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

[Reccesoldier]

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?

Why?


With the US, the EU, China and practically every one else stimulating their economy, with Canada being a natural resource exporter, the already lower Canadian dollar easing the burden for our manufacturing sector and a banking system that has avoided most of the problems seen in other parts of the world to the point of being considered a model for how other countries should have done it do we need to?

Why not wait and see.  If the US stimulates it's economy then they buy our resources.  With our dollar lower again the US sees deals to be had in Canadian products.  China continues to provide cheap products for us to import.

It's possible we could have a free ride out of this mess thanks to the rest of them spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we just don't have and can't afford anyway.

 

[Rodahn]

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). 

Where did I state this? As to what kept the other parties afloat prior to the payments based upon votes received, was donations from Unions, large corporations, and other special interest groups in an effort to influence how government was run.

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

By limiting the influence peddling noted above, and that fact that the payments are based upon votes received. Therefore the larger percentage of the popular vote, the larger contribution to the party of whichever ilk.


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.

Agreed


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. 

Who governs then? Call them what you will, but more than a single party is a necessary evil.

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".

And we are back to the single party system again!

And just for the record I am not fond of any politician, I think that they all have some hidden agenda, in one form, or another.  

 

[Reccesoldier]

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.

Except under campaign finance laws they can't do that anymore either.  

The responsibility to fund political parties has been given to the individual.  The reforms by the Liberals in 2003 started the work but they screwed the taxpayers to try and give themselves a boost (largest # of votes =most money, what could go wrong for Canada's "naturally governing party") the conservatives in my opinion are just putting things right and getting government out of political parties.

State funding of political parties is the opposite of democracy.  It's against everything a modern democracy should stand for.  

 

[Reccesoldier]

Where did I state this? As to what kept the other parties afloat prior to the payments based upon votes received, was donations from Unions, large corporations, and other special interest groups in an effort to influence how government was run.

Ok, and we both agree that is a bad idea, so instead Chretien came up with the idea that the most votes = the most money.  But there is no freedom in that.  There is no will.  In typical liberal fashion the "solution" is force fed down the throats of the people who have to pay for it like it or not, approve or not.  I don't call that democratic.

By limiting the influence peddling noted above, and that fact that the payments are based upon votes received. Therefore the larger percentage of the popular vote, the larger contribution to the party of whichever ilk.

Democracy is not being forced!  Democracy is the individual acting on free will especially, PRIMARILY in the political realm.  You believe, you contribute, you don't then there is no way in hell that you should have your money taken from you to fund a private agency who's political ideals are antithetical to your own. Like the Bloc Quebecois.

Who governs then? Call them what you will, but more than a single party is a necessary evil.

Who governs?  Whatever party replaces the one that goes belly up.  You know the way the PC's did, and the way Reform replaced them.  It's the way it should be.  I no more wish to fund a political party that can't keep it's believers happy than I wish to fund a Car company that can't win a market share.  They are private entities.  Their role in our process is that of propaganda machine and talent pool, that's it, that's all.  They have NOTHING to do with the governance of this country.  Ideology is what they represent, they do not have a function within government

Absolutely I can guarantee you that if the Liberals imploded and went bankrupt there would be another socially left leaning political party created out of it's ashes before Stephan Dion could take the curtains down in Stornoway.

 

[Daidalous]

I have been trying to find a written reference (on the internet) that clearly states the GG can award the opposition the right to govern in a coalition, and the powers a PM has over a GG. to no avail,  all I have found are people's view on who has what power. 

    Based on what I have read with out reading the official law on this is that the PM can sake a GG and the GG can call new elections when asked by the PM and award power to a coalition to avoid a election.    So what would stop the PM from sacking the GG and installing one more to his liking.

Thanks

 

[a_majoor]

What one party system?:

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false

Registered Political Parties

    * Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada
    * Bloc Québécois
    * Canadian Action Party
    * Christian Heritage Party of Canada
    * Communist Party of Canada
    * Conservative Party of Canada
    * First Peoples National Party of Canada
    * Green Party of Canada
    * Liberal Party of Canada
    * Libertarian Party of Canada
    * Marijuana Party
    * Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada
    * neorhino.ca
    * New Democratic Party
    * Newfoundland and Labrador First Party
    * People's Political Power Party of Canada
    * Progressive Canadian Party
    * Western Block Party
    * Work Less Party

There is also the Freedom Party of Canada, which has not yet registered partially in protest against State funding to parties.

If these guys have ideas and policies that appeal to you, open up your wallet, give them some of your time and effort and get yourself or your representative elected. That is democratic. Forcing you to pay for only four out of the 19 registered parties (especially if you actually support one of the others) isn't democratic, it is extortion.

 

[Rodahn]

I have been trying to find a written reference (on the internet) that clearly states the GG can award the opposition the right to govern in a coalition, and the powers a PM has over a GG. to no avail,  all I have found are people's view on who has what power. 

    Based on what I have read with out reading the official law on this is that the PM can sake a GG and the GG can call new elections when asked by the PM and award power to a coalition to avoid a election.     So what would stop the PM from sacking the GG and installing one more to his liking.

Thanks

Role and responsibility of the G.G.

http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/index_e.asp

 

[a_majoor]

And what of thei supposed coalition anyway?

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/11/media-keeps-ignoring-one-of-coalition.html

Media keeps ignoring one of the coalition partners...missing the real story

As the media cover this Liberal coup d’état, they seem to forget one of the coalition partners that are necessary to maintain the confidence of the house. A NDP and Liberal coalition means absolutely nothing and the Governor General has no right to even consider it unless the Bloc Quebecois is a formal part of the agreement guranteeing to support the Canadian government for a reasonable period of time. The Liberals have 77 seats and the NDP has 37. Together they have 114 seats, not even close to the 143 that Tories earned. An NDP-Liberal coaliton has no where near enough seats to govern and together are not even the biggest party in the House of Commons. By itself, a Liberal-NDP coalition lacks any kind of mandate and would be given no legitimacy on its own. Therefore the media needs to find out what has been promised to a party that wants to break apart our country. An explanation is required on how a party only concerned with the interest of Quebec is good to balance the affairs of the entire nation (FYI the Western provinces would go from 58 seats in the government to 20 under this arrangement. Quebec would go from 10 seats in government to 64 with the coalition) . Finally it needs to be determined if the BQ is a formal part of this coalition or is simply onside for only one confidence vote. If they are not in the coalition formally, every confidence vote will cause drama as Conservatives would have a responsibility and obligation to bring down this undemocratic coalition at all costs and on every confidence vote.

This whole process is an assault on democracy. Harper is exactly right when he says a soundly defeated Stephane Dion would rather simply take power than earn it. Liberals are not just entitled to their entitlements but feel they have a right to take power at any cost rather you vote for them or not. The willingness to work with the separatists question if they stand for anything at all. Giving socialists cabinet roles show a lack of confidence in their ability to handle the economy. Jack Layton in finance? Give your head a shake team red. The fact that this all started over their lack of ability to fundraise without the Canadian taxpayer shows the opposition care about themselves and their own partisan interests than the Canadians and economy they talk about. Canada will have no credibility preaching democracy to the Russians or Chinese if this coalition goes through with Dion installed leader despite not being elected. When did Canada become a banana republic? How will the markets react to Prime Minister Stephane Dion's Liberal Party of Toronto propped up by socialists and separatists. Liberals will ask Canadians to have confidence in Dion as Prime Minister when they lack confidence themselves in him as leader. During the last election they campaigned against the BQ and NDP and never informed the voters of any potential left wing governing coalition.

The media needs to do its job. The BQ has 49 seats and would be the second largest coalition partner in this arrangement. Are they part of this coalition or not? If so what were they promised. If not how can the GG have any confidence in Dion's ability to maintain the confidence of the house. Obviously they cannot count on any kind of support from us whatsoever. This story is not about a Prime Minister who miscalculated anymore, it is about Canada's old natural governing party selling out its values to the separatists and socialists for a couple months in power. How can anyone be proud to be a Liberal today. A sound defeat will come when Liberals eventually face a democratic election should this power grab actually take place.
-Darryl

 

[Reccesoldier]

isn't democratic, it is extortion.

Thanks Thucydides, extortion, that is the word I've been searching for for the last couple of days.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Parties can't simply run to donors with large pockets.  Chretien closed the door on organized entities (big business, big labour) when he introduced the per-vote public funding, and the Conservatives further tightened the individual limit down to $1000.  The Liberal move was understood then and now to be a political manoeuvre to undercut the Conservatives at a time when they were already divided and weak, just as the Conservative move now is understood to be a political manoeuvre to undercut the opposition parties at a time when they are short of money.

Nevertheless, the suggestion our "democracy" is endangered is a ridiculous one, and no one has bothered to explain or estimate the actual minimum funding required by a national party before it truly becomes unable to inform voters of its ideas and intentions.  While it is true that brute force volume of advertising has an influence, that is not an excuse.  I need to see parties brown-bagging at their conventions in second-rate venues before I accept they are short of funds.

No one has argued for a fixed lump sum to be awarded to place all truly viable national parties (or even non-national parties like the Bloc) on an equal basic footing, so from nearly all points of the political compass the assertions and conclusions derive from pure partisanship.

AIUI, the contentious funding cut has been dropped from a confidence-related vote, and the coalition - if it proceeds - will do so purely on the assertion that the Conservatives are not spending enough.

I think the opposition parties will find they have pooched themselves greatly if their government is short-lived and they have no time to replenish their wallets.  They would be better off nipping at the heels of a Conservative minority with another 2-3 year lifespan.

 

[Infanteer]

I have been trying to find a written reference (on the internet) that clearly states the GG can award the opposition the right to govern in a coalition, and the powers a PM has over a GG. to no avail,  all I have found are people's view on who has what power. 

    Based on what I have read with out reading the official law on this is that the PM can sake a GG and the GG can call new elections when asked by the PM and award power to a coalition to avoid a election.     So what would stop the PM from sacking the GG and installing one more to his liking.

Thanks

That's because you won't.  The Prime Minister and the political party system are not mentioned in our written constitution - they are conventions.

 

[Flip]

Kirkhill - I belive you have it exactly right.
The opposition is horrified that the conservatives have their ducks in a row and actually understand the economy better than they do.  No one is pulling the fire alarm because the big red trucks have come and gone.

The last bloody thing on earth we need is hysterical partisan nonsense - who can out doom and gloom the others so that he looks like a genius.

The opposition looks to me like little kids hiding under a bed with a flashlight tellling "Stephen Harper" stories.  :

 

[CorporalMajor]

Everyone knows the Liberals and NDP are pretty much on their last legs with the public.  This is the only feasabile means they could get any pull in parliament. 

They couldn't do it the old fashioned, conventional way - getting people to vote for them.  So now how do they do it? Through weaseldom, and cunning means to manipulate the naive.  I'm hoping they don't fool too many people.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This is all beside the point- while Mr Harper may have been intellectually correct on the proposal to cancel the public subsidies for political parties, if this one act causes the three opposition parties to unite and gain power in a coalition- he was wrong to suggest it while in a minority situation.  I'm afraid, at that point he will have no choice but to accept all of the blame and fall on his sword, for the good of the Party. 

Frankly, I can see no way now that he can head this off- the Liberals, NDP and Bloc have discovered that they can talk to one another and what's worse- can taste power.  Dark days are coming and the brain trust of the Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves- they blew it.

By the way- Alberta and Saskatchewan should prepare themselves for a screwing not seen since 1982. NEP will be the least of their worries with the NDP rumoured to be about to gain control of Environment and Finance...

 

[the_girlfirend]

hihi

The Federal elections in Can, the presidential elections in the U.S. and the provincial elections in Quebec in 2 months is enough!!!!  :-X

I love elections but they are going to lose me if they keep going... Hey kids in the Parliament please get along!!!

 

[observor 69]

I'm a political junkie, can't get enough of this stuff. 
Roll on the Quebec election.  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

There will be, starting today, a vicious Conservative campaign to discredit the Liberals and the NDP.

Just a few weeks ago the Liberals said, the Tories will remind us, that the NDP is fiscally irresponsible – now they plan to give them some key economic portfolios (which is what Layton will certainly demand). Is this the gang, the Conservatives will ask, that you want running the country when the economy is in trouble?

The “no stimulus” excuse is utter nonsense, the Tories will tell Canadians. Thanks to prudent measures taken since early 2006 the Government of Canada has the luxury of time to watch what is happening in other countries and regions, to learn from others’ experiences, to avoid mistakes and to leverage our eventual fiscal decisions. That’s just good, sound management – the sort of thing a panicky, unelected Liberal/NDP coalition will not do as they rush to pay off special interests.

The NDP is, probably, already wary; they should be. The coalition cannot last very long. Even if they have some of the key economic portfolios the cabinet will approve only measures dictated by the old St Laurent/Pearson/Turner/Martin/Ignatieff wing of the party or the newer Trudeau/Chrétien/Dion/Rae wing. Both wings will argue for policies that look an awful lot like something Stephen Harper would propose – remember, please, that the Liberals always campaign on the left and govern on the right - things that good, left wing NDP supporters will regard as anathema. The NDP’s views will be, to (maybe) paraphrase an American, “not worth a bucket of warm spit.”

The Pearson/Trudeau, Trudeau/Turner, Turner/Chrétien, Chrétien/Martin and Ignaieff/Rae wars will rage on – to the detriment of the Liberal Party and any and all of those who join with it to govern.

Even if Taliban Jack Layton is Finance Minister the NDP will be irrelevant because this is cabinet government and the PM always wins the big fights. In the process of gaining irrelevancy the NDP will have sold its soul and lost its reputation as the conscience of parliament. Soon, in less than a year, while the economy is still enduring dark days, any coalition will break down and the Liberals will blame the NDP for being fiscally irresponsible. The Conservatives will blame the NDP for being fiscally irresponsible and, like the Liberals, lusting after unearned power. During the consequential general election campaign the Liberals and the NDP will be made to eat the blame – all of it – for the fact that Canada will have high unemployment and a still stagnating economy.

The Liberals should also be wary. If - and it’s a really big IF - the economy does start to recover the NDP will take all the credit for it.

In fact, Stephen Harper might not be too terribly displeased to swap 24 Sussex Drive for Stornoway for a year or so – not with all the problems facing whoever is in government and not considering all the wonderful political campaign ammunition that the BQ, Liberals and NDP will give the Tories during their (very roughly) eight or nine months in power.

I’m, personally, betting that the recession is on and, notwithstanding anything and everything everyone does or fails to do, it will not be over, technically, until sometime after 1 Jul 09 – and it will not feel like it’s over even then because the US and Europe will be in recession until sometime in mid/late 2010 so our ‘recovery’ will be slow.  It’s not a good time to govern.

Harper may wish to:

• Amend his proposal to bring it in in two phases – a 50% now and the other hal after the next election; and

• Start taking, loudly, about the potential size and shape of some possible stimulus packages.

Or he may just wish to stick to is guns, let his government fall, let the Liberal/NDP coalition founder and then fail and, in late 2009, pick up the pieces.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Well,  from the sound from the grits and dippers they have a working plan.  I think the opposition parties want more economic stimulus, right now,  where as the conservatives want to wait to see how little they can get away with. 

I find it funny how Harper is going in front of cameras saying "the opposition doesn't have the right to seize power like this"  Actually, according to the Constitution, they do.  In fact when Paul Martin was going to topple his government,  Stephen Harper asked the GG to do exactly what he is saying is wrong now. 


I think that the NDP and Libs have about 6-9 months of policy in common before they have inherit ideological differences that can't be worked out - even by Prime Minister Dion.   


:warstory: He'll get the time from mid Dec to the leadership convention.  And then Bob Ray will win the leadership.    (I know I'm spelling out most Tories worst case scenario right now)

Just think,  moving from 24 Sussex to Stornoway just in time for Christmas.  (I think is Dion has the choose he'd swap houses after Christmas,  just thinking of the children)

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

1)  They're sitting in the house of commons,  they were elected.

2) The NDP / Liberals are doing the same thing Stephen Harper asked/tried to do in 2004.  The only difference is that they can actually pull it off. Lets add it to the list of things Tories are allowed to do, but if someone else does it it is scandalous. :blotto:

3) Parliament has a duty to make an HONEST go of it.  The Tories know that the other three parties want substantial economic stimulus now, not "lets see what the yanks are doing so we can go el-cheepo"  By the government refusing to do what most of the MPs want,  they are simply refusing to do the will of the people and don't deserve to have the mantel of power because they are not able to get bills through.

4) The NDP's primary problem for attracting votes is the idea that  even if your riding elects an NDP member, they can't affect government.  By getting into a formal alliance, Jack Layton is showing that they can really make a big difference.  (Remember out west the NDP run second to the Tories in quite a few riding's) The NDP's only real problem with this is that they'll have to restrain party expectations.  Layton will have to come out and say "we can't do everything we want,  we wont agree with everything this government will do BUT it will be better than what Harper would have done and you will be better off for the compromises we are making."

5)  I love how the Tories, in order to keep the books our of "torches and pitchforks" level of deficit they said they'd sell government assets.  Great plan,  they didn't list which assets would be sold.  (in a down market selling assets = lower price) 

6)  You can only use an advantage the same way against your opponent for so long.  Remember predictability is death. In the last house the Tories pushed through allot of stuff the Liberals hated,  but they didn't want an election.  It cost them in a big way - and Dion learned.  Waiting until everything is perfect to engage the enemy is a luxury almost no one has.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>(in a down market selling assets = lower price)

Does your conscience ease if you remember to call it a "fiscal stimulus"?  The whole point of fiscal stimuli is to accelerate stalled spending.

Conflating the "will of the MPs" with the "will of the people" is a mistake.  The NDP have plenty of dogma regarding recessions; the Liberals less so but still their own share.