There’s rhetoric on both sides, I think, that has gotten awfully presumptuous.

But here’s the reality: despite the repeated assertions of the members of the coalition, this is a move that is without precedent. The members of the governing coalition will not have even a plurality in the house. At least one categorically denied during the recent election that they would ever join a coalition, and neither felt the need to put the idea out for public judgment before doing it. It may be common in some parliamentary democracies to form coalitions in that way, but it is emphatically unprecedented in this parliamentary democracy. Nobody reasonably expected during the last election that this would happen. No coalition in Canada has ever governed without a plurality of seats.

This governing coalition represents a radical change in the political order in this country. It may prove to be a popular change. But the Governor General’s job is not to guess whether it would be popular; Her Excellency’s job is to maintain the democratic legitimacy of the executive. If that requires an election sooner than anyone wants, then so be it. Better to have a disruptive election then to gamble on the legitimacy of the government.

FB writes: and neither felt the need to put the idea out for public judgment before doing it.

You mean like eliminating the right of public servants to strike, eliminating political party subsidies, selling off Crown assets … ?

WTF does THAT mean? Oh god Dean is an embarrassment to all of us here in Peterborough

Shorter TJ: “Who needs argument based on principles when all you need to do is yell into the echo chamber at BTC?” It’s not “abandoning all understanding of parliamentary democracy”. It’s saying that when the Canadian understanding of parliamentary democracy is going to change, it ought to do so with the blessing of voters. If Dion had put this out there during the election, things would be different. He didn’t. He insisted it was not on the able. He can’t now be heard to say that this is just normal everyday stuff.

@Coyne Crisis: In ON 1985, the Liberal plus the NDP made up a plurality of votes. And the Liberals had won more of the popular vote than the PC. Etc.

@Coyne Crisis: Those lies/reversals are contemptible. But just like the cut to party welfare was no ordinary funding cut, this reversal is no ordinary reversal. They go to the rules of the democratic game. Those, at least, should be beyond the regular dishonesty of politicians.

FB, you mean like all the principles, ideas and glockenspiel that Harper has thrown out during the past six months? Election law be darned, Dion and his ‘panic’ ideas to address the economy, the ‘we’d be there if we were going to be in it’ followed by his ‘great depression’ comparison in Peru? How about the no deficit unless a deficit, no? Never mind his ‘i’m a kinder, gentler ogre’ to his ‘arrrggghh!’ just the other day? Or fiscal update, but only after loading up his CON boobs with extra parliamentary goodies like titles, limos and staffed offices? Why don’t you spend some of your well-thought out deliberations to ask these things of your own party leader.
This still has a ways to go and Harper could have shown some leadership by making a major concession quickly, but he didn’t. Now i can only see, by being a leader that he steps down to save his gov’t. But i’m betting he’s self-centered enough to think inspiring insurrection in the streets over a parliamentary procedure that has plenty of precedents, maybe not here in Canada but elsewhere, is his best option. He’s just that kind of guy.

Coyne Crisis – don’t forget the 6.8% of votes that went to the Greens. I would suspect that the majority of those voters would be happier with the Lib/NDP coalition than with the conservatives.

Ian: Yes. And if FB still wants to lie about Ontario 1985, I’ve got Saskatchewan 1999 for him.

Okay one more, just because you called me a liar. Identify the lie:
-The current coalition includes the NDP and the Liberals. (Remember, the three stooges where careful to say that it is a “coalition supported by the BQ).
-The NDP and the Liberals together do not have even a plurality of the seats.
-In Ontario 1985, the NDP and the Liberals together had a majority of the seats.

It’s hilarious to read idiots claim you simply have to add up the votes of all the opposition parties to measure the the support the proposed coalition. I’m sure all those Liberal and NDP voters in the last election would have voted the same way if they knew it meant having the Bloc calling the shots for the next few years.

It’s because I love my country and wish to ‘rally round the flag’ that I support a NDP-Liberal coalition.

I guess that would have been the same in 2004 if Harper had gotten into government in the same manner as had proposed to Clarkson, eh Mike?

Yes it would have Scott Tribe. What’s your point?