Confidence vote on Wednesday: Will the government fall?
So with Parliament resuming tomorrow, a newly chastised and humbled prime minister (ha! ha!) will supposedly be proving Canadians with a stimulus budget on Tuesday. On Wednesday there will probably be a confidence vote, which will decide whether or not the coalition will move one step further towards taking over the reigns of power in Ottawa.
There is almost no one who agress with the Bank of Canada's rosy economic forecast, so is the Bank of Canada Governor just another one, in a group of many paid lackeys, belonging to Prime Minister Harper?
How much and what percentage of our federal debt has been paid off by the Conservatives?
My hunch is that with Mr Harper's economic policies, which certainly include large tax cuts for corporations, and transfering power to the provinces, our federal government is close to becoming crippled in its ability to manage any kind of meaningful change in Canada.
Canadian government gambles future on stimulushttp://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iKuSBZS80YHkzDY9FATiTnMvfC8g
In its quarterly Monetary Policy Report Update, released on Thursday, the Bank of Canada forecast the Canadian economy would decline by 1.2 percent in 2009 and rebound by 3.8 percent in 2010.
Central bank governor Mark Carney said Canadians are in for a painful, but shorter recession than previous downturns, taking into account the government's stimulus package.
So far, more than 100,000 jobs have been lost in the past two months and more cuts are expected before a turnaround takes root mid-year, he said.
Private sector economists however were more pessimistic on the scale of the recovery.
-------------------------------------------------------
What happens next if PM loses vote on coming budget?Following the fiasco that ended with Harper proroguing Parliament, some of Canada's top legal minds walk us through the rules of the House. Politicians and public, take heed
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/575768
Our Constitution requires that the prime minister and the cabinet, not being elected directly by the people, enjoy the support of a majority of the elected members of Parliament. In our parliamentary system, it is precisely this support that gives the government its democratic legitimacy. Without this democratic support, the prime minister and his cabinet have none.
When the general election does not return a majority of seats to any one party, the governor general will then have to appoint as prime minister a Member of Parliament who is able to gather enough support to sustain the confidence of the House for a reasonable period of time.
If the person who was prime minister prior to the dissolution of the House has not yet resigned and it is unclear which party or parties could gather sufficient support from MPs to lead a government after a fresh election, the governor general may let that person try to govern until it is made clear he or she does not enjoy the support of the House. In a minority situation, the prime minister cannot claim to have "won" a right to govern. At best, he or she can claim to have the right to try to sustain the confidence of the House.
When a minority government loses the confidence of the House, the governor general is no longer bound by the advice of the prime minister. The governor general must then exercise what is known as her "personal prerogatives." She may dissolve Parliament and call for a new election or, if the elections have been held relatively recently (opinions range between six and nine months), she may invite the leader of another party to attempt to form a government that would enjoy the confidence of the House.
The same may be true if the prime minister of a minority government were to request a dissolution of the House early after an election. In fact, certain authorities, such as Eugene Forsey, even claim that "(I)f a government asks for dissolution whilst a motion of censure is under debate, it is clearly the Crown's duty to refuse."
While in our parliamentary system, as is the case in the Commonwealth in general, the governor general (or the person fulfilling a similar role in other jurisdictions) may offer the opposition leader the opportunity to form the government in such circumstances, other parliamentary systems give the opposition the right to form a new government (i.e. Spain's and Belgium's constitutions). In the case of Germany, the constitution even makes it an obligation in certain circumstances.
Such rules are meant to avoid creating an incentive for minority government prime ministers to make successive calls for elections until one party gathers sufficient support to form a majority government. Successive elections can be quite disruptive, if only because without a functioning Parliament to vote on matters of supply, unelected officials are forced to adopt special measures to pay for the operations of government.
When the governor general exercises her personal prerogatives and decides whether or not to dissolve Parliament or call on the opposition parties to form a new government, she must act in a judicial manner, with total impartiality. In such circumstances, she must be guided by her duty to protect the Constitution and, in particular, the principles of democracy and responsible government.
It is our opinion that in the event of a non-confidence vote or a request for dissolution of Parliament after only 13 sitting days of the House of Commons, the governor general would be well-advised to call on the leader of the opposition to attempt to form a government.
This would be most appropriate in the circumstances where that leader has already gathered the assurance that he would enjoy the support of a majority of votes on any issue of confidence for the next year or so. The principle of democracy would be protected insofar as the new government would enjoy the support of a majority of the elected officials.
This would ensure the stability of our political system.
What the Canadian people want as opposed to what the politicos are going to give us.
Nanos-Policy Options Poll - Downturn expected to 2010; Canadians support deficits and infrastructure
www.nanosresearch.com
Canadians expect a severe economic downturn lasting into 2010 rather than a mild recession ending by the summer of this year. A majority of Canadians also support federal and provincial governments going into deficit to stimulate the economy, with infrastructure spending and personal tax cuts being the preferred course of action to jump start the economy. There is very little support in the country for industry bailout programs.
These are the principal findings of a Nanos Research poll conducted exclusively for Policy Options in a random telephone survey between January 3 and January 7, 2009. The margin of error, in the sample of 1,003 Canadians, is plus or minus 3.1 percent, 19 times out of 20.
The poll clearly reflects a deepening pessimism in the country about the prospects for economic recovery in the near term, as well as a consensus that governments should prime-pump the economy, even though there is no great enthusiasm for a return to deficit spending.
Contrary to what the pundits are saying (and let's face it - more often than not the pundits have been WRONG about everything). I actually think Iggy will vote down the budget and that the coalition will take power.
I think that when all is said and done - the Liberals will invariably do whatever gets them back into power the fastest!
If the NDP is willing to sell out enough, Iggy would rather be PM now.
I have no idea (and actually hope you're right) but if I had to say, my hunch is that he'll do the opposite. They've maybe already tweaked out a deal and he will support Harper for the time being. I think the Liberals know now may not be the right time for them. Let Harper scramble for a while longer.
NorthReport, your last link points to a google mail login.
I think they're between a rock and hard place. The rock is the NDP and Bloc, and the hard place is that it's high noon for the Liberals to prove there is daylight between them and the Tories. I think Liggy would prefer to attempt to bring down the Harpers sometime next month or the one after but not now.
Meanwhile the NDP and Bloc have made it clear that Harper cant be trusted.
The problem for the Liberals are if they wait then we will have to have an election, which they will probably lose, whereas if they move now to defeat Harper they can take power right away. All credible constitutional experts say the GG will have to offer Iggy and Layton a chance to govern, if the Conservatives are defeated on the Confidence Vote on Wednesday. What's not to like here for the Liberals?
Yup, being in power is ALWAYS preferable to bot being in power. A coalition gov't can survive up to three years until the recession is over and Liberals can start giving jobs to their people within a week!
GO JACK GO!!
It's quite interesting to see all the BS in the mainstream press.
They obviously haven't a clue what is about to happen, but according to them, God forbid that those dreaded socialistic NDPers get anywhere near the levers of power.
As if those right wing capitalists haven't screwed up big time here with the economy worldwide!
The budget will pass. The Liberals will say that they got most of what they wanted in it - which will be true mainly: massive stimulus, no more cuts to party funding, changes to EI, no spending cuts. The Liberals are thinking about how to get back into officer long term, not short term. They need more time to rebuild. The coalition would ultimately be bad for them. In order to win an election, they need to take votes from the NDP or the Cons. By joining with the NDP, they will be disappointing the "red tories" and the fiscally conservative liberals they have left. The ones who would never, ever vote NDP. So they are likely to lose that vote. Also, by joining with Layton, they are setting themselves up for lots of in-fighting between the coalition members. A coalition would end up making some decisions that would upset Liberal voters and other that would upset NDP voters. That's not a good way for them to get votes.
Much better for them to loudly denounce the Cons, hope they tank the economy and that by the time the next election rolls around, voters are sick of the Cons and ready to give the Libs another chance.
If the Liberals vote with the government Ignatieff will never become prime minister. Special opportunities, such as the opportunity to become prime minister rarely come along, and when you get one of those opportunities you have to go for it, otherwise it can become lost forever. Ignatieff right now is fortunate that most Canadians don't have a clue what he represents. This is Ignatieff's time. It's now or never for him.
Opposition threatens Tories over tax cuts
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090125/budget_previews_090125/20090125?hub=Canada
"Opposition parties are threatening to vote down this week's much-anticipated Conservative budget because it contains a potentially contentious proposal to permanently slash taxes for middle-class Canadians."
Note that when Iggy has been the most positive about the possibility of voting FOR the Budget he has said "as long as it does not contain a poison pill".
This certainly counts as such. will it be enough of a poison pill?
We will see.
While it looks like political conditions are better for the government to be brought down and replaced with a coalition than they did a couple of months ago, I don't know that Iggy will want to go there. It means he starts wearing all the bad news that's going to come flooding in during the next months.
Middle-class tax cuts? As in income taxes? I hope that passes! I am just about to become middle class for the first time in my life...
If the Liberals wait and vote for the budget they will have to share the government with the NDP. If they wait they will have a good chance of winning the next election.
Canadians are not in favour of a coalition and it will be suicide for the LIberals out west.
I'm betting the Libs will find enough in it to go along, and even take credit for input on those parts where they can. Harper will probably make sure there's a sufficiently large fig leaf in it to cover any of Iggy's exposed bits.
If the Liberals support the Conservative budget they will both have to take ownership of the recession.
I was excited when Bob Rae won the election in Ontario. There was a recession. Rae and the NDP didn't cause it, of course. But in the popular mind Rae was somehow responsible for it and he has never been forgiven.
It will be up to the NDP to keep reminding people that the economic mess belongs to the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Dumb question: Would the vote be Wednesday or Thursday?
I thought I heard Thursday on CBC news last night, although they reported that we would probably have our first indication of what the Liberals would do on Wednesday.
If I were advising the Liberals, I'd tell them not to show their hand before the vote, though, for fear that Harper would cancel it again.
In terms of handicapping what's likely to happen, here's the thought process I've gone through:
Assumptions:
* The Governor General is most likely to call on the Leader of the Opposition to try and form a government if the Harper government loses a confidence vote now. A confidence vote lost in the spring would be more likely to lead to an election. Thus any talk of a lost vote now leading to an election is designed purely to muddy the waters and instill fear.
* Only Stephen Harper and the Governor General plus their aides and confidantes know what if anything she told him when the prorogation request was granted, but given the effort the Conservatives have been putting into their recent communications effort to get the budget passed and discredit the legitimacy if not the constitutionality of the coalition, she probably told him what I've assumed above.
* We haven't seen all the Conservatives' cards yet either. There will be something saved for Budget Day, so they still control the news cycle, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was the announcement of one or two Liberals ready to cross the floor or party lines to support the Budget rather than give in to the separatist/socialist hordes.
* Harper is no longer the unchallenged alpha male of the Conservative Party and is under huge internal pressure to pull this off. The fact that other cabinet ministers are being allowed to be the face of pre-selling the budget provisions indicates he/they also understand that Harper has become a bit of a liability.
* The movement in the polls does not reflect any particular change in public opinion about the constitutional or political choices, but merely a relief that Stéphane Dion is gone and perhaps a recollection and sinking in of Stephen Harper's well-known negatives. Ignatieff is still an empty vessel into whom people can read all their expectations, as he hasn't had time to disappoint anyone yet. Bold moves now could be expected to shape and move public opinion, as it does not appear to be fixed (or particularly internally consistent).
* Given a choice between assuming the danger of being viewed as opportunistic by taking power and avoiding the danger of wearing the recession by taking power, the Liberals will opt for the first choice, as they know that with taking power comes the ability to take control of the levers of the government communications machine. The national media relies so heavily on the agenda set by government (any government) to set their own news agenda that they will quickly fall into line with the new narrative. The Liberals will reason that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and they can figure out how to get their majority later. Being in government would also make it easier for them to rebuild their party infrastructure as well.
* Given the choice between governing with the NDP in a coalition and trying to govern with the support of the NDP outside a coalition, the Liberals would prefer the latter (ok, they would prefer a majority government, but they can't have that right now). The problem for them in the latter case, however, would be the eternal brinksmanship, as they would have to negotiate every vote, and keep track of every committee, and they don't have the bodies to pull that off for long.
* Many Liberals have strong reservations about either being associated with the NDP, or legitimizing the NDP. They also discount the risks for the NDP in being associated with the Liberals, and do not take seriously the potential threat of their being too closely associated with the Conservatives.
* Politicians take a lot of variables into account when making decisions such as these, but one variable that much of the media and public discount, but which plays a bigger role than they realize, is the desire of politicians to be instrumental ... that is to take action and make a difference. Many pundits who claim that the Liberals want to stay out of the way and let Stephen Harper wear the recession, I think miss out on this point. For Michael Ignatieff to have had the chance to change the management of government policy during the recession but walk away in favour of criticizing the Conservatives later on is, I believe, an abdication of leadership and moral authority that his own motivation for entering politics and self-concept will not allow him to take lightly.
* If the Liberals do as the consensus of the punditocracy suggests now and support the budget, notwithstanding any amendments they try to introduce to distinguish themselves from the Conservative, then by the springtime, Stephen Harper will try to provoke an election using tax cuts, cuts to political funding, and other populist measures to try and undermine the Liberals' positioning. The Liberals will try and be as ready as they can be, but would have to borrow heavily to finance the campaign, with the previous loan not yet paid off.
Thus, I don't view the coalition as quite so doomed as others. While the Liberals will not necessarily view the coalition as optimal, they may reluctantly conclude that it is necessary to their immediate interests and survival.
Of course it goes without saying that no one can trust the Conservatives to implement anything in the budget, which the Liberals probably also realize, but perhaps they view that fact as an opening by which they could support the budget now, but use to come back at the government later on.
[edited (twice) to fix up ambiguous wording]
The confidence vote may be Thursday, don't know for sure.
THE LOST TWO MONTHS: FROM STATEMENT TO BUDGET BY WAY OF CRISIShttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090126.BUDGETCHRONO26/TPStory/National
Don Newman just said Thursday evening would be the first vote, presumably on the Bloc's sub-amendment.
I'd also say that when you boil it all down- and bearing in mind we haven't seen everything from the Cons- I would say I think the Liberals voting it down is more likely. But not more likely by a lot.
Even that goes against the prevailing opinion all around. OO captured enough of why that makes a lot of sense. But least paid attention to is things like the last item in OOs list: lots of attention to the risks of going with the coalition- virtually no attention to the risks for the Liberals of going the other way. A lot of those risks being obsured for them because they have little understanding of the details or impact of politics on the ground. [One example being what OO noted: an election the Liberals cannot afford is more likely soon with the Cons remaining in power. Not only will that be a huge strain, its not even clear that the Liberals have the option to borrow as heavily as they would need to for another spending limit campaign.]
One interesting thing: I have heard a lot of Liberals talking about whether they could trust Stephen Harper in the past few days, but I haven't heard one say "a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition" during that time. I do hear more messages from them preparing people for the possibility of their being able to work with the NDP, but of course still deferring the actual decision to Wednesday. I'm pretty sure they're polling as much as they can afford to, in order to help with the decision, and are market testing the messages through the media.
I predict that the Liberals will (grudgingly) allow the budget to pass, as Iggy wants nothing to do with an NDP coalition.
He saw how Dion tried to take the Liberals to the left, and it only resulted in losses for the Liberals and increases for the Conservatives and NDP.
For the Liberals to re-gain power, they have to move back to the vote-rich centre-right spectrum and deny the Conservatives that political space.
Once they've done that, they'll count on soft NDP voters who'd rather vote Liberal than see another Conservative government to give them enough support for a majority government.
Result...the Liberals will let the budget pass, allow the Conservatives to wear the fiscal mess around their necks like a noose, and wait for another year or so before defeating the government.
But it's not like we haven't been through things like this before.
Canada saw four federal elections between 1962 and 1968, and the nation survived. If we have to have another election in 2010, we can say...'Been There, Done That!'
I predict that the Liberals will (grudgingly) allow the budget to pass, as Iggy wants nothing to do with an NDP coalition.
He saw how Dion tried to take the Liberals to the left, and it only resulted in losses for the Liberals and increases for the Conservatives and NDP.
It was Dion's Liberals who propped up the rightwing Harpers with 42 confidence votes. And they were rewarded for it with the lowest voter support for a federal Liberal party in several decades.
And I think that the Harpers - this coalition of Reform Party castoffs, rightwing Liberals, and Mike Harris refugees - are suffering from Brian Mulroney's legacy. The most well-funded election campaign mustered just 22 percent of registered voter support for the ReformaTories. That party has hit their wall of support, and Harper knows it. And it's why Harper's brand new budget will appear to be more in-line with the NDP's call for broad stimulus measures to soften the blow of economic downturn across Canada. The Harpers cant be trusted to carry through with most of it, and that is why Jack Layton and the NDP will vote against Harper's false promises for a revised stimulus budget this week.
I predict that the Liberals will (grudgingly) allow the budget to pass, as Iggy wants nothing to do with an NDP coalition.
He saw how Dion tried to take the Liberals to the left, and it only resulted in losses for the Liberals and increases for the Conservatives and NDP.
For the Liberals to re-gain power, they have to move back to the vote-rich centre-right spectrum and deny the Conservatives that political space.
Once they've done that, they'll count on soft NDP voters who'd rather vote Liberal than see another Conservative government to give them enough support for a majority government.
Result...the Liberals will let the budget pass, allow the Conservatives to wear the fiscal mess around their necks like a noose, and wait for another year or so before defeating the government.
David, you capture a lot of the main current in Liberal thinking right now. But as I've gone over it in my mind, I keep seeing problems for them once they let the budget pass.
You say they'll just "wait for another year" and "allow the Conservatives to wear the fiscal mess". But, I keep asking myself, what happens in the meantime? Either they vote in favour of government measures, or they oppose them, or they abstain.
If they abstain again, they become a joke ... unless they come up with some kind of positioning spin that I haven't thought of to justify that all over again.
If they oppose them, the government falls and we go to an election which they can't afford.
If they support them, then how in the heck do they justify remaining a separate political party? This is important, because it's key to their being able to raise money to pay off the loan from the last election and their operating loan from before the last election, never mind financing the next one. How do they position themselves in the face of Stephen Harper crowing (as he undoubtedly will) that "initiative X was passed WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE LIBERAL PARTY".
I guess those Liberals believe they do not want to upset the public now, and will live to fight another day ... there's always another scandal around the corner, etc., etc. But most Liberals I know would rather be in government, and figure out how to get their majority later, etc., etc.
Anyways, I suppose only one of us will be right. I just think that whatever decision they take now has certain implications for their strategy going forward which they'll have to figure out pretty quickly.
So you're interested in self-serving than actually having the country survive the depression? I'd pay more if I knew it would help the citizens who are going to suffer the worst. I'm happy just to know my job's fairly safe. Can't imagine how stressed some are.
Tax cuts for me, Geez.
So you're interested in self-serving than actually having the country survive the depression? I'd pay more if I knew it would help the citizens who are going to suffer the worst. I'm happy just to know my job's fairly safe. Can't imagine how stressed some are.
Tax cuts for me, Geez.
Maybe she or he has something they never had before and do not want to give up. You seem awfully anxious to judge. I would appreciate a tax cut as well.
If the Liberals wait and vote for the budget they will have to share the government with the NDP. If they wait they will have a good chance of winning the next election.
Canadians are not in favour of a coalition and it will be suicide for the LIberals out west.
This is more of Harper's mumbo-jumbo, and actually incorrect as the latest poll showed that 50% of Canadians were in favour of the coalition, and only 38% supported the Cons, or something like that - it was an EKOS poll.
" I would appreciate a tax cut as well."
No doubt. I would appreciate paying no taxes at all. But I still want the fire department to rush to my house if it's burning. I just don't want to pay for it! Whoo-hoo! Free ride for me!!
It seems that following the line of cause and effect to actually be conscious of the consequences of our actions is strangely out of fashion. The modern industrial nation, which makes all our prosperity possible (well, that and exploiting the third world) only exists because of the large web of public services and infrastructure that supports it, all financed by tax dollars. There are countries where you'd have to pay little to no income tax, but I wouldn't reccommend moving to one.
Even if there was a case for lower income taxes in Canada (and I don't think there is), now would still be the worst possible time to do it. Economic downturns are exactly when the government needs to step in and bolster the economy and reduce the effects of hardship. The fact that you'd like to pay less tax isn't relevent at all.
I would love a tax-cut also, but I would hope that politicians think more about the homeless than about me.
So you're interested in self-serving than actually having the country survive the depression? I'd pay more if I knew it would help the citizens who are going to suffer the worst. I'm happy just to know my job's fairly safe. Can't imagine how stressed some are.
Tax cuts for me, Geez.
Maybe she or he has something they never had before and do not want to give up. You seem awfully anxious to judge. I would appreciate a tax cut as well.
Sorry, didn't mean to judge but shouldn't a tax cut be the last thing we're worrying about? If you're able to keep your job, you'll be fine and not giving up anything.
I agree RevolutionPlease.
A tax cut is certainly not on the top of my concerns.
Who does Harper think he is kidding?
Layton's right of course, but will the Liberals listen?
Harper's words carry a softer tone
Gone is the brinkmanship; Ignatieff amused to hear echoes of his own statementshttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090126.wPOLthrone0126/BNStory/politics/home
But NDP Leader Jack Layton dismissed the conciliatory phrasing, saying he's heard it before.
“You can't have confidence in Mr. Harper when he moves into that tone. He reverts all too quickly to the my-way-or-the-highway approach to governance,” he told reporters.
The New Democrats still pin hopes on defeating Mr. Harper in the budget vote and joining a Liberal-led coalition. Mr. Layton warned his potential coalition partners that Mr. Harper's co-operative nature will vanish in the spring, when defeat of his government might lead the Governor-General to call an election rather than ask the coalition to govern.
A lot of people might be lured by it. But if it happens, the government will be much more broke in 6 months time, YOU might lose your job (and house and all that goes with it) and the government will be even more fucked.
Now if the keep the taxes up, they will at least have money to pay to send people into the forests to plant mixed forests and cut firewood. Seriously we could be that badly fucked that we need that. If they give you a tax cut, and you lose your job? Well, they have actually given you NOTHING AT ALL?
Can you not see, their answer to everything is a tax cut with a bigger cut for industry. It is illogical. It cannot work. They see government as an enemy of industry so they try to destroy government. Thats why we have people dieing of salmonella and getting sick after going to restaurants all the time and kids getting sick from licking toys. Government needs to be there and funded well to PROTECT us from industry.
No two ways about it.
It is important to tune out most but not all of the silliness in the mainstream press.
I don't know who else has noticed but withing the past couple of years there appears to be a significant increase in attacks on any progressive articles by the right wing in the comment section of the press. It seems to be well orchestrated. Just read the comments these days in the Toronto Star. The attempt to discredit the coalition government idea is an excellent example.
Good article.
And the future is: coalition
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090123.wcocoalition26/BNStory/specialComment/home
The events of December make clear that the third condition is also present: the willingness of the NDP and Bloc to enter into a coalition agreement. While it might seem logical for static third-place parties to support a coalition as a way of getting to government, this has not been the norm. In the past, the NDP has not actively sought a coalition. Jack Layton, however, has championed the notion that being in government is a key objective. This was evident in the last campaign when he presented himself, with much hubris in the eyes of many, as a candidate for prime minister. The desire of Mr. Layton to be in government ensures that coalition talks will continue as long as minority parliaments persist.
Canadians may have largely rejected the proposed coalition, but they should get used to the idea. Coalitions have served many other parliamentary democracies well by allowing for the stability of majority government in cases where elections have not produced majority parliaments. In Canada, we have long relied on our "first past the post" system to remedy the lack of majority opinion among the electorate by producing an "artificial" majority parliament. Recent elections suggest that this is no longer the case and that minority results are likely to persist, significantly raising the likelihood of future coalitions.
These are the policies the Liberals will be supporting if they fail Canadians by not bringing down this useless government this week. Remember, Ignatieff, you have a choice. You can be another Dion, or you can show Canadians some serious leadership here, and some courage, both of which have been seriously lacking in the Liberal party for some time now.
From north of the border, more of the standard emissions
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/01/26/really/#commentingIgnatieff would be an idiot to throw away this opportunity. Why?
1) It gives the Conservatives the ability to pass and own a budget that will give billions to provinces to curry favour. They can do this and still argue that it was the coalition's fault that they had to run a deficit because they wouldn't have done so without the threat of the government falling.
2) It allows the Conservatives to stack the Senate and appoint judges while waiting for an election.
3) It renders future coalitions DOA which would remove any possible threat to Harper and puts the onus on the Libs to either force an election with limited organization and no funding or to stand on the sidelines while Harper runs roughshod over democracy.
4) Forming the coalition would allow Ignatieff the power to going into an election as the incumbent PM. He can argue that he can provide stability rather than upheaval.
5) IMO, at best the Libs can do from the position they are currently in is to end up with a slim minority government. If they were to take the reigns of government now they would have already achieved that much and could in fact make moves to either strengthen that minority or even form a majority. They would be the ones doling out the cash to the provinces and would look like conquering heroes when the recession is over.
6) Voting for the budget will make it difficult to vote against the next few months of confidence measures. Clearly the budget is the most important confidence measure and the Libs would look particularly opportunistic if they voted for the budget this month and sent us into an election next month on a lesser bill. The Cons would have to do something particularly egregious (which isn't necessarily beyond their capabilities) to justify an election so soon. It really is now or never (or until next year) for the Libs to make their decision.
The Libs need to have some courage and not fear the poll numbers. Once the general public sees the coalition in power, their nerves would most likely be calmed. However, the Libs aren't known for their courage so they will probably vote for the budget.
Change we can believe in?
Ya, I want to gag too but think about it.
I think the best thing to do would be to have another election. Iggy wasn't even voted into the position that he holds, Layton is back to base figures for the NDP and the Bloc is a regional party, one that can not be said to represent Canada. To have a coalition based on these groups, under these circumstances seems pretty sketchy. Move to an untried, untested and unbalanced coalition during a time of economic crisis? Not likely
The Canadian people will make the right decision on this!
Damn you. Coaliition is GREAT.
WE have two choices: a coalition that unites three parties and that is guaranteed to survive for at least two years and maybe longer OR a rickety demoralized, weak Tory minority government that faces defeat in the house on a daily basis and is unlikely to last beyond the Fall.
The Canadian People DID make the right decision on this. So many people on this board cannot do basic math. Every MP in the house has 1 vote for PM.
And there is nothing about a left of center coalition that is sketchy in a time of crisis. The right winger just want to give you tax cuts (so the government will have no money) and then say "fuck off, we are broke" when you lose your job in a couple of months time! Thats not a stimulus package, its a recipee for disaster!
Hopefully somewhere in all that schooling that Iggie got, there was basic math.
He has a choice, be PM and the leader of the coalition (I think he did sign the agreement too) or take the blame for bringing down Harper in a couple of months at a time of harpers choosing.
Well done to Jack and Dion and Duceppe for giving us this chance to get rid of Harper once and for all.
I think the best thing to do would be to have another election. Iggy wasn't even voted into the position that he holds, Layton is back to base figures for the NDP and the Bloc is a regional party, one that can not be said to represent Canada. To have a coalition based on these groups, under these circumstances seems pretty sketchy. Move to an untried, untested and unbalanced coalition during a time of economic crisis? Not likely
The Canadian people will make the right decision on this!
unfortunately Iggy's already made a deal with the devil ... least thats what I get from the tone of his messages in the mainstream media.
fingers crossed that Harper IS brought down !
Some insight from an NDP MP....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLAhc3yh4TA
i do not know what Iggy will do tomorrow. we will have to wait for his press conference.
I am convinced that the GG will not ask the coalition to govern. The choice will be harper with iggy's support or an election.
Iggy will be reading the polls well into the night to see if he has a chance to win an election.
I think the coalition doesn't have a chance in hell now that Iggy's leading the Liberals. He either wants to coast with the Conservatives for a while (because he basically is a Conservative) or he wants an election so that he can govern without the NDP.
I agree with Michelle - Iggy is a hardcore neocon, despite some of the things he's said about the budget must protect the most vulnerable.
I am with Michelle on this one. Short and to the point.
Maybe she or he has something they never had before and do not want to give up. You seem awfully anxious to judge. I would appreciate a tax cut as well.
Whereas I would appreciate the chance to beat some sense into anyone with a secure well-paying job who is selfish enough to ask for a tax cut for themselves at this point in history.
"I think the coalition doesn't have a chance in hell now that Iggy's leading the Liberals. He either wants to coast with the Conservatives for a while (because he basically is a Conservative) or he wants an election so that he can govern without the NDP."
I don't think that's true at all. Ignatieff and the Liberals would be PETRIFIED of an election right now. They would be broke and vulnerable to being attacked for "making deals with traitors/separatists". But this is a moot point since there is no chance whatsoever of this happening. If the budget is voted down, the GG will ask the coalition to govern - end of story. Its a certainty. Iggy may or may not want to govern right now - but if he wants to he can be PM by this time next week. Waiting for an election down the road won't do the Liberals any good. With our four party system, they would have to be totally delusional to think that they can ever win a majority. They would have to go back to the Chretien pattern of winning 101 out of 106 seats in Ontario IMPOSSIBLE.
So, Iggy just has to decide: govern with the NDP now (and quite frankly, I'm sure the Liberals can cook up all kinds of ways to out-maneouvre the NDP within the coalition on ce its in power) or wait a year and govern with the NDP - MAYBE - as long asHarper doesn't get a majority by running a fear campaign about "separatists and socialists".
The longer Ignatieff waits the more of a chance Canadians will get to know what he is really like and that spells more trouble for the Liberals. Harper needs to taken out of power now, otherwise we may well be stuck with a Con government for some time to come. If past Liberal behaviour is any indication, and if you listen to the press, yes Ignatieff will support Harper, but things don't always work out the way they are expected.
I'm in the middleclass and a tax cut that I would actually feel and be able to use to pay down debt and save some RSPs isn't going to happen. They aren't going to give me a couple hundred extra every pay cheque. So the only reason to offer me a tax cut is for optics. Don't bother. I'd rather things stay the same.
And I can't say that even if they offered me a tax cut I'd really notice that in all good conscience I could be happy about it. Times are tough and other people need that money and I don't see anyone offering to step up and pay more taxes to make up what would surely be a short fall.
I for one hope the Liberals are power hungery enough to take Harper out. I can live with Iggy and his coalition I can't trust harper and his tax cuts.
We don't vote for the PM. People may delude themselves into thinking they do because of the influence our neighbours have on our media and view of our political system but that's just not the case. And when you add up the actually bodies that voted for the other parties combined it surpasses those that voted for the Conservatives. So please show me how the majority of citizens won't actually be represented for the first time in a long time. I am dying to hear it.
And how is dropping a truckload of money on an election a good idea fiscally right now? When we already have a mechanism to enact change without spending more of our money.
If they are going to do tax cuts, I'd rather see them raise the personal exemption (like, maybe double it), and lower taxes for those below $25,000 or $30,000. It's kind of ridiculous to lower taxes for people up to $80,000 a year. If you're making 80 grand, you're no longer "middle class". You're upper middle class and you don't need a tax cut.
I don't need one either, and I don't want one if it means killing services. We need to expand social services and increase infrastructure spending during a recession to create jobs, not cut taxes.
The whole idea behind tax cuts at this time is to stimulate spending and thus save the general economy. I think that's hogwash, as in uncertain times more will be inclined to just salt any tax savings away or maybe invest it in more RRSPs for the future.
I read about studies about tax cuts in the usa, (when things got uncertain). It showed nearly all went into paying down mortgauges quicker. I think the figure was nearly 80% straight into paydown. So rather than a tax cut see it as money going directly to mortgauge paydown. Maybe a tax cut would stimulate the economy when things are rosy but definitely not now, it is just making it shrink faster! (Paying down your mortgauge does not even help the banks (screw them anyway) it just shrinks their assets which means less money to lend.
I agree with that, Brian - I should have added 'pay off mortgages and credit card balances' to my post. That's the majority spending I see from a tax cut.
The whole idea of tax cuts is to reduce the size and role of government in the longer term. The idea that this is for stimulation is hogwash. Remember the government does not believe in stimulating the economy- they think it is not necessary, it is not their role and that it can't be done by government in any case.
The Canadian people will make the right decision on this!
This is just such a bunch of nonsense.
The CPC are untried, untested, and definitely unbalanced. So why should we trust them anymore than a coalition that is made up of the majority of votes?
Canadians did make the correct decision, they choose NOT to give Harper a majority, because they knew he was unbalanced, not trustworthy, and extremely sketchy.
Moreover, given that the majority of the votes the CPC has comes from the west, one could indeed say they are a regional party, themselves.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Oops! Too soon to say that.
.
One of the big reasons Liberal voters stayed home during the last election was because they were totally demorallized after having watched their party knuckle under and support Harper so many times. That and their lack of enthusiasm for Dion and his plans.
Of course Iggy does not want to govern with the NDP. After all he is a very right wing Liberal (if one could call hiim a Liberal at all). He'd rather support Harper knowing full well that he won't actually impliment any of the good ideas he's put into this budget. Unfortunatley for Iggy that would leave him looking like a continuation of Dion and he can't have that. I believe Iggy may feel forced to vote this budget down and become PM to save the country in its time of greatest need. He'll need to have the NDP along for the ride, but he'll do everything he can to marginalize them and prevent them from having any influence or getting any credit.
All this talk about waiting to actually read the document may just be window-dressing so as not to appear to eager to take power. Idealogically, he'd like to let harper stay, but politically I think he has to take him down.
Ignatieff poised on the banks of his Rubicon
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1103066.html
On the other hand, if he leads his army across the Rubicon and votes the budget down, he can expect a scorched earth campaign from the Tories that would be very painful for him, his party and the country.
In two recent TV interviews, Mr. Harper has made it clear he would not let go of power gracefully.
"You can’t change governments in our country without having an election, and I think that’s the lesson from December," Mr. Harper told Global Ontario.
Constitutional experts say you can, actually. If Mr. Harper doesn’t have the confidence of the majority of MPs in the House, and Mr. Ignatieff does, the Liberal leader would have every legal right to take the job.
But Mr. Harper is able to sell his version of reality to his supporters, and many conservative Westerners would see a coalition as undemocratic and treasonous. That would be unbelievably toxic for the Liberals.
There are reasons to think Mr. Ignatieff might defy the Ottawa consensus and lead his army across the Rubicon on Wednesday. For one thing, the Conservatives may introduce tax cuts that the Liberals warn are unwise. For another, Mr. Ignatieff does, from time to time, have a Caesarean glint in his eye.
But he likely believes that if he stays north of the Rubicon for now, he’ll get Mr. Harper’s job the old-fashioned way — by winning an election.
Who's running a betting pool?
We might as well have a chance of making some cash off these crazy parliamentary times.
(I'm serious: where's the betting taking place?)
This is the crux of the problem, isn't it!
Financial elite have no shame
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/577649
If Ignatieff supports this budget it will show the Liberals true colours, which is that they could care less about the vulnerable people in our society. Federal budget leaves unemployed in the cold
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/news/2009/01/pressrelease2083/?pa=BB736455
Ignatieff is way over his head. I get the sense he doesn't even really want to be there. The other thing is, do the Liberals want to wear this recession? It's much better to let the Tories fester in power while everyone's money is going down.
Then the Liberals can come in presently, clean up the nation's finances, and take credit for another Martinesque economic miracle.
From where I was sitting in the visitor's gallery in the House of Commons, one thing is for certain. Pleas about the plight of the poor will get you absolutely nowhere in Ottawa.
Ignatieff doesn't want to be there?
He's in his element. For some while at least- no matter which way this goes.
What was the deficit going to be this year, $14-15 billion before any stimulus package. What have the Cons actually put in for stimulus. A measly $6-8 billion. Doesn't seem like very much to me.
So what's the betting now, will Iggy bring forward an amendment to fix up EI and offer some help to the poor so he can pass this thing OR will he bring the Conservatives down and bring on the coalition budget? Personally, I think this budget sucks. It's all over the place and does not put enough money into any one issue to make a real difference. Better to target a few economic levers that will actually work (not tax cuts) and put all your cash on them.
As I mentioned in the other thread, Harper might not want to go into an election with this budget after all, given that his base appears to be a bit up in arms about it not being very Conservative (see the BloggingTories.ca aggregator).
I think the Liberals are not so much giving themselves time to decide what they think, but waiting to see how the second part of the post-budget news cycle plays itself out. If they do play for time with amendments, it may be to give themselves a bit more time to see if any kind of opposition evolves.
http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html
Chantale Hebert: "1970's" "old economy"
no shite!
Infusion of present and future needed.
Harper doesn't do 'liberal' well. Looks a bit green lately, the 'gills' not the environmental kind.
Now I'm curious ... if you're going out to construct a liberal budget and gain new votes, do you only go to Tories who don't know what a liberal budget is?
It's like a parody.
But then, there are elite Liberals to whom patronage is a social conscience, (Ig?) his next most likely advisers.
Well, it's turning out to be a good opportunity to see what all of them can come up with together.
I'm fully behind massive injections to universities and colleges, WITH direct and immediate training and skills assistance from them in design and construction of community based, sustainable low income and aboriginal housing, clean water systems, etc. YES!
$2b total, $600m of it to First Nations housing ...
The Liberals are going to make Harper sweat over the budget as they are demanding changes to it. Who will blink first here?
Ignatieff to call for changes to budget
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090127.wbudget_main0127/BNStory/budget2009/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
Well, Iggy's given his speech, and Harper's government survives. It was actually a pretty good speech, but in the end, short on substantive content. Amendments will be proposed, and no doubt accepted, that the Conservatives will have to give frequent report cards to the house, which will be confidence motions.
He's being asked pretty good questions by the press.
The Liberals will live to regret letting Harper escape from this vice-grip. They had their hands around his neck and all they had to do was squeeze - and instead Iggy proves to be a coward who doesn't want to govern.
Mr. Ignatieff said his party is concerned the budget fails to improve Employment Insurance, backtracks on equalization pledges made to the provinces two years ago, does little to position Canada for the “green economy” and does not have an adequate plan to return the government's numbers to surplus.
Nonetheless, Mr. Ignatieff said the budget contains enough positive stimulus measures to avoid a federal election. Mr. Ignatieff said the Conservatives only changed course because of the threat of being defeated by an opposition coalition.
“These measures are only in the budget because the opposition parties did their job,” he said. “This is a budget that means the needs of today. We'll see if it meets the needs of tomorrow.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090128.wPOLbudget0128/BNStory/politics/home
Yup, twas what I expected. Jack won't be happy.
What a tool! I predicted that once he took over the coalition was dead. And now it officially is.
" Jack won't be happy."
Or maybe he will since the NDP now has a gigantic wedge issue to use against the Liberals. Ignatieff is propping up Harper and in the next election the "ballot question" can be " do you support or oppose a continuation of the Harper/Ignatieff government?"
BTW: Something lese no one has mentioned. We keep hearing about how the Tories raise soooo much money from their grassroots. I wonder whether Tory fundraising is going to take a hit after they bring in a budget like this that is such total anathema to their base.
I was surprised at how incredibly ineffective he came off. While he says that unemployment insurance needs to be improved, he refuses to propose ammendments. He is worse than Dion.
What if the NDP or the BQ propose amendments to improve EI? Do the Liberals now join with the Tofries to vote them down?
Harper and Iggy might as well be members of the same party. There's no difference between the two. One is more hot on the social issues, the other might be more enthusiastic about torture, but there's little perceptible difference between the two.
Lets face it....Jack Layton has no power whatsoever. All he can do is talk. He cannot act. Duceppe just wants to break up the country. He will find flaws in anything the feds propose.
Hopefully Iggy will ammend the budget to help workers.
We don't even get the benefit of a period of political stability from this. The instability continues without relief because of Ignatieff's insistence on ongoing confidence votes.
I see this as a battle of the weasels. The 'smart' weasel (Ignatieff) thinks he can out-manoeuver the vicious Alpha weasel. I think the 'smart' one has come out of this first-round unscathed, but no further ahead. And he somehow seems to be satisfied with this result.
Serves us right for making politics into some kind of spectator sport...
I think there is a difference. I think that Harper - left to his own devices - genuinely wished he could drastically reduce the power of the federal government to do anything and he would scrap Medicare etc... I don't think that Iggy is that kind of an ideologue when it comes to domestic policy. He just wants to be in power for its own sake. Also, Harper leads a party made up of people who are much further to the right than the people in Iggy's party so that has to have SOME impact.
I like Jack Layton's comments about Ignatieff supporting Harper:
When the Liberals vote for Mr. Harper, with or without the figleaf of an amendment, they will be casting their forty-fifth straight vote in to keep Stephen Harper in office.
You can't do that, and pretend to be the alternative to Mister Harper.
So, to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who voted for Mr. Ignatieff’s party to replace Mr. Harper I say this: What you and I learned today is that you can't rely on Mr. Ignatieff to oppose Mr. Harper.
If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want to replace him, I urge you to support the New Democrats -- now and in the next election.
http://www.ndp.ca/press/jack-layton-s-response-to-liberal-leader-michael-ignatieff-s-support-harper-budget
"Hopefully Iggy will ammend the budget to help workers."
We already know he won't so you can give up on that. Iggy has made no real demands at all. He probably called Flaherty in advance to make sure that the Tories would accept his pallid amendment before he proposed it - since he obviously doesn't actually want to defeat Harper and take power.
The Liberals have now abandoned all pretense that they are a progressive party. The spending in this budget is mostly a sham and not used in the right places. Whoohoo a big $200 for the average person in tax cuts. That will sure stop the manufacturing job losses.
Something most of you will have missed, but I noticed. The Conservatives are planning on giving $50 million to the livestock packing sector with no provisions it not go to the big three packers (who already control some 85% of the Canadian industry) So rather than investing in local or regional processors that would create a lot of local jobs and spin off spending, the Conservatives appear to be on the cusp of giving Cargill and/or Tysons some of your hard earned tax dollars.
My advice - put your head between your knees, breath deep and hope like hell we somehow get through this because the Conservatives and Liberals have abandoned average Canadians.
This is a major tactical blunder on the part of Ignatieff and I predict he will come to regret it. Given the opportunity to maneuver, Harper will make Ignatieff (and the other opposition parties) pay for this. The NDP must make Ignatieff pay for this as well. The best thing to do is pay close attention to all the parties slamming this very flawed budget and very flawed approach. For example, Danny Williams called it an "economic atomic bomb" for NFLD & Lab, because it robs the province of $1.5 billion in equalisation payments, in other words the equivalent of $22 billion/year from the Ontario economy. To NFLD's 6 out of 7 (Liberal) MPs, you are about to totally betray your province! This is a direct partisan attempt to shove the province into have-not status. The NDP should be looking at ways to participate in the organisation of the push-back that certain to come from the upset people of NFLD when and if the NFLD Liberals vote for the budget.
Secondly, there will be a bunch of economists now that will savage the budget on many fronts. These quotes need to be collected and projected. The fact of the matter is that the budget is a highly political document designed for appearances rather than substance. The Liberals used to be caterwauling about how they didn't want the budget to put Canadians into permanent or structural deficit (different but related things), ergo no big tax cuts. That meme needs to be revived because these tax cuts do put the government into structural deficit, for the simple reason that they are not stimulus- they are permanent! By the government's own figures, this will keep Canada in deficit for likely six years- a balanced budget of $0.7 billion is a joke- assuming the economy makes the rapid recovery the government is hoping for.
Then it will be all to easy to pick apart the funding for its stimulus or protecting the vulnerable value, because it avoids the latter and little can be perfect when it comes to the former.
What can you say "Liberal Tory same old story"..when are Canadians going to figure it out? There was no way these right wingers were going to allow an NDP bloc and left Liberals to take over...they did an in house election..bullyed the governor general ..and pulled the wool over the eyes of canada once again. Here was a good chance for Iggy to prove he was not a cia plant, a true canadian, and not an easly intimidated harper butt kisser and what does he do? He lets the neocon govern!
Canadians have just set themselves up for a real disaster of the liberals making...like Jack says there is a new coalition the iggy/harper one...totally disgraceful. Well one good thing ...the bigger they are the harder they fall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user
P.S. How this helps the NDP:
1) The backlash to a coalition would have mostly come from Western Canada. The Liberal party is virtually non-existent in Western Canada and thus the NDP would have suffered the brunt of the backlash.
2) The Liberals are betraying their base, duh!
3) This allows the NDP to cast of the veneer of compromise that the coalition sough, e.g. they should now do their job condemning the war in Afghanistan and asking if corporate tax cuts are really the best value for Canadian's budgetary money. In so far as certain companies (mainly financial but also bad decisions in the auto sector) are responsible for the current economic crisis, why are they be getting big tax cuts?Is that fair?
4) Finally, this allows the NDP to build some much needed economic cred by gathering the sure-to-come criticisms of economists and presenting their own shadow budget, to much repeated flogging and fanfare, that can outperform the Conservative budget on many fronts. Like the Conservatives, this budget can be targeted (only if necessary) towards the NDP's target voting demographic. The main thing the NDP should be aiming for is "good stewardship." As Jack Layton said at the beginning of his NDP tenure, "proposition not opposition."
Have the Cons responded to Iggy's 'report card' admendment yet?
You mean the "let Liberals decide election timing" amendment?
Whatever.
I guarantee you that even after today's unconditional surrender by Ignatieff - there will still be those usual brain dead "think a million times coalition" types who will freak out if the NDP dares to say a single critical word about the Liberals. Those people will always find a way to excuse ANYTHING that the Liberals do - no matter how retrograde.
I can't wait to see Elizabeth May and her so-called green party start defending her Liberal friends even after they back a budget that by all accounts is not giving ONE RED CENT to any environmental cause.
Is there any surprise that the coalition is dead? If there was one, how long would it take to put a budget together? I have read that the liberals had prepared a shadow budget or whatever it's called but it doesn't sound like the NDP was involved. Did the NDP craft a budget too? If there was going to be a Coalition, I think the parties would have been behind the scenes getting one together. Iggy has not been in communications with Layton, ergo, no agreement on the budget and no coalition. The writing has been on the wall for weeks at least, if not ever since Iggy became interim leader of the libs.
What did the Liberals want that wasn't in there: better changes to EI; more long-term plans; and more environmental impact. anything else?
I bet the list of NDP's issues with the budget is longer. Anyone know?
Can these parties work together? If not, a coalition would not work and would be less stable than the libs propping up the cons.
Bottom line (as much as many NDP'ers hate to admit it), Layton will never be PM. Iggy might be one day. What does he have to gain by working with the NDP?
I guarantee you that even after today's unconditional surrender by Ignatieff - there will still be those usual brain dead "think a million times coalition" types who will freak out if the NDP dares to say a single critical word about the Liberals. Those people will always find a way to excuse ANYTHING that the Liberals do - no matter how retrograde.
I can't wait to see Elizabeth May and her so-called green party start defending her Liberal friends even after they back a budget that by all accounts is not giving ONE RED CENT to any environmental cause.
On the contrary, the Conservatives want to strip off the environmental review regulations on infrastructure projects in the name of "fast-tracking." That qualifies as worse than "no red cents" in my books.
ETA: As for the "think twice" crowd, fool me once shame on you, fool me 45 times, shame on me
Bottom line (as much as many NDP'ers hate to admit it), Layton will never be PM. Iggy might be one day.
Iggy might also become the third Liberal leader not to be elected Prime Minister!
I guarantee you that even after today's unconditional surrender by Ignatieff - there will still be those usual brain dead "think a million times coalition" types who will freak out if the NDP dares to say a single critical word about the Liberals. Those people will always find a way to excuse ANYTHING that the Liberals do - no matter how retrograde.
Yup - even in places the Annex the Libs are guaranteed a third of the vote.
She might, but I don't think Ignatieff is going to be cutting any deals with Elizabeth May. Unless of course, she actually quits being the Green leader and runs as a Liberal.
There is also a HUGE provision for the banking sector. I think 200 Billion, and it was completely not reported because people would be pissed.
Iggy's Q and A Clip
Iggy doesn't understand the scope of what is required from opposition parties. At 2:00 of the Q and A clip, in response to a question about the lack of detailed alternative suggestions from the Liberals, he said it isn't his job to offer amendment proposals to the Government, nor to Canadians by extension, so that we all might benefit from the genius of his mind, through comparison with the Conservative plan.
P.S. How this helps the NDP: 1) The backlash to a coalition would have mostly come from Western Canada. The Liberal party is virtually non-existent in Western Canada and thus the NDP would have suffered the brunt of the backlash.
Ahh the west, where the NDP is a natural alternative to prevailing conservative ideologies. How does western backlash help the NDP again?
ETA: As for the "think twice" crowd, fool me once shame on you, fool me 45 times, shame on me
Ah yes, but don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone feels that way. For many Liberals, having the cons in office is better than the NDP coalition (better the devil you know...)
Show of hands babblers: who here typically votes Liberal? If you don't, then presumably you vote NDP or Green. The Libs wouldn't likely get your vote anyway so they've lost nothing by propping up the Cons.
If you do vote Liberal, you've probably voted ndp/green before and would never vote Conservative. The Libs might get your vote if you're voting ABC or have forgiven them the past mistakes and decided their time out has been long enough for them to learn a little humility. The prop-up might affect your vote, but probably not.
There are a lot of Libs who sometimes vote Conservative or who have been staying home and not voting. They would not vote NDP or Green. They would continue to vote Con or to stay home if the Libs join the Coalition. These are the votes the Libs need. These are generally not Babblers. The Libs need to convince these voters (1) to go to the polls and (2) that there is a difference between the parties and the libs need their vote. The Coalition would not affect this.
"For many Liberals, having the cons in office is better than the NDP coalition (better the devil you know...)"
Isn't that interesting. in the last three elections, the Liberals have thundered "New Democrats we share your values. We are just like you. You have a STARK CHOICE between the evil Neo-con Tories or the Liberals are who really no different from NDPers - You must CHOOSE your Canada..." Now you tell us that after all that rhetoric, the Liberals actually prefer having Harper in power to having the NDP as a junior coalition partner...
The Conservatives are the second choice for Liberal voters, as well demonstrated in the last federal election.
Depends on where they live. In the City of Toronto, Atlantic Canada, Quebec and in urban areas like the City of Vancouver and Edmonton - Liberals tend to have the NDP as their second choice. One of the reasons the NDP won Edmonton-Strathcona was a collapse of the Liberal vote almost all of which went NDP.
I will grant you that in rural areas and in 905 suburban seats there are more Liberal/Conservative switchers.
To me the best scenario would be the Liberals giving up on trying to get NDP/Liberal switchers and that they focus instead on winning back the rural/suburban Liberal/Tory switchers.
Does Iggy have a "Boston Brahmin" accent?
I always refer to him as "Thurston".
Stockholm:
Depends on where they live. In the City of Toronto, Atlantic Canada, Quebec and in urban areas like the City of Vancouver and Edmonton - Liberals tend to have the NDP as their second choice. One of the reasons the NDP won Edmonton-Strathcona was a collapse of the Liberal vote almost all of which went NDP.
This trend happened pretty heavily across all of Alberta and not just Edmonton... The collapsed Lib vote went Green or NDP over Conservative (Can also claim that the NDP has done a better job than the liberals of swaying the vote from the Conservatives). NDP beat the Libs as far as popular vote goes in Alberta too (Provincially we all collect back as the Alberta Libs though).
Manitoba could very well see Liberals going NDP as a second choice too. Especially if the NDP makes a serious play for Winnepeg South (and maybe St. Boniface) next election.
Time to close for length. We'll see what the new one gets called.