If that’s what the NDP wants to demonstrate, then they should have people who can represent them better in public. This morning, the Canada AM show had a Liberal representative, a Bloc representative, and an NDP representative being interviewed separately. The Liberal and Bloc reps answered the host’s questions pretty well; but somehow, the NDP rep turned every one of the host’s questions into something that could be answered with what the NDP, as part of the coalition, will do about women’s rights, minority rights, and the environment. While these goals may be admirable, it seems to me that making this platform public at this point in time, before it is known for sure what the GG will do, doesn’t seem to me like demonstrating fiscal responsibility–rather, it seems more like, “Woo-hoo! We’ll be in power and we can do what we want and can spend as we please!” Now, whether that’s happy posturing or not remains to be seen, and certainly the Liberals may be able to rein in the NDP over the next little while; but this interview did give me a “we’ll spend like a drunken sailor” impression. Certainly, it left me, and I’m certain many Canadians, with a worse impression of the NDP and the coalition that gives it this opportunity.
We did - we did not give the conservatives the majority, therefore, like it or not,
we left it open for just that option.
We’re so influenced by the cult of personality and 2-party system to our south, I think it affects our view of how our governent works. We’re going to be told how the Liberals and/or GG are stealing the government from the people - not so. We voted in 143 Conservatives and 163 "Liberal-NDP-Separatist"s.
Oh, my mistake. I forgot the Liberals and NDP and Bloc campaigned on a platform of vote for us en masse and we’ll make a government.
Must have missed that one.
Not saying they did, but the way our parliament is set up - either you vote in a majority or risk this scenario… isn’t it?
Very true but don’t present the 163 seats as a coherent block of voter interest. It isn’t.
So what’s better - go to the GG and say we have the confiedence of parliament or go for another election?
And then another, and another, and another…
It is the job of the Libs, NDP, and (holding my nose) BQ to do the best for the country as far as they see fit - if having the conservatives as the government is contrary to their ideals, and is a shared idea, then if we don’t give the conservatives enough seats to prevent it - are we then stuck in a loop? Or do we break it?
This is my take as well.
I’m no conservative. In fact, I’m rabidly anti-conservative. And even I think this move by the NDP/Liberal/Bloc triumvirate is a dick move. No one wants to see Harper removed from the Prime Minister role more than I, but this is a shite way to go about it. And, when you’ve pissed off your base (as the NDP/Liberals have done with me, my friends who collectively sit left of Harper on the political spectrum), that’s a pretty good sign you’ve made an ill-calculated power play. I haven’t heard anyone provide a strong and reasoned argument as to why this is a good and necessary idea.
A change in leadership this significant demands a vote. Send us back to the polls or start playing nice in your sandboxes kids.
Finally, some excitement in Canadian politics.
Bravo, Canada.
I actually agree with point 1 - but like begets like, I guess. I’m still trying to understand how Harper made this mistake - he’s always been so careful and calculated. Some editorials I’ve seen about yesterday portray him as looking withdrawn, almost like he’s giving up - doesn’t make sense…
As for sending us back to the polls - what happens next time? What if we get yet anotherconservative minority and they piss off the L/N/B folks again? Another election?
The Bloc has no interest in Canada aside from wishing to discount over 100 years of collaborative work between English and French building a free, liberal multicultural society. Canada is an imposition foisted on Quebec by unhappy circumstances. :rolleyes:
I can only hope the GG finds the idea of a coalition government which could never exist without support of a party geared to dissolving the current federal setup as beyond the wisdom of her office and requiring a vetting by the people.
So what are her options, anyway - yes, no or election? Is that final and binding? I.E. - if the answer’s no - then can they rejig and ask again, or is it a one-shot deal?
I can only hope that the GG isn’t stupid enough to declare that the GG has veto power over which parties can and cannot participate in teh government.
I’m sorry did I miss the bit where a decent percentage of Canadians wanted or expected the Bloc to hold the balance of power in a collation federal government? The GG is in a bad place but at least previous collations were made up of a collection of federal parties not this dog’s breakfast of a lame duck Liberal leader grabbing power by bedding down with the Bloc.
I hate this. While I know any party in the House can form the government it sticks deep in my craw that the Bloc can hold the reins in an executive capacity. I’m mad and not making much sense any more.
Actually, considering how prominent the idea of “Anybody But Conservative” was in the last election, you could play with the argument that 163 ridings indeed voted for anyone but the Conservatives.
Be that as it may, Harper was well aware he had a minority government. If he didn’t want to lose the confidence of the House, he should have governed like it.
Since the Bloc has held the balance of power for the past two parliaments, anyone who didn’t expect them to hold the balance of power in the event of a minority this time is a little bit dim. That the Liberals and NDP would actually consider governing with the explicit support of the Bloc, now that’s a surprise, but it’s solely a consequence of Harper poking the Opposition with a stick.
Apparently he thought that they wouldn’t dare topple him so soon after the election so he could take the opportunity to really stick it to them. That he thinks sticking it to the opposition parties is an appropriate thing for the government to do is all by itself, regardless of the circumstances, a sign that he’s not fit to lead a democracy. By all means ridicule them, denounce their policies, etc, but trying to use legislation to bankrupt them is undemocratic - even if he had a majority. That he’d employ such gamesmanship during a time of international economic crisis is just idiocy. He’s quite right that we need stable, sane government right now and that this coalition is unlikely to provide it. But it’s absolutely 100% his fault that the possibility has even arisen. All he had to do was refrain from poking them with a stick and stick a few symbolic, conciliatory gestures into his economic update - say, extension of EI benefits and a few loan guarantees for the manufacturing sector, or mildly beefed up infrastructure spending. Instead we get a possible constitutional crisis. Unfit to lead.
I guess you could, but even you don’t believe it. If you did, you’d have joined the Bloc Quebecois or Liberals, whichever had the better chance of defeating the Conservatives in your riding.
But again, if it’s true, why not hold an election, where the Liberals, NDP, and their separatist allies run under the banner of a Liberal-NDP-Separatist coalition? Why give the people a government they quite certainly did NOT vote for - my NDP-voting parents, at least, are appalled about this - and did not expect, especially when it’s planned to run for two and a half years? If people prefer “anything but Conservative” to a coalition with separatists, I’m sure the election results will bear that out, and they’ll have a direct and very solid mandate to govern as a part-separatist coalition.
Does anyone want another election? Not really. But hey, I’ll take a few minutes out of my day some time in January to decide. It’s not too much to ask.
I missed the Canada AM show today - sounds like that was the right call for my blood pressure (not that it was planned, I was just running late). Politicians should be able to conduct politics better than this. The people in the prospective coalition must be aware that a significant chuck of the Canadian electorate is not happy about the coalition taking over the reins - a brief web-browse gets you that information, never mind talking with friends and co-workers. Maybe Layton will start controlling his MP’s the way Harper does his, in the name of controlling public image of the party?
There’s always a significant chunk who are unhappy with the government–even if there’s a majority. Harper showed his highly partisan colours with the attempt to defund the other parties; just be glad he didn’t have a majority when he pitched it–& that you lot have a chance to do something about it.
Also, like it or not, BQ’s constituency is a big part of your federation. They’ve moved away from a secession programme to a concession-seeking programme in recent years, because they know they can’t really destroy Canada as it is. But if they could, well, that’s part of democratic self-determination as well.
But we don’t want exciting politics. I don’t, anyway. As glad as I am that Harper’s blowing it, and even though I realize this coup is legislatively correct, I’d prefer an election be called. One reason is that I think it’s more correct than this coalition, but another is that I’m glad for any chance to vote against the conservatives.
Rickjay, my point is that we don’t arrange the House on the basis of attempting to telepathically divine what the electorate had in mind when it elected the House; we arrange it on the basis of the House they elected.
We still do not vote for a prime minister in this country, we elect a House of Commons, and a prime minister attempts to hold its confidence. One has tried, and failed, to hold the confidence of the House we elected; and another one gets to try.