Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

At the risk of applying logic to the PM's latest fixation (UPDATED)

by Paul Wells on Friday, September 3, 2010 12:10pm - 0 Comments

Stephen Harper has developed some obscure sort of Tourette’s or something that makes him blurt out warnings about a coalition everywhere he goes. “They work together on everything,” he said recently.

The prime minister’s argument, as we’ve explained here at some length and with some frequency since he first test-drove it in an interview with my boss 20 months ago, is that “somebody will have a majority” after the next election: either the pure and stalwart Conservatives, or the moustache-twirling Coalition of the Lefties, Snobs and Nation-Wreckers.

Right then. The Conservatives currently have 146 144 seats in the House of Commons. If they win 148 at the next election, will Stephen Harper concede defeat on election night and recommend that the governor general invite Michael Ignatieff to form the government?

UPDATE: A reader on Twitter provides the answer, also from the PM’s abundant oeuvre on the question at hand: “Losers don’t get to form coalitions.” To sum up then, the complete Harper doctrine on coalitions: Somebody will have a majority after the next election, unless it isn’t me.

Tags: coalition, Stephen Harper

More by Paul Wells

Emmett

"But Paul," the response would come, "that would be allowing an illegitimate coalition of Lefties, Snobs and Nation-Wreckers to take over the country."
Twisted_Mentat

Results of your hypothetical:

Prorogue, rinse, repeat.

(I've got my eye on the ongoing Australian election, it'll give MotherCorp and ConTV something to chew on for our next election.)

Stewart_Smith

Agreed, for a dumpy guy, Harper can be remarkably flexible.

Paul, any idea why your boss why he didn't think the ask "the question" during the interview?
sea_n_mountains

uhm, beleive house has to sit before it can be porogued, but open tot correction.

Katherine

It's interesting that Harper's pointing that out. He must be getting more confident – typically, he's done everything possible to avoid the suggestion that he might end up with a majority, because he knows it scares off voters.

David_M.

Maybe its self distruct mode.
As has been pointed out, this is unlikely to change minds and it might just have the effect of keeping some moderate conservative voters at home next election.
Mr. Harper is tired of it all and is willing to poison the waters before his exit? It seems incomprehensible that this tactic would have blanket approval from the CPC caucus.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com The Jurist

I'll go with "lack of options" rather than confidence or self-destruction. He's recognized he can't get a majority with his first couple of strategies such as focusing on Quebec or ethnic communities (both long since alienated), and apparently figures it's worth his while to take his next best perceived chance to get to 155 even if it also eliminates any hope of his hanging onto a minority.

McC_

"or ethnic communities long since alienated" not sure about that one.
Thwim

Bingo. Harper can't have a third minority government and maintain leadership of the CPC. At that point it'll become obvious to even the most thick-headed of them that he's a rock around the party's neck. So, given the choice between another minorty or risking the CPC's position as government for a slim chance at a majority, it's pretty obvious which one he'll take.

After all, Harper's motivations are really quite simple as long as you remember that his primary goal is to hold power and/or privilege.

NorthernPoV

"he's a rock around the party's neck"
some rock!

He took over a moribund fledgling party, then took over the other (even more) moribund fledgling party.
Then (with a little help from the NDP and RCMP) he managed to get control (yes majority-like control) of a country with a plurality of votes.

If he was to win a third minority gov't – he will simply carry on dismantling our civil society while (some of his) party and caucus cheer him on and the rest of us complain on the internets.

PolJunkie

"He must be getting more confident"

I don't think that turfing Giornio is a sign of confidence.

AT1

No, that's just a good idea!

PolJunkie

All depends on who replaces him. If the trend keeps up (Brodie to Giornio, Teneycke to Soudas), he'll likely go from bad to worse.

Holly Stick

Watch out, Kory'll write a nasty editorial about you.
PolJunkie

Now THAT would be a compliment. I should be so lucky.

Mulletaur

Harper will cut a deal with the Bloc to get his 'majority'.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Of course, that's the brilliance of our system, where nothing one says before an election actually matters AFTER an election. Harper can spend the next year or more framing the entire election as a showdown between the Tories and "the Coalition", and then the MOMENT he wins another minority ('cause that strategy's not gonna get him a majority) all he has to do is "pivot" and call the Coalition illegitimate, because, who on Earth could have guessed before the election that those parties planned to form a Coalition?!?!?

It wouldn't be the first time, (heck, it wouldn't be the first time for THIS GOVERNMENT) that we had a party spend a whole election campaigning on proposition X, only to immediately deride the very idea of proposition X post-victory.

Peter

yeah, i posted on this a while back too – a good comeback for any "coalition vs. majority" comments from Harper is simply to ask – Mr. Harper, would you refuse to form a government if you were elected with a minority of seats in the House?

He can have no good answer. Either he answers:
a) yes, I'll form another minority gov't, in which case this invalidates his original premise of a dichotomy between a "coalition" of opposition parties and a Conservative majority OR he says
b) no, I won't form a minority government, which immediately would validate the cobbling together of some sort of minority NDP-Liberal coation, as you would have the case of prime minister-elect actually refusing for form a government, which is a legitimate reason for the other parties to try to govern

Harper isn't as savvy as he used to be, methinks.

Mike T.

Logic, common sense and even thought aren't meant to applied to Harper's position – that's both it's beauty (to the diehard partisans), and its horror (to everyone else).

If asked, I'm sure he'd say "they'll form a coalition anyway if I have a minority!" Trying to talk sense at him would dig the hole deeper.

It's like the 9/11 mosque. It's so stupid you feel ridiculous even talking about it like it has merit.
Andrew (not PorC)

I think he just doesn't answer the question. He's pretty good at it.

NorthernPoV

agreed,
he does not answer many questions from real reporters – his handlers makes sure most questions do not get asked

Thwim

No, his answer would be, "Of course I wouldn't refuse, but as we saw last time, the coalition won't let me have that chance."

That's what he's setting up. So that if/when he manages to get a third minority gov't, he can put forward some gawdawful confidence bill that the other parties will have no choice but to vote down, and then he can approach the GG and suggest that she appoint a coalition gov't.

Of course, if the NDP and Bloc are smart, they'll simply tell the GG that they don't need a coalition, but they have confidence in the Liberal party, not the Conservative party to form the gov't.

SCS

But wait…

What if one of the other parties ended up with 146 (or 148) seats in the next election and Harper's Conservatives were reduced to a number of seats where in order to retain power they would have to join with one of the Lefties, Snobs or Nation-wreckers?

Based on the British election resulting coalition, surely at this point he would tout that it is realistic and democratic.

Too bad he's so publicly and negatively denounced the concept of a coalition. Considering the down slide of his parties numbers and the unstable nature of recent Canadian politics, that's a mighty small corner the (current) Prime Minister is painting himself into.

Mulletaur

I think it's called "going for broke" …

Emily

Assuming Harper makes it to the next election, I doubt he'll ever concede defeat no matter what.
Twisted_Mentat

UPDATE:

This Australian thing must really be putting Harper's shrimp on the barbie.

As it currently stands, Australian Labor has less seats than the Liberal/National Coalition but currently has the support of an Independent (Wilkie) and a Greens MP (Bandt).

I shall assume Canada will be cutting off all ties with Australia's illegal, immoral government.

DBM

I'm sure Harper's chief concern is that the folks he's appealing to with this strategy are closely watching the Aussie election.

؟

Thwim

No.. no.. I don't think they're showing that on Fox are they?

anon

or rather http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/GomeryII/Re…
gottabesaid

This one from Harper as Leader of the Opposition is even better: "We’ll support the government on issues if it’s essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians. What the government has to do, if it wants to govern for any length of time, is it must appeal primarily to the third parties in the House of Commons to get them to support it."
Chris B

My general understanding of Canadian constitutional tradition is that after an election, the party that won the most seats gets the opportunity to form a government. If they cannot (suppose they were voted down at the first opportunity), the GG would or should offer the second biggest party that same opportunity, rather than call an election.

this differs from the Coalition of the L/S/NW in that my scenario explicitly allows a coalition after an election, even if it is a coalition of the "losers", but would not permit said coalition 2 years into a government (then the GG would be correct to allow an election call)

Mulletaur

"My general understanding of Canadian constitutional tradition is that after an election, the party that won the most seats gets the opportunity to form a government."

No, I don't believe this is correct. The government before the election continues in a caretaker capacity until whomever believes they have enough seats to form a government declares their ability and intention to do so. Then the head of the caretaker government meets the Queen's representative to resign and the party leader who intends to form a government meets the Queen's representative to become the new Prime Minister. This is more or less what happened in the United Kingdom following the recent general election there. It really has very little to do with who has the most seats after an election.

Inkless

Mulletaur's closer to my understanding. The pre-writ PM has the option of "meeting the House" to test support for continuing to govern. That's how Trudeau proceeded in 1972. Paul Martin would have been within his rights, but nuts, to try it in 2006. Harper gets the first move if the next election is close.

Charles H.

"Paul Martin would have been within his rights, but nuts, to try it in 2006."

Oddly enough, it's one of the reasons I love Tupper: the guy was nuts enough to try it, declaring that he'd keep governing despite having not won a plurality in 1896.

(Of course, since the Liberals had in fact won a majority — putting the lie to Tupper's claim that Laurier would be unable to form a government — the Governor General stepped in before things could run to their inevitable conclusion. Thereby making Tupper not only the shortest serving Canadian PM but also the only one to be effectively* forcibly ejected from office by the [representative of the] crown.)

Terrible PM, but fascinating for the trivia buffs.

* Effectively, in that Lord Aberdeen refused to confirm any of Tupper's appointments. Tupper still had to inform Aberdeen that he was resigning before Laurier could become PM.
Style

Isn't this what Harper is claiming too? That, if he doesn't have a majority after the election, he will meet the House and be replaced by the coalition? is there somebody out there denying this? Do the Liberals expect to defeat the Conservative plurality and govern as a smaller minority government?

Lord Kitchener's Own

I think the Liberals do in fact expect to defeat the Conservative plurality and govern as a minority government (I'm not saying they think they're at that point NOW, but I do rather presume that's what they expect). Of course they HOPE they can turn things around and get a majority government, but I'm not sure, even when they were doing even worse in the polls, that they "expected" to lose the next election. I think they Do expect that they can do well enough to get a plurality and form a minority.

They could be delusional though. We'll see.
Style

Why would the other opposition parties support that? I was imagining the Liberals having fewer seats than the Conservatives, but even if the Liberals gain more seats than the Conservatives but are still short of a majority, they'd have a strong claim to legitimacy, but would still need the other two parties to replace the Conservatives as the government. What will those parties require in exchange?
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, good question I suppose.

I was kinda under the impression that being called commies and traitors for a few years might make them want to replace the Tories just for it's own sake, but maybe the NDP and the Bloc have some sort of twisted codependency thing going on with Harper, and they just can't quit him.

There is a small part of me that would actually love to watch the Liberals win more seats than the Tories, only to have the Tories form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc to remain in power. My head might explode, but there's a sadistic part of me that would be highly entertained by it all until just before that happened.
Peter

I agree, LKO. I predict the Liberals will try to move for into election position by opposing the government on bills and they will not be scared of facing down the government if the Conservatives try to make routine bills motions of confidence.

The Liberals are not so weak now that they have to bend over backwards to support the government and embarass themselves, but supporting inane "tough on crime" legislation for example. They're under no obligation to even support the Throne Speech; they can put the pressure on the Bloc or NDP to support the government. They can wash their hands of it if it fails to pass and an election is called – after all, a
Peter

cont.
any of the other parties could have supported it
Thwim

He doesn't have to be replaced by a coalition any more than the current gov't is a coalition. You know that.

All that needs be done is for any member of parliament… *any* of them.. is to gain the support of the majority of the House to serve as the Prime Minister. Size of party has absolutely no bearing other than it allows us to predict who will likely get that support. Well.. if no members of the CPC have it, it'll have to go on to someone else.

PolJunkie

Well there goes Quebec for Harper. If this is the route he takes, I'm not even sure that Bernier will survive.

That's 11 seats, yes?

Charles H.

The current seat projections based on the latest poll numbers show one seat in that province. I assume that would wind up being Maxime.

PolJunkie

Agitating the Separatists during an election will not only impact Harper in Quebec, it will impact him in the rest of the country.

Who would want a Prime Minister who deliberately pushes for national instability? He would allow the Liberals to put forth an even stronger narrative about him being a divisive leader in it for himself who doesn't care about this country.

How can he not see that?
harrylimelives

Ah, the staying power of T & A (no guesses on who the A is…)

PolJunkie

In order to promote his watch-out-for-the-coalition message, Harper will have to bash the Bloc, painting them as spawns of Satan looking to "destroy…" I mean "breakup the country."

In bashing the Bloc, Harper will inevitably attack Quebecers.

This is where things will go horribly wrong for the Tories. And not just in Quebec. As he is doing with the registry bill, Harper will once again hand over another opening for the Liberals to rally voters behind them. The splintered anti-Harper vote will see Harper reigniting the separatism flames in Quebec and, if the Libs play this right, look to Iggy to put them out.

I'll say it again, the Chessmaster is a complete idiot for not being able to see this.
hardmouth

Paul, can't someone at a press conference ask the prime minister your question? hahah that would be fabulous.

frobisher

Only two questions may be asked at any given appearance the PM deigns to attend. And one must come from Sun Media. The other must be about something either trivial or irrelevant to any pressing issues of the day. Other than that, it would be a good question to ask.

NorthernPoV

yes, I think this type of relationship with the media was what their (2006) campaign must have meant when they promised transparency

Thwim

You're asking a guy who, when presented with the opportunity to ask Mr. Harper a question during the campaign, asked him about vegetables.
matt

It's a pretty easy answer:

"No. Just because I happen to think that Michael Ignatieff will AGAIN ask the GG to invite the Liberal leader to form a coalition government, that doesn't mean I think the GG should agree. I think my party would be a better government, and according to convention (incumbent government, plurality of seats) it is entitled to that opportunity."

ajb

What Harper is saying is kind of silly on one level. On another level, it makes a certain sense. The current dynamic really has a higher bar for the Tories than for the Liberals. If the Liberals get anywhere within striking distance of the Tories in the next election, they have a viable shot of forming a coalition government, but anything short of an actual majority for the Tories will seem like a failure of sorts, even if they keep on governing.
Put another way, it's my hunch that the current status quo can't last much longer, and will have to break, either in the direction of a Tory majority, or of a Liberal minority. Eventually the electorate will get sick of things as they are, and will either give Harper a majority (because they like him and want him to have the chance to govern properly) or the Liberals a minority (because they're sick of Harper and think it's time for a change). My further hunch is that a Tory majority just isn't in the cards right now, but that's harder to be sure about…

James Connors

My further hunch is that a Tory majority just isn't in the cards right now, but that's harder to be sure about… </>

If Harper could manufacture more voters out of thin air I'd be surprised.

I'll say; Harper is history already. Whether history treats him kindly or not I'll never know. But, if it were me making the judgment I would not look kindly upon him.

Loraine Lamontagne

In the UK and in Australia political leaders' actions suggest that they seek to secure that a stable government can be put in place for a number of years. The Con/LibDem document is a fascinating read.

What if Harper were given another minority – would he not secure the support of a third-party in order to provide Canada with a stable government? He has chosen not to do so in the past but in the case of a fourth consecutive minority government, would he refuse to consider a deal with (?)
Dave

To be honest, one has to wonder if Harper – realizing he's lost Quebec almost entirely – is now attempting to compensate by pushing votes to the Bloc through the generation of raw anti-government sentiment and hopefully cost the Liberals seats on the side in exchange…

PolJunkie

"To be honest, one has to wonder if Harper – realizing he's lost Quebec almost entirely – is now attempting to compensate by pushing votes to the Bloc through the generation of raw anti-government sentiment and hopefully cost the Liberals seats on the side in exchange…"

And so he wilfully sacrifices 11 seats in Quebec just to get at the Liberal seat count?

I sure hope he's that dumb.

ajb

It would be even dumber than it sounds — these days the Liberals are pretty close to rock-bottom in terms of seats in Quebec, and a lot of their remaining seats are heavily anglophone or allophone, and practically unwinnable for the BQ. The Tories would lose ten seats in Quebec, and might be able to push two or three Liberal seats to the Bloc in exchange.
I think Harper is probably just using the Chretien/Martin playbook here — paint your opponent as scary and unfit for office. Of course, he himself knows that that strategy can be defeated, given enough time and enough sweater vests.

PolJunkie

"The Tories would lose ten seats in Quebec, and might be able to push two or three Liberal seats to the Bloc in exchange."

Only if the Libs allow Harper to paint all federalists with that same anti-Quebec brush. I actually think that this would allow the Libs to come out on top with the Quebec federalist vote if they properly communicate their outrage at the way Harper treats Quebec.

What would kill the Libs is if they take Harper's bait and start bashing the Bloc too.

shouldIsellyourwheat

If Ignatieff and Layton went for a pre-election coalition as Chretien suggested, they wouldn't need the Bloc to form government. Agree to run only one candidate in each riding (the incumbent) and make a deal to spit candidates in the rest.
The Rosedale and Forest Hill and Westmount Liberals are still too self-absorbed and arrogant to do such a deal with the NDP.

How it plays out. I agree with Harper that unless the Conservatives get a majority, they will not be the next government.

If the Conservatives have the most seats after the election but are till a minority, they will lose the confidence vote on the Speech from the Throne and Ignatieff will go the Governor General, but Layton won't support Ignatieff unless there is a formal coalition agreement, and it is likely that they will need the Bloc to agree to support confidence votes, even though the Bloc might not be an "official" Coalition member.

The next election breaks the minority logjam. The coalition genie has been let out of the bottle, and there the possible result of the next election is binary. 1) A Conservative majority 2) A Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support

The so-called "progressives" might win this one, but Harper will probably have succeeded in his long term goal of reforming Canadian politics into a battle between a party of the centre right and a party of the centre left, and in the medium term, the centre right will prevail. Harper won't be able to get himself to the "promised land", but he will know that a centre right party led by somebody else will get there in the medium term future.

Jan

So Harper wants to consolidate the opposition. Really?
Lord Kitchener's Own

This seems well thought out and plausible to me.

Would it not, however, potentially be a bit of a problem for the Tories if (big if, but still) the Liberal-NDP Coalition got used to working together, found they had more common ground than they thought, and decided after a couple of years of governing to just merge, and not risk a fractured vote in a future election?

It'd be interesting and unpredictable to see what we'd get in a two-party (leaving the Bloc to one side) system in Canada, and I'm not entirely convinced that such a scenario would be a conservative "promised land".

shouldIsellyourwheat

Harper "belief" is that the centre right in Canada is bigger than the centre left, and will ultimately prevail most of the time is the monster straddling the middle could be slain.

Only time will prove if he is right or wrong.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I think it may be correct that the center-right in Canada is bigger than the center-left.

Where I personally think Harper is miscalculating is on where the center is.

Out There

The Rosedale and Forest Hill and Westmount Liberals are still too self-absorbed and arrogant to do such a deal with the NDP.

I've always assumed that the denizens of Rosedale and Forest Hill tended to be crusty old capitalists – and, as such, would be inclined to be conservative (if not Conservative). You might as well toss in the Bridle Path too, if you want to list all the wealthiest neighbourhoods of Toronto.

I'm not sure where the highest concentration of Liberals in Toronto is, to be honest. Maybe Scarborough.

Loraine Lamontagne

They're so lucky in the UK and in Australia. They have politicians who will put aside their differences for the better of their country. Stephen Harper is telling us that he would not do this for Canada.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I wonder, at some point does all of this coalition bogeyman fear-mongering bring to the forefront of Canadians' consciousnesses the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party in Parliament that apparently no other party in Parliament would even consider entering a Coalition with?

I mean, isn't the truth behind the whole "us against the world" mentality of the Tories the fact that it really is true that pretty much everybody who doesn't vote Tory (i.e. around 60% of the country) wants the Tories out of power, but it's just that nobody can actually figure out the logistics to make that happen?

Loraine Lamontagne

What I hear in Stephen Harper’s comments is that he’s the only one who is not willing to work with any of the other parties. And too bad if that puts Canada into a crisis.
Blue

SO if " the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party in Parliament that apparently no other party in Parliament would even consider entering a Coalition with " then you`re saying that the Liberals will announce in the next campaign their intention to form a coalition with the BQ.

I just don`t see that as a vote-getter for the Liberals.

frobisher

How you squeezed that out of what the Good Lord said is a truly awesome thing. You got from the Tories won't work with anyone (or no one will coalesce with the Tories) to inferring the Liberals intend to form a coalition with the Bloc in one syllogistic step. Awesome.
LdKitchenersOwn

No, as frobisher states, I don't think that's what I'm saying at all.

In fact, I don't even think I IMPLIED that.

Blue

I don`t know. I thought that if you said the Conservative Party was the only Party the Liberals would never enter into a coalition with then I could deduct that the Liberals would enter into a coalition with all of the other parties including the BQ.

lenny

In which Blue demonstrates to Frobisher how he "squeezed it out" – change "would even consider entering a Coalition with", to " Liberals will announce<i/>(a coalition with everyone)". Then change it all from an inference drawn from Harper's statements to a prediction made by LKO, and voila!

However, it remains unclear whether Blue is flaunting his dishonesty or his inability to comprehend what he reads.
lenny

Let's try that again.

In which Blue demonstrates to Frobisher how he "squeezed it out" – change "would even consider entering a Coalition with", to " Liberals will announce<i/>(a coalition with everyone)". Then change it all from an inference drawn from Harper's statements to a prediction made by LKO, and voila!

However, it remains unclear whether Blue is flaunting his dishonesty or his inability to comprehend what he reads.
lenny

Oh, f***k it.
Lord Kitchener's Own

"I thought that if you said the Conservative Party was the only Party the Liberals would never enter into a coalition with then I could deduct that the Liberals would enter into a coalition with all of the other parties including the BQ."

I suppose, maybe, except… I NEVER SAID THAT. I said I think that the Tories are the only party that NO ONE will enter a coalition with. I never said anything at all about whom I think the Liberals WOULD consider entering a coalition with.

Jan

So he doesn't just think he makes the rules, he believes he makes the rules.

McC_

that's not really what I said, but if he does, it's because we've let him.

Out There

He's playing the separatist card: a vote for the opposition is a vote for a coalition that includes the Evil Bloc Quebecois.

brooster

But why deliver the message in places like Ajax, Ontario, where the francophone media are unlikley to pick it up?

Blue

You`re getting yourself all twisted thinking about this.
It`s the Loyalist Canadian Public, Left, Right, and Center, New Immigrants, and Old Wasps that will be hesitant about voting for a member of a coalition that includes the BQ.

brooster

I consider myself a (dues-paying) member of the Loyalist Canadian Public and, to me, the message is baffling in its irrelevance to the current political context.
LdKitchenersOwn

I think you're not giving the "Loyalist Canadian Public" enough credit for not being idiots.

Blue

I wouldn`t go so far as to call those people " idiots " because they are hesitant about voting for one of the 3 opp. parties because of the reasons outlined by Olaf below, but I can see why they would be confused.

brooster

I can't figure out who this anti-coalition pitch is intended to win over to his cause. Who are the the voters who will migrate to the Tories out of fear of the dreaded C word? The only faction I can think of who might be persuaded to shift would be right-of-center Liberals and there aren't enough of them to provide electoral sustenance to their own party, let alone become the tipping point toward a Tory majority.

brooster

Please disregard this unintentional re-posting_repeat of a previous comment.

PolJunkie

You are supposed to respond to the we-hate-Quebec double-entendre. Doesn't work on everyone but Harper doesn't seem to understand that.
Olaf

It seems to me that he's trying to frighten the good portion of the Canadian electorate that considers themself "fiscally conservative, socially progressive", which is a self-description you hear quite often despite the fact that the two motivations are quite frequently at odds with one another. Basically, I think he thinks that if he can link the Liberals with the NDP, anyone who considers themselves "fiscally conservative" that would often vote for the Liberals (the Blue Liberal Martin-Manley crowd) will be terrified of the idea of "Jack Layton – Minister of Finance and Ballooning Spending" will hold their nose and vote CPC. Any collaterol patriotism points he can get among the rather small but hardcore non-Quebec-nationalists federalists in Quebec would be welcome.

Personally, I'm fiscally communist and socially reactionary, so I have no political home.

brooster

So, he's speaking in code and I, obviously, don't have a de-coder ring. I think I'm staring to get it.

brooster

that's "starting" (above)…although I did have to stare for a few minutes.

It must be Friday.
Olaf

I don't even think he's speaking in code. He's saying "a vote for the NDP, Liberals or Bloc is a vote for ALL of them". I think he's hoping that political aversions are more salient than political attractions. So, a fiscal conservative might be OK with voting for the Liberals, but hate the idea of having the NDP in government. A hardcore federalist might be OK with voting for the Liberals or NDP, but hate the idea of the Bloc having a say in the direction of the country. Out west especially, a populist might be OK with voting for the NDP, but hate the idea of voting for the Liberals. If you witness the "discussions" at Macleans.ca, there's a whole lot more anti-Harper, anti-Conservative, anti-Ignatieff, anti-Liberal, anti-NDP, anti-Bloc comments then there are pro-Anything comments.

In short, it's not Harper's dumbest idea.

Blue

Excellent analysis.
brooster

Disregarding for the moment his obviously loyal base of support (about 33-35% of poll respondents), there is, I suspect, a large swathe of voters like me with whom the coalition specter simply doesn't resonate. I think it will be dismissed because 1) the current Liberal leader was apparently a reluctant signatory to the controversial coalition accord and quickly repudiated it when he became leader. 2) Although Harper made much of the Bloc's involvement, it's easy to point out that the Bloc would never have been part of a coalition government. They merely agreed to support it in matters of confidence for a two year period (as they have similarly propped up Harper's own government, from time to time) 3) the Liberals and New Democrats are trying to outflank each other on the bun registry, which hardly portends collaboration, come an election where the registry may well be an issue. 4) Harper has alienated/antagonized so many voting "factions" (for lack of a better term), e.g., Quebeckers, women, urbanites, university-educated ("elites") that the "anybody-but-Harper" factor may neutralize fears of coalitions which are, in any event, become increasingly common in western democracies and recognized as such among the Canadian electorate.

So, I'm still not convinced he can harvest many votes with this strategy. That's why I suggested it well turn out to be irrelevant in any forthcoming election.

brooster

I obviously meant bun, not gun, registry above. Does anybody but me see a need for a bun registry?
Mike s

no i agree, some of them are hard as rocks and can be deadly
Olaf

All of those points are fair enough (except the Bloc one, I think, as I note below) but they would require a rather informed, analytical voter with a sound grasp of logic and time to spend working through the issues and arguments, which I think amount to a precious few. I think the people like us who spend the time to actually pay attention to the nonsense that goes on in Parliament, due to some sort of psychiatric affliction, tend to assume everyone pays as close attention. And I'm not suggesting he'll harvest "many" votes with this strategy, depending on your definition of "many", just saying there is a logic to it of which your original comment appeared skeptical.

As for the Bloc, the point isn't that they'd be "in" the coalition, it's that they could either extract concessions for their support both before the agreement was made and throughout the process ('oh, by the way, if you don't go along with this private members bill, we're gonna stop supporting you'). You can't contract out of your parliamentary autonomy to vote as you'd like, so given their penchant for breaking up the country, I'm not sure their allegiance to a temporary coalition would be set in stone unless they were assured they were getting something out of it. As such, there is always the concern that the Bloc would wield influence even if they're not technically members of the coalition. Kinda like how the NDP did with Martin on an ad hoc basis, except formalized.
Thwim

As for the Bloc, the point is that — according to most CPC supporters, they would be "in" the coalition. No matter how many times someone points out otherwise, that line keeps trotting out.
s_c_f

Because it's true, as Olaf has pointed out.

Thwim

In fairness, your "in short" is only because there's so much competition.

LdKitchenersOwn

I'm not completely convinced that "Jack Layton – Minister of Finance and Ballooning Spending" is that much more terrifying than "Jim Flaherty – Minister of Finance and Ballooning Spending".

Olaf

Not if you're paying attention, no. But if you're thinking in terms of "conservative generally spend less money than socialists", and keep in mind that these socialists never want the stimulus to stop and want universal daycare, universal pharmacare, universal homecare, universal dogcare and universal haircare, then it's infinitely more terrifying.

Jan

Harper's not adverse to spending money. It's just that his priorities are jets and jails.

s_c_f

When the combined total spent on the military, police and corrections is just 8% of spending, while social programs/health/education/welfare comprise 70% of spending, it's not the 8% that you worry about when it comes to spending.
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt48b-eng.htm

s_c_f

That terrifying image is enough to make me vote conservative for the next 50 years.

NorthernPoV

""fiscally conservative, socially progressive", which is a self-description you hear quite often despite the fact that the two motivations are quite frequently at odds with one another"

huh? Before you blithely dismiss the comfortable psychic space of 50% (my wag) of the Canadian population, perhaps you could share your reasoning?

Mike s

if i understand this point, it is that even if a certain part of the canadian poplulation is fiscally conservative and socially progressive, the Conservative party of Canada is only fiscally and socially conservative. i'll guess that is why the Progressive part of their sign fell off.