Coalition government: Even more debate!

With four parties, minority governments will for the norm for decades to come. As a result, future coalitions will also become new norm. 

This current coalition failed because average Canadians did know why it came about. Before Canadians even had time to digest what was going on, coalition leaders were telling them this is something voters wanted. Being told you want something before even knowing what it is you want, creates instant distrust. The fact that it came about so suddenly suggests a lot of pre-planning was involved. To average Canadians, it looked like the opposition parties decided to throw out the government before it really even started governing. But instead of forcing another election, the opposition parties made a deal: they formed a surprise coalition to take power without consulting voters again. I think Canadians got it right, they saw it for was it was.

I have little doubt that one day we will see a coalition government, but it will come about because voters will be the ones who ask for it. 

The opposition to a coalition was also due to the very poor parliamentary democracy literacy of Canadians and the failure of the media to really do the job of pointing out their government was lying to Canadians.  To me, the failure, while not as deep, is akin to the American mass media in the lead up to the Iraq occupation.  Nothing was being forced on Canadians in any way, shape or form.  This was just another face of democracy in Canada, but becuase it was different people were confused and the government and the media just kept that up and manipulated it.

If one thing is clear from this whole episode it is that our civic lessons in school do a very poor job of explaining just how our government actually works.  On the upside - most people have learned a new word- porogue.

"There is simply no way that over half of Ontarians would vote for Harper if we were in an actual election.  These polls are worse than useless.  If Harper were so sure he would have been demanding an election not running a way and calling in Mommy to fight his battles for him."

Harper IS demanding an election, he prorogued parliament because he wasn't sure the governor general would give him one.

"And it's not a COMPAS poll, it's a Canadian Business/COMPAS poll. Don't you think who sponsors a poll, and what message they might want to send, is significant? "

Now you sound like the folks on freedominion who don't believe no darn polls. So you believe that COMPAS, a respected polling company, would bias the results of a survey just for a few  bucks? Polling is about reputation - producing biased polls is pissing in your own bath. Moreover, it isn't like this poll is far out of line of other polls to come out in the past few days.

You guys are like those Japanese soldiers that kept fighting after WWII was over.

The polls suggest those who opposed this coalition in the NDP were right. 4% loss for the NDP in opinion polls are not concrete but it does show that core activists are leaving the party's field of influence and the liberals are also waining more so. we need to back out of this before we wear more egg on our face. this isnt "more" of a "principal over power" issue it IS a principal over power issue. The 4% loss if held to election time reflects that we are treading in disassterous waters here. the Libs are bound to stumble and drift away as their prime candidate Iggy sets himself up to look like the man who knew it wouldnt work all along but bowed to party dicipline. 

Left J.A.B. wrote:

So I am some kind of fanatical solider because I find it impossible to believe that over half of Ontarians would actually vote Conservative with Harper as leader?  So questioning a dubious poll is akin to being a hard core Conservative?  Nice, clear logic there..

No, you just don't understand.  Results of elections don't matter.  Only polls do. 

I am basing that view on hearing actual real people outside in the real world who kept saying that the coalition was taking over government, that it was coup, an over-throwing of the government and so on.  All of that is crap, crap, crap.  Of course Dion didn't help and in fact hurt things, but it is not just about Dion, or the Bloc, it is also about a basic illiteracy in our own democratic system. 

Here is an idea. Something that people can do right now that will help. For years my contributions to my political party were minimal. (maybe $20). But the actions of the Conservatives have made me realize that we can't have parties that are struggling financially. The first $400 of a political party contribution earn a tax credit of 75%, so my $400 will only end costing me $100 in the long run. I am getting off the fence and voting with my chequebook and I urge others to consider doing the same.

Keep the visible campaign against Harper's illegitimate regime going. I personally am looking for a sweet bumper sticker for my car to support the coalition and I have never had a bumper sticker before. I am posting on the net like never before, and not to the already converted here, but in mainstream and opposition forums.

The Liberals need to push their leadership decision to early January so that Dion does not have to try to carry this thing. These are extraordinary times and strong leadership is essential.

Do not fool yourselves. If this coalition fails, the Conservatives will be emboldened to put forth things that are far worse than they have already tried.

Parkdale High Park wrote:

So I have been asked to address my arguments to the general coalition debate. You might want to take a look at the latest COMPAS poll - things have moved even more against the coalition.

 

If an election were held today:

CPC: 51 (53 in On, 32 in PQ, 62 in west)

LPC: 20 (24 in ON, 19 in PQ, 13 in west)

NDP: 10! (12 in ON, 10 in PQ, 7! in west)

BQ: 8 (35 in PQ)

http://www.compas.ca/data/081205-CommonsTurmoil-EPCB.pdf

But I realize there is genuine support in the idea of a coalition here, so I will try to address my arguments to coalition supporters. The governor-general, faced with these kind of numbers (2-1 opposition to the coalition) is substantially more likely to call an election should a VONC pass. That election will go badly for the coalition members, but I urge you to consider something bigger.

The governor-general's decisions don't just follow precedents, they CREATE precedents. By pushing for a coalition at the worst possible time you risk creating a precedent that coalition government in Canada is illegitimate. That doesn't just mean you fail now, it means you fail for at least the next few decades, in a period of likely minority government. That is bad for Canada - I have no problem with coalition governments (though they are inherently unstable in a westminster system where small shifts in public opinion yield large seat changes, causing rapid divergence in the electoral incentives of coalition members), but I do have a problem with this one.

If you genuinely want a future where coalition governments can happen, save face. Doing so and losing the precedent of parliamentary supremacy gives Harper a permanent negotiation advantage because he knows the opposition would be unable to unite against him - he would only ever have to compromise if he thought he would lose an election and could govern indefinitely so long as a hard core base of 33% of kept re-electing him. 

Make this a long term project and strike when you know you can win.

The irony of the poll, is that it says .... if an election were held today. What is not shown from that poll is that only 16% of those polled, supported an election.

So, those are the figures people are willing to give, if there was an election that they know isn't going to happen.

If you create an election situation, depending on who takes the blame, those numbers above get thrown out the window.

In an unwanted election people either rebel or don't vote.

Rebel and anything can happen.

Not voting means success to the incumbent.

And I don't have a crystal ball.

"So you believe that COMPAS, a respected polling company, would bias the results of a survey just for a few  bucks?"

I actually can and do believe they bias their results on purpose. COMPAS is not respected AT ALL. They are considered the laughing stock of the polling industry. A few years ago their main role was to ask ridiculously biased questions for the National Post to try to promote rightwing policies. For example, they tried to promote Stockwell Day's chances back in 2000 by putting out a press release with a screaming headline that "Canadians support a social conservative PM" (ie: Stockwell Day). Then if you read the fine print, the question wording asked people if they would be comfortable or not with the idea of voting for a politician who was "a religious person who wants to provide tax relief to stay at home mothers".  Another time, they had a screaming headline that "90% of Canadians upset about taxes" with a big sidebar about a growing "tax revolt" etc... then it turned out that the question they asked was "How upset are you about paying taxes? Are you extremely, very or somehat upset or are you not upset at all? Surprise, surprise 90% of people were at least "somewhat" upset about paying taxes.

I think that the polling by Strategic Counsel and Ipsos seem to have asked reasonable questions - but anything by COMPAS I consoder to be pure fabrication. 

The Strategic Counsel poll results done for The Globe and Mail were reported under headline "Majority prefers keeping Conservative government" highlighted that only 37 per cent of respondents supported the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, while 58 per cent opposed it.

However, take a look at the starkly partisan breakdown of those results.  Of self reported opposition party supporters, large majorities support the coalition (Greens the exception - though sig minority):

[IMG]http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq286/a84jkii3-a/coalitionsuppportbyp...

More wind in the sails of coalition.

madmax wrote:

Parkdale High Park wrote:

So I have been asked to address my arguments to the general coalition debate. You might want to take a look at the latest COMPAS poll - things have moved even more against the coalition.

 

If an election were held today:

CPC: 51 (53 in On, 32 in PQ, 62 in west)

LPC: 20 (24 in ON, 19 in PQ, 13 in west)

NDP: 10! (12 in ON, 10 in PQ, 7! in west)

BQ: 8 (35 in PQ)

http://www.compas.ca/data/081205-CommonsTurmoil-EPCB.pdf

But I realize there is genuine support in the idea of a coalition here, so I will try to address my arguments to coalition supporters. The governor-general, faced with these kind of numbers (2-1 opposition to the coalition) is substantially more likely to call an election should a VONC pass. That election will go badly for the coalition members, but I urge you to consider something bigger.

The governor-general's decisions don't just follow precedents, they CREATE precedents. By pushing for a coalition at the worst possible time you risk creating a precedent that coalition government in Canada is illegitimate. That doesn't just mean you fail now, it means you fail for at least the next few decades, in a period of likely minority government. That is bad for Canada - I have no problem with coalition governments (though they are inherently unstable in a westminster system where small shifts in public opinion yield large seat changes, causing rapid divergence in the electoral incentives of coalition members), but I do have a problem with this one.

If you genuinely want a future where coalition governments can happen, save face. Doing so and losing the precedent of parliamentary supremacy gives Harper a permanent negotiation advantage because he knows the opposition would be unable to unite against him - he would only ever have to compromise if he thought he would lose an election and could govern indefinitely so long as a hard core base of 33% of kept re-electing him. 

Make this a long term project and strike when you know you can win.

The irony of the poll, is that it says .... if an election were held today. What is not shown from that poll is that only 16% of those polled, supported an election.

So, those are the figures people are willing to give, if there was an election that they know isn't going to happen.

If you create an election situation, depending on who takes the blame, those numbers above get thrown out the window.

In an unwanted election people either rebel or don't vote.

Rebel and anything can happen.

Not voting means success to the incumbent.

And I don't have a crystal ball.

The poll offers people the choice of an election or a coalition.

Election: 69%

Coalition: 31%

Stockholm wrote:

"However, I think the main objection was that Dion is on record on Sept 28 saying he would not do a coalition with the NDP and the NDP never mentioned this possibility during the elections."

 

Actually that's not quite true. I distinctly remember Layton saying that he would not rule out the possibility of a coalition with the Liberals after the election - then Dion graciously announced that he would never cooperate with the NDP.

The COMPAS poll is a model of push polling.  Read the questions.  This was not designed to get a fair-minded read of anything.

That fact aside, the idea that the NDP's long-term viability as a party can be discussed intelligibly based on its willingness to be spooked by unfavourable polling in an unprecedented, enormously volatile situation is ridiculous. The idea that in the midst of this, an unanswerable publicity barrage from our opponents that holds a match to the most sensistive issues in our national psyche mustn't result in a positive surge in Conservative numbers if we are to stay the course is frankly idiotic.

The NDP has staked out a position that carries risks. It requires clarity of purpose, it requires significant effort, it requires a backbone.  It may fail.

It was the right thing to do. It is the right thing to pursue at this point.  It will remain so for the foreeable future.

As for the suggestion that Stephen Harper wants to call an election right now, but the GG won't let him; yeah, sure.  The thought that he's just dying to get into a situation where election rules apply to air time and he would have to debate this in a controlled manner is risible, bags of money or not. This situation is as fraught with risk for him as anyone.  His back is to the wall, so he's dangerous.  Big deal.

Ghislaine wrote:

And which party did much better vote-wise?

Who cares? This isn't the U.S. where we vote for president, as much as herr Steveler would like Canadians to think the situation is  here while he and his fat-asses sing "O Canada!" within earshot of the press. Legal experts have said Harper doesnt have a leg to stand on, and he knows it.

Harper is running away and chickening out today, because he really is afraid of the 62% majority in parliament. Herr Steveler would be toast if it wasn't for shutting down Canadian parliament in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the 1930's.

COMPAS questions include:

The Opposition parties just signed an agreement to defeat Harper’s Conservative government and replace it with Stephane Dion as Prime Minister, Liberal and NDP cabinet ministers, and the Bloc Quebecois as partner. Do you think the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are motivated by a desire for power or by an honest belief that Harper is a bad manager of our economy (these are presented as polar opposites on a continuum)

It is wrong for a party committed to the break up of Canada to decide who forms the government of Canada: agree/disagree;

After a sharp decline in Liberal support in the election and an increase in Conservative support, the Liberals are wrong to try to gain power by teaming up with the NDP and Bloc agree/disagree;

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc are trying to cheat the voters, who made clear their choices in the recent election agree/disagree;

Under the circumstances the Harper government was wrong to try to end public subsidies for parties and politicians agree/disagree;

The spending plans of the Harper government were too little too late given the economic situation in the world today agree/disagree

The rest is boilerplate.

The continuum is entirely bogus.  It is simply not possible to examine these sorts of beliefs in this simplistic manner.  Does anybody here believe this is an honest characterization of the range of motives for replacing the government? If you went to start parsing the language carefully (which is what the framewers of questionnaires are supposed to do) characterizing the Bloc as partners is a potential source of bias as well.  Using the phrase with the support of the Bloc Quebecois on budget votes and confidence matters might very well have produced a different outcome.  Because the question was only asked one way, there is no way to know.

The distributors of this poll will no doubt claim that the last two agree/disagree questions balance the push in the first three.  In fact, the first three are leading questions related to changing government, the last two are blandly formulated questions that are not explicitly connected to government change or to the legitimacy of any party.

Well designed polls generally ask the same thing two or three different ways, and/or they go out of their way to exclude subjective factors or motive from questions measuring conclusions.  The two need to be questioned seperately and cross tabulated, otherwise the question leads the respondent to a result.

Normally questions are rotated, because the order in which they are asked affects the answers people give. Salting the interview with disproportionate numbers of positively and negatively leading questions distorts the final outcome, even with a rotation.

Deliberate, hamsfisted push polls or just badly designed ones that have the same effect are obvious.  Good ones are hard to pick up.  This isn't the worst example, but it's not especially slick either.

This poll is badly enough designed that it will, it seems to me, almost certainly give distorted results biased in favour of Conservative support.  I also question the claim that a national sample of 500 would have the statistical power they claim. Of course, I have no idea whether this is an unfortunate case of unintentional poor design or malice.

It is likely that Conservative support has benefited from the high-volume, high-risk assault on the airwaves they have purchased.  No proportionate response has been possible for the simple reason that they have a vastly superior war chest.  Under those circumstances, some gain for the Conservatives seems inevitable. However, I believe that this poll probably distorts the shift.

Polls designed to take an unbiased sample are the norm when undertaken by competent academics, and reputable news gathering outlets.  Many non-profits and business also do careful, unbiased opinion sampling because they really want to know the answers.

However, polling undertaken under contract is at the discretion of the client.  Pollsters will usually advise the client of any problems with the design, then do as they are told.  Sometimes the client just doesn't have the cash to do it properly, sometimes the truth is only part of the design in the capacity of victim.

Having designed opinion surveys, I pay no attention to any whose design and execution are not meticulously documented and transparently fair. This one does not pass the smell test.

Hey, you asked.

What will the Liberals do on Jan. 26 when Jack Layton introduces a confidence motion on the Speech from the Throne, thereby further delaying the much needed budget. This will put the Liberals into an impossible situation. Support the coalition or support the Government. I imagine it would destroy the Liberals no matter what they decide.   
The Liberals are down, Layton smells blood and is going for the Liberal jugular. This coalition idea was that of the NDP, and Rae appears to be leading the party down this dark path to its demise.

The NDP could become next official opposition and Layton will become one of the best political tacticians of recent times.  
A leopard does not change its spots.