Think back to what the Cons were before they reconstituted. They were nothing, powerless, impotent. So, they formed an alliance and rejuvenated ... TWICE ... and with the help of a fractured opposition, they attained a 2008 quasi-majority, and attempted to eliminate the funding of their fractured opponents (even though Harper said, "oops, sorry, I reached too far", we all know his ultra-rightwing agenda lies beneath the deceptive surface).
Now the Liberals, NDP and Greens simply have to retaliate. If they form the ultimate Canadian Coalition party, and set up a big-tent occupying the political center, the paradigm can be moved there instead of where it is now - at the far, virtual majority right. Bills C-26, C-51 and C-61 are examples of lethal right wing policies. Harper basically mimics Bush antics and walks the American Neo-Con path, while pretending to be a likeable moderate. He is a ruthless extremist, who if given a true majority, would definitely turn Canada into the 51st state, and utterlly maximize the power of the corporations, military, prisons and wealthy elite.
A small number of right-leaning Liberals would defect to the Cons, as they naturally SHOULD.
Later, after winning the next election with any of the following names...
Canadian Coalition
Liberal Democrats
Centrist Party
... an inevitable split from the new dominant center paradigm party could form a socialist party, and would simply be debating centrists rather than going up against a bunch of wreckless Neo-Con Stockwells.
If the political paradigm can move to the non-ideological center, Canada will be saved.
If not, Canada will be fully Americanized by a Harper majority capitalizing on the fractured/scattered opposition.
A big tent Coalition Party would destroy Harper and the Conservatives
1. As two separate parties the NDP and Liberals can collectively spend 40 million dollars in elections. As one party they can only spend half that.
2. The latest poll from Ekos (might have been Ipsos) actually had a ballot question of Conservatives vs. coalition. It was 47-34 for the Conservatives. While I think in time those numbers would get closer, there are a lot more right wing Liberals than you think. Remember this is a party that gutted social programs in the mid-1990's. Chretien was Mike Harris' enabler.
3. Now I can use world value survey to show you the ideological placement of supporters of Liberals circa 2000 (today some of those Liberals are NDP'ers, some are Tories, though they probably gained some PC support, considering that Harper won 38% in the election, roughly what the Bloc and PC's got).
Liberal supporters
Left: 1.5
2: 4.7
3: 7.3
4: 9.1
5: 32
6: 21.4
7: 11.1
8: 7.3
9: 2.7
Right: 2.8
By contrast, the NDP
Left: 2.7
2: 6.7
3: 9.9
4: 17.1
5: 36.5
6: 16.1
7: 6.8
8: 3.9
9: 0
Right: 0.2
PC party
Left: 0.2
2: 0.4
3: 5.1
4: 8.3
5: 24.2
6: 26.7
7: 16.5
8: 11.6
9: 2.8
Right: 4.3
Canadian alliance
Left: 0.7
2: 0
3: 0.9
4: 8.2
5: 22.7
6: 21.1
7: 18.7
8: 13.4
9: 7.4
Right: 6.9
In order to win a majority of Canadians you would need to move to 5. In order to win a clear majority (the Bloc will take some of those left wing votes) you need to move to 6 - slightly centre right.
And the coalition will remind voters repeatedly they just spent $300 million bucks on an election in October.
These ReformaTories just wanna bang on the drum all day
Any attempt at a formal merger between the Liberals and the NDP (which is what this would be) would be nothing short of a disaster. I may have my beefs with the NDP, but I do recognize they are fundamentally different than the Liberal party.
A merged party would not result in a single-party democracy and a crushing of the Conservatives; even if it did, that would hardly be a healthy thing for Canadian democracy. And, of course, the idea that a 'socialist party' could split off and form itself anew afterwards ignores the demobilizing effect that would have on the left in Canada (and the fact there is no socialist party now, so it is highly doubtful one would result from a liberal-party-with-another-name).
A big Tent coalition party would fuel western alienation, something people on this board seem to care nothing about. The whole deal seems to be about keeping western Canadians (and non-Toronto Ontarians) out of power.
If you want to bring back a 2-party system, that's fine. Bring it on. We will beat you, because we actually support our political party with our own money, rather than depending on taxpayer subsidies.
Over all, the Conservative Party remains at the top of the standings with 45-per-cent support if an election were held today. The Liberals come far behind in second place at 24 per cent, with the NDP at 14 per cent.
The Conservatives are even stronger outside of Quebec, getting the support of 53 per cent of respondents in the nine primarily English-speaking provinces.
In Quebec, however, the Conservative Party garners only 18-per-cent support, which is four points lower than its disappointing Oct. 14 election result. The Liberals are holding relatively steady at 23 per cent, while the Bloc is up three points at 41 per cent.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wPOLpoll1205/BNStory/politics/home
Quite easy to understand why the coalition fears an election. Canadians do not want Dippers in government.
These numbers also negate the pro-coalition types' argument that the voter supports the coalition more than the government. CPC 45% - coalition 38%
Merger is a no-go, for everyone. But a Coalition is not a merger. A Coalition can be established within and outside of Parliament and meaningful electoral co-operation can be an effective tool to advance mutual interests and protect against a mutual threat.
For the NDP, this has been a good attempt - even if nothing comes of it. Were the Liberals to continue to back-down then the Tories might as well have had their majority, Jack's plan has at least given the Liberals a temporary backbone. If the coalition gets into government, we get to show we are up to the task on a par with the Liberals (if the performance of the coalition parties to date is any indication, we have come out of it far better than they). If the Liberals crack, well we have that chit in our pocket whenever the "vote-splitting" arguement re-emerges.
Iggnatief was right, the threat of the Coalition is the only thing that has the Conservatives making any concessions - that too will sink in over the next few weeks - for other Liberals. He's the Liberal front-runner so he can't be the face of the Coalition (when you are in the lead, you tend to sit on that lead and avoid risks), but he can be the beneficiary if the coalition shows some potential. Rae seems to be the newly (self?) appointed lead for the Coalition among the Liberals and I read that the Liberals and NDP will begin to co-ordinate their communication strategy - which is overdue but positive.
The anti-coaltion forces are actually at their high-water mark, IMHO. They were able to whip up a panic and a ferver but now that they have be able to run and hide, they have to produce. The Tories hope that by January 26th that the threat of a confidence vote will be diminished because there is a greater probability that the GG would disolve Parliament and call an election - scaring the Liberals into line. I'm not so sure that the GG would do that, even in January the House will only have met for two weeks since the election having delayed a confidence vote but not fundamentally changing the situation. Still, the chance that an election is the result of a vote of non-confidence is much higher in January than December. The coalition needs to position itself to fight an election even if we don't want to.
I agree with Uncle John about the western alienation that would arise, and I believe that he and other intolerant fascists across the country are fixin' for a fight to the finish.
Which is among the reasons why a permanent coalition is such a bad idea. The polarization has got to be stopped, and proportional representation is the way to end it. This has to be the primary goal of the coalition: to save democracy. In doing so, we will also save the political culture and traditions of Canada - something that permanent coalition would destroy.
A big Tent coalition party would fuel western alienation, something people on this board seem to care nothing about. The whole deal seems to be about keeping western Canadians (and non-Toronto Ontarians) out of power.
If you want to bring back a 2-party system, that's fine. Bring it on. We will beat you, because we actually support our political party with our own money, rather than depending on taxpayer subsidies.
Oh bullshit. There are very few ridings were any candidate for any party won a majority of the vote- outside Alberta anyways. In my riding we went Conservative, but if you think that means the people of this riding are majority pro-Harper I have sand I will sell to you for $50 a pound. I store it right beside Lake Huron. Please though don't let other people see you taking it because then they would want it to and I would have to jack up your price. I recomend taking a few shovel fulls at a time at night or when no one is around.
The idea of western separation is a hallucination of a few right wing extremists in Alberta. If you look at vote results in the four western provinces, the Cons did not get a clear majority. There are sane people living here, too.
As for a big tent coalition party, bah! We need more parties and we need some form of PR. Someone somewhere in babble said that a coaltion government would be like a dry run for PR. Bring it on.
I agree with Uncle John about the western alienation that would arise, and I believe that he and other intolerant fascists across the country are fixin' for a fight to the finish.
I don't when he speaks of western alienation, he is speaking only of AB, BC is npot part of that western alienation meme. And I am sick to death of Albertans believing BC is on board with them. Or at least portraying us to be. As for SK, I doubt they fall into the AB meme either there is no love between AB and SK peoples.
Which is among the reasons why a permanent coalition is such a bad idea. The polarization has got to be stopped, and proportional representation is the way to end it. This has to be the primary goal of the coalition: to save democracy. In doing so, we will also save the political culture and traditions of Canada - something that permanent coalition would destroy.
I agree NO permanent coalition is required and would do much harm. And I would NOT be up for it.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Dear uncle John,
Your opinion appears to have been formed without context. All parties gave up the right to be influenced (read funded) by corporations, unions, etc. in exchange for an amount per vote. To then say that it is a 'subsidy' is patently false. To pay parties which are successful at attracting votes is arguably a way to help protect parliamentary democracies from those who would use abuse power. Or perhaps we could simply cancel all those expensive elections and name Mr. Harper dictator for life.
A big Tent coalition party would fuel western alienation, something people on this board seem to care nothing about. The whole deal seems to be about keeping western Canadians (and non-Toronto Ontarians) out of power.
If you want to bring back a 2-party system, that's fine. Bring it on. We will beat you, because we actually support our political party with our own money, rather than depending on taxpayer subsidies.
Fuel western aleination? Harper has just lit the fuse and it's burning as we type. I think it's pretty clear all harper wanted was a majority and he kissed quebecs hind to try and get it. The result a MINORITY...he tried again after breaking his own law like a common criminal and like a common dictator tried to mess with culture..the result there another minority and the expenditure of $300 million of our dollars...don't hear you whinning about spending tax payers money there. The dik is ready to do it again as he runs from cave to cave like a taliban coward.
Now he has sealed his fate and he has decided to polarize the country.Which he has now done...he is a very dangerous man and divisive. The west will pay ...because like the great man said " If you can't TAX wealth where it exists , where are you going to tax it"? The west is going to be the money factory for the rest of the country whether you like it or not. With Canadians losing there jobs and filing for bancruptcy in record breaking pace, you think goverments are going to sit by while the west puffs on a cigar..no way! Lest we forget that most of the west is from the east and they are not going to let there family's suffer. Harper just like he said " you won't recognize Canada when he is done with it". You want cofrontation , he just created it.
Now that we are dealing with a dictator no better than mujabi..if he doesn't resign or let Canada remove him..the possibilty now exists that he may have to be removed with force just like a banana republic. Unfortunately our military isn't here to do it. They are dieing for nothing , polishing their tails and shining there ass's for the big cut and run in 2011 wher they stick their tail,between there legs and RUN.The west will pay dearly and the conservatives will not get a majority. Those are things you can count on now.
You might want to think about how the liberals maintain 30% when they don't even have a leader or even one that the country rejects and compare what would happen when they do get one that is somewhat appealing. The writing is on the wall...the conservatives and mr mujabiharper are dead meat (figuretivly speaking) one way or another. The majority of the country can't stomach him...don't like him...and sure as hell don't love him. Boy is the west gonna pay for that mess!
Whats next? arm bands
Fully 60% said they opposed replacing the government with a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Quebecois, compared with 37% who favoured the idea. Support for the coalition was highest in Quebec at 54%, followed by 46% in Atlantic Canada.
The poll indicates the prospect of the Dion-led coalition has prompted Canadians to rethink an election so soon after the Oct. 14 vote.
Fifty-six per cent said they would rather go to the polls than be governed by the coalition.
Mr. Bricker said the preference, if the view holds, will be an important consideration for Ms. Jean should the opposition topple Mr. Harper's government early in the new year.
"The Governor-General is going to be hard-pressed to deny what the Canadian public wants," said Mr. Bricker, noting a clear consensus appears to be building in Canada, albeit to a lesser degree in Quebec, that Mr. Harper is doing the right thing by trying to hang on to power.
"The idea of having Stephane Dion as the prime minister, combined with the coalition being supported by the Bloc Quebecois, is basically fatal in the minds of the public," he said. "They want to clear the air with an election as opposed to just handing power over to the coalition. They don't like the fact they haven't been asked their opinion directly of what's being proposed by the coalition."
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1033820
Canadians want an election, not a socialist putsch.
"Canadians do not want Dippers in government."
There is no evidence of that whatsoever. In fact, its notable that after the first day - the Tories never said much about the NDP or about "socialist" (sic.) influence in the coalition etc... Its clear that by far the weakest links in the coalition are Dion's leadership and the way in which the BQ role was vilified.
If the Liberals had a reasonably credible leader - preferably an Anglo - and if the Liberals and NDP had enough seats between them to govern alone without having to bring in the BQ - I think that the idea of the coalition would have been greeted with open arms.
"Mr. Bricker said the preference, if the view holds, will be an
important consideration for Ms. Jean should the opposition topple Mr.
Harper's government early in the new year."
Hmmm...so Mr. Bricket thinks that the crown should make decisions based on reading his polls? I wonder if Queen Elizabeth sits back every day and sifts thorugh the crosstabs of the latest surveys by MORI or Ipsos before deciding whether or not to give Gordon Brown what he wants.
Back in September, the polls showed massive opposition to having an early election - that didn't seem to cause the GG to refuse to dissolve Parliament.
The idea of western separation is a hallucination of a few right wing extremists in Alberta. If you look at vote results in the four western provinces, the Cons did not get a clear majority. There are sane people living here, too.
As for a big tent coalition party, bah! We need more parties and we need some form of PR. Someone somewhere in babble said that a coaltion government would be like a dry run for PR. Bring it on.
So, how many MPs did the sane people elect? Dismissing western alienation as a "few right wing extremists in Alberta" speaks more to your lack of analysis than it does the real alienation felt by generations of westerners from the arrogant dismissiveness of PET's one-finger salute to the arrogant suggestion by Jean Chretien that if the west wanted in, they should elect Liberals.
I live in BC and while the political class that depends upon government spending for their income is not particularly alienated, the ranchers, loggers, business people certainly are. We don't want to return to the days of arrogant eastern control.
If the Liberals had a reasonably credible leader - preferably an Anglo
I think your other points are sound but I don´t think a Liberal anglo leader is important or necessary for a coaltion. The people who get pissed off such things would be just as ornery over a leader from Toronto. Who really cares what they think?
If the Liberals do back down and the coalition goes under, I think it would be a good move by the NDP and the Bloc to meet and come up with a progressive platform of policies that they will be pushing for in Parliament. The media and the Conservatives will try to inflame regional tensions but I think the cooperation between progressive elements in the House which we´ve seen by the NDP and the Bloc is to be commended and hopefully it can be built on and extended. Whether the coalition succeeds or fails, I think this is a positive development and I hope it marks a historic turning point.
The idea of western separation is a hallucination of a few right wing extremists in Alberta. If you look at vote results in the four western provinces, the Cons did not get a clear majority. There are sane people living here, too.
As for a big tent coalition party, bah! We need more parties and we need some form of PR. Someone somewhere in babble said that a coaltion government would be like a dry run for PR. Bring it on.
So, how many MPs did the sane people elect? Dismissing western alienation as a "few right wing extremists in Alberta" speaks more to your lack of analysis than it does the real alienation felt by generations of westerners from the arrogant dismissiveness of PET's one-finger salute to the arrogant suggestion by Jean Chretien that if the west wanted in, they should elect Liberals.
I live in BC and while the political class that depends upon government spending for their income is not particularly alienated, the ranchers, loggers, business people certainly are. We don't want to return to the days of arrogant eastern control.
What a load of horse manure. "political class that depends upon government spending" You are proving to be hopelessly foolish
I live in BC and while the political class that depends upon government spending for their income is not particularly alienated, the ranchers, loggers, business people certainly are. We don't want to return to the days of arrogant eastern control.
Does that stand for "Before Christ"?
If the Liberals had a reasonably credible leader - preferably an Anglo -
Preferably a Black Jewish Anglo heterosexual? Or just an Anglo?
A big Tent coalition party would fuel western alienation, something people on this board seem to care nothing about.
Speaking personally, I can confirm I care nothing about this concocted ultra-rightwing "western alienation".
The whole deal seems to be about keeping western Canadians (and non-Toronto Ontarians) out of power.
I see it more as keeping Alberta (U.S.) oil billionaires as far away from the reins of power as humanly possible.
If you want to bring back a 2-party system, that's fine. Bring it on. We will beat you, because we actually support our political party with our own money, rather than depending on taxpayer subsidies.
When you say "our own money", you mean money earned by workers and pocketed by their bosses? Interesting concept of "own".
Ratbert,
Western separation and alienation are different things. Think Quebec separatists vs sovereingntists.
A lack of inclusion is born, in this country, by an electoral system that exacerbates rather than mitigates regional differences. Alberta is the most pro-Tory part of the country. No question. It is the opposite of the ROC in that it is 60+% Tory 30+% Coalition-types.
This Coalition's big opportunity to shatter the "largest minority wins" mentality of FPTP elections may, ultimately, be its most enduring legacy.
A temporary alliance would be best.
Look, currently the way our electoral system is set up, if there are three left wing parties and one right wing parties, the right wing party will win almost all of the time, if they are in anyway reasonable.
With their funding eroded, it could be decades before the Liberals win another election, and the NDP don't have any hope of winning an election on these terms, without a dramatic shift.
So, just have a temporary alliance. Get a majority and pass through electoral reform. Then, you can set up a system where peope essentially get a 2nd place vote, such that they can vote for the party that they want, without throwing away their vote. There are plenty of very simple reforms that could bring this about.
A simple 2 round voting system, with a run-off election for the two top parties would achieve this easily.
Then, the parties could seperate again, and duke it out to see who is going to be in the top two spots.
"Canadians want an election, not a socialist putsch. "
As opposed to suspending Parliament like a good fascist.
They had an election. The coalition represents the majority.
But, hey, I agree. Lets throw out the results of elections and just be governed by polls.
The idea of western separation is a hallucination of a few right wing extremists in Alberta. If you look at vote results in the four western provinces, the Cons did not get a clear majority. There are sane people living here, too.
As for a big tent coalition party, bah! We need more parties and we need some form of PR. Someone somewhere in babble said that a coaltion government would be like a dry run for PR. Bring it on.
So, how many MPs did the sane people elect? Dismissing western alienation as a "few right wing extremists in Alberta" speaks more to your lack of analysis than it does the real alienation felt by generations of westerners from the arrogant dismissiveness of PET's one-finger salute to the arrogant suggestion by Jean Chretien that if the west wanted in, they should elect Liberals.
I live in BC and while the political class that depends upon government spending for their income is not particularly alienated, the ranchers, loggers, business people certainly are. We don't want to return to the days of arrogant eastern control.
What a load of horse manure. "political class that depends upon government spending" You are proving to be hopelessly foolish
Paul Wells, in his book about Martin and Harper makes the point that class in Canada revolves around whether one is dependent on government funding or not, with the leftists more dependent on funding and the rightists not.
Keystone - just want to say that you might want to reconsider your two-round (aka STV) vote proposition. It pretty much guarantees ongoing polarization and an advantage to those parties making the fewest commitments - pretty much anathema to progressive activists.
Might I suggest you take another look at straight-up proportional representation?
"Canadians want an election, not a socialist putsch. "
As opposed to suspending Parliament like a good fascist.
They had an election. The coalition represents the majority.
But, hey, I agree. Lets throw out the results of elections and just be governed by polls.
The coalition represents the majority of the votes against the government on the issues of the previous election but as the polls show, the coalition only represents 37% of the electorate polled on the question of usurping power while 60% of the electorate polled do not want the coalition.
Apparently, 72% of those polled want an election but obviously these 72% are fascists who do not understand the benefits of socialism as represented by the coalition.
I'm pretty much betting that Paul Wells would wonder how the hell you came to that conclusion. I've not read the book, but I've yet to see him fabricate such fantasy in his column.Paul Wells, in his book about Martin and Harper makes the point that class in Canada revolves around whether one is dependent on government funding or not, with the leftists more dependent on funding and the rightists not.
Western Alienation? Here's the door... The only reason I can even think of to keep Alberta in this Country is because if we do then maybe then we can force them to shut down the tar sands before we're all dead; that and it could make it harder to travel to BC 
PR is too fundamental a change to impose from on high - there will need to be a process and a referendum. It will take time, but the inclustion of a plan for how we get there (timetable for a citizen's assembly, what % vote do we need to approve it) will need to be part of a coalition platform.
The Liberals will resist, to be sure. They are convinced that with a bit of paint and polish that they can be returned with a majority. They can't. No new leader is going to replicate the Quebec sweeps of Trudeau or the Ontario sweeps of Chretien. The former, as were the Mulroney and Diefenbaker sweeps before and since, were based on a Quebec political model that no longer (with the Bloc) exists. The later were a historical anomoly born of the artificial split of the Conservative base - post Mulroney.
The Tories think that they can get a majority but thier window may also have closed. The Mulroney coalition was almost in Harper's grasp in October but it took the weakest Liberal campaign since Turner to make it happen and he still couldn't seal the deal. Yes they are up in the snap polls of this week but, as we've seen, a week is a long time in politics. It took Mulroney years to build his "natural governing alternative" to the Liberals and as a Quebecer had far more advantages than Harper does in making it happen.
Well if the old game is over we either offer Canadians elections on an annual basis punctuated by periods of brinksmanship and small p partisanship or we try for something different. Working together.
The coalition parties should include this in their plan too. The government falls in only three instances (express non-confidence motion, Throne Speech, budget). The government should not have to fall on changes to cheese marketing regulations or some such crap - a game the Harperites used far too often last time out. The Lib-NDP-Bloc social policy prescriptions probably represent a national consensus but the Tories-Bloc agree on greater provincial autonomy. The Libs-NDP-Tories agree on the wider national unity issue (though clearly disagree on tactics, strategy and tone). The Libs-Tories-(and sometimes Bloc) share trade policy. etc.
The interactions are as complicated and intertwined as would be expected of any modern democracy - its time our political system became responsive enough to deal with it.
Ratbert,
Western separation and alienation are different things. Think Quebec separatists vs sovereingntists.
A lack of inclusion is born, in this country, by an electoral system that exacerbates rather than mitigates regional differences. Alberta is the most pro-Tory part of the country. No question. It is the opposite of the ROC in that it is 60+% Tory 30+% Coalition-types.
This Coalition's big opportunity to shatter the "largest minority wins" mentality of FPTP elections may, ultimately, be its most enduring legacy.
I agree. Steven Harper's legacy may well be shattering the one-party rule where the two old line parties rotate as tithe collectors and enforcers for the eastern elitists in favour of permanent minorities that force coalition rule.
Presently, the Liberals are self-destructing with Iggy in hiding, Rae unilaterally and shamelessly self-promoting his brand of coalition, backbenchers keeping their distance and Dion helplessly trying to find his own a$$.
The benefit to this hasty coalition is only to the Bloc and to the NDP as hasty approval of this coalition is their only method to power.
Many voices, including Duncan Cameron are suggesting that if a coalition is to succeed, the six week proroguing of the House will allow saner heads to prevail and ensure that any coalition is of benefit to Canadians, not to opportunist politicians.
"Canadians want an election, not a socialist putsch. "
As opposed to suspending Parliament like a good fascist.
They had an election. The coalition represents the majority.
But, hey, I agree. Lets throw out the results of elections and just be governed by polls.
The coalition represents the majority of the votes against the government on the issues of the previous election but as the polls show, the coalition only represents 37% of the electorate polled on the question of usurping power while 60% of the electorate polled do not want the coalition.
Apparently, 72% of those polled want an election but obviously these 72% are fascists who do not understand the benefits of socialism as represented by the coalition.
On the "issues"? 
So I guess, if the issues change after an election, that nullifies the votes of the election?
Western Alienation? Here's the door... The only reason I can even think of to keep Alberta in this Country is because if we do then maybe then we can force them to shut down the tar sands before we're all dead; that and it could make it harder to travel to BC
Hmm. Supposedly, this site has some firm rules about posts such as yours. Would posts in the same vein about Quebec be tolerated also?
"Canadians want an election, not a socialist putsch. "
As opposed to suspending Parliament like a good fascist.
They had an election. The coalition represents the majority.
But, hey, I agree. Lets throw out the results of elections and just be governed by polls.
The coalition represents the majority of the votes against the government on the issues of the previous election but as the polls show, the coalition only represents 37% of the electorate polled on the question of usurping power while 60% of the electorate polled do not want the coalition.
Apparently, 72% of those polled want an election but obviously these 72% are fascists who do not understand the benefits of socialism as represented by the coalition.
On the "issues"?
So I guess, if the issues change after an election, that nullifies the votes of the election?
The coalition thinks so.
The idea of western separation is a hallucination of a few right wing extremists in Alberta. If you look at vote results in the four western provinces, the Cons did not get a clear majority. There are sane people living here, too.
As for a big tent coalition party, bah! We need more parties and we need some form of PR. Someone somewhere in babble said that a coaltion government would be like a dry run for PR. Bring it on.
So, how many MPs did the sane people elect? Dismissing western alienation as a "few right wing extremists in Alberta" speaks more to your lack of analysis than it does the real alienation felt by generations of westerners from the arrogant dismissiveness of PET's one-finger salute to the arrogant suggestion by Jean Chretien that if the west wanted in, they should elect Liberals.
I live in BC and while the political class that depends upon government spending for their income is not particularly alienated, the ranchers, loggers, business people certainly are. We don't want to return to the days of arrogant eastern control.
What a load of horse manure. "political class that depends upon government spending" You are proving to be hopelessly foolish
Paul Wells, in his book about Martin and Harper makes the point that class in Canada revolves around whether one is dependent on government funding or not, with the leftists more dependent on funding and the rightists not.
Hallucinate much. Wells makes no such point at all. Not even close. You might be able to buffalo people who don't read with that crap, but some of us actually read books including Right Side Up. (Look he even knows the name without looking it up- pretty impressive huh?) If you want to actually look at facts I would bet it is the exact opposite of what you claim. I am involved in a farm organization for instance. That farm organization is constantly calling for farmers to be able to make a living from the marketplace. It would not be correct to call it left wing, but it is certainly progressive. On the other hand farm organizations that are decidedly right wing are always the one calling for government bailouts because their vaunted free market is dysfunctional due to the market power of the agri-business corporations. Most of the farmers in the organization I belong to never take a government cheque unless things are really bad, or don't qualify because the discrimination in the system against the family farm. Yet the big free market guys are always bellying up to the public trough and eating up their share and the shares of many others. So don't give me any more of your very stupid hogwash ratfart.
"The coalition thinks so."
Do you even have the most basic knowledge of parliamentary democracy? Oh, I forgot, you're a Conservative.
The Strategic Counsel poll done for The Globe and Mail shows that opposition parties' suppporters are strongly in favour of a coalition.
Coalition Supporters by Party Affiliation:
Conserverative voters: 3%
Liberal voters: 67%
NDP voters: 72%
Bloc Quebecois voters: 77%
Green Party voters: 47%
Only 3% of Conservatives supporters were in favour of coalition. Change in this 3% is the measure by which a 'big tent' is viable.
There must be disaffected Conservatives ... Harper's hypnotic hold on them isn't so solid anymore. Is there any indication that progressive Conservatives (remember them?) might join in the coalition as repudiation of Harper's untrustworthiness, partisanship over collaboration? Or perhaps leadership of coalition by Igg?
Dear Ratbert,
One of the premises upon which you seem to base your view is that Conservatives are more responsible with the public purse. This is not so. The Harper government has spent wildly and cut taxes at the same time and has created the 'made in Canada' deficit. Alberta's spending is also out of control and in Saskatchewan the SP is already admitting that they will have to dip into the provinces savings to balance the books (right after they announced unsustainable tax cuts).
The manner in which the federal conservatives have behaved has caused them to lose the trust of those elected in the last election. This crisis has been caused by Mr. Harper...not the opposition. Mr. Harper's cowardice is evident from the fact that he refused to face a confidence vote in the house. You can't deny the facts. Or, maybe you can.
And please, pick up an old poly sci text and read up on the Canadian system of government. You are embarrassing yourself.
Western Alienation? Here's the door... The only reason I can even think of to keep Alberta in this Country is because if we do then maybe then we can force them to shut down the tar sands before we're all dead; that and it could make it harder to travel to BC
Can we take Linda (Duncan) with us when we go?
Just because western alienation is overhyped and exploited by the Cons does not mean that it is not a factor that has to be paid attention to, and that there are not real grievances that should be addressed. When we talk about the need to change the FPTP system, let's take into account the western grievances about rep by pop (not exclusively western concerns, ON is being as badly hosed by this as BC and AB). The Cons are able to stoke populist sentiment in the west by waving the flag over "separatist" threats --crappy tactic, and they are being condemned for demonizing Quebec. Are you comments about Alberta significantly different -- I would suggest they are the mirror image of what the Cons are doing -- and the crap looks the same whichever side of it is on top.
A point I was attempting to stress earlier is that if western conservatives can see, though a PR system, that thier views - while not predominant - are reflected elsewhere in the country and, conversely, that goofy leftist views - like my own - are being represented in Alberta then the unbridgible regional divides that apparently are ripping this country apart go away.
It disturbs me that this thread has been derailed by an obviously non-progressive individual from Alberta.
Hmm... the only solution is a direct quote from Mr. Wells' book is it not? I'll extricate my full price, hard cover copy from underneath the stack of other Canadian political tomes of yesteryear and quote directly.The idea of western separation is a hallucination of a few right wing extremists in Alberta. If you look at vote results in the four western provinces, the Cons did not get a clear majority. There are sane people living here, too.
As for a big tent coalition party, bah! We need more parties and we need some form of PR. Someone somewhere in babble said that a coaltion government would be like a dry run for PR. Bring it on.
So, how many MPs did the sane people elect? Dismissing western alienation as a "few right wing extremists in Alberta" speaks more to your lack of analysis than it does the real alienation felt by generations of westerners from the arrogant dismissiveness of PET's one-finger salute to the arrogant suggestion by Jean Chretien that if the west wanted in, they should elect Liberals.
I live in BC and while the political class that depends upon government spending for their income is not particularly alienated, the ranchers, loggers, business people certainly are. We don't want to return to the days of arrogant eastern control.
What a load of horse manure. "political class that depends upon government spending" You are proving to be hopelessly foolish
Paul Wells, in his book about Martin and Harper makes the point that class in Canada revolves around whether one is dependent on government funding or not, with the leftists more dependent on funding and the rightists not.
Hallucinate much. Wells makes no such point at all. Not even close. You might be able to buffalo people who don't read with that crap, but some of us actually read books including Right Side Up. (Look he even knows the name without looking it up- pretty impressive huh?) If you want to actually look at facts I would bet it is the exact opposite of what you claim. I am involved in a farm organization for instance. That farm organization is constantly calling for farmers to be able to make a living from the marketplace. It would not be correct to call it left wing, but it is certainly progressive. On the other hand farm organizations that are decidedly right wing are always the one calling for government bailouts because their vaunted free market is dysfunctional due to the market power of the agri-business corporations. Most of the farmers in the organization I belong to never take a government cheque unless things are really bad, or don't qualify because the discrimination in the system against the family farm. Yet the big free market guys are always bellying up to the public trough and eating up their share and the shares of many others. So don't give me any more of your very stupid hogwash ratfart.
Dear Ratbert,
One of the premises upon which you seem to base your view is that Conservatives are more responsible with the public purse. This is not so. The Harper government has spent wildly and cut taxes at the same time and has created the 'made in Canada' deficit. Alberta's spending is also out of control and in Saskatchewan the SP is already admitting that they will have to dip into the provinces savings to balance the books (right after they announced unsustainable tax cuts).
The manner in which the federal conservatives have behaved has caused them to lose the trust of those elected in the last election. This crisis has been caused by Mr. Harper...not the opposition. Mr. Harper's cowardice is evident from the fact that he refused to face a confidence vote in the house. You can't deny the facts. Or, maybe you can.
And please, pick up an old poly sci text and read up on the Canadian system of government. You are embarrassing yourself.
Dear peskfly: Thank you for your presumptions but my premises do not include that the Conservatives are more responsible with the public purse.
As an enlightenment for the docrinal types who cannot fathom any opposition to the rightful destiny of progressive socialism other than right-wing fascism, I can only offer that I have posted my opinion of Mr. Harper as a stunted sociopath but nonetheless this coalition is an ill-conceived venture doomed to failure.
Mr. Martin's 'surplusses" were created by overtaxation in response to the structural deficits created by his own Liberal Party of Canada with the major assistance of one Brian Mulrooney. One may lay blame wherever one's ideological bent assumes appropriate but there is no denying that the social and infrastructure deficit created by Mr. Martin in his zeal to tame structural financial deficits neede to be addressed in better economic times.
Ideological zealots can obsess about blame and consequences but I prefer to opine that all the participants did the best they could in trying circumstances. Mr. Martin had to tame the structural deficit and Mr. Harper had to address the social and infrastructural needs of over a decade of neglect.
A "big tent" lead by Iggy would more likely compromise than destroy:
"The parliamentary meltdown has provided the best test so far of how the frontrunner for the Liberal leadership - and very possibly the next prime minister - handles crisis. It's not been encouraging. He spent most of the week in hiding, then emerged from caucus on Thursday to quote Aristotle without giving a clear sense one way or the other of whether he thinks the coalition should go forward. Meanwhile, wildly conflicting messages continue to come out of his camp, from supportive noises about the coalition to thinly veiled opposition to it.
Admittedly, Ignatieff has a much tougher task than Bob Rae. Running a relatively distant second, Rae's stakes are lower and he can afford to take risks. Anything that significantly changes the game probably helps him, and in this instance not having a lot of caucus supporters pulling you in different directions is actually an advantage. But the fact is, whether or not you agree with him, his very clear position on a coalition government and his willingness to defend it to anyone and everyone makes him look decisive. Ignatieff, trying to avoid offending anyone and clearly being pulled in a thousand directions, looks like a deer caught in the headlights."
“The highest principle in Canadian democracy is that if one wants to be
Prime Minister, one gets one’s mandate from the Canadian people and not
from Quebec separatists.”
PM Stephen Harper
“The highest principle in Canadian democracy is that if one wants to be
Prime Minister, one gets one’s mandate from the Canadian people and not
from Quebec separatists.”PM Stephen Harper
So the votes of Quebec separatists don't count? That's a dangerous place to go.
Not only is it dangerous it is dumb-ass stupid. Let's ignore that Harper was supported on a number of confidence votes by those same seperatists in the last parliament. Instead let's consider that if Harper is to govern after January 26th at least one other party MUST support his government. Who will that be? Some of these pro-Conservatives need to answer this question. It won't be the NDP I expect. So that means the Liberals of the Bloq. It seems unlikely at this point it will be the Liberals, unless they do it through suddens onset of flu system. This might be a possiblity but the opitics would be terrible. That leaves those seperatists again. Harper did everything he could to appeal to their voters in the last Parliament. It is starting to look like that may be his only option come January. I will be looking for the media to be going on and on about seperatists holding the government to ranson. Should I hold my breath waiting? I doubt I can do that for such a long time.
On the issue. Three things can happen as far as I can see.
1. Liberals cave and join the Conservative in some way to make sure Harper survives.
2. A coalition holds and takes government
3. The GG allows dissolution.
If number three happens. There is going to be a need to resist a merger, but to also try to find a way to cooperate somehow. If the ballot question is to be Harper or coaliton there has to be some way to ensure Harper's defeat. I really don't know what the best way to protect democracy and defeat Harper really is at this point, but I do know it is not a merger into one big tent party.
As for a big tent coalition party, bah! We need more parties and we need some form of PR. Someone somewhere in babble said that a coaltion government would be like a dry run for PR. Bring it on.
This Coalition's big opportunity to shatter the "largest minority wins" mentality of FPTP elections may, ultimately, be its most enduring legacy.
Agreed.
The Liberals will resist, to be sure. They are convinced that with a bit of paint and polish that they can be returned with a majority. They can't.
Depends which Liberals. The old guard in Toronto, whose Liberal voters elected 20 Toronto MPs when their vote share would have given them only 10, will resist. Outside Toronto, the Ontario Liberals remember 1995 when they were wiped out, and 1999 which was not much better. That's why they got interested in electoral reform, but started to lose interest after about 2005. But now the 2008 federal election replicated the 1995 disaster in Ontario, and extended it to Manitoba, so now the whole West plus most of Ontario plus most of Quebec Liberals need PR. These are professionals. They aren't stupid. They can see it.
PR is too fundamental a change to impose from on high - there will need to be a process and a referendum. It will take time, but the inclustion of a plan for how we get there (timetable for a citizen's assembly, what % vote do we need to approve it) will need to be part of a coalition platform.Well if the old game is over we either offer Canadians elections on an annual basis punctuated by periods of brinksmanship and small p partisanship or we try for something different. Working together.
The coalition parties should include this in their plan too. The government falls in only three instances (express non-confidence motion, Throne Speech, budget). The government should not have to fall on changes to cheese marketing regulations or some such crap - a game the Harperites used far too often last time out.
Quite correct. But I still wouldn't rule out immediate implementation of something like the latest Quebec PR model proposed by their director-general of elections, a regional open-list mixed-member model, as described in my blog.
The disturbing thing about "coalition politics" is that it is a great educator for the public. Whether they support it or not is irrelevant.They have already voted and now must live with the consequences.
People must be able to see from this that "winning" an election doesn't mean you get everything you want to the detriment of all those other people in parliament.
Will citizens accept becoming informed about the way their government works in this matter? The polls cater to the notion that our system is something akin to impulse buying and that we can get whatever we want without having to consider others...
But it is a fascinating conflagaration of events and it is a bit absurd that the progressives, numbering in the great majority, are faced with the such a bizarre machination to simply implement the democratically expressed will of the people.
We will beat you, because we actually support our political party with our own money, rather than depending on taxpayer subsidies.
Are you saying your party is more democratic? Who will speak for those that do not have so much of this stuff called money (these token bills that imperfectly represent value).
Rule by money is called plutocracy, and FYI, it is not a variation of democracy. I'm sick of goofy right-wing rhetoric like yours, it only leads to fascism.
____________________________________________________________
http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.html