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

[MARS]

The PM is expected to read a statement within the hour addressing this topic (if I understood the newscaster correctly).  Didn't say if it would be televised, but I assume so.  Caught this on CBC.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

I think at this point, both the Liberals and the NDP will try and place aside their diffences to make this work. The big hurdle here is getting the GG on board. But i'm sure that if both parties are serious and have a sound game plan, they could pull it of.
Harper is trying to govern like he has a majority, just like he did last time around, but he has to be reminded once again that he is still at the small end of the stick.

Flip flopping around on the econmic issues isn't helping his government much either. I've never heard of a "technical recession", must be one of those new conservative phrases, like technical deficit or technical surplus.

Either we're in a recession or we're not and from what I've seen so far we're pretty deep into the manure pile and it's getting smellier everyday. Giving it a shiny new "technical" name other than what it is, isn't going to magically make it go away.

 

[tomahawk6]

If you think the lefties are good for the economy,think again. I think all this will do is to force another election and the voters may make the Liberals/NDP pay a price at the polls.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Libs + NDP < CPC.  If the wannabe coalition wants to survive its first confidence motion, it needs the Bloc.  What will be the price of Bloc support, and how will that price be received by voters?

Harper built a shoe - the proposal to cut per-vote public party funding - and the opposition parties made a lot of noise about how well it fit.  Now that has been yanked as a possible matter of confidence, leaving the public with no doubt about what the opposition parties think is important enough to force an election, and leaving the opposition parties free to vote out the government on the remaining issue: whether enough capital has been shovelled out the door to the most vocal lobbyists.  You can split the difference on whether voters will side with the CPC for being willing to cut the funds, or against the CPC for attacking the funds.  But now the opposition is a long way out on a branch called "fiscal stimulus".

 

[DONT_PANIC]

I could see the Liberal/NDP coalition comming to pass, but it might be pretty unpalatible for many Liberal MPs.    Might this be enough to push Ignatieff and a few others into crossing the floor?

 

[Reccesoldier]

Take a good hard look at the second chart here.

If you think that western Canada is going to roll over and be left with a socialist government that they overwhelmingly rejected you're smoking dope.

Look at the numbers 71 CPC MP's 7 Liberal, and 14 NDP.

The separatists in Quebec may get their wish courtesy of Liberal NDP and Bloc greed and delivered by the long ignored western provinces.

 

[Rodahn]

Possibly the most astute commentary regarding the whole issue that I've read.


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/28/don-martin-harper-has-no-one-to-blame-but-himself.aspx

 

[Rodahn]

Take a good hard look at the second chart here.

If you think that western Canada is going to roll over and be left with a socialist government that they overwhelmingly rejected you're smoking dope.

Look at the numbers 71 CPC MP's 7 Liberal, and 14 NDP.

The separatists in Quebec may get their wish courtesy of Liberal NDP and Bloc greed and delivered by the long ignored western provinces.

I'm not so sure of this, as the Alberta labour federation seems to be having doubt regarding one of their own's ability to govern.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=bb5ee6d7-5936-495e-ba1f-1535e5c9af62

 

[Reccesoldier]

I'm not so sure of this, as the Alberta labour federation seems to be having doubt regarding one of their own's ability to govern.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=bb5ee6d7-5936-495e-ba1f-1535e5c9af62

Rodahn, do you think that the Communist party of Alberta would support the PM just because he's from Calgary?

Come on.  Labour unions are overwhelmingly against Conservative governments, always have been always will be.

 

[Rodahn]

Rodahn, do you think that the Communist party of Alberta would support the PM just because he's from Calgary?

Come on.  Labour unions are overwhelmingly against Conservative governments, always have been always will be.

No argument there, however one has to consider the influence of the unions on their membership if job loss is imminent. How do you think the membership will vote? Self interest is powerful motivation.

 

[McG]

No matter what happens in order for a coalition to be formed the Governor General would have to ask for it and in my opinion that would mean the death of that position in the Canadian Democracy.

I do not think that most Canadians are prepared to see their vote be overturned by ...

Most Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives.  The GG could conceivably gain in popularity by putting in a coalition that collectively represents more of the actual votes cast.  Especially when one considers that most Canadians would be more than a little upset by another election so soon.

 

[TCBF]

Most Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives.  The GG could conceivably gain in popularity by putting in a coalition that collectively represents more of the actual votes cast.  Especially when one considers that most Canadians would be more than a little upset by another election so soon.

- I wasn't aware the GG was in a popularity contest. If the government falls, will people blame the PM or the sore losers of the last election who brought it down?

 

[McG]

I wasn't aware the GG was in a popularity contest.

Read the quote to which I was responding.  Previous poster concluded that if the GG were to invite the opposition to form a coalition then there would be a public backlash that would see the end of that position.  I was pointing out the inaccuracy of this conclusion based on two things:
1.  It assumed Canadians would see the GG as having "overturned" their votes despite the fact that the majority did not vote for the current government (so at worst only a minority of Canadians might feel their vote was "overturned."
2.  It ignored the fact that many/most Canadians would be satisfied by a solution that would avoid another election.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Well MCG the majority certainly did not vote for Stephie DeYawn, and they certainly did not vote for Iggy Liberal King in waiting who could not even run for the top job during the election.

As far as Chretien and Broadbent playing kingmaker that should show all Canadians what this is about.  It's not about the Torries playing partisan politics it's about the other guys trying to ensure that the gravy isn't turned off.

 

[Rodahn]

It's not about the Torries playing partisan politics it's about the other guys trying to ensure that the gravy isn't turned off.

Maybe, maybe not. If the Tories are successful, and the other three main parties go bankrupt then what? We have a one party system... And history has shown how well one party systems have worked in the past.

 

[Reccesoldier]

The reason the Tories are successful in raising money has more to do with the mindset of their constituents than anything else.  A conservative says to himself "Hm, this is worth fighting for... I think I'll support the worthy cause" <opens wallet>.

The socialist (Liberals and NDP being just shades of this particular Grey) says "Hm, this is worth fighting for...  How can we force everyone to pay for our worthy cause?"  <takes money from everyone's wallet>.

This is done not only in the arena of party finance but in all other political schemes as well to a lesser or greater extent.

By the way. If you have a leader who people will follow, who is charismatic, personable and seen as having vision you can make money hand over fist, regardless of their political stripes... Just ask the Obama campaign.

The idea that this could destroy the other parties is ridiculous.

Think about it.  30 million dollars every year.  Your taxes going to a party hell bent on destroying this country.  It's enough to make me puke.

 

[Rodahn]

The idea that this could destroy the other parties is ridiculous.

Really, How so? Considering from what I've read and heard of the state of the other parties finances, they are in disarray.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Really, How so? Considering from what I've read and heard of the state of the other parties finances, they are in disarray.

So you believe that without stealing our taxes that there are not enough liberals, NDP and Bloc supporters to donate to their own parties?  What kept them afloat before Chretien decided to steal our taxes to pay for his party (it was the largest at the time and therefore got the largest share). 

Anyone want to try and tell me how this money grab is democratic? 

I mean if the winning party of an election gets 14 million votes and wins a majority but then proceeds to lie, cheat and steal, elect unpopular people to lead their party, divorce the party from the very people parties are supposed to represent and still get $23,800,000 every year regardless of the poor job they do? 

On the other hand, if you eliminate the subsidy the party has to remain loyal to its base, it has to generate it's own funds.  It has to be able to come up with leaders, platforms and policies that their supporters will support and it has to hopefully do well enough to gather more support the next time.  That is democracy.

Democracy is not being forced to treat a vote like a post dated cheque.

The other concept being hoisted upon us is that these parties (all of them) are somehow part and parcel of our democracy and they must survive or our democracy won't function.  Absolute BS.

There is no party that has to exist.  If the party can not survive on it's own then like a business it shouldn't.  There is no legal, democratic or constitutional mandate for any of them.  They are supposed to be private entities separate from and unconnected to government qua government in any way.  Anything less than that is an aberration of democracy the likes of which we see in Banana Republics and communist "Peoples Republics".

I hope that the Conservatives stick to their guns on this one.  It's sink or swim time and I'm sick and tired of the political parties using my money to keep themselves afloat.

 

[HDE]

Where does one actually see the details of what the budding "coalition" would offer in their "financial stimulus" plan?  If that is indeed the rationale for dumping the government it seems reasonable to see what the Liberal/NDP/BQ "coalition" would be offering before they take the reins, right?

 

[AmmoTech90]

On the other hand, if you eliminate the subsidy the party has to remain loyal to its base, it has to generate it's own funds.  It has to be able to come up with leaders, platforms and policies that their supporters will support and it has to hopefully do well enough to gather more support the next time.  That is democracy.

I have a more cynical view.  Rather than having to work hard to develop sound ideas that will cause people to support and fund a party, the typical party will approach a few people or organizations with deep pockets and an agenda and in return for money will promise to promote that agenda when they are in power.
They can then use that money to put on a slick campaign that will convince people that their party is out for the good of Canada.

I'm sure individual politicians sometimes want to improve the good of general people, but I believe their party is more interested in the party.