Beyond The Commons

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Regarding the Liberal economic platform, they seem to be trying to make it as economically neutral as possible. However,will it really matter? If they form a coalition again, you can kiss all that goodbye, can't you? It's like a colossal mistake that keeps on giving.

Jan

Actually, if just scan the headlines, it seems it's Harper's government that's the mistake that keeps on giving – us grief.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I didn't realize that Harper's economic platform is attached to that of a coalition.

brooster2

Try to comment on current events, not last year's history.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

How isn't a coalition a part of the consideration for the next election?

brooster2

Because only the Cons and their shills like you keep perpetrating the lie that it's a current factor.

Jan

At the same time telling us Harper will certainly get a majority. Really rather counter-productive.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Are you following the conversation at all?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Why are you so terrified of the issue and of answering the question?
brooster2

I'm not at all terrified about an irrelevant rumour that you keep mongering.

Why are you afraid of discussing Harper's plan to completely end federal health and social transfers to the provinces if he gets a majority?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Then why lash out at me and Harper instead of discussing how a coalition will affect Iggy's plans for governing? It's a simple question, isn't it? I guess not.
brooster2

This is "lashing out"? I'm thinking this is a pretty tame discussion.

Why are you avoiding my question about the Cons' plans for abandoning transfers to the provinces? Afraid to discuss it until Harper gets his majority?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

How about we discuss the coalition first, which I raised first, then we can talk about Harper? Again, if you aren't terrified of discussing it, why don't you want to discuss it?
brooster2

Here's my contribution to the conversation about a coalition: the current leader of the Liberals quickly disavowed the last coalition proposal as soon as he assumed the position and has never raised it since. When an election campaign unfolds, I rather suspect the Liberals will be advocating strategic voting to block the Cons, specifically courting NDP votes in ridings where that party is faring poorly. That doesn't bode well for a coalition.

After an election, all the parties will survey the results and will react in whatever ways maximize their respective advantages in the post-election HoC. Since coalitions are a legitimate (indeed, sometimes necessary) option in parliamentary democracies, some seat distribution outcomes might prompt discussion of coalitions.

If the post-election situation warrants coalition negotiations, I can see two parties sitting on the sidelines: The BQ, because any formal power-sharing arrangement including them would simply be too toxic; and the CPC, because they have so thoroughly antagonized any prospective partners with their rabid partisanship.

No party has ever, to my knowledge, discussed coalition arrangements prior to an election because doing so has no strategic value. For that reason, ignoring the question of it happening in advance of an election isn't "avoidance" because the question itself is inherently inane.

Consider the coalition discussed…your turn.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Wait a minute. Of course coalitions aren't formed before elections. However, given what happened right after the last one,and Iggy's support of it then, and willingness since then to do it again, I don't know why it's not open to discussion now. And, specifically, what effect it might have on the Liberal economic platform. This is the point I initially raised, and one you're still afraid of addressing, I see.

For example, I think Harper's stimulus and bailouts were peanuts compared to what the coalition would have done. So, if Iggy does form a coalition, shouldn't we expect more spending and higher taxes? It's a legitimate question, isn't it?

Oh, and since when do you unilaterally declare when discussions are over? Are you on some kind of ego trip?
brooster2

You insisted on a discussion of coalitions and I thought I made a reasonable response. I don't agree that the question is "legitimate" since it's unreasonable to demand that ANY party speculate on coalition arrangements before the outcome of an election. I acknowledged that, in certain outcomes, the Liberals would most certainly examine coalition options. If they did, the impact of a coalition on government policies would depend on who the partners were, what kind of policy agenda they hammered out between them, and who held senior cabinet posts.

Would a coalition result in higher taxes? Not necessarily, because the Liberals are the only party with a credible history in deficit-reduction and they might not want to make that concession to a coalition partner. A Liberal government, with or without coalition partners, will probably have to deal with a fragile economy and its policy options will be constrained by that reality. I could argue that they might be even more fiscally responsible than the Cons, given the current government's propensity for unnecessarily spending billions it doesn't have in its defense and law & order agenda.