Jump to content

Coalition gov't agreement concluded


JLP

Recommended Posts

wouldn't it make more sense for Rae to take over the leadership?

Actually there were talks that Ignatieff would act as Prime Minister for the coalition government, but Rae would fight this. Therefore Dion would act as PM until he officially steps down as planned, and a new leader can be elected by the party.

However this is not a done deal yet, I'm sure Harper still has a few tricks up his sleeves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IM surprised it happened but I don't think much of it for now...I hope that neither Layton and Dion will be leading this coalition.

This should be fun to watch...

:popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I hate the Tories and don't want to see them in charge, I just don't see why the Bloc would be in favor of this coalition.

That would mean that they would be somewhere between the power and the opposition ??? That makes no sense. This would be a premiere.

The best thing that could happen would be that Harper realises that he has a minor governement and ACT IN THIS WAY !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Destroy Canada?" Colin you funny.

I think many parliamentary democracies function well with coalition governments. I am delighted to see this happening, Harper seems a cad and a bully. He should have worked hard for some consensus-building, instead he steamrolled forward like he owned the place ~ well Harp, Canada don't play that way.

Now the representatives of 63% of the population will take over, sounds democratic to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Destroy Canada?" Colin you funny.

I think many parliamentary democracies function well with coalition governments. I am delighted to see this happening, Harper seems a cad and a bully. He should have worked hard for some consensus-building, instead he steamrolled forward like he owned the place ~ well Harp, Canada don't play that way.

Now the representatives of 63% of the population will take over, sounds democratic to me.

The biggest problem with it is not that it will "destroy Canada" but that it will fragment our political parties, create even more regionalised politics and increase separatist fervor...people want to know why the Bloq is in support...that's one long term benefit for them. They essentially guarantee that if they can hold Quebec they will almost always be able to leverage a large number of seats relative to the governing party. That and, short term, I'm sure the Liberals and NDP have had to promise them some, as yet to be presented, concessions...

I am actually shocked that the Liberals are going along with this...they are really taking a risk that they will alienate their voting base. This will solidify them as a left of centre party rather then a centrist party (or at least a party that could be fiscally right of centre and socially left). Dion loses all sorts of credibility as one of the men who helped defeat Quebec's separation. There are also likely a number of people in english Canada who will not want to vote for the Liberals after dealing at this level with Bloq. There are also likely a number of Liberal voters who see through the thin veil of this being about the economy and more about party funding...

It's actually impossible for the Liberals to GAIN support out of this move. The NDP supporters will likely continue to vote NDP to within a couple of points of where they are now...this has been the case for a long, long time. The Conservatives are not likely to lose many supporters in this mess...the biggest howls against them is really coming from those who voted against them anyways. SO, and this is just my opinion, the Liberals stand to actually LOSE even more of the popular vote at a time when they really need to start gaining it since an election is very likely within 2.5 years...only about 2 years after they select a new leader (assuming Dion doesn't decide to delay the leadership now that they're parroting him as PM).

Edited by Zowpeb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Destroy Canada?" Colin you funny.

I think many parliamentary democracies function well with coalition governments. I am delighted to see this happening, Harper seems a cad and a bully. He should have worked hard for some consensus-building, instead he steamrolled forward like he owned the place ~ well Harp, Canada don't play that way.

Now the representatives of 63% of the population will take over, sounds democratic to me.

Harper has clearly made his own bed by pushing the party funding issue. And does anyone really believe it's about anything else?

But Jebus...at least get the percentages right.

The Liberals and NDP account for 44.4% of the popular vote.

The Bloq accounts for 10% of the popular vote.

The Conservatives account for 37.6% of the vote.

The remainder of the popular vote was split primarily to the Green Party and a couple of independants...and you cannot include them in your 63% number. The 2 independants who actually won seats are likely to vote with the Conservatives. As for the Green party, IF they had won any seats there were a number of pretty right wing candidates...in fact, before May became leader they were splitting off the Conservative vote...many of those votes are still with that party.

The Bloq would give them 54.4 percent of the popular vote which they would use only during confidence motions...and 163 "coalition" seats to 143 Conservative seats. With 2 independant seats left over...

The FACT is that less then 50% of the population will STILL be making policy decisions as the Bloq would hold no cabinet posts and has simply committed to overthrowing the government and voting in-line on the confidence votes.

SO, what is in it for the Bloq??? The Bloq will be looking for sovereignty concessions...or, they will try to push some private members bills that are insane, get rejected and scream bloody murder that Canada doesn't care about Quebec just to push their ideals.

This is the reality of Canadian politics and HAS been throughout just about every MAJORITY government even. In the last 50 years the popular vote for the governing party has gone over 50% only TWICE. It happened in 1958 (53.7%) and 1984 (50%)...both Conservative governments.

People who bitch and moan about the fact that "most people who voted didn't want a Conservative government" need a lesson in history and a lesson in deductive reasoning. Our system is not set up and based on popular vote and it's rare for any party to get a majority of votes...even with landslide victories. In 1993 Jean Chretien and the Liberals won 177 seats and they did so with 41.3% of the popular vote...less seats then this coalition would actually hold despite their combined popular vote being higher. No one complained then because the Liberals were seen as centrist and were the "oh well, at least it wasn't the right/left guy who won...we can live with that."

If Harper actually made this parlaiment work for at least another 2.5 years before picking any fights the Conservatives would actually be a legit, centrist (even slight right of centre) national party again. He's probably going to have to resign in the near future whether they continue to hold power or not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I hate the Tories and don't want to see them in charge, I just don't see why the Bloc would be in favor of this coalition.

That would mean that they would be somewhere between the power and the opposition ??? That makes no sense. This would be a premiere.

The best thing that could happen would be that Harper realises that he has a minor governement and ACT IN THIS WAY !

The benefit to the Bloq is that they then hold all the leverage. The coalition only works if they vote with them during confidence motions. So they can ask for concessions from them in return for their vote. Politically it's a smart move for the Bloq...

It's just stupid for Dion and the Liberals. Dion has a rep of being one of the federalists who helped defeat the separatist movement...now he's going to be seen making deals with separatists. The Liberals too will be seen dealing with separatists and will now be seen by many as being too left wing. This will continue to split their vote with the NDP long term...which will allow the Conservatives to be slightly right of centre and be the only ones to actually appeal to centrists and the right wing voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Destroy Canada?" Colin you funny.

I think many parliamentary democracies function well with coalition governments. I am delighted to see this happening, Harper seems a cad and a bully. He should have worked hard for some consensus-building, instead he steamrolled forward like he owned the place ~ well Harp, Canada don't play that way.

Now the representatives of 63% of the population will take over, sounds democratic to me.

That's one way to see it. Although I'm not a fan of the Conservatives (I voted for them a few years ago because they ran the best campaign... and because my vote doesn't make a difference in my Bloc-lead riding anyway), you could also say that the majority of Canadians did not vote for the Liberals, or the NDP, or the Blocc, and yet their government will be lead by those three parties.

In a way it's almost anti-democratic, Canada wanted a minority Conservative government, but the other parties are jumping at the first occasion to go against that will. They can say all they want about doing what's best for Canada, this is all about politics, and breaking the Conservatives who were very close to a majority this time around. This was most likely planned in advance, especially since all three parties are saying that they'll go forward with this regardless of Harper's concessions (which is what minority governments do).

Although to be honest I don't really care, in fact I prefer a fusion of Liberals and NDP ideas than those of the Conservatives...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with it is not that it will "destroy Canada" but that it will fragment our political parties, create even more regionalised politics and increase separatist fervor...people want to know why the Bloq is in support...that's one long term benefit for them. They essentially guarantee that if they can hold Quebec they will almost always be able to leverage a large number of seats relative to the governing party. That and, short term, I'm sure the Liberals and NDP have had to promise them some, as yet to be presented, concessions...

You're kind of contradicting yourself there. If the Liberals & NDP have to promise some things to the Bloc (so to Quebec), it weakens support for sovereignty.

The formula is very simple: the support for Quebec's sovereignty is inversly proportionnal to the Federal government's openess to the province's particular agenda.

Exemple: Harper's project to lower the age at which teen criminals are trialed as adults. Quebec has the lowest teen crime rate in the country because it built its own system centered on prevention & rehabilitation. Harper's project makes no sense for Quebecois. "Why does the Federal government impose us a system that's worse than the one we already have?" people say, and quickly come to the conclusion that the Federal government still works against Quebec's best interests, hence raising the validity of sovereignty as a necessary tool to protect Quebec's interests and way of life.

Now if you've got a coalition government that has to make concessions to the Bloc, that Harper project will get scrapped, hence less ammo for sovereigntists.

I agree though that it's weird to see Dion ally himself with Duceppe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that coalition isnt anti-democratic. First off, democracy is representation. 63% of the population who didnt vote Conservatives will be represented in that coalition, how can that be anti-democratic? Secundo, there's tons of democracy around the world that work where coalition governments are the norm. Harper just wasnt smart enough to ally himself with any other party to have a majority. His loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that coalition isnt anti-democratic. First off, democracy is representation. 63% of the population who didnt vote Conservatives will be represented in that coalition, how can that be anti-democratic? Secundo, there's tons of democracy around the world that work where coalition governments are the norm. Harper just wasnt smart enough to ally himself with any other party to have a majority. His loss.

I tend to agree, I was just pointing out that another way to see this is that the majority of people (people who voted Conservatives) will be represented by the parties they did not vote for. Canada just voted, and a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP (and indirectly the Bloc) was not an option.

What Canada wanted was a minority Conservative government, and if Harper is willing to make concessions and listen to the opposition, those parties should be open and respect the wishes of Canadians. The main issue seems to be the lack of a stimulus package for the economy, well if Harper comes up with an acceptable to strong package, then the opposition parties should probably respect the wishes of Canadians and give their support. By going against the current government at all costs to break the Conservatives, in a way the coalition party is going against the majority of voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree, I was just pointing out that another way to see this is that the majority of people (people who voted Conservatives) will be represented by the parties they did not vote for. Canada just voted, and a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP (and indirectly the Bloc) was not an option.

What Canada wanted was a minority Conservative government, and if Harper is willing to make concessions and listen to the opposition, those parties should be open and respect the wishes of Canadians. The main issue seems to be the lack of a stimulus package for the economy, well if Harper comes up with an acceptable to strong package, then the opposition parties should probably respect the wishes of Canadians and give their support. By going against the current government at all costs to break the Conservatives, in a way the coalition party is going against the majority of voters.

First off, people dont really vote for the Government. So, technically, people didnt vote for a minority Conservative government. This isnt like electing the executive directly (ie. voting for President in US or France). You vote for your riding's MP and you hope other people agree with your choices in other ridings.

Yes, Liberals & NDP in a coalition werent an option as is, but not giving the Conservatives a majority implied that such a coalition was possible. Without a majority, the Government cant steamroll anything in the Parliement. That's a given from the get-go, and indirectly it opened the door to a possible coalition between the opposition partys. People cant say they never saw it coming. They made it possible with their votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper had the arrogance to try to cripple the opposition by taking away their subsidies. That is the reason for the coalition, not the lack of an economic stimulus package. Harper played a political game (under the guise of economic frugality during a recession, no less) and seeing it blow up in his face looks good on him, really.

This coalition may technically be undemocratic (did anyone here vote for an NDP, Bloc, Liberal alliance? I don't recall seeing that on the ballot) but Harper tried to run the country like he had a majority, and I'm glad the other leaders have decided to work together (you know, like how Harper should have done) to keep his power grab at bay. I'll take 3 opposition parties working together over 1 arrogant group gunning for more power than they were elected to any day. By golly, I'd almost consider it progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're kind of contradicting yourself there. If the Liberals & NDP have to promise some things to the Bloc (so to Quebec), it weakens support for sovereignty.

The formula is very simple: the support for Quebec's sovereignty is inversly proportionnal to the Federal government's openess to the province's particular agenda.

Exemple: Harper's project to lower the age at which teen criminals are trialed as adults. Quebec has the lowest teen crime rate in the country because it built its own system centered on prevention & rehabilitation. Harper's project makes no sense for Quebecois. "Why does the Federal government impose us a system that's worse than the one we already have?" people say, and quickly come to the conclusion that the Federal government still works against Quebec's best interests, hence raising the validity of sovereignty as a necessary tool to protect Quebec's interests and way of life.

Now if you've got a coalition government that has to make concessions to the Bloc, that Harper project will get scrapped, hence less ammo for sovereigntists.

I agree though that it's weird to see Dion ally himself with Duceppe.

Kozed, I agree with you if the issue is absolute sovereignty but the issue is much bigger then such a black or white picture. The Bloc is looking for incremental changes too...those incremental changes, over time, eventually lead to a more and more independance for the Quebec government. A move that puts Quebec priorities ahead of other provinces...which will eventually, at some future time, lead to a head. I have no real problem with decentralizing power and putting it in the hands of provinces...but if those changes are around fundamental/constitutional issues then it will only create a future firestorm.

If the changes are about decentralizing power towards the provinces then it's also clear that the Liberals are not a good "partner" for the Bloc...whereas the Conservatives tend to build policy around smaller government which downloads that power/authority to the provinces.

This coalition is just going to be a mess IMHO. Strange bedfellows indeed.

And to be blunt, the Conservatives are right to hold off on any stimulus packages. In fact, we should wait until Obama plays his cards. The Libs, NDP and Bloc are clearly going for a power grab and using the economy as the scapegoat.

Is a coalition anti-democratic? Not really. Is it what Canadians voted for? Not really.

If you are the Governer General do you want to allow a coalition with a separatist Bloc involved and a PM who will be voted out by his own party within 6 months?

Sure, Canadian voters don't vote for the PM like the US does it's President BUT it's also clear that party leadership plays an impactful role in how people vote. There is a strong argument to be made around this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the real compromise here is dump Harper, it is his stupidity that caused all of this . The opposition do not nor do I believe they ever will trust him again. The more reasonable of the cons (and there are some) should kick his ass out and negotiate in a responsible way to end this nonsense. If Harper prorogues parliament for the sole purpose of keeping his job then this country will be in even more trouble than it is now, since nothing will be done, the government can't act, and the economy down the sewer. Get rid of Harper everybody happy :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few times, the coalition has been described as "undemocratic". It is not undemocratic. No one is changing any rules. Canada is a Parliamentary democracy and what that means is after every election the person who can get a majority of MP's to support them becomes PM. Occasionally, like this time, it is not clear who that person is. We all thought it was Harper but he has squandered his support and it is clear that now that Dion is the one who can form a government.

As I say this is not that rare. When Paul Martin was a minority PM in 2004, Harper wrote a letter to the Governor General suggesting that she might appoint him PM rather than call an election should Martin not hold the confidence of the house. In light of that letter, I don't understand how he can claim that it is unfair for the opposition to form a coalition govenement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 110% against this coalition.

I find it ridiculous than someone who was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters 2 months ago get to be PM thanks to a backroomn deal.

I find it even more ridiculous than a party who dont even care about 77% of the canadian population and who doesnt even believe in this country get to have a veto over anything the governement of Canada does.

Are you really telling me than Liberal voters wanted to give a veto to separatist , than bloc voters wanted to hand the keys to Mr. Clarity Act and than anyone who voted NDP was in fact voting Liberal? The fact is, we never voted for a coalition.

I hope the GG does the right thing and call an election instead of allowing this bloddless coup d'état to proceded. The coalition should get elected as such or else they have no democratic mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 110% against this coalition.

While I respect your opinion, I have to ask you never ever to use 110% again here on these boards. Any reference to that show makes me vomit and, as a result of your comments, I now have to buy a new keyboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some facts: a coalition is not undemocratic in canada. period

in fact Mr "genius " harper should have been able to form a coalition of sorts to prevent this, that is what every minority prime minister has to do. ensure you have enough votes to pass legislation. Refer to Joe Clark the last conservative leader who could not count.

Canadians did not vote for stephen harper unless they live in his riding. he is 1 mp who has the support of 143 like minded idiots. who can't count.

The only agreement that the coalition has with the bloc is that the bloc will not vote against the government in a non confidence motion. they do not have a veto anymore than they do when they support harper which they have done on many cases. as to any other votes things are exactly the way they are now if they agree they vote yes if they disagree they vote no. stop the scare mongering. Harper has used the bloc for his purposes many times.

the people of canada voted for all the people in parliament not just the cons. The government is formed when enough like minded people form it. It does not automatically go to the party with the most seats.

Whether you like it or not Mr Harper cannot find enough people in the house of commons to support him, so he has to resign. Mr Dion has more people in the house that support him as PM so he gets to be PM if the gg says so. He has a plan in place to maintain a stable government for a minimum of 18 months possibly 30 months. That is a hell of a lot more than Mr Harper has who will try to hang on to power now by any means possible. Even if it means the destruction of this country. Prorogueing the house will destroy the economy. He needs to step down for the good of the country or find 10 more friends who can vote in the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, we never voted for a coalition.

I see your point but the fact is Canadians didn't vote for Harper either. Voters elect a person to represent them in parliament, that member of parliament then votes on motions. In the present scenario, it appears more than 50% of sitting members will vote non-confidence on the chesty Mr Harper. (Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some Conservatives even went along with the motion.) That's democracy in action!

PS: Sorry HabsRule didn't see your post seems I said about the same thing . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...