Coalition government: the debate continues!

Actually, regardless of how I feel about the coalition, the premise of the recent machinations of the Tories, is vaguely reminicent of the 1933 Wiemar period in Germany, where the NSDAP ruled with a minority. The attempt to derail, what are quite well established parlimentary norms, is very disturbing.

I don't really have a problem with Martin's picture.

Living in Alberta, I'm being inundated with all sorts of pro-Conservative propoganda and it's driving me nuts.  There are so many petitions and e-mail campaigns such as http://www.petitiononline.com/CANADIAN/petition.html and http://canadians4democracy.ca/index.php?lang=e

I'm especially disturbed that so many people are being duped into seeing the actions of the opposition parties as an attempted coup or as being undemocratic.  How does one combat this nonsense in the heartland of Conservative support?  Any time I receive one of these petitions, I send an e-mail back to the sender about parliamentary democracy and coalitions but I just get accused of being a Liberal or NDP operative.

 I am fully supportive of the opposition parties right to try to form a coalition government but I am worried that in the long run, it will end up leading to a Conservative majority government.  My hope is that a coalition would lead to decent governance, the end of the neocons in the Conservative party and the end of Harper.  However, I can see a coalition being quite difficult to manage and the Conservatives jumping on any small miscue to go on the attack non-stop against all the parties involved, similar to their months of attacks on Dion.  In the long run, the biggest beneficiaries of the coalition might be the Conservatives and that would be a setback.

Please go vote in the polls contained in the links below regarding  your desire ofr a possible prorogue of parliament.

These msm idiots in conjunction with Harper, are trying to force a destruction of our constitutional conventions, and in essence will create a Harper dictatorship. And that is NOT over stating it.

www.edmontonjournal.com

www.torontosun.com 

www.thestar.com 

www.globeandmail.com 

www.ctv.ca 

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Cueball wrote:

Actually, regardless of how I feel about the coalition, the premise of the recent machinations of the Tories, is vaguely reminicent of the 1933 Wiemar period in Germany, where the NSDAP ruled with a minority. The attempt to derail, what are quite well established parlimentary norms, is very disturbing.

I don't really have a problem with Martin's picture.

I am just as disturbed by the resemblance to the Weimar Republic as Cueball. Maybe his facebook group should include a parable about the similarities.

[i][b]Brian Topp[/b]: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)[/i]

Kara,

The trick is to maintain as short a message as possible. It won't necessarily work in the short term, but you can't afford rambling long constitutional explanations when someone has been led to believe the very short spin that this is a coup d'état. Here's what I'm suggesting:

The Political Crisis in 7 lessons: Messaging for Troubled
Times

Lesson 1
At the last federal elections, you voted for the person to represent
you in your riding.
Canada has a parliamentary system. You vote for Members of Parliament
(MPs) to represent you. The United States does vote directly for a
President. Canadians don’t vote for a Prime Minister.

Lesson 2
The Conservative Party has twice now been mandated by Canadians to
govern as a minority government.
That’s what Canadians, as a whole, have wanted. On this, I hope
everyone can agree.

Lesson 3
The first task of a minority government is to get the support of enough
opposition MPs.
In a majority government, you aren’t required to seek the assent of the
opposition. In a minority government, you are. Failing to do so leads
to confrontation with the opposition.

Lesson 4
If the minority government fails to rally enough opposition party
members, it falls.
This was the risk when the Conservatives played chicken by trying to
force down the throat of the opposition measures that were, to them,
utterly unacceptable. They lost.

Lesson 5
The Opposition was faced with three choices: (1) Kneeling down to a
minority government; (2) Forcing Elections; (3) Uniting to form a
co-operative government.
The first option would mean the Conservatives could govern as a
majority EVEN if Canadians have told them to govern in a minority
government. The second option is unpalatable to Canadians.

Lesson 6
The Bloc québécois is not part of this coalition.
The Cabinet will be composed of Liberal and NDP MPs. The Bloc québécois
simply agreed to vote with the new government for every motion of
confidence until June 30, 2010.

Lesson 7
The Governor General will agree to the coalition government only if it
can prove stability.
The minority Conservative government has failed to create the
conditions for stability. The Bloc québécois agreed to adopt the next
two budgets, and for confidence in government until June 30, 2010.

The US caused the current world economic crisis. The only reason Canada is positioned as well as it is compared to other countries, is because of the good government and policies put in place by Paul Martin and the Liberals. Stephan Dion made a point of this on more than one occassion during the election. 

It will take years to see the result of the current government. Before making judgement, I would just like to see what the January budget will look like. The Liberals want to throw $30 billion dollars at the economy, but at what? What is their plan? Right now I know as little about the Liberal plan for the economy, as I do of the conservative plan, because neither party has yet released it. 

@Madmax -Dion may be PM for a few months, weeks or perhaps days, so yes he wins for the moment. The Liberal Party has everything to lose if this coalition fails, and that be Dion's legacy and what history will remember. 

Kara wrote:

In the long run, the biggest beneficiaries of the coalition might be the Conservatives and that would be a setback.

During the coming year, the electorate will see the continuing loss of jobs, deepening recession, and an unforeseeable amount of deficit spending.  Anything that occurs economically will be worn by the government, whoever that may be, and by all counts it will mostly be comprised of unhappy occurrences due to global influences.  If it is the coalition that wears the next year or so around it's neck, then to that we can add the views among a significant portion of the population that power was taken by some sort of coup in league with a separatist party.  The conservative apparatus will be handed plenty of fodder for the next election campaign without need of resorting to their usual attack machine lies, which of course they'll toss in for good measure.  Down the road towards another election, once the NDP manages to disentangle itself from the coalition, it will have to face its supporters and the voters at large with the legacy of an unavoidable economic deficit, and even more importantly, an even larger credibility deficit.  I believe the best option, now that the Cons are over a barrel for their own survival, because that is what matters to them above all else, is to throw them a bone that they'll be only too happy to gnaw on.  Force them, out of their own need for self-preservation, to include things within the next budget that the coalition would have proceeded with anyway.  No amount of government spending is going to have that much of an effect over the next year or so.  Why take ownership and fault of such a mess when through the Cons own hands, much of the same type of economic program spending can be achieved.  The prospect of holding a few token cabinet seats on the economic titanic of the next couple of years has everybody running around drunk.  What will follow will be a conservative majority if this coalition takes power under these circumstances.

remind wrote:

Kara wrote:

In the long run, the biggest beneficiaries of the coalition might be the Conservatives and that would be a setback.

No, in the long allowing the CPC to dismantle constitutional conventions would be a set back of huge proportions. Harper has to go. Full stop. He cannot be trusted with democracy, he intends to dismantle it, and that is quite apparent.

I agree with you about Harper needing to go and his bad intentions.  However, I still see the possibility of all this ending with a Conservative majority after another election.  The Cons are much better at manipulating the media and disseminating their (usually dishonest) message than are their opponents.  Harper is an accomplished liar and manipulator who gets away with saying one thing and doing another because the public doesn't pay attention to his actual actions but seemingly buys into the Cons bogus talking points and TV ads, which are generally filled with half-truths, manipulated facts and outright lies.

Tommy Canuck, kids are starving in this country, indigenous peoples are short on clean water, many young people can't afford books in highschool, let alone go to university, decent jobs are disappearing by the hundreds of thousands, and figures would show we're in recession already here, if Harperites would stop cooking the books.

at some times it's more important to actually do something that will make a difference for suffering people, than worry about what the effect will or will not have on any given party.

Lasker, thank you for the suggestions.  I've tried explaining a lot of that already yet, in general, the response tends to be that I'm a mouthpiece for the NDP or the Liberals or *gasp* socialists or *shudder* separatists.  TBH, I think I'm going to give up on it because I'm going to get a headache if I keep banging my head against the wall!

Excellent Lasker.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

LeighT wrote:

some times it's more important to actually do something that will make a difference for suffering people, than worry about what the effect will or will not have on any given party.

Exactly, at this point party politics matter little. For the reasons you note and because Harper is trying to make representative democracy conventional precedents, that would destroy Canada's electoral system, and every commonwealth country's electoral system.

I would bet letters have gone out to every commonwealth country's leaders, urging them to get in touch with the Queen. And if they haven't they should have been and someone should get on it from the coalition.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Lasker wrote:

But those are the hacks you just can't convince. Ask them to define what  a socialist is in their mind? Or even, what a separatist is? Ask them why separatists, if they really wanted to break the country, would actually agree to give it some stability...

By my experience, if you're only countering their opinion with yours, they won't budge. You can only open their mind if you can make them doubt their assumptions. 

More good advice, especially the last sentence.  I doubt I'll be able to make much headway because most of the people I work with / have worked with completely buy the Cons propaganda.  One third of Albertans voted for parties other than the Cons yet I don't know if I've ever met one person who either did so or would admit to doing so.  Of course the fact that I'm from Vancouver or "nuts, fruits and flakes" land as people here like to call it, does not help my credibility with them.

 A side thought:  how ironic that so many of those Albertans who are the most negative about Quebecers and separatists are often those who are the first to bring up the idea of Alberta separating.  No hypocrisy there.  

I wouldn't call it a COMPLETE sellout. Everyone has made consessions and to finally be placed in a position to create policy is great exposure for the NDP. Finally they will have control of an actual cabinet post and not just one. They will finally be able to see first hand the damage done by the conservatives. They will be able to take that experience to the people and say look we haven't changed the flag to a hammer and sickle.

What I would worry about is if the conservatives do get ousted they may leave with all kinds of booby traps laid to cause infighting and I would be cautious till they are weeded out. I would also look for sabouters they may have planted. I think the coalition is going to be in for plenty of surprises, but better to have the Ndp  in there discovering them that's for sure.

The current government can only exist as long as at least one other party supports it on confidence votes- one is no more, or no less democratic than the other. 

And we have now seen the real face of this devil.  Frankly I want none of it.

Tommy_Canuck wrote:

If I were to be able to exercise my democratic right to vote between the Conservatives and a coalition government, I would need a lot more information than I do now.

You just worded the fallacy. Refer back to lesson 1: you don't vote for the Prime Minister and you don't vote for the party in power. You vote for your MP. That's the essence of a parliamentary democracy.

This is why this claptrap about  voting for a coalition or not doesn't make sense.

Tommy_Canuck wrote:

At a time when we need stable government, how is having a shaky
'minority' (lesson 6) coalition government with no opposition, better
for the country, than an elected minority government with an effective
opposition?

Beside the fact that a minority coalition government would have the Conservatives as an opposition, I would submit that coalition governments can, indeed, be very stable in troubled times. Take a look at Germany with Angela Merkel being in a coalition with Schroeder. Ask any German:none will tell you they voted for a coalition. But all understand that in a minority situation, a coalition is the path to stability.

And referring to the last part of your comment: how can an opposition be effective if the minority government keeps acting as a majority one, and if an election is not really a palatable option? (See Lesson 5).

Interested Observer wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Actually, regardless of how I feel about the coalition, the premise of the recent machinations of the Tories, is vaguely reminicent of the 1933 Wiemar period in Germany, where the NSDAP ruled with a minority. The attempt to derail, what are quite well established parlimentary norms, is very disturbing.

I don't really have a problem with Martin's picture.

I am just as disturbed by the resemblance to the Weimar Republic as Cueball. Maybe his facebook group should include a parable about the similarities.

[i][b]Brian Topp[/b]: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)[/i]

It's not at all that I have any positive feelings about the coalition. Because I don't really have any positive feelings about the coalition really, as I have stated several times.

BUT, it is absolutely clear to me that they have a legal mandate to do what they are doing. The attack from the right, and the framing of this proccess as a coup is a really disturbing attempt to hoodwink the Canadian public, dishonest, and undemocratic -- and by this I do not mean democratic as in the terms of the procedure of the House, but in terms of the "rule of law" being a fundamental principle of democracy, above and beyond house procedure.

This development, certainly puts me in the camp of those who support the coalitions right to establish a government. It is the coalitionists who are on the right side of the law on this issue, and it is the Tories who are trying to subvert the basic principles of the laws of governance, and we should be very clear on this point.

If anyone is trying to engineer a coup, it is the Tories.

Slumberjack wrote:

During the coming year, the electorate will see the continuing loss of jobs, deepening recession, and an unforeseeable amount of deficit spending. Anything that occurs economically will be worn by the government, whoever that may be, and by all counts it will mostly be comprised of unhappy occurrences due to global influences. If it is the coalition that wears the next year or so around it's neck, then to that we can add the views among a significant portion of the population that power was taken by some sort of coup in league with a separatist party. The conservative apparatus will be handed plenty of fodder for the next election campaign without need of resorting to their usual attack machine lies, which of course they'll toss in for good measure. Down the road towards another election, once the NDP manages to disentangle itself from the coalition, it will have to face its supporters and the voters at large with the legacy of an unavoidable economic deficit, and even more importantly, an even larger credibility deficit. I believe the best option, now that the Cons are over a barrel for their own survival, because that is what matters to them above all else, is to throw them a bone that they'll be only too happy to gnaw on. Force them, out of their own need for self-preservation, to include things within the next budget that the coalition would have proceeded with anyway. No amount of government spending is going to have that much of an effect over the next year or so. Why take ownership and fault of such a mess when through the Cons own hands, much of the same type of economic program spending can be achieved. The prospect of holding a few token cabinet seats on the economic titanic of the next couple of years has everybody running around drunk. What will follow will be a conservative majority if this coalition takes power under these circumstances.

I agree that the media will try and blame any negative economic news on the government, especially if the government is a Liberal-NDP coalition. I also agree that there is little the government can due to help the economy through this crisis (due to the nature of capitalist economic crises), and that these are solid arguments against a coalition government.

At the same time, I believe it is the role of left social movements to point out to people that the economic crisis is caused by the capitalist stystem itself, not by this or that government. The economic crisis is fundamentally a crisis of overproduction, of the workers collectively not being able to buy up what they have produced; and the economic crisis will not pass until this surplus has been sold off. These crises of overproduction are endemic to capitalism, and will be exagerated going forwards, in large part due to the ecological crisis in which capitalist production is butting up against the limits of the earth's resources.

Only in this way can we force the capitalists to wear the failures of their economic system. Only then can we begin to build a mass movement to replace this failed capitalist system with a socialist system which places human need at it's centre, rather than corporate greed.

I am not sure backing down is the right thing to do, frankly. I really think, it might be best to confront Harper's emerging Fascist tendency, immediatly. Regardless of the consequences. The Tories, and their supporters must know that the rule of law, is the rule of law. The very first things that Fascists do is subvert the rule of law.

Dion and the Libs need to buy a vcr, push play and watch the tape before they send it to the media.

Layton has to leave the coalition cause Dion is an embarassment to the Nation.

 Staying with the coalition hurts the NDP.....Dion is just not up to the job

Cueball wrote:

I am not sure backing down is the right thing to do, frankly. I really think, it might be best to confront Harper's emerging Fascist tendency, immediatly. Regardless of the consequences. The Tories, and their supporters must know that the rule of law, is the rule of law. The very first things that Fascists do is subvert the rule of law.

Totally agree.  At this point, there's a greater principle at stake than merely a change in prime ministers.

If Harper gets his way on prorogueing- that is 2 months without a government when all Canadians think we need one. Remember that one of the key rationales of the coalition was that Harper was doing nothing.

So instead we're going to have to wait for two months to see who is in charge, and then someone is going to do something?

Its not a good recipe, and the coalition stands to wear the bulk of the blame.

I don't think its guaranteed Harper is going to get his prorogue. But people should stop thinking like if he does that just puts off the inevitable for 2 months.

If the prorogue happens we'll be in a weird de facto election mode for the duration. And the burden of proof of necessity will be on the coalition- despite the consensus that Harper caused all this.

I suppose that if there is a prorogue the coalition can just start rolling out the action plan.

In other words- come January 27 we will be the government, and here is what we will be doing.

And Harper can do no more than that.  In fact he can only offer less: "here is what we will be doing if I am still Prime Minister [which is not up to me].

[There is the not so minor detail that it will take a lot of research resources to come up with a stimulis plan- resources the NDP and Liberals don't really have. But something sufficiently concrete can still be put on the table.]

josh wrote:

Totally agree.  At this point, there's a greater principle at stake than merely a change in prime ministers.

Which of those "greater principles" have been spared so far by the NDP?

KenS wrote:

If Harper gets his way on prorogueing- that is 2 months without a government

Ken you have it wrong. I hate Harper with all my being but it will not be 2 months without a government.

 It will be 2 mos without the house sitting. no different than normal when the house rises in December and comes back in March. Like it has every year