.

 

[OntFamily]

Just a question here.

Why is what Harper is doing any more "wrong" than what the other two are up to?

Are both things not legal under our system?

The way I see it both sides are playing dirty pool and acting like a bunch of 5th graders fighting over crayons.

Not impressed at all, with any of them.

By suspending Parliament, Harper has not committed any illegal acts (though, he'll now live in infamy as the man who suspended democracy. It'd be curious to know what is running through Joe Clark's mind, regarding this issue).

Harper (and the other three leaders) have all acted childish. However, Harper, as Prime Minister, is supposed to put his country first, and be above such antics. As prime mininster, he should be held to a higher standard. Sadly, he's showed he is no better than anyone else.

 

[OntFamily]

I totally agree. I hate to say it but it actually makes me want to join a party and push for new leadership. I hate how our parties choose their leaders too. Sometimes the US does do things better than we do, the primaries are long but at least more people have a voice in how people are picked.

The USA system is no better than ours. In many instances, it is weirder. However, generally, the public does not pick who each party will choose to be on the presidential ballot. That choice is reserved for party members. Each party decides on their own how that voting will be conducted. Same as in Canada.

In the USA system, party members from each state pick delegates to choose a new leader. This is very similar to how Canadian political parties choose a leader.

 

[OntFamily]

I'm not sure what you mean. There were limits put in place that limit fund-raising donations but the funding that Harper tried to eliminate is not part of that legislation.

The funding Harper tried to eliminate is tied directly to fund raising.

The Chretien government brought forward a wide ranging alteration of political party fundraising. This legislation included (amongst other things) a ban on contributions from corporations, unions and organizations to parties and candidates. However, there was concerned raisied that this funding restriction would restrict the political movement, and could be found to be non-constitutional by the courts. To ensure proper funding, the government put forward direct funding of political parties, tied directly to the number of votes received (this legislation and funding is similar to laws in most democratic countries).

Harper proposed eliminating the direct funding of political parties.

 

[momdad4kids]

Just the thought of that useless piece of space (Stephane Dion) running the country ,gives me nightmares !
On the other hand,Harper is a spineless twit !

EGOTISTICAL spineless twit
Im so on the fence on this issue it frightens even myself.On one hand we have Harper and I dont believe for a minute he had any intentions of doing anything in the way of an economic stimulus not at least until big oil started screaming foul. As far as democraticaly elected goes, how can we even say that with the low voter turn out we had in the last election?
On the flip side we have Dion,k nuff said,obvisously not anyones choice as PM. I will say this though, I know ppl wont agree,but of the 4 partys in my opinion he is probably the most honest, part of his downfall as well,most honorable ppl assume everyone else is as well,liars and thieves trust no one...
All around no matter what happens its a bad situation and we as taxpayers will bear the brunt of it in the end.Everyone points to the BloQ as the ultimate evil but dont forget that voting citizens ,no matter what anyone will say ,elected these MEMBERS of parliment and as far as agendas go at least we know what thiers is right?
What it comes down to for me is this, we WASTED money already on a popularity for contest for mr Bush, sorry, Harper I apologise. Now that being said I dont want to go there again another election is senseless right now,I doubt it would change anything except maybe get the green party a seat or 2 and definatley after the tories criticism of the bloq, theyd gain in Quebec as well.
The best possible scenario that I can imagine would be Harper presenting a budget that everyone could live with and the opposition parties accepting it or rejecting it on its own merits,if it fails then see what the coalition can produce.
As far as an election goes until the liberal party can come up with a candidate ,which still seems unlikely then this will be the status quo. Maybe next time instead of sitting home people need to get out and vote.Its amazing that everyone seems to have an opinion on this but not everyone voted in the last election

 

[esdras]

Recent news suggests some changes coming - what it means I'm not quite sure as of yet.

First, it looks as though Dion will step down (be forced out) by Wednesday at the latest - some reports suggest it could even be today.

LeBlanc has already dropped out of the race (a shame - I kind of like him, but I have to admit that there is probably a bit of ageism there - he's only 41 and my guess is that a lot of people would consider him a little young to be a potential PM). LeBlanc has publicly given his support to Ignatieff - that makes it virtually impossible for Rae to win now. Probably a good thing for Liberals in Ontario though - Rae still carries the baggage of being an unpopular NDP Premier here.

The biggest problem for the Liberals right now is how to make Ignatieff the permanent leader in a credible manner. The Liberal Party rules allow for a permanent leader to be put in place without a convention (through a vote of the caucus and executive - and, I think, Liberal Senators). Will that float with the public considering all the calls of "undemocratic" actions among all the parties recently? Really, a party convention doesn't really tap into true public representation, but it is usually televised and at least average Canadians can see what happened, rather than hear a press conference after a vote behind closed doors.

Anyway, one way or the other, Ignatieff will probably be in charge of the Liberals when Parliament resumes - and he has said, "a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition". He will at least give Harper and the Conservatives a chance to table a reasonable budget - but I think Ignatieff will need to have the guts to vote it down if the Conservatives don't come up with something that at least looks like a conciliatory budget.

So, the likely scenarios are these:

1. The Conservatives table a budget that other parties can support (especially the Liberals) - the government stands - but I still think we'll be back to the polls within a year.
2. The Conservatives ditch Harper and table a budget that can be supported by the other parties - the government stands, and depending on who takes over for the Conservatives, if the person can govern the way a minority should, it could last longer than a year.
3. Harper learns nothing and antagonizes the other parties, thinking that even with a new leader the Liberals are in dissarry. He virtually dares them to vote them down. If Ignatieff blinks and supports the budget anyway, the Liberals hand the Conservatives more ammo for the next election (still probably within a year) as they can brand Ignatieff as weak and unwilling to stand up for Liberal policies.
4. Same as point three, but Ignatieff doesn't support the budget - it is then in the hands of the GG again - at this point, I don't know what will happen. Ignatieff is far less likely to cooperate with the NDP as opposed to the way Dion did or Rae was willing to do. The only way a coalition would come out of a failed budget would be if it seemed obvious to the public that the Conservatives made no attempt to cooperate with the opposition and table a conciliatory budget, and therefore public support for a coalition started to increase. As long as public opinion seems to consider a coalition wrong in some way, Ignatieff will be wary of becoming PM through those means. In that case, we likely get an election by late February.

These are all guesses at the moment - we'll have to see how things shape up - it changes daily.

 

[Belle1997]

Exactly.
Harper = Arrogance
Coalition= Desparation

I'd rather we had the non-confidence vote, and had a summer election. Maybe then we would get a group of '5th graders' that will play nicer.

I am pretty sure both Harper and the Coalition are showing arrogance equally. Lets see over 70% of Canadians agreed with the progue of Government. Right after that we had to listen to how the voices of Canadians are silenced. They all must live in a bubble in Ottawa.

I am sorry to me this is all about a power grab not about our economy. In fact from the polls it would have been better to call an election because if they held it then we would not have had to worrying about these child acting politicians. The constant fear of the next tactic.

Harper can be arrogant but I still would vote for an economist over a teacher or lawyer any day no matter what party they were in only during these difficult times though.

 

[Thumper_ehhhhh]

Too bad the poll is closed. I am 100% against the coalition. If this goes through and we go back to the polls I can see a majority government coming. It will give a solid voice that we voted and don't want the government taken over by someone who doesn't deserve it. So dont mess with it because voters are going to get really upset.

 

[digskat]

Too bad the poll is closed. I am 100% against the coalition. If this goes through and we go back to the polls I can see a majority government coming. It will give a solid voice that we voted and don't want the government taken over by someone who doesn't deserve it. So dont mess with it because voters are going to get really upset.

But would we see a majority government? Alot of people voted Conservative because Harper was seen as a decisive leader, who would lead us out of this recession, but instead of creating a plan to turn the economic tide, they questioned if we were in a recession. The Conservatives won a minority government, and the only way to make such a government effective is to work with the other parties, but Harper ignored the issues, and decided to arrogantly play partisan politics. The poor election results and coalition have cost Dion, Harper's arrogance is costing him. I was a Harper supporter, but my support is gone until I see him take some action to at least attempt to fix the economy. The same arrogance Harper is showing cost Harris/Eves in Ontario, when the public decided to strategically vote to get them out.

 

[damo]

But would we see a majority government? Alot of people voted Conservative because Harper was seen as a decisive leader, who would lead us out of this recession, but instead of creating a plan to turn the economic tide, they questioned if we were in a recession. The Conservatives won a minority government, and the only way to make such a government effective is to work with the other parties, but Harper ignored the issues, and decided to arrogantly play partisan politics. The poor election results and coalition have cost Dion, Harper's arrogance is costing him. I was a Harper supporter, but my support is gone until I see him take some action to at least attempt to fix the economy. The same arrogance Harper is showing cost Harris/Eves in Ontario, when the public decided to strategically vote to get them out.

I don't think much can be done to fix the economy yet. A lot of decisions depend upon what the US is doing.

 

[digskat]

True, our fix will be tied to the USA economy, but at least put a united front on, that the government will work together to find a fix. Harper's first move was utter arrogance, an attempt to drive the wedge deeper. A dissenting parliament (and this ridiculous coalition) will only stall any positive action.
When the country is in trouble, great leaders seize the day, and pull the public together, they don't divide among party lines, or do a power play. McCain showed great class after the American Election, when he called Obama his President, and Obama in turn drew McCain and other Republicans closer. What kind of image does Canada portray in the World, when our government has to adjourn to avoid upheaval? How much faith will Obama have in Harper/Canada?
An idea for rebuilding Canada's Industrial Economy....for starters, work with Obama to toss the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, and negotiate a mutually beneficial deal with the States. Bail out the Big 3, with certain obligations on their part, half the money goes to a government controlled pension for retired autoworkers, the other half goes to retooling and debt management (with open books for the government). All financial assistance comes with a binding contract, and an understanding that only cars built in Canada can be sold in Canada (The same with the USA). The big 3 will quickly return jobs, when threatened with a loss of 85% of their sales. The 15-20% difference in our dollar, and a more realistic fuel price will make Canada more attractive for the parts industry again.

 

[esdras]

But would we see a majority government? Alot of people voted Conservative because Harper was seen as a decisive leader, who would lead us out of this recession, but instead of creating a plan to turn the economic tide, they questioned if we were in a recession. The Conservatives won a minority government, and the only way to make such a government effective is to work with the other parties, but Harper ignored the issues, and decided to arrogantly play partisan politics. The poor election results and coalition have cost Dion, Harper's arrogance is costing him. I was a Harper supporter, but my support is gone until I see him take some action to at least attempt to fix the economy. The same arrogance Harper is showing cost Harris/Eves in Ontario, when the public decided to strategically vote to get them out.

Will we see a majority after the next election? That depends on a lot of things.

With the news today that Rae has officially dropped out of the leadership race, Ignatieff is effectively leader of the Liberals - the "interim" title is a technicality. At the moment, the Liberals just have to sell this, and have the May convention be a leadership review for Ignatieff where he'll become the "permanent" leader.

If an election is forced before May, I'm pretty sure we'll see another minority government - probably Conservative. That assumes Harper still in charge - all bets are off if he resigns.

If we can hold out until next fall, things could change. Ignatieff is far more of a centrist than Dion or Rae. The Liberals, rather than trying to shore up support on the left are instead going to try to take votes away from the Conservatives by luring back "Red Tories" It's a pretty sound strategy - Harper became a viable option when the Conservatives campaigned towards the center. Recently, as he has more and more tried to govern as though he had a majority, he's moved the party back towards its Reform roots - far more right wing. It only makes sense for the Liberals to move towards the center and try to pilfer voters who don't want to go that far to the right.

Further proof - why were Dion and Rae so willing to partner with the NDP? Both of them are from the far left of the Liberal party - and, as the party went way left, they lost a lot of their "Blue Liberal" supporters to the Conservatives. Ignatieff is NOT left wing.

This is why the Liberals consider themselves the "natural governing party" - in a sense, when they do as they should and remain firmly centrist, they are a natural governing party. It draws upon a much larger pool of voters.

My guess, however, is that we'll soon see Conservative attack ads aimed at Ignatieff - for no other reason than to discredit him as cast him as unworthy of the mantle of PM. If they stick, we'll be stuck in minority land for a while.