• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition. Will there be another election?

I think that the main argument is that the Lib/NDP lot are playing politics in a time of worldwide financial crisis, as are the Conservatives.
I still think the public (taxpayer) funding of political parties is hogwash. I don't see why I have to fund the Conservative, Liberal, NDP and whatever other party is our there. Why should I fund the BQ, who are out to destroy our nation?

The arguments forthis type of funding are somewhat logical, and I could care less what other countries do. That is their internal matters; why do we need to do what "other countries do"?
:cdn:
I stand against this on principle, that funding of a political party out of taxpayer dollars is wrong, period.
 
Looks like the Tories are backing down. No election.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/tories-fiscal.html

 
They will just hive it off of the ways and means bill, then reintroduce it as a normal vote. This allows the Ways & Means bill to pass as a confidence vote, and if the opposition vote down the subsidy cut, the government does not fall, but it provides them with fodder to hammer them with in the next election....
 
OldSolduer said:
:cdn:
I stand against this on principle, that funding of a political party out of taxpayer dollars is wrong, period.

So we are to go back to a funding formula that let the political parties be paid for by Unions and Lobbies? Can you say UAW, Teachers union, PSAC.  Lobbyist can even be worse.  I agree with your line of thought when it comes to funding for most groups coming from the public purse.  If you want to be a advocate for the numerous funded groups out there that want to present a voice then you should have the members to back it up and pay for that group.  But political parties?  Nope I am all for a system that removes them from special interest group donations as much as possible. ( funny that one as special intrest groups get a good chunk of money from the tax payer so under the old system you were helping to pay for it regardless )  In a perfect world you would not need much money for a campaign.  Yet in this day and age it is a must.  Thankfully we are nowhere near what the US spends on it.  So if it is going to cost then try and keep the costs down and have a level as can be playing Field.  That in my mind for the time being includes the pay per vote idea.  Come up with a better system and I will more and likely support it.  Until then this one is better then what we had ( even though it was presented to assist the Liberal Machine at the time that thought itself unstoppable.)

*as a note I almost hate taking this side as anything that has to deal with Chretien's legacy I would love to get rid of.
 
In my previous posts I stated that no unions nor special interest groups or corporations could contribute. Individual donations only.

Maybe this will force candidates and volunteers to spend some time pounding the pavement talking to people rather than spending OUR money buying TV & radio slots only to tell us theat the "other guy" is a big liar, or has a hidden agenda or is a weakling.
 
OldSolduer said:
In my previous posts I stated that no unions nor special interest groups or corporations could contribute. Individual donations only.

Maybe this will force candidates and volunteers to spend some time pounding the pavement talking to people rather than spending OUR money buying TV & radio slots only to tell us theat the "other guy" is a big liar, or has a hidden agenda or is a weakling.


That would also force the people in those parties to actually make you want to vote/donate to thier cause. But we ALL know where that is headed.......

Cheers
 
Then no other party would be able to afford it.  The conservatives are the only ones who can right now.  That attitude will quickly see all canadians who are on the fence against them and they will effectively of hanged themselfs.  With that addition to the bill they are pointing a very big gun around during a time that doesnt need it.  As I said OS not trying to start something but this policy has bad optics , timing and up yours all over it.  And I like the the PM.
 
youi have my support OS - tired of having to pay for parties I don't support too.

Just thought of a way to cut this cost without the politicians having a say - no one.  No vote, no money!!

added:  If no other party could afford it perhaps they need to look at what they are doing that their support base is not willing to fund them.
 
Could it be that the Conservatives do not wish to be resposible for the economic criss mess ?

Think about it. They pull a stunt so stupid that the Libs/NDP end up taking the reigns. That coalition bungles it up royaly ( as one would expect) and this is followed by a quick ellection putting a majority Conservative Government in power.
 
CDN Aviator said:
Could it be that the Conservatives do not wish to be resposible for the economic criss mess ?

Think about it. They pull a stunt so stupid that the Libs/NDP end up taking the reigns. That coalition bungles it up royaly ( as one would expect) and this is followed by a quick ellection putting a majority Conservative Government in power.
Could be,I will agree there.

As I've posted previously though, no government has any real control over the economy. The current ecomimic crisis is world wide, and time will sort it out, not governments.
 
OldSolduer said:
As I've posted previously though, no government has any real control over the economy.

I couldnt agree with you more OS. They dont control the economy but they sure get the blame when its gone bad.
 
I think this whole debate is a moot point, as it looks like the CPC government has backed off the $1.75 per vote thing for now.
Looks like the hogs will be at the trough for a while longer.

Wish we had a little pig face thingy we could add to this comment! ;D
 
MCG said:
Although, every Canadian does get full control over who will get thier $1.75.  That aspect at least seems relatively democratic.  

Fair enough, but that only works if 100% of the tax-payers in this country vote.

41% of those that were over 18 didn't vote, much less decide to where their funding was going.

And what of those under voting age, that pay taxes?

No political party should thrive on public coffers.
 
Baloo said:
Fair enough, but that only works if 100% of the taxpayers in this country vote.

41% of those that were over 18 didn't vote, much less decide to where their funding was going.

And what of those under voting age, that pay taxes?

No political party should thrive on public coffers.

You could also say that if you didn't bother to vote then you lost the say as to what party is going to get your 1.75 that when rounded out for the full tax payer base versus who actually voted doesn't give you enough for a phone call.
 
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081128/n_top_news/cnews_us_politics_canada

By Randall Palmer

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's minority government teetered on the edge of collapse on Friday, just six weeks after its re-election, as opposition parties talked of forming a coalition to replace the ruling Conservatives.

Both the Conservatives and the three opposition parties were engaged in high-stakes brinkmanship over the fiscal update that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty presented on Thursday.

The opposition said the update did not contain needed stimulus for an economy increasingly squeezed by the global downturn, but they were most angered by a planned end to direct public financing of political parties.

If neither side blinks, the government will likely fall, perhaps as early as Monday, and Canada would either head into a snap election or into some sort of coalition led by the opposition Liberals.

"Canadians ... just might get a Christmas present next week and have the Conservatives turfed, which is exactly what they deserve for their mismanagement of the economy," Thomas Mulcair, deputy leader of the leftist New Democratic Party, told CBC television.

The Conservatives were in no mood to back down, however, although they did announce that the first confidence vote on the fiscal update -- due on Monday -- would not be on the public financing proposal. That will be included in a separate financial bill and no vote on that has yet been set.

"We're not anticipating changing our agenda," Kory Teneycke, a top spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told CTV television, accusing opposition parties of trying to subvert democracy.

"This is an attempt to take control of the government without actually having to go to the electorate in a democratic vote," Teneycke said, noting that the Conservatives won a strengthened minority in last month's election.

CANADIAN DOLLAR SLIDES

The uncertainty helped push down the Canadian dollar. At 12.10 p.m., it was at C$1.2378 to the U.S. dollar, or 80.79 U.S. cents, down from C$1.2311 to the U.S. dollar, or 81.23 U.S. cents, at Thursday's close.

"A lot of investors are rewarding governments that are showing strong leadership on the financial crisis and it looks like we're (Canada) going to be thrown into disarray," said David Watt, currency strategist at RBC Capital markets.

The New Democrats' Mulcair said all three opposition parties -- the NDP, the Liberals and the separatist Bloc Quebecois -- had consulted with one another more intensively than usual in the last 48 hours.

Former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent were working behind the scenes on possibilities for a coalition government.

If the Conservatives lose the vote in the House of Commons, Harper would go to Governor General Michaelle Jean -- the representative of Canada's head of state, Queen Elizabeth -- to say he has lost the confidence of Parliament.

Harper could ask Jean to call an election but experts said she could also call upon the opposition to see if it could form government instead.

If the Liberals and NDP sought to form a coalition, they would also have to rely on at least the tacit support of the Bloc Quebecois. That could present a major difficulty because the Bloc is dedicated to breaking up Canada.

"They'll have to answer to the Canadian people if they make certain coalitions," Flaherty said..

The Conservatives have 145 members, including two allied independents, in the 308-seat House. The Liberals have 77 and the New Democrats 37 -- totaling only 114 and well short of the 155 needed for a majority. They would thus need the backing of the Bloc, which has 49 seats.

In recent past political crises, the Liberals have often backed away from bringing down the government because of their weak political position, but this time they seem to smell power.

Canadian newspapers united to condemn what they said was an act of crass political gamesmanship by the prime minister.

(Additional reporting by David Ljunggren; editing by Rob Wilson)
 
Plus it's old news, the Conservatives have backed down on removing public funding to political parties.
 
I am all for a viable party getting funding.  As stated earlier, it is quite democratic, they get as much support as the Canadian electorate wants to give them.  Hopefully that limits how far special interest groups with deep pockets can influence parties.

What really pissed me off this morning was an interview at around 0630 on CBC with a Conservative party spokesman.  He was ranting on about how the other parties were trying willing to topple the government that Canadians had elected.  The Conservatives did not win a majority, they were invited by the GG to form the government.  Overall a very juvenile performance that dropped my view of the Conservatives quite a bit.

There are other options, the GG can ask the other parties if they can form a government, and if they are willing to then they have an equal chance of being toppled.  It is the nature a minority government in that the party does not form the government, a group of parties must.  The Conservatives cannot pass any confidence vote on their own, therefore you cannot say they are the government, rather the Conservatives and whoever votes with them form the government.

Simply put, the Canadian electorate did not have enough confidence in the Conservatives to make them the ruling party, therefore they have aren't the ruling party.

What's that saying?  Something along the lines of people don't get the government they need, they get what they deserve.
 
Just a quick thought on why I think the opposition parties are up in arms over this entire money issue. The last couple of years have shown that the Conservative party easily raised more money from citizens than any other party. It would seem then that conservative supporters have no problem opening their wallet and shelling out some money, whereas the other parties supporters would seem to prefer that the public "en masse" do the financial support.

I think PM Harper should continue to push this, force an election, and run on that one issue. The opposition parties wouldn't give up their gravy train in these hard times. For those who said this is unfair to the Libs and dippers, where was your complaint when Chretein passed the 1.75 per vote(during the Libs majority years of course)? Threatening to assume power in such an underhanded foul, way reeks of third world politics. But that being said they would need to get all 3 opposition parties to agree to the make-up of this "mickey mouse" government. The dippers would probably jump at it, as it would be their only hope in hell of ever getting any power on the national stage, and if either of these two would jump into a relationship with the separtists I think it would be the final death knell for both of them.

Just one guys pragmatic opinion.
 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081128/coalitions_past_081128/20081128?hub=TopStories

Experts doubtful a Liberal-NDP coalition would work
Updated Fri. Nov. 28 2008 3:42 PM ET

Parminder Parmar, CTV.ca News Staff

As talk of a potential coalition government swirls through the halls of parliament, some experts in Canadian political history say the reality is it will likely never come to fruition.


There's "not a chance" that the Liberals and NDP will be able to convince Governor General Michaëlle Jean they'll be able to form a working coalition, says Barry Cooper, a political science professor at the University of Calgary.


Cooper, the author, editor, or translator of 27 books and dozens of academic papers, says the NDP and Liberals are just too far apart on issues for their MPs to agree on a working alignment.


Cooper says it doesn't matter that party elders are behind the coalition talk. CTV News reported Friday that former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent were discussing a possible coalition government, with the support of the Bloc outside cabinet.


If they do come up with a deal and the MPs for their respective parties agree to the terms, they could defeat the government as soon as Monday when the Tory economic update comes up for a confidence vote.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper would then have to go to the governor general to dissolve Parliament and call an election. But the governor general may also decide to hand power to the leader of one of the other parties, if she believes he or she can hold together a coalition.


That's what happened in 1926 during the so-called King-Byng Affair. That's when Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King went to the Governor General Lord Byng of Vimy, asking for an election call, but was turned down. Instead, Byng asked Conservative Arthur Meighen to end a parliamentary stalemate.


Cooper says he doubts that would happen this time.


"The Governor General has to be convinced that this coalition is real," he said, noting the party's MPs won't necessarily listen to Broadbent or Chretien.


"If she thinks it's doable she is in deep doo doo."


Cooper says that even if the governor general granted the opposition parties' request to form some type of coalition government, they just wouldn't be able to function effectively.


"The consequences would be catastrophic," he said. "They will be defeated right away," he said.


The governor general would likely shoot down the idea well before that point, says Steve Patten, a political science professor at the University of Alberta.


"The hurdles to forming a coalition government are absolutely massive," he said, noting that the fact that the Liberals are in the middle of a leadership race doesn't help matters.


"Who would be the prime minister," he asked, adding, "What kind of policy agenda will there be?"


But while Cooper is all but certain that a coalition government won't happen, Patten isn't so sure.


"My gut reaction would be similar to his (Cooper's). However, sometimes, the political parties in Ottawa get themselves into a situation where they can actually create a momentum that is hard to push back," he said.


"It's possible that they (MPs) are all saying we'll defeat the government. But they don't want to force an election and so they will force themselves to make a coalition work."


Cooper said even if that were to happen, the new government would, like Meighen, have an extremely short tenure. King was voted back into office in the next election.


"(The new coalition) will be defeated right away," Cooper said.


"Instead of Mr. King, it will be Mr. Harper who has a majority."

 
Back
Top