Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Even the losers

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, June 7, 2010 11:10am - 121 Comments

Rob Silver wonders whether Stephen Harper questions the legitimacy of the Israeli government.

When Harper declared this week that “coalitions of losers don’t get to govern,” he was effectively saying that any coalition made up of parties that doesn’t include the party with the most seats in parliament doesn’t get to govern. Not with any legitimacy, according to Harper. They’re losers. No nuance, no exceptions. There’s a winner and a loser in an election. The winners – Livni, in Israel’s case, not Netanyahu – are in power. Those are Harper’s words.

The fact that Harper feels that Netanyahu leads a coalition of losers that has no business being in power must surely come as something of a surprise to his erstwhile ally – but hey, when you have views on democracy as solidly rooted in principle as Harper does, you are sure to piss off your friends every once in a while.

Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu, coalition, coalition government, Israel, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

"…when you have views on democracy as solidly rooted in principle as Harper does…"

Ladies and gentlemen, your Chuckle of the Day.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I thought Harper was expressing an opinion on governing that most Canadians share, including Paul Martin when he said that the first place party should get first crack at government.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Actually, our Constitution would have the GG give the existing government first crack and if they can't obtain confidence from the new House (i.e. after an election in a throne speech), then the GG asks the Leader of the Opposition.

It is exactly that process that Harper/Layton/Duceppe referred to in their joint letter in 2004 asking the GG to consider them when she considers her options if Martin lost confidence.

It is exactly that process that happened in the UK except that Brown realized pretty quickly he could not get the confidence so he resigned.

Mackenzie King continued as PM even though he won minority government in 1925 and had fewer seats than Meighen. So Harper is not just questioning the legitimacy of the current Israeli government but of past Canadian governments as well.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I don't think he's questioning the legitimacy of anything but the coalition that was offered in 2008, and that the current comments he made were not intended as a submission to the supreme court.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

If he's going to make stuff up for political posturing and electoral positioning, then it is perfectly legitimate for Canadians to call him on it.

He is counting on Canadians not to pay attention to the details of what he says, as he has with most of his policies (maternal health, infrastructure spending, etc.).

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

He's not making anything up. He's making a political argument. Gee, the horror! And it's one that most Canadians support, including Paul Martin. Was he making it up, too?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Certainly he is making stuff up when he says "coalitions of "losers" don't get to govern". That is completely untrue. False. A lie. Deceitful.

"Coalitions of losers" do get to govern if they can secure the confidence of the House. Was the King government of 1925 illegitimate? Canadians didn't think so and gave him a majority in the next election.

Was the Peterson government in 1985 in Ontario illegitimate? Canadians didn't think so and gave him a majority in the next election.

Is the Netenyahu goverment illegitimate?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Give me a break. Like I said, he's not making a submission to the supreme court, and he's expressing the same sentiment that Paul Martin did before a previous federal election. But that probably won't prevent you from being all sanctimonious on us.

Just out of curiosity, were you similarly outraged at all those people who said that David Emerson's floor-crossing was an affront to democracy? Constitutionally speaking, they were completely off, of course, weren't they?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

When floor-crossers move to other parties not on conscience or principles, but on sheer ambition in order to secure a cabinet post, I'd say it's fair to call that an affront to good governance (though perhaps not democracy.)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

So why not say the same thing for parties who, right after an election, form an unelected coalition that voters can't stand?

I know, you'll have some convenient justification that will be completely inconsistent. What your side does is great, what the other side does is evil. That seems to be about it for some.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Because it's not a case of parties abandoning their principles in order to govern, it's a selection of parties with their own, independent platforms, who will work together in order to provide a stable parliament.

It is the exact same principle behind the Conservative/NDP/Bloc alignment of a few years ago.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Constitutionally speaking they were completely off. Democratically speaking, they had just as much rock to stand on as the anti-coalition folks.

In fact, there are some interesting comparisons. Emerson campaigned hard against Harper, he was the number 2 on the campaign, so the floor crossing subverted the intentions of the voters. He was voted out of cabinet and took a backroom deal to get back into cabinet. In so many ways not very different than the ill-thought and fully constitutional but democratically questionable coalition.
lenny

Shorter Dennis, "lying is ok, as long as you aren't under oath!"
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Oh brother. To some on here, anything that opponents do is akin to a crime against humanity.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

The King-Byng affair might be the worst possible example for you to use. King's minority government was in trouble, facing a loss of confidence over a corruption scandal, so he asked for dissolution. The GG said Meighen should have a chance to govern – but that would have required the Progressives and the Conservatives to work together, unthinkable! Anyway, King campaigned on the illegitimacy of Byng allowing a minority party to form government instead of calling an election. So, you know, Canadians pretty much agreed with Harper in that election.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Who's talking about the King-Byng affair?

I'm talking about the election of 1925 when King was PM and after the election he remained PM even though he had fewer seats and votes than Meighen.

The King-Bing affair – which I have argued is a good example for pro-coalition believers of what can happen when you mess with democracy and the "public will" – happened after that.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Fair enough. I think we're making the same point and I just misunderstood you initially. King was asked to attempt a minority government first since he was the incumbent PM. Harper, I'm sure, would be content to follow that example. The subsequent election was fought on the illegitimacy of the GG asking Meighen to attempt a minority government when King tried to avoid a vote on the corruption scandal. Again, Harper would be happy to repeat that.
john g

Actually Ted, Harper was referring to our specific example and to public opinion, not to constitutional legitimacy. And he was right, seeing as how public opinion was firmly on his side.

As to Netanyahu…I can't believe Silver and Wherry even think this is remotely worthy of comment (well actually I can, but I digress). Israel has a completely different system of government. It's not a Westminster Parliamentary system. Which makes this entire comparison about legitimacy of their coalitions moot.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Actually, John G, he was questioning its legitimacy. And the problem was he went further and did not just question the legitimacy of that particular coalition in that particular context, but all governments that might be formed with parties which did not win the most seats.

As I have pointed out elsewhere here, a number of times the party with the less number of seats or votes have formed government in coalition or formal cooperation with other parties in order to maintain the confidence of the legislature. These many governments were fully legitimate despite what Harper claims.
Cats

Wow. Way to miss the entire statement.

He said the verdict of Canadian public opinion was that losers don't get to govern.

It wasn't even HIS opinion. It wasn't even a policy statement.

He was just saying what Canadians seemed to think at the time about the coalition. Dion getting such a serious drubbing and then trying to become PM was one of the main objections to the coalition.

Cat got your tongue ?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Wow. Way to miss the entire statement.

He said the verdict of Canadian public opinion was that losers don't get to govern. Then I said this is in fact not true. On THAT coalition at THAT time it was mostly true, but Harper is making a general statement not a particular statement about that coalition. So he is wrong since Canadian public opinion ve many times said that losers do indeed get to govern.

It was HIS opinion. And it was wrong.

Cat got your reading comprehension?
Cats

Care to back up that assumption ?

When has a real or actual losing party coalition ever had broad popular support in Canada ?

Oh and it should be in modern times too. Since comments on Canadian public opinion are obviously meant in the context of current standards.

The most obvious example was the Dion affair and looking at public polling its not at an unfair conclusion to draw.

Cat got your entire face now ?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Peterson in 1985 had fewer seats than Frank Miller in 1985. After Miller lost a confidence vote, a Liberal-NDP accord put the Liberals in power for two years and Ontarians were so pleased with the results that they gave Peterson a majority in 1987. Modern enough for you?

It should also be noted that our country was founded by a coalition government. But that probably doesn't mean anything to you since it isn't "modern".

Cat's nine lives have run out.
Cats

LOL. You mean Ontarians REJECTED coalitions by not returning another coalition result in the next election ?

By the way, that's not exactly an opinion research poll showing broad support for the government in question.

I'm not saying they don't exist but its incumbent upon you to find a counter-example to refute Harper's very real, very much evidence backed up 100% correct point he made.

Cat got 98% of your body mass now ?

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Fair enough, but I can't remember offhand – did Livni get first crack after the most recent Israel election?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I think party leaders negotiate with each other, then offer proposals to the president, who ultimately picks the government. In fact, I think it's the same process we have here. The GG decides, not Harper, Iggy, Layton, or Duceppe.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

So no, then.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I don't know. Look it up if you're so eager to find out.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

From what I read, Likud has formed a coalition with several of Israel's other parties (something like 12 are represented in their parliament), though they finished second overall in the inital election results.

The "winner" of the election, the Kadima party, indicated that they would not agree to a coalition.

I shall note that the Knesset has a total of 120 seats, 28 of which Kadima won in the 2009 election, and 27 of which were won by Likud. Kadima was also the "top finisher" in the last election.
Cats

Harper's statement was that "the verdict of public opinion in Canada" is that losers don't get to form coalitions.

That's probably true.

I don't think Harper said anything about Canadians having an opinion on Israel.

So its beside the point.

Silver was hunting for mice but caught a chicken instead !
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Just to be clear, the quoted statement was as follows: "The verdict of public opinion was pretty clear," said Mr. Harper. "Losers don't get to form coalitions. Winners are the ones who form governments."

And in other quotes, he questioned the legitimacy of the 2008 coalition and any prospective coalition between the Liberals and other parties going forward. Yet, he's suggested (if not stated directly) that the Likud-led coalition in Isreal is a legitimate government.

It's all well and good to guide the country based on principles established from within that country, but in the current political climate where problems we face are also faced by other countries – economic crises, environmental issues, health care costs – we have to look for solutions both in and outside our own borders. Which means, by extension, that we can't make blanket statements about the legitimacy of coalitions if, in reality, they are perfectly legitimate in countless situations worldwide.
Cats

Um no. Israeli society is different than ours, so are their politics, and so is their system of government. Taking Harper's remarks and attempting to apply them there is silly.

Even if we might have shared problems. (That's a pretty weak reason to throw out the concept of state sovereignty).

Its a stretch but you could say Harper was ruling out future coalitions for Australia. If they ever have a losing party (an actual losing party, not just a VIRTUALLY TIED party like in Israel) take power then it would be awkward.

Cats are taking a step back from these silly arguments, suggest you do so too to maintain credibility.
LiveBloggin Junkie

I'd agree that Kadima was the 'top finisher' in the last election but losing seats is not usually associated with 'winning'

I do think Harper has set a his own bar for the next election though at 144 seats. Lose one seat and people could fairly call him a loser.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

He did lose votes though, for what it's worth. Fewer Canadians voted for him in 2008 than in 2006, and he ended up with the lowest level of support of any PM in our history with 21% supporting him.

That to me, makes him very much a loser.
Cats

Other parties lost more votes. Only the greens gained.

Bring on PM May.

Cats is laughing, if you couldn't tell !

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

This meme seems to be coming out of the woodwork from all corners recently. Do the assembled Canadian press corps really have such a newfound respect for Israeli parliamentary procedure, or is it just another lame LOL U HYPOCRITE!! snarking? In any event, I somehow doubt it's going to change anyone's mind on the legitimacy of coalition government in Canada.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

One small correction. I think coalition governments are legitimate. And I think Canadians would think that coalition governments are legitimate. The problem is that the one that was offered in 2008, and that so many on the left in the media supported, wasn't. That's the fundamental issue at play here. Coalition supporters can point to constitutional arguments until they're blue in the face, it won't change the fallout from recent events. Indeed, constitutional arguments were nowhere to be seen when David Emerson crossed the floor to join the Tories, which was completely within the rules.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

"The problem is that the one that was offered in 2008, and that so many on the left in the media supported, wasn't [legitimate]."

You don't mention why it was illegitimate.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Maybe because it's been discussed ad nauseum for over a year? That some of you don't at least understand why coalition was so unpopular in 2008 I think boggles the mind. Do you even care what Canadians thought about having this rammed down their throats? I guess not. And, not only that, but apparently you'd do it again, then turn around and resent Harper for suggesting that you'd do it again.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

You didn't describe it as unpopular, you described it as illegitimate. That's not the same thing.

I understand why it was somewhat unpopular, why do you believe it was illegitimate?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Sigh. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

For one thing, a mandate from voters would be indicative of legitimacy, wouldn't it? For another thing, having their support would be, too. And that's just for starters, but I seriously do not want to rehash these old arguments at the snap of your finger. You can't do any better?

And, if you can't, I suggest you look up Iggy's own words on the matter. Even he used the word "illegitimate". Next.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

I happen to share some concerns about the legitimacy of the 2008 coalition but I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you describe and I think anybody who describes it as such should be challenged.

I think it does us all a disservice if conventional wisdom migrates from 'that coalition was arguably illegitimate' to 'that coalition was illegitimate' because it will soon become 'coalitions are illegitimate', like Harper is now saying. The issues you raise may not apply next time a coalition comes up, but if we let Harper control the messaging, he'll try to poison the whole notion of a coalition.

I think your adolescent sarcasm does us all a disservice too, but I'm sure you're doing your best.
burlivespipe

Obviously the right meme is 'coalitions are illegitmate' after one demonstrates no ability to work with others. Coalitions are either just to 'soften awkward, diabolical image with adversaries, only to be discarded once in any position of power', and then used as a bludgeon to scare halfwit public and drum up pitch fork parties against a 'coalition of losers tag'… Harper's got the half-wits behind him, now just to pee in the coalition well…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Look, the only people to blame for the possible de-legitimizing of all foreseeable future coalitions are those that tried it and supported it the last time around. What's so hard to understand about that? It was a bad idea from the start, and its opponents always said that those who supported it would rue the day. Which is exactly what's happening. The Liberals can lash out all they want at the Tories now, but they made their bed in 2008, and Iggy put his signature on it to boot. It seems as though actions only have consequences for people who aren't Liberal, NDP, or Bloc.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

"the only people to blame for the possible de-legitimizing of all foreseeable future coalitions are those that tried it and supported it the last time around."

I disagree. Harper has been conducting non-stop demagoguery on the 2008 coalition and gradually broadening his language to include coalitions in general. Like I said above, "The issues you raise may not apply next time a coalition comes up, but if we let Harper control the messaging, he'll try to poison the whole notion of a coalition."

Also:

"Do you even care what Canadians thought…"
"Sigh. Are you being obtuse on purpose?"
"You can't do any better?"
"Next."
"Gee, the horror!"
"Give me a break."
"But that probably won't prevent you from being all sanctimonious on us."

This guy wants to talk to you about civility: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/07/even-the-loser…

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

That is one fundamental issue at play here. But as usual, Harper takes a kernal of truth and pushes it too far.

A lot of Canadians – over a third – were, but more (incl me) were not given the context: We had just had an election in which Dion and Layton ruled out a coalition, in which Dion was pretty clearly rejected as PM, in which the CPC had a big lead in bothseats and votes and after which the CPC had gotten the the confidence of the House, and the basis of that coalition was clearly pretty shaky.

But Harper takes that context and goes further. Now there is some question of legitimacy to any coalition, especially if it is formed by "losers", despite counter-examples in the world today and in our own history. He plays on ignorance for his own partisan advantage.

It is a fundamental core principle of our Parliamentary democracy that the party that can sustain the confidence of our elected Members of Parliament be permitted to form the government. By questioning that, he is attacking Canadian democracy. Again.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Again, was Paul Martin doing the same thing when he argued before an election that the party with the most seats should get first crack at governing?

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I think there's a difference between arguing for parliamentary tradition – give the incumbent a shot before you let a coalition through – and arguing that the only party with any claim to governance after an election is the one that gained the most votes.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

See comment below on why you are wrong.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

or is it just another lame LOL U HYPOCRITE!! snarking?

yes.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Too funny – the snarkiest of snarkers decrying snark when it's levelled at HIS party.

How delicious!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Some fun facts from wiki:

1. The composition of the current Knesset was determined by the 2009 election. At present there are 18 parties represented in the Knesset on 12 lists (some parties run for election together on joint lists). Though it has not yet happened in the current session, in every Knesset to date (save the remarkably stable Third) parties have split up during the Knesset's term, leading to the creation of new parties or resulting in MKs sitting as independents.

2. The Knesset was reconstituted following elections in February 2009, which resulted 28 seats for Kadima, 27 for Likud, 15 for Yisrael Beiteinu, 13 for Labor, 12 for three small religious parties (5 for United Torah Judaism, 4 for National Union and 3 for Jewish Home), 11 for Shas, 7 for two Arab parties (4 for Ta'al, 3 for Balad), 4 for the non-Zionist Hadash, and 3 for the left-wing Jewish party Meretz.

3. Members of the Knesset voted 69 to 45 with five abstentions, making Netanyahu prime minister for the second time in 10 years. The leader of the right-wing Likud party had emerged on top during intense coalition bargaining in the wake of an inconclusive Feb. 10 vote. Despite the presence of centre-left Labour, the 69-strong coalition in the 120-seat Knesset leans heavily to the right, and includes Netanyahu’s Likud, the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu, ultra-Orthodox Shas, and a small pro-settlement party.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Wow, so similar to Canada. They have 18 parties in parliament and we have 4. They're like twins. No wonder Wherry made the comparison. Makes me wonder why he didn't add any of these facts.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

I'm curious, CR. What's your point exactly?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm providing some relevant facts. Information is your friend.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

uh huh…
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

And much appreciated.

Sometimes facts are facts and it is good to lay them out so people might, you know, actually know what they are talking about.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

Harper states some hastily dreamed up "principle" to espouse his latest pitch.
Said rhetoric is analyzed by all and found to fall short of a reality based grounding.
Knowing humour is always needed, certain pundits point out the political fallacy using a real life example of a particular "loser" that Harper has been recently flattering.
This results in mild chuckles across the board – except for the con-bots … who are all up in arms.
Con-bots: Get out of yer parents' basements (or the back rooms of the PMO) and get a life.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Who's all up in arms? Why does everyone have to support your idea of coalition? Will some of you ever get over the fact that it was always a bad idea from the very start? Geez.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

Now, now Dennis.
As Ted has patiently tried to explain above – Harper is using the "consensus view" of the reasons the 2008 coalition failed to attempt to scam the public on a go forward basis. It is likely working for him by the way. Just lets us have a few chuckles along the way. I sure Harper chuckles privately about all the manure he spouts out publicly.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Harper states some hastily dreamed up "principle" to espouse his latest pitch."

Harper is used to making up the rules as he goes and not being challenged. I think that the first time Harper ever got challenged on his "dreamed up principles" was when the broader public strongly reacted to his second prorogation. I'd count Speaker Miliken's ruling but it doesn't look like the said ruling has made any difference so…

The point is that Harper's nonsense has gone unchecked for quite some time now.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Harper is not just calling Netenyahu a loser and illegitimate.

Arthur Meighen won a plurality of seats over Mackenzie King in 1925 but King remained as PM.

Clark won more seats than Trudeau in 1979 but significantly less of the popular vote so there are different gradients to "winners" and "losers".

What is appalling about Harper's behaviour is, once again, his contempt for Canadian democracy if it doesn't produce the results he wants. His refusal to not work with our elected majority of MPs and his disdain and attacks on any MPs that do work together is very anti-democratic.

Canadians have decided to have 3 minority governments in a row to keep each of the parties in check. We didn't elect one party or another. If Harper doesn't like that democratic result or any other one that ensues, he should feel free to step aside.

Mike T.

As Canadians, rather than just possible supporters of political parties, we should all be horrified by Harper's actions in the past year or so.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

Hmmm, Netanyahu?

Maybe there's something to what Harper is saying after all.
Holly Stick

Harper fakes it, especially when he's abroad and has to actually come face to face with non-sycophants. He always makes a fool of himself in front of other countries.

And that $2 million lake should be dubbed Fake Lake Harper.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Oh, and that civility that Liberals love to champion in our political debate is still alive and well, I see:

Characterizing Stephen Harper’s Conservatives as “flat-earthers,” Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals today dismissed Tory conspiracy theories that they are trying to cobble together a coalition government with socialists and separatists.

Blues Clair

I don't know if it's true PM Hrpercrite leads a band of flat-earthers, but it strikes me as plausible.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

and I believe that says much more about you than anyone else. Thank you.
http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

Flanagan-approved!

burlivespipe

It would be shameful if you hadn't spent half the morning proving his point… Just glad Canadian taxpayers aren't paying for that serv… D'Oh!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Now you're resorting to hatefully calling political opponents flat earthers, too, and you have the gall to suggest that I'm proving anyone else's point, or that I'm in any way beholden to taxpayers? Unbelievable.

Holly Stick

Unbelievable that anyone would think your services worth paying for. But then the Harperites are wasting $2 billion of taxpayers' money on G8/G20 and probably shovelling most of it into Conservative/Republican pockets.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

What services? That I dare say things that some people don't like or can't rebut on here? For crying out loud.
SamDavies

It's almost like we are debating abortion. Seriously. Your comments/tone are just that repetitive/interchangeable! Next…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I know, you can't stand the fact that someone dares challenge your view of the world. Lord forbid you confront even one argument I've made on here. You'd rather indulge yourself. You'd rather bring up abortion! Next.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Hey, could you please give some lessons to Dennis_F on civility? The guy seems completely incapable of a respectful discussion (see above), and you're clearly the guy to explain it to him.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Oh, so someone calling me and other opponents "flat earthers" is OK to you, but me defending myself against such is not OK. What is it with some of you people? Geez.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

I was talking about when that Dennis_F guy said things like:

"Do you even care what Canadians thought…"
"Sigh. Are you being obtuse on purpose?"
"You can't do any better?"
"Next."
"Gee, the horror!"
"Give me a break."
"But that probably won't prevent you from being all sanctimonious on us."

Clearly the guy needs some lessons on civility, and since you're busy complaining about lack of civility on the part of Liberals, I thought you could help him out.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Let me get this straight again. Calling opponents "flat earthers" or accusing them of using taxpayer funds to be on here is OK, but those snippets are just horrible to you, are they? This is what you consider a fair evaluation of conduct on here? Or is it that people who you agree with politically can do and say anything they want, but people opposed to you are held to some kind of bizarre standard? I mean, I can't even say : "You can't do better?" Are you serious? Or is that not allowed in your prison-state society either! That too? lol. And that? Geez.

Some people want to make it so that no one on here can challenge them. Like Cuba. Oh wait, not civil enough for Mr. TJCook! guess I have to call someone a commie to meet his approval.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

The flat-earther statement was taken out of context by the headline writer to make it more sensationalist than it really was. The principle was this:

When one says the earth is round, the mainstream will say that this is common sense. A flat-earther will view it as a conspiracy to eliminate dissent.

The comparison, as I see it, was this:

When one says coalitions are legitimate, the mainstream will say that this is democratic, if the coalition has the support of the majority. Hyper-partisan Conservatives will view it as a conspiracy to usurp their government.

It's probably not the best comparison to make, however, for a group that's accused Liberals of being pro-criminal and the NDP as pro-Taliban, the outrage comes across as a bit rich.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Ah, now we have someone explaining the hateful comment! Perfect!
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Dennis, your comments are suggesting to me that you're missing the point of the remark entirely, which is that a proper coalition is not an attempt to usurp or eliminate the voice of duly elected representatives.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Really. Calling people backwards and stupid for disagreeing with your is OK in your books? Is there no sense on here? Holy cow.
LynnTO

Calling people backwards and stupid for disagreeing with your is OK in your books?

No. Is putting words into people's mouths to demonize them OK in yours?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

You said I missed the point of the remark. Regardless of "the point", it most definitely cast a vicious aspersion against conservatives, didn't it? And, apparently, you'd rather explain it away then condemn it. How in the world is that putting "words into people's mouths?"
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

If your memory is failing you, the record above indicates that I don't believe that the comparison was the best one to make.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Wow. Just, wow.

Ok, read this carefully:

1) I never endorsed the "flat-earther" comment, never defended it, never said it was ok.

2) I'm simply pointing out your characteristic lack of civility, which makes it hard to believe you're pointing out perceived incivility on the part of others.

Bluster all you like, but I have a point and you know it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Exactly! You completely ignored what I'd consider hate speech and, instead, attacked me for: "You can't do any better?" This is your standard.

And, btw, I never called for civility. I just find it ironic that those who do resort to your kind of crap. Thanks!
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

I didn't attack you at all. I pointed out your incivility. And provided way more examples than the single one you quote.

There's simply no need for you to be as sarcastic and insulting as you frequently are here. And if you're then going to call Liberals hypocrites for being uncivil, don't be surprised when people call you out for your own incivility.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

It's like I say often, some people's idea of "civility" is to simply shut the heck up if you disagree with them. Meanwhile, your political friend scan call me backwards and stupid. Love your standard, buddy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Strawman: 0
Dennis_F: 1
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

TJCook: 0
Political Double Standards: 10
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Honestly – You spazzed out over nothing. If anything, you were simply looking for an excuse to go off. It really lowers the bar over here. I like debate and exploring differing vantages, but I find myself withdrawing my bucket from the well when things are tainted such….
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

What the heck did I do wrong? Defend myself against leftists? Good God.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Actual quoted text:

“To say that coalitions are legitimate is like saying the earth is round,” a senior Ignatieff official said Monday morning. “It happens everywhere. Mr. Cameron (British Prime Minister David Cameron, who leads a coalition government) said so to Stephen last week.

“But to flat-earthers, stating the obvious is part of a conspiracy of some kind.”

Also: Ignatieff is no longer talking about the 2008 coalition. You'll recall that he didn't have much of a taste for that one, either. But coalitions in general? The concept of co-operation and functional governance through consensus? That's the issue. Someone needs to find a way to actually get laws passed and actions taken without destroying Canadians' sense of common purpose.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Pfffft. Spoken like a real loser.

Next!

;)

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Heh, don't make me quote Hunchback of Notre Dame on you.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Since when is calling someone a flat-earther is uncivil????

And this party claims to dislike political correctness??? Once again, for Conservatives, our principles do not apply to us.

Before you know it, it will be insulting and unParliamentary and abusive to call someone a luddite or old fashioned. Sheeesh.

Mike T.

Well played, Mr. Silver.
burlivespipe

I think we're missing the whole point. As shown in Canadian democracy, losers can win the most seats and still govern as though their the opposition.
Harper's chess game revealed.
Steve M

Is it possible that Harper was just taking one last kick at Stephan Dion?

I'm sure when they we coming up with the "Not a Leader" meme, at least some in the room were pushing for "Stephen Dion: What a loser!" instead.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"When Harper declared this week that “coalitions of losers don’t get to govern,” he was effectively saying that any coalition made up of parties that doesn’t include the party with the most seats in parliament doesn’t get to govern."

I was wondering when the pundits would clue into this little fact.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Dennis F, in general reply to your many comments about Paul Martin saying the party with the most seats gets first crack:

First, Martin is wrong. The existing government gets first crack. The PM can choose to resign, as he did and Brown did and Trudeau did in 1979 and Diefenbaker and St Laurent. That is the usual way, not because they have fewer seats but because they know they won't be able to get the confidence of the House.

Second, you are wrong to suggest that Martin saying "winning" party gets "first crack" is somehow the same thing as Harper saying the losing party doesn't get to govern.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

[...cont]
Third, Martin's comment and Harper's comment show an interesting contrast in the two men and two parties. Harper makes an obviously and intentionally incorrect statement for personal and partisan gain; Martin makes an incorrect statement to explain why he is not pushing for personal and partisan gain. I think it highlights how everything, absolutely everything, for Harper gets torqued and, if necessary, torched for personal and partisan gain, regardless of the longterm damage of a scorched earth policy. Liberals can certainly be just as partisan but they have an ability or capability to act in a non-partisan way when it is in the national interest, a capability I believe that Harper and the current iteration of conservativism simply does not have.
Craig O

"Second, you are wrong to suggest that Martin saying "winning" party gets "first crack" is somehow the same thing as Harper saying the losing party doesn't get to govern."

Well said! This is even more striking considering that during the 2008 coalition, who got the first crack was already passed – the Conservatives had been given the chance to govern and, short of a prorogation to avoid a vote of confidence, had failed. That coalition was about whether other parties should get any crack at all to govern, not whether they should get the first one.

Out There

The meme that the Conservatives seem to be trying to plant is this: "The party with the largest number of seats gets to form the government. Period. If this party loses the confidence of the House, another election must be called."

If the Conservatives can get people to believe that a coalition government consisting of the second-place and third-place parties is "illegitimate" – even if this coalition has the confidence of the House – he runs no risk of losing power the way he almost did in 2008. (Recall that he had to prorogue Parliament to stay in office.)

And they can effectively govern as if they have a majority.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

I think it goes further. I think he is not talking about a change in government without an election. I think he is making this an election issue as a scare tactic but also trying to de-legitimize any attempt by any other party or group of parties to form a government if they have fewer seats than the Conservatives.

That first bit is disengenuous, hypocritical, low, etc. but typical of Harper and nothing more than a campaign tactic.

That second bit though is anti-democratic and very worrisome if it takes hold.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"If the Conservatives can get people to believe that a coalition government consisting of the second-place and third-place parties is "illegitimate"

He will need to complicity of the press to make that happen.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

"complicity of the press"
based on track record?
no problemo

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

I know what you mean but would the press gallery let him get away with something so patently untrue for an entire writ period?

Let's just say that if this happens, I better never hear a tory complain about a liberal media bias.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

A few lonely denizens of the actual Parliamentary press gallery (Kady, Aaron etc) might squawk but by and large the punditry (including CBC-TV) and their corporate masters have been consistently giving air support for the Con ground war. Never louder than in the crucial first days of the 2008 debacle. Punditry and push-polling rendered the 2008 coalition into the dustbin of history before the great unwashed even started thinking about it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Right, because Canadians are too stupid to think for themselves, and mindlessly believe whatever the MSM tells them to. Pffft! Why can't you lefties understand that Canadians hated the idea of a coalition in the past, and will hate any attempts by the Liberals to do so in the near future.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

…but they'll like it if the Conservatives do it? smh.

When you ask Canadians what they have heard about the government lately, those who offer a response (all 50-70% of them) are more likely to list something that they've heard in the news, than something they've heard from another source.

What's more, when it comes to the impact of what they've heard on their views of how the government is performing, it tends to align with the message of the news that they'd read.

Canadians do have critical thinking skills, but when we tune into news sources that tend to align with our worldview, we question them less, and assign them more credence. Normatively, this suggests that they'd have a greater impact on how we interpret the events these sources relate.
LynnTO

"our bills are being blocked by a Liberal-dominated Senate".

While it wasn't wholly endorsed, it certainly hasn't been widely countered with the argument that it's patently false, either.

EDIT: Er, until about last week.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Silver by his comments suggests that the situation in Israel is analogous to the situation here in 08. That is not true. Israel does not have sitting in its parliament a party whose sole reason for its existence is the break up of the country.

Out There

Does this mean that if the Liberals and NDP finish second and third in total seats in the next election, but together have enough seats to earn a majority and thus obtain the confidence of the House, a coalition between these two parties would be legitimate?

And it should be pointed out here that the Conservatives suggested a Tory/NDP/Bloc coalition as an alternative to the minority Liberals when Paul Martin was in power. (Also, the Bloc wasn't actually part of the 2008 coalition – they would have had no representatives in cabinet. They only agreed not to bring down the coalition in a confidence vote for a specified period of time. But this distinction was too subtle for some anti-coalition forces.)

Cats

No the Conservatives NEVER suggested any such thing. Harper, Layton, and Duceppe wrote a letter to the GG requesting her to "consider all her options" if the Liberals fell. The obvious option in mind would be a stand alone Tory minority.

Dion, Layton, and Duceppe wrote an almost identical letter that went a step further and said Liberals/NDP were prepared to form a coalition with a confidence guarantee by the BQ for 18 months.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Yer heart's just not in it today huh?

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

the only question the GG has the constitutional authority to ask is
Who (if anyone) can show they have the confidence of the house?

all else is invention, conjecture and bad government
http://intensedebate.com/people/Maplesoon Maplesoon

In Finland, no party has had an absolute majority in the parliament since independence. If we keep electing minority parliments, could we break the political parties of their assumed Right to Rule? Isn't government supposed to be about compromise and finding common ground?
Dave

Why does Stephen Harper hate the IDF?