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

[Brad Sallows]

In their protestations, the Conservatives are confusing the _technical_ right to seize power with the _moral_ right to seize power.  Everyone has ideas about what Canadians want, but I propose that the best indicator of what Canadians want is that the government elected recently is for all practical purposes structured the same as the one which preceded it.  It is a common refrain that "most Canadians voted against Harper" (apparently, few Canadians voted "for Dion" or "for Layton" etc), but that doesn't stand up well when you accept the fact that Canadians took an electoral opportunity for change and pretty much picked "status quo".

 

[Flip]

Everyone has ideas about what Canadians want, but I propose that the best indicator of what Canadians want is that the government elected recently is for all practical purposes structured the same as the one which preceded it.

I don't think the liberals or NDP have ever cared about what Canadians want.
They Tell us what's good for us us and do what's best for their party. :rage:

 

[ballz]

I'll trust the posters that it is okay according to the constitution, but IMO a coalition government undermines democracy. It's almost like pre-schoolers getting the idea that they should rise up against their teachers.... Sure there's more of them, but there's a reason the teachers are in the position their in.

Maybe it's a silly analogy, I don't know, but I really don't think anybody can change my mind that this coalition government would be very democratic... Suppose these 3 parties had merged before the election, and ran against the Conservatives. Now that would be democratic, and guess what? I think the Conservatives would have gotten the majority if that were the scenario.

 

[a_majoor]

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

Indeed. They (the potential coalition) were elected with far fewer seats than they had before, indicating they were no longer resonating with their potential constituents

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:

Interesting how when the CPC tried to force out an openly corrupt government (remember a little thing called ADSCAM) it was bad, but  forcing out a sitting government so you can make an open tax grab is good?

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.

The government has a duty to carry out the mandate they got from their electorate. The CPC rejects Keynesian "stimulus" as an economic theory (and history has proven them right many times over; the only thing Lord Keynes delivers without fail is inflation), so they are acting as responsible stewards of our tax dollars, and leaving more funds in our pockets to stimulate the economy through tax cuts. (If you were to complain about their spending habits, I am with you there). As for cooperation, we have seen how that worked in the last parliament; I see no changes in the behaviour of the opposition to suggest they are working for anything other than their own entitlements.

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."

I'd wait and see on that. The true believers in the US are howling at the moon now that the Obama Administration is appearing to be a repeat of the Clinton Administration after all (and retaining the foreign policy and tax policy of George W Bush to boot!). Expect the same from Canada's true believers. Anyway, as was pointed out, Prime Minister (presumptive) Dion or Ignatieff can easily overrule anything Finance Minister (presumptive) Layton proposes. The coalition will self destruct on that aspect alone.

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) 

Selling assets will probably never raise the cash expected since governments tend to overvalue their assets (since they probably paid far too much in the first place). Look at your local community; I'll bet that the true market value of their stadiums, performing arts centers and convention centers is way below what they say their worth (and the annual taxpayer subsidies to keep them running should be proof enough). Personally, I would prefer cutting subsidies, since that is a minimum $19 billion spending cut and profitable, well managed companies will come out ahead.

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.

The Liberals have predictably grabbed at the productivity and wealth of Canadians for a generation, and it still doesn't seem to have hurt them; many voters will continue to vote for Christmas trees if they were announced as a Liberal candidate in Toronto or Vancouver. Oh, that wasn't what you meant?

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Indeed. They (the potential coalition) were elected with far fewer seats than they had before, indicating they were no longer resonating with their potential constituents

With respect,  there was an assertion that this would be an unelected government.  I wanted to point out that the MPs were in fact elected.  The constitution and historical presidents allow them to do this.  Inferences as to the meaning behind why they returned with fewer seats (and there are many to be drawn) is an aside. 

Interesting how when the CPC tried to force out an openly corrupt government (remember a little thing called ADSCAM) it was bad, but forcing out a sitting government so you can make an open tax grab is good?

I was pointing out how Stephen Harper is complaining that the very technique he tried to use in the past is unfair.  Just like how he claimed it was unfair for a sitting government to call an election just to catch the opposition off guard,  in fact he made a law to stop that.  (Well a really pointless law as the first paragraph in it basically says that things are exactly the same)

The government has a duty to carry out the mandate they got from their electorate. The CPC rejects Keynesian "stimulus" as an economic theory (and history has proven them right many times over; the only thing Lord Keynes delivers without fail is inflation), so they are acting as responsible stewards of our tax dollars, and leaving more funds in our pockets to stimulate the economy through tax cuts. (If you were to complain about their spending habits, I am with you there). As for cooperation, we have seen how that worked in the last parliament; I see no changes in the behaviour of the opposition to suggest they are working for anything other than their own entitlements.

The NDP Liberals and Bloc have a responsibility to push the ajenda their voters sent them with.  So if that means 9 months of playing friendly with the NDP,  so be it.  Better that then trying to recover from what the conservatives want (or in this case not) to do.

But Just so we're on the same page. 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a5Y2SnQXs_OA&refer=canada

Canada's Harper Says He'll Provide Economic Stimulus (Update2)
Email | Print | A A A

By Theophilos Argitis and Greg Quinn

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he plans ``short-term'' measures to stimulate the world's eighth-biggest economy and counter the country's worst slowdown in almost two decades.

Harper, 49, told lawmakers in Ottawa that Canada will take whatever financial, fiscal and monetary measures are needed to help the economy. Attempts to keep the budget in surplus might be ``worse than the disease,'' Harper said in his first comments in the House of Commons, Parliament's lower house, since his Conservative Party won re-election last month.

``World governments have resolved that they will undertake whatever financial, monetary and budgetary measures are necessary to cope with the crisis, and let me be clear, this is also the position of the government of Canada,'' he said. ``We will undertake whatever short-term fiscal measures are necessary to be part of the global economic solution.''

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2888/

Our Government will announce an infrastructure program, the Building Canada Plan, to support our long-term growth. By investing in our transport and trade hubs, including the Windsor–Detroit corridor and the Atlantic and Pacific gateways, our Government will help rebuild our fundamentals for continued growth

The conservatives promised more on the campain trail,  in interviews and in the throne speech.  If they can't be bothered to follow through on their own throne speech,  what will they do?

I'd wait and see on that. The true believers in the US are howling at the moon now that the Obama Administration is appearing to be a repeat of the Clinton Administration after all (and retaining the foreign policy and tax policy of George W Bush to boot!). Expect the same from Canada's true believers. Anyway, as was pointed out, Prime Minister (presumptive) Dion or Ignatieff can easily overrule anything Finance Minister (presumptive) Layton proposes. The coalition will self destruct on that aspect alone.

To respond to the subtle dig: Clinton's Administration  http://readythinkvote.com/images/deficit_chart.gif    http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/WindowsLiveWriter/FiscalConservative_14458/greenberg21_2.jpg
You'll see a similar thing with the Liberals and the Conservatives in Canada. 

I think you're right,  the coalition will implode and fast.  I think they'll have 6-9 Months at most,  better than a January election.

Selling assets will probably never raise the cash expected since governments tend to overvalue their assets (since they probably paid far too much in the first place). Look at your local community; I'll bet that the true market value of their stadiums, performing arts centers and convention centers is way below what they say their worth (and the annual taxpayer subsidies to keep them running should be proof enough). Personally, I would prefer cutting subsidies, since that is a minimum $19 billion spending cut and profitable, well managed companies will come out ahead.

Good old book value vs market value.  And would one of those cuts be to the Automotive Innovation Fund? (the Conservative pre-election we'll give you money vote for us ploy  http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1004/102798 )

The Liberals have predictably grabbed at the productivity and wealth of Canadians for a generation, and it still doesn't seem to have hurt them; many voters will continue to vote for Christmas trees if they were announced as a Liberal candidate in Toronto or Vancouver. Oh, that wasn't what you meant?

As opposed to the fence posts vote for in Alberta?  *cough* Dreeshen *cough*  *cough*

 

[ModlrMike]

I'm not sure a coalition is possible in the first place. Any attempt to form the government would require the participation of the Bloc, which suggests that:

a) the Bloc will not act in their own self interest (which they never fail to do); and

b) they can trust the most hated Liberal in Quebec (Dion wrote the Clarity Act).

Personally, I don't see either condition being met.

 

[a_majoor]

I was pointing out how Stephen Harper is complaining that the very technique he tried to use in the past is unfair.  Just like how he claimed it was unfair for a sitting government to call an election just to catch the opposition off guard,  in fact he made a law to stop that.  (Well a really pointless law as the first paragraph in it basically says that things are exactly the same)

Most of the other points have already been disposed of, but there are some very profound differences here.

1. When the opposition parties wrote Her Excellency in 2004, they actually stated that should the government fall on a confidence vote, the GG should ensure she looks at all her options. There was no suggestion that the GG simply end Paul Martin's mandate and install Stephen Harper as PM. The more obvious difference is the CPC was an actual party with a shadow cabinet ("Government in waiting") while this presumptive coalition has no shadow cabinet, policy, plan (except continue extorting tax dollars to their supporters and themselves) or any reason to suggest that the current GG should give them any consideration whatsoever. Her Excellency would be well justified to tell them to pound salt (with or without diplomatic phrasology!)

2. Stephan Dion, as leader of the opposition, boasted on more than one occasion that he would make the government fall over a proposed piece of legislation, then had his members abstain or be absent at the moment of truth. (Someone can supply the actual number of times). He went into the fall session with the same tough talk, but was obviously unprepared to do business. Short answer, the opposition was making House business unsustainable, and the private meetings Prime Minister Harper held with Mr Layton, Duceppe and Dion convinced the Prime Minister that there would only be a gong show for the fall session as well. If the opposition was threatening to force an election, the PM accommodated them.

 

[Rodahn]

Most of the other points have already been disposed of, but there are some very profound differences here.

1. When the opposition parties wrote Her Excellency in 2004, they actually stated that should the government fall on a confidence vote, the GG should ensure she looks at all her options. There was no suggestion that the GG simply end Paul Martin's mandate and install Stephen Harper as PM. The more obvious difference is the CPC was an actual party with a shadow cabinet ("Government in waiting") while this presumptive coalition has no shadow cabinet, policy, plan (except continue extorting tax dollars to their supporters and themselves) or any reason to suggest that the current GG should give them any consideration whatsoever. Her Excellency would be well justified to tell them to pound salt (with or without diplomatic phrasology!)

2. Stephan Dion, as leader of the opposition, boasted on more than one occasion that he would make the government fall over a proposed piece of legislation, then had his members abstain or be absent at the moment of truth. (Someone can supply the actual number of times). He went into the fall session with the same tough talk, but was obviously unprepared to do business. Short answer, the opposition was making House business unsustainable, and the private meetings Prime Minister Harper held with Mr Layton, Duceppe and Dion convinced the Prime Minister that there would only be a gong show for the fall session as well. If the opposition was threatening to force an election, the PM accommodated them.

To a certain extent I agree, however Messr's Harper & Flaherty are continuing on with their bullyboy ways. So much for the increased civility promised by the PM prior to Parliament sitting (which is what really irks me).

Further what Mr. Flaherty presented in his budget update, is the opposite of what the PM promised during the G20 summit.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The G20 summit revealed some fairly petulant behaviour on the part of other countries and prominent economists.  The target seems to be to inject 2% of GDP worth of "stimulus", a goal which Canada in theory has already achieved in its recent federal budgets if the articles I have been reading the last few days are accurate.  But the other nations, and some economists, are denying that pre-emptive measures should count equally with reactive measures.  Our reward for having one of the most stable economies in the G20 - and being one of the few, if not the only, to have a federal operating surplus - is to have more demanded of us.  Canada has been applying fiscal stimuli for the better part of a decade.  I postulate that Canada's fiscal management and regulatory climate contributed very little to the current crisis, that Canada's federal governments have already applied more fiscal stimuli than the G20 asked for or that most G20 governments are ready to pony up, and that Canada is not duty bound to risk whipsawing its economy in order to punch above its weight.  We should not allow ourselves to be bullied into additional, premature action.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I suspect part, if not all, of the opposition's sudden resolve to go ahead with a non-confidence motion and to form a coalition government stems from what White House CoS Rahm Emmanuel was quoted as saying.  From the NY Times:

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”

It was a matter of open discussion among Democrats and Democrat supporters for at least a couple of weeks prior to our governmental crisis, that an economic crisis is an opportunity to ram through social, political, and economic change.  The Republicans have long been accused of ramming through police state legislation under the pretext of a security crisis; this is basically the same idea except the intention has been openly admitted before the act.

If a Liberal/NDP coalition government gains the confidence of the House, it will be easy to observe the resulting legislative agenda to determine whether fiscal stimuli or social/political engineering is the priority

 

[Old Sweat]

Let's for a moment consider the situation if the government is defeated on 8 December. The next morning PM Harper calls on the Governor General and shortly thereafter M. Dion is summoned to Rideau Hall. He tells Her Excellency that he can form and lead a minority government made up a coalition of Liberals and New Democrats and supported by the Bloc. She then invites him to form a government and the transition begins.

The interesting part to me is how does this work? Based on numbers the ratio of Liberals to New Democrats is roughly 2:1. Thus any cabinet presumably should be structured on the same basis, with due consideration to region and all the rest of it. Does Dion tell Layton you can have Transport, Environment, Defence, etc, etc or does he ask the NDP leader to submit his selections for cabinet and parliamentry secretaries? In either case, the cabinet will have a strong progressive bent to it. However cabinets do not decide by reaching consensus. Decisions are reached by voting and the majority rules. Thus the NDP members of our prospective cabinet could find themselves outvoted on matters about which they care strongly, and just as bad from their point of view, on policies that are anethema to them. How long would an arrangement like this survive?

Interesting times, methinks.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I really can not believe that two parties who have called themselves federalists since their inceptions are now not just looking to the separatists to help them gain the government they did not win, but to prop them up for favours to Quebec to the detriment of the country.

The language filters and G rated nature of this board preclude me from expressing the utter rage I feel against Layton and Dion, the NDP and Liberals. This is nothing less than political treason against everything those two parties have claimed to stand for (on the Liberal side since Confederation).

 

[Brad Sallows]

I suspect the details of who gets what will be worked out in the next 7 days, or the whole thing does not fly.  They will at least have a plan to get up and running without improvising from the get-go.

 

[ModlrMike]

Without full participation, "support" by the Bloc means very little. What compromises are the other two parties prepared to make for the Bloc's support? After all, their not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

[Reccesoldier]

With the Conservatives having more MP's than the IlLiberals or the NDP put together doesn't any coalition have to have the explicit participation of the Bloc and not just implicit agreement from them?

 

[Flip]

Well well.....lookie here.

CTV.ca News Staff

The New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois held talks to form a coalition party well before the opposition's uproar over the government's fiscal update, CTV News has learned.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081130/conservative_budget_081130/20081130?hub=TopStories

Turns out the NDP and the block have been cooking this up for a while.
Their timing is exquisite. How else can you end capitalism but by seizing power when the makets are , er.....correcting!

 

[George Wallace]

With the Conservatives having more MP's than the IlLiberals or the NDP put together doesn't any coalition have to have the explicit participation of the Bloc and not just implicit agreement from them?

I would think so.  Without it, we would have even less than a "Minority Government" and be setting ourselves up for yet another election.

 

[Flip]

The question that bothers me most is,

If the electorate punish candidates by not voting or voting for change, what is the likely outcome?  Isn't likely that the conservatives and liberals take it on the chin for this instead of those who so richly deserve it? (NDP and Bloc).

The other fear is that a shift to the left at this time in particular will not be economic good news. Particularly in Alberta where we might get the green shaft after all.

I have to confess - I'm a little upset.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It looks like some of the details will not need to be worked out, as they have been worked out already, including the Bloc's role.

 

[Rodahn]

This just keeps getting interestinger and interestinger by the minute....


http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n113049A.xml