Talking to people you know about the coalition
I'm curious what experiences other posters here have had with other people they know since the fiscal update was first announced. I haven't talked to anyone, not a single person, who is against the coalition. Every single person I've talked to has been angry about Harper's games. Even people I know who don't normally follow politics were angry when they heard about things like proroguing government. My experiences obviously don't line up with the story the media is giving us. Have other people had similar experiences? Have you talked to people who are backing the Conservatives on this, and if so, how frequently?
Also, just to be clear, I'm talking about people you've actually spoken to. Comments made on news web sites, calls made to radio shows, etc. don't count.
Comments
Heh. Well, it's pretty predictable, what they're saying at MY workplaces. :D My workplaces being rabble.ca, and a university. Needless to say, those I talk to about it there are in favour!
I visited family last weekend. On one side, they're for it. On the other side, I'm pretty sure at least one of them isn't in favour, but we didn't get into it. We're more interested in family peace than wrangling over politics. ;)
Very interesting thread!
I wish I had as definitive replies to share as some posters but at the office here very few of the staff have feelings either way, they don't like Harper but they don't like Dion or Layton either (I have a better impression of Layton because I've had a few chances to meet him personally and get to know him, to the rest of the folks here though he is basically Mr. Toronto and thats all they know of him); the coalition seems strange to them because the media has portrayed it that way but they aren't against it per say, they just don't really care either way.
Incidentally this is Bill Casey's riding and so party politics are hardly the order ot the day, pretty well everyone here voted for Casey so their guy isn't really on either side right now... There were two exceptions in the office, one who has issues with Quebec (hence opposed to the coalition with "seperatists") and the other who is very up on parliamentary democracy and, though a conservative (small c), is pretty supportive of the coalition because he feels that a) Harper is a bully and an idiot, and b) coalitions are a natural part of our political model, even though the media is spinning hard the other way.
I'd ad the opinions of my friends to the opinions of my colleagues but pretty well all my friends are way outside party politics (mostly anarchists, maoists and the like) and really haven't taken notice of the news from Parliament Hill. Thats a position I can certainly understand, these days more than ever 
Well, back in the real world, people would look at a politician who didn't want a share of power as if they were stark raving mad. There is nothing insane about coalition to advance some of your policys as opposed to no coalition and advancing none of your policys. I do not know how they brainwashed canadians so effectively. First they had to take away their powers to do math. In a normal democracy, it is unthinkable that the other 3 partys in parliament would not have a power sharing agreement.
Yeah. But Canada isn't really a normal parlimentary democracy. We have no experience with coalition governments. Our political system didn't make the concept relevent until the 90's, when 3rd parties went from holding 35ish seats to 90ish. On top of this, the Liberals threw out the idea of forming a progressive coaltion in an instance where they were won fewer seats than the Liberals.
So very few people saw this kind of scenario coming to pass directly after, and more importantly during, the election. Most assumed Harper would be governing for another 2 years. I think if people saw the choice as between Harper majority vs. Dion-led coalition rather than as Harper majority vs. passively-liberal-backed Harper minority, more people would have voted for Harper. Not a majority of people, but enough people to give him a majority in parliment.
And this is what I'm afraid is going to happen if the left tries to follow through on this coalition deal. Harper could really distort our parlimentary system and manage to call an election in March. With the Liberals in total chaos he could very well win a majority. That is the nightmare scenario for all progressives and moderates. I'm willing to see Harper with a little power for 1 more year to avoid the risk of seeing him with total power for 4.
Now, if the coalition does manage to take government, well then the risk will have appeared to have paid off. But this government will be seen as illegitmate by a large segment of the population, and until proven otherwise, seen as dysfunctional by another significant segment (my mom being one of those people). They'll still be behind in the polls, they won't have a great economic situation to work with, they won't have much time to inspire people back to thier side. We will have another election in Fall 2010, and the coaltion could lose, and the Conservatives could get a majority, and that party could still be led by Harper at that time.
So that's what I see this coaltion deal is. A big, big risk. One that I'm not sure the Liberals should take unless they have to.
For the NDP partisans, and maybe for those who are generally left of me (um... rabble basicly) it is a little easier. You guys get cabinet seats and influence, something you don't get that often at the federal level.
Sorry west coast greenie. At some stage canada is going back to the early stone age (harper) or is going to jump forward to late 20th century politics.
Standing on the sidelines helps harper. In politics it is always now or never. Dion took his chance, and if the gg had not been an idiot he would be pm right now.
Hopefully layton can turn iggy away from the dark side.
Politics in Canada is dumb. (And thats being nice about it).
Dion showed a flash of intelligence and the GG and the liberal party of canada took turns stabbing him in the back.
Layton and the block should make it clear that iggy stands for nothing at all if he does not follow through with the coalition agreement.
So what if i am on the left of you. Are you closer to Harper than the coalition position?
We should be educating Canadians about how the real world works.
In the real world, a fucker like harper gets dumped as PM by the other partys. Period. Then a week later the Conservatives get their knives out and finish him off completely.
Even the newspapers have noted that he is a dangerous fuck.
He is scary and has to be removed. A lot of people just do not get it.
This is not the time to play wait and see.
He could be our milosovic.
He is a HUGE danger to society.
Harper is how Fascism starts.
Well, back in the real world, people would look at a politician who didn't want a share of power as if they were stark raving mad. There is nothing insane about coalition to advance some of your policys as opposed to no coalition and advancing none of your policys. I do not know how they brainwashed canadians so effectively. First they had to take away their powers to do math. In a normal democracy, it is unthinkable that the other 3 partys in parliament would not have a power sharing agreement.
Yeah. But Canada isn't really a normal parlimentary democracy. We have no experience with coalition governments. Our political system didn't make the concept relevent until the 90's, when 3rd parties went from holding 35ish seats to 90ish. On top of this, the Liberals threw out the idea of forming a progressive coaltion in an instance where they were won fewer seats than the Liberals.
So very few people saw this kind of scenario coming to pass directly after, and more importantly during, the election. Most assumed Harper would be governing for another 2 years. I think if people saw the choice as between Harper majority vs. Dion-led coalition rather than as Harper majority vs. passively-liberal-backed Harper minority, more people would have voted for Harper. Not a majority of people, but enough people to give him a majority in parliment.
And this is what I'm afraid is going to happen if the left tries to follow through on this coalition deal. Harper could really distort our parlimentary system and manage to call an election in March. With the Liberals in total chaos he could very well win a majority. That is the nightmare scenario for all progressives and moderates. I'm willing to see Harper with a little power for 1 more year to avoid the risk of seeing him with total power for 4.
Now, if the coalition does manage to take government, well then the risk will have appeared to have paid off. But this government will be seen as illegitmate by a large segment of the population, and until proven otherwise, seen as dysfunctional by another significant segment (my mom being one of those people). They'll still be behind in the polls, they won't have a great economic situation to work with, they won't have much time to inspire people back to thier side. We will have another election in Fall 2010, and the coaltion could lose, and the Conservatives could get a majority, and that party could still be led by Harper at that time.
So that's what I see this coaltion deal is. A big, big risk. One that I'm not sure the Liberals should take unless they have to.
For the NDP partisans, and maybe for those who are generally left of me (um... rabble basicly) it is a little easier. You guys get cabinet seats and influence, something you don't get that often at the federal level.
My experience has been exactly the same as yours - with the sole exception of one labour relations manager of one company, who is a fan of Stephen Harper's. He is quite isolated in his own social setting, so he comes and whines to me. I humour him. Call it the duty to accommodate the disabled.
Other than that, everyone - everyone - says the coalition is the natural corollary to "Stop Harper!" of the election campaign.
I think the media are full of crap and the polls are meaningless, biased, distorted. People are thrilled and inspired about this nonpartisan move to wipe out the extremist Harper and his attacks against Canada.
Unfortunately, the coalition actors aren't up to the job. But that's a different story. The people want change, and they will bring forth the leaders who will guide that change.
Where I work, I think the majority opinion is that they don't want anyone rocking the boat in already stormy seas, so they swallow the lies and are resentfull of the coalition. While I am saddened by that assesment by my co-workers, I understand it. We've been in the trenches of the recession just declared today for the last year and a half. Nobody wants more uncertainty, and this is how the coalition presents itself to them, with help from lying Conservative shills in the media, and Conservatives themselves.
You may think I am biased, because I am against the coalition, but as you know I am against it for entirely different reasons.
Many of the people I know say all politicians are liars and crooks. They have no diffculty believing the NDP and Liberals are attempting a coup. But they also believe that Harper is a bully and a dictator.
So their choice is between a dictator and coup leaders.
Unfortunately the dictator's pr campaign is currently working. But that's only in the short term. Over the longer term Canadians will not accept a bully like Harper.
It took the Americans 8 years to get rid of their dictator.
I live in a fairly conservative area. Devolin won by a landslide. The conservatives amongst my friends seem to be a little reluctant to discuss the issue. Not sure if it is on account of being tired about it or that they are somewhat embarrased by Harper (or me). I have no doubt that Harper has been badly damaged by this.
Two days ago I was at a little party of about a dozen people, most of whom I did not know, and in a brief discussion on the issue it was apparent that most liked the idea of a coalition and all disliked the suspension of parliament. But there was quite a range on how to deal with the economy.
In my area, people started engaging me in conversation and were eager to want to know about the coalition and what I thought. Overall, I got mostly positive comments. It appeared to me that the coalition needs to tell Canadians what they will do and not just say Harper out.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
You may think I am biased, because I am against the coalition, but as you know I am against it for entirely different reasons.
When this discussion started, you said no one was talking about the coalition at your workplace at all - literally no one. I made some comment about, maybe we should take the lead.
When did they start talking about it and deciding they didn't want to "rock the boat"?
The Zeitgeist of this Autumn has been a confusion of fears- about not only the need for a "green" solution, but since end of summer, about the end of jobs, pensions and a future.
Indecision in some quaarters about attempt at a rational solution-by-coalition and abandonment of a cool lookin' "leader" is perhaps not to be wondered at. But boy oh boy do we ever have to get busy explaining that alternative.
Can Jack somehow take the lead and embarass the Liberal laity behind Bob to force Iggy to stay the course? (Or does that all sound too much like a complex soap opera plot built around personalities?
My con friend blasted my facebook account with TRAITOR, dictator taliban jack and Coup coup coup.."even you can like this fucking bullshit" She typed with a bead of sweat upon her brow. I then reminded her what democracy was and dictator as a term, plus all the false premises from her camp....hasn't messaged me in 8 days....hmm I wonder how strong your position feels now. But outside of her and that little world she and a small number of our friends live in, most are in favour of anything to take harper down. Even our rightwing rag(gotta love southam news practices) has more people for the coalition than against in the letters to the editor. That is quite the feat considering how they normally like to be balanced. By balanced, the need to have a strong conservative voice to counter then NDP sentiment in the community. So 2 or 3 to one is the order of con to centre(no leftish voices at all) op eds and the LTE are generally about 60%con to 30% centre to 10% left, despite having elected 2 NDP down here.
As an aside, they called me up 2 weeks ago to subscribe to their rag. $1.35 a week...pretty cheap to wash the windows I gotta admit. So I was nice to the lady on the other end. "1.35 is a great deal, but I don't like John Coleman and his views" she chuckled and said thanks anyways I understand. Hmm must not be the first to bitch about our editorial page editor. The guy had the balls to email me back and say he wouldn't print my piece because it was snarky. I guess he doesn't mind snark as long as it is conservative tripe. (I was critical of their obvious bias. I doth think he protesteth too much.) That is when I cancelled my paper 5 years ago. I like to ask fellow dippers how often they get printed when I see them at left events, most say they only get the paper for the local events and the obits page. They have also tried to have their voices heard to no avail.
______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
Everyone that either my husband or I have spoken to here in Alberta, whether at work or at social outings, is vehemently against the coalition, completely buying the treason, traitor, deal with the devil, etc. BS peddled by the Cons. However, to their credit, a few are finally starting to admit that Harper has to go. Maybe there is some hope for them in the long run!
Conversely, family and friends I have spoken or e-mailed with from BC are all in favour of the coalition and want Harper gone yesterday. Likewise with my friends in Quebec. Similarly, my husband's family and friends in Ontario are all in favour of the coalition.
The coalition has failed to get its message out in my region. The vast majority of people I meet have bought into the description of a coup with the BQ and hate it. They like Harper, but don't like what he did. THey believe the coalition is coup and that Harper needs the time to govern. They believe he won the election, even recognise it is a minority parliment, but believe he won. Few believe the coalition has the authority to govern. Many today believe the coalition is dead.
And if I were to go back to the day that Dion was chosen to lead the coalition, thats when most of the opinions were formed. People really and truly hated Dion more then Harper. The coalition ideas prior to that point were being machine gunned out and the Harper government was on its heels. This lasted for a few days, before most people even understood that anything was happening. By the time people focused on the mainstream story, DIon was in power and screwed up the coalition in 48hours.
I rarely meet anyone that is for the coalition. However, I do explain to anyone who asks me how and why the coalition is legal and that having the governor general hand over power to another party vs have an election is beneficial to our system of government.
Right now the hatred is directed at the "Coalition" Coalition is almost a bad name.
Now I see a generic backlash against politicians who are receiving a fully paid vacation courtesy of the prorouging of parliment. Its starting to dawn on some that they have no government working for them.
"When this discussion started, you said no one was talking about the coalition at your workplace at all - literally no one. I made some comment about, maybe we should take the lead.
When did they start talking about it and deciding they didn't want to 'rock the boat'? "
Sorry, Unionist, I loose track of these coalition threads, and I missed your comments the other day. Wasn't a snub or anything-- just me being inatentive and distracted.
After a weekend of me babbling here and watching T.V. news about the coalition, I expected some talk on the monday, but there was none. But there was the next day. It's one plant and a handfull of workers in it, but maybe that's a valuable insight there-- working class people don't watch the news on the weekend? Just us wonks?
As far as leading discussion, I did that so much and so often in years past that I stopped doing it when I noticed people's eyes glaze over when I talked. And talked.
And talked.
These days with co-workers and friends I tend to let them bring up the subject, so at least I know they are attentive and interested.
Then I talk. And talk.
And talk.
Word.
Amongst my group of friends our opinions are generally unanimous so we just go off and play the devils advocate, but an associate showed up the other day complaining about a conversation she had with her mother about how she has yet to sign her sisters petition.
Petition about what? I ask.
Signing against the coalition government. She replied.
I, for one, support it very much. Mostly because many of Harper policies don't cater to my beliefs or aid in pursuing my interests in life. Oddly enough, this individual and I share the same interests and are working in the same program together, one that is threated by Harper policy. So this boggled my mind as to why she would be opposed to a Harper government.
This individual also happens to be from Alberta. Now I don't mean to stereotype, but from what I gather Albertans (as a general statement) are the most unhappy populace about this coalition. Please keep in mind, this is hearsay, but that seems to be the general opinion around here.
A majority of Albertans voted for Harper and a majority of the ROC voted to ensure he didn't get a majority government. This is also about oil revenues. Albertans by and large believe that since they were lucky enough to have the Leduc strike they deserve a bigger share of the Canadian pie. Plus Alberta's political culture has always been the most American of the provinces. Bible Bill was a radio preacher after all so the big lie is nothing new in their politics either.
where i work the majority of people were fearful that Mr. Dion would become PM. Libs hated that idea. NDP colleagues were confused as to why Layton the strongest of all federal leaders would add the baggage of the libs to his coattails
In my office not one person supported the coalition. Although close to 90% are against Harper.
I haven't talked to anyone about the coalition for a week, but before hand there were some NDPers I talked to that were concerned and saw it just as a "power grab" and that that didn't sound right. I explained to them what Harper was trying to push through and some of what the coalition was proposing as an alternative and they liked it. I think what threw or has thrown some NDP supporters for a loop, at first, was the issue of the NDP cabinet ministers. It's were the credibility for "power grab" comes/came from. There were also concerns expressed to me about "just another big bailout for the auto industry." There's been some backlash to big auto's plea before Congress in the United States- don't assume a similar phenomenom can't/won't reverberate here.
Let me get my biases out of the way on this. Despite not being a Harper supporter, I think the coalition (at least at this point) should be an option of last resort. Politically, its rather insane for the left. The majority of Canadians view this move as a dishonest power grab. Harper saw a 6-10 bounce in the polls. If the coalition is seen through to January, we will either have an election which certainly would produce a Harper majority, or a coalition government that would be seen as illegitimate and would have a hard time proving themselves.
Morally, I'm not opposed to the idea outright, but I'm only in favour of it as a move of last resort. I do wonder if Canadians would have voted differently if they thought the Liberals could govern after the election. I also think the move would be very, very divisive.
I have alot of friends on all sides of the political spectrum, who are members and organizers of all 4 national parties, and opinion has been split across ideological lines, which I find kind of annoying. I'm having a hard time talking about this with anyone. Usually I spend more time trying to turn more people over to proportional representation than to the coalition.
I wonder if a coalition might be more "democratically" palatable to Canadians if, after a snap election, the Tory seat totals go down and the Liberal and/or NDP seat totals go up sufficiently to, combined, outnumber the Tories without needing the Bloc?
As "unpalatable" as Iggy is to many New Democrats, keep in mind that not many are betting on Liberal seat totals to actually fall under Iggy's watch (and if they do, it'll be due to "outside circumstances")
"Despite not being a Harper supporter, I think the coalition (at least at this point) should be an option of last resort. Politically, its rather insane for the left."
Well, back in the real world, people would look at a politician who didn't want a share of power as if they were stark raving mad. There is nothing insane about coalition to advance some of your policys as opposed to no coalition and advancing none of your policys. I do not know how they brainwashed canadians so effectively. First they had to take away their powers to do math. In a normal democracy, it is unthinkable that the other 3 partys in parliament would not have a power sharing agreement.
Sure you can throw in some effects that the distortions of the first past the post system causes but I really think there is something uniquely canadian about the inability of politicians and political supporters to share power.
Perhaps people here are more selfish than normal people?
I mean really! In Ireland the right and left band together and bang out a compromise position if thats what it takes to beat off the centre right.
I think that politicians that are not in it to try to form government asap are just jerk offs. Especially in first past the post.
If they do not take power right now, harper has an excellent chance of winning the next election. If the take power right now, harper will quickly be cut to pieces by his fellow conservatives.
I much prefer that option due to the dangerousness of harper's behaviour.
He could be our milosovic and that is not a chance that we should be taking.
Let me get my biases out of the way on this. Despite not being a Harper supporter, I think the coalition (at least at this point) should be an option of last resort. Politically, its rather insane for the left. The majority of Canadians view this move as a dishonest power grab. Harper saw a 6-10 bounce in the polls. If the coalition is seen through to January, we will either have an election which certainly would produce a Harper majority, or a coalition government that would be seen as illegitimate and would have a hard time proving themselves.
Morally, I'm not opposed to the idea outright, but I'm only in favour of it as a move of last resort. I do wonder if Canadians would have voted differently if they thought the Liberals could govern after the election. I also think the move would be very, very divisive.
I have alot of friends on all sides of the political spectrum, who are members and organizers of all 4 national parties, and opinion has been split across ideological lines, which I find kind of annoying. I'm having a hard time talking about this with anyone. Usually I spend more time trying to turn more people over to proportional representation than to the coalition.
Sure you can throw in some effects that the distortions of the first past the post system causes but I really think there is something uniquely canadian about the inability of politicians and political supporters to share power.
Perhaps people here are more selfish than normal people?
First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) creates divisions. It creates a climate where the major parties are always looking for a way to win a majority with a minority of the votes. Parties always want to go it alone because they know that FPTP creates Parliaments with false majorities and without coalitions.
FPTP also supports regionalism. It rewards parties who can gain concentrated support in geographic areas. So the Conservatives have become the party of rural areas and the exburbs. The Liberals have become the party of the big metropolitab cities, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. The NDP has become the party of core areas. And the BQ has become the party of Quebec outside of Metro Montreal. These are all false dichotomies created by FPTP. The NDP, Liberals and Conservatives have support throughout Canada but FPTP conceals this. FPTP creates divisions, xenophobia, and outright hatred.
Eg. the animosity between Alberta and the ROC.