Coalition Government?

[Birdy]

Oh god. Please, no.

OTTAWA AND TORONTO -- NDP Leader Jack Layton refused yesterday to rule out the possibility of entering an alliance with the federal Liberals to prevent another Harper government.

"I've worked with any other party. I think people have seen that. Maybe it goes back to my days on municipal council - you roll up your sleeves and you try to solve a problem," Mr. Layton said in an interview with CTV's Canada AM.

"I think right now the problem we have is Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. They're taking the country down the wrong path."

However, when asked whether he'd agree to a formal arrangement, Mr. Layton was more evasive, seeming to suggest that he expects to be in charge.

"I think what I'll do is, hopefully, sit down in the Prime Minister's Office and pull together the leadership of my party and say, 'How can we best serve the country? How can we best get that child-care program that we committed to?' " he said.

" 'How can we best get those doctors and nurses trained to deal with these wait times that are really concerning families?' And let's make it happen."

However, later in the day, Mr. Layton dodged more than half a dozen questions on the topic, saying he would work with whatever parliament Canadians decided on.

Conservative cabinet minister James Moore said Mr. Layton's remarks mean the NDP Leader supports, by extension, the Liberal Leader's plan to impose a carbon tax, which is unpopular in the West.

"Jack Layton has finally let the cat out of the bag," Mr. Moore said. "We all know that the NDP would have to abandon many of its commitments and adopt Liberal Party policies in order to form a coalition government, and this would certainly include a new carbon tax."

Full article here

[phishtaper]

imagine elected officials actually working together. what a novel idea, eh.

compared to another few years of Harper secrecy, bullying and lies, I would welcome this.

[Birdy]

I think most voters would find some of their political agendas compromised because of a want to save Canada from what? Oh yes, hidden agendas! Seems like this is for the most part a power grab on behalf of Jack Layton. I don't know if most card-carrying Liberals would be happy about it. Jack is much more left than the average Lib. It would require abandonning policy on both hands. I'd be a little upset if I supported either of the two.

[Hux]

Dion actually made a funny when he responded, said Layton already had a coalition with the Marijuana Party and the nudists (referencing NDP candidate who stepped down in BC because he stripped in front of kids and asked them to bodypaint him)...

[Birdy]

YAY! and thank god.

[Kanada Kev]

As long as it ain't as dumb as recent 'coalitions':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

Dion's comment regarding Layton's marijuana coalition, and the comment regarding Conservative "culture" have provided me with a couple of good laughs today. Politics doesn't do that often (on purpose at least )

[Freak By Night]

... card-carrying Liberals ...

The proper adjective to describe Liberals is "bleeding-heart".

"card-carrying" should be reserved for conservatives only!

[Birdy]

gotta get the lingo down!

Good news!

Mr. Dion yesterday rejected the prospect of an alliance with the NDP. "We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period."

[phishtaper]

why do politics have to be so black and white? so the NDP and the Liberals differ on a number of issues. does that mean they cannot work together overall on the many issues they do agree on, but disagree on some other issues?

are we destined to forever have/expect/deserve single-minded government? sorry, but that's just stupid and unproductive.

[Birdy]

I think it's more about options for different policies. The Liberals and NDP are very different and have a very different voter base. If they merged to form a coalition and compromised parts of their platform all in an effort to 'get along', there goes the representation in Ottawa for those voters who wouldn't necessarily agree with such compromises. The beauty of party politics is choice for Canadians, if all parties merged into one big happy family, i'd venture to say that's more of a dictatorship than anything else.

[AD]

there goes the representation in Ottawa for those voters who wouldn't necessarily agree with such compromises.

i think it's naive to suggest that any politician, especially one in power, really represents their riding in ottawa. in reality they represent ottawa in their riding.

[Birdy]

I think that's a little unfair to say based on the big ticket policy I'm talking about (ie, crime, daycare, healthcare, carbon emmissions, taxation, etc.). The kind where voter ideology aligns itself with a particular party.

[SaggyBalls]

Yes. And the voter wants their party to try to push their views as best they can to make positive changes on the hill and in turn across the country.

Coalitions work in countries around the world, and although they wind up ending in compromise, this compromise is key in the act of negotiating position and for holding onto clout.

It's safe to assume that politicians will go back on their promises - even the promises that mean the difference between people having a retirement and not having one (hmmm...I wonder who thought it was a good idea to tax income trusts after promising they would be safe...gee...)

What's wrong with ruling out working together to bring about positive and needed change for this country?

You look a bit scared, Birdy.

[Birdy]

I am and I think it's bullshit.

If Canadian voters elect Stephen Harper, that's what they want. Is it fair to voters for other parties to form a coalition, or to promote strategic voting because THEY don't want him in? Not at all. Let the vote speak for itself without our politicians joining forces to defeat him. The vote should speak for something, so should our political parties.

[Birdy]

PS, i think should the Liberals be elected, they'd find the sheer millions slipping out of federal coffers as more and more corporations throw their money into income tax trusts to be as troubling as the CPC does. That promise is a little weak and has one of the biggest potentials to be broken.

[phishtaper]

If Canadian voters elect Stephen Harper, that's what they want.

dont be stupid, birdy. in 2006, harper and the conservatives received 36% of the votes ... maybe one in three voters "wanted" harper, but two in three didnt.

[Birdy]

I'm not being stupid at all. 36% of the votes IS the majority of the votes based on our political model.

1/3 wanted Harper, but 2/3 did not vote in favour for one single other party. How 'bout we give the electorate credit for understanding how party politics works?

Edited September 26, 2008 by Guest

[mattm]

I am and I think it's bullshit.

If Canadian voters elect Stephen Harper, that's what they want. Is it fair to voters for other parties to form a coalition, or to promote strategic voting because THEY don't want him in? Not at all. Let the vote speak for itself without our politicians joining forces to defeat him. The vote should speak for something, so should our political parties.

2006 results:

CON -> Seats: 124 -> Votes(%): 36.27%

LIB -> Seats: 103 -> Votes(%): 30.23%

BQ -> Seats: 51 -> Votes(%): 10.48%

NDP -> Seats: 29 -> Votes(%): 17.48%

IND -> Seats: 1 -> Votes(%): 0.52%

OTH -> Seats: 0 -> Votes(%): 5.02%

Most Canadian voters didn't want harper last election and a coalition of lib/ndp (which, if you asked what ndp people would prefer, lib or pc, you'd probably get lib in response) would probably have made more people happy. Lets say 40% of voters, we'll take the extra 7.48% off as NDP people that would rather pc although it's probably higher than 40%. I would also be willing to bet that if we had just two parties, libs and cons, the libs would win over the cons, even factoring in quebec who would probably vote con.

Also, what the voters want isn't even reflected very well in our government since 17.48% of voters wanted NDP and only 10.48% bloc but bloc won even though much less people wanted them too which is something that irks me about our system. I've always wished that we had two votes, one for the country and one for the riding. PC dude might be good for my area but PC's in general not good for the country (or any other party, I use PC because of personal bias).

Edited September 26, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

I'd suggest reading the comments following this post on the Globe and Mail and those in the Toronto Star. NDP'ers may want to join forces with the Liberals (legitimization/credibility/support), but as Stephane Dion said as noted above, Liberals don't want anything to do with the NDP. And I'd have to agree with them. Such a coalition could stand to subtract from their historically large voter base of centrally ground ideologues, and could in turn drive those votes over to the CPC.

I think it's in the interest of the NDP to paint the Liberals with the same brush as themselves to align itself as one of the many options on the left. The result of which would be saying to voters they are a credible option as an alternative to the Liberal party, because we're all lefties. This couldn't be further from the truth.

I understand the warm and fuzziness of working together and compromise, but i think if such a coalition were formed you'd find the Liberals remaining the dominants sitting in government (much to Jack Layton's dislike as I agree with those who think Jack thought he'd be man in charge) and the NDP vote be compromised and/or intimidated. Simply sitting down and comparing policy between these two parties will show you that they disagree on quite a bit. I also think such a coalition would stifle important and potentially great smaller parties - like the Green Party, from ever developing their platform to be a major contender. Check out how much progress the Greens have made in this campaign alone. If other parties started talking coalitions, they would be ruined. And that just sucks.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Guest

[phishtaper]

I'm not being stupid at all. 36% of the votes IS the majority of the votes based on our political model.

1/3 wanted Harper, but 2/3 did not vote in favour for one single other party. How 'bout we give the electorate credit for understanding how party politics works?

please birdy, i admire your zeal, but as much as you keep repeating your wild contention that 1/3 is a majority, it don't make it so.

and how 'bout we recognize that political parties have no constitutional standing whatsoever in canada. they are fabricated entities of political convenience.

[d_rawk]

and how 'bout we recognize that political parties have no constitutional standing whatsoever in canada. they are fabricated entities of political convenience.

True, true. But then neither does the PMO, but by convention.

[edit:] Broader scope: phishtaper, reading casually I'd understood you to be expressing your dislike of political parties. In context, it looks like you are saying something along the lines of 'prioritizing the idea of the party over the associations elected MPs choose to form with each other - in, out or between those party memberships - is wrongheaded, given the system'. Yes? That's a good point .. I missed it at first.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Guest

[phishtaper]

yes although, admittedly, im always willing to let people interpret whatever i say in such a way that it makes me look smarterer.

[d_rawk]

Haha. I just don't always get what someone is saying until I run it through my internal casual-speech-to-nerd translator I blame all those hours of writing poli. sci. papers.

Speaking of which, hammering down on it even more:

'prioritizing the idea of the party over the associations elected MPs choose to form with each other - in, out or between those party memberships - is wrongheaded, given that those party memberships themselves are but a manifestation of that same freedom of political association'. A gift to first year poli. sci. students looking for a topic to write on, courtesy of phishtaper.

[Birdy]

Phishtaper, back to the less smarterer version of what you wrote:

please birdy, i admire your zeal, but as much as you keep repeating your wild contention that 1/3 is a majority, it don't make it so.

Since when did a majority only apply in context of 2s?

[phishtaper]

yes, birdy, in some contexts, "majority" can mean the single largest slice of the pie, whatever its actual size.

in the political arena, the term majority has always meant the largest slice of the pie that is larger than half the total pie.

to continue to insist that harper has majority support with 36% to 38% of the popular vote is completely disingenuous and you know that.