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

Oh, is that what happened?

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:48am - 155 Comments

The Prime Minister explains how it was that a coalition government failed to replace his in December 2008.

Last time they waited too long and it was too late.

Tags: coalition, coalition government, house of commons, Parliament, prorogation, Prorogue, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

psiclone

Thank You Aaron : excellent article in the Post and very appropo – is sure to drive harper haters to new extremes of loathing :)
Loraine Lamontagne

Harper is 100% correct. But would he refuse to seek a coalition arrangement himself and leave it to others to form a government because of his refusal? That's what I'd like him to tell us. Would he consider putting aside party differences and work hard for the common good and for the national interest?

hollinm

Your comments suggest that over the past five years the government has not worked hard for the common good and for the national interest. That is flat wrong. Where has he done anything to promote his own interests. Anything that the government does in some way helps the country.

evenflow

The Census being on of the biggest elephants in your room and there are many more in the corners and probably even some in the pantry.

The guy has only worked for his own self interest, not Canada's.

hollinm

You lefties and the damn census. Changing a form from mandatory to voluntary and this is a reason to vote out a government? Give me a break. Yes the elites and academia are upset. I would suggest the form was already voluntary because nobody was charged and sent to jail and I have no idea how many were fined for not completing the census.
Those people who completed the census before will be the same people who will complete it the next time. The same groups who did not complete it will be the same ones.
The Libs have tried everything in the book to thwart the government's agenda and have failed miserably. Their leader is not catching on with Canadians and his lates polling shows him at 12%. If as the critics of the government say there were so many "gaffes" why are Canadians not buying it. Because they see it for what it is…..nonsense.

Loraine Lamontagne

It's not about changing a form from mandatory to voluntary it's about making policy decisions on the most accurate data versa much less accurate data.
hollinm

Oh yes. There it is. The nanny state needs to know. Why? Is healthcare going to get better because the Churches want the census information? Do we not know how many aboriginals there are in Canada? Why do they need to know my religion? Why do they want to know who my employer is or what my sexual orientation is? What currently ensures the answers to the questions are accurate. Trouble is the government is too nosy and they should stick to looking after the economy, defending the country and staying out of the face of Canadians.
Loraine Lamontagne

And spending money without accurate data to base their programs on. Carry on, Conservatives.
hollinm

HOGWASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Loraine Lamontagne

Or if your prefer Maxime Bernier's take on this: “(the questions are ) essential for providing the information needed by governments, businesses, researchers and individual Canadians to shed light on issues of concern to all of us – employment, education, training, transportation, housing, immigration, income support, pensions for seniors, transfer payments, aboriginal issues and many more.”
hollinm

Oh yes there is no where else the information you talk about can be found. Seems to me the government already has a large data bank of information to draw on if they really need to. A woman in Saskatoon was found guilty of not completing the census today and will be sentenced in mid Jan. There goes the old defense that nobody has been sent to jail for not completing the census. By the way if researchers need information they should pay for gathering the information themselves if it is so important. Lets pick out one of your points i.e. aboriginals. We have a whole dept in the government called Indian and Northern Affairs tracking every aspect of aboriginal life. It they don't know what is necessary by now then the census is not going to help.

McC_

Sorry? I thought you hated it when government tries to help the country?

alfanerd

classic misunderstanding or intentional characterization of conservative ideology

McC_

I wasn't asking all of conservative ideology, I was asking holinm

brooster2

You might want to frame the above comment as being your opinion, or are you presuming to speak for "Canadians", as usual.

Blue

I think we can just assume that individual posters here, including yourself, are simply expressing their opinions.
hollinm

Oh come on. Wise up. I certainly don't speak for Canadians but I can read the polls where Canadians time and time again support the Conservative government and don't much like the Libs or their leader. For five years Canadians have said they support the Conservative government. If you faced up to reality you would see what Canadians are saying as well. Or are you simply in denial and don't believe what the polls are saying?. I guess hope springs eternal.

brooster2

"Canadians have said they support the Conservative government". There it is again…another of the many examples of your presuming to speak for [all] Canadians. More accurately, you could make such a claim on behalf of about 35% of eligible voters or poll respondents at present and or in the recent past. That's a far cry from the support of [all] Canadians implied by such statements (which you make frequently, BTW).

I'm a 5th generation Canadian and very few of your statements speak for me. A little more precision in your use of the language would contribute greatly to the accuracy of your comments.
hollinm

Why does it p.ss you off?. Simple read it, click disagree and move on. You are dismissing what I am telling you. Unless you believe polls are useless and do not tell us what Canadians are thinking then you have to accept the fact that over five years in government none of the opposition parties have overtaken the lead in the polls. I assume the same people are not being polled each time a poll is taken. Polls are a representative sample of what the public is thinking. Obviously there are those that do not agree but the fact remains all polls are consistent in their results. The public supports the current government. Your are right that the polls show support at 35% for the Conservatives. However, they show even less support for the opposition parties.
brooster2

Why does it p!ss me off? Because it's difficult to let such unsubstantiated statements go unchallenged in a public forum (I'm also a proponent of precision in the use of the language). Are you not interested in accuracy, even in your own posts? If not, the reader could reasonably conclude that you're interested only in disseminating partisan pap dressed up as informed opinion.
hollinm

Obviously you want to cotinue this discussion. I am bored silly so continue to fight the good fight. Do you understand that your comments appear arrogant and condescending. I guess that's ok because you are a Liberal?
brooster2

Why do you pose questions if you don't want answers? My comments are as arrogant as yours are presumptuous.

Fair enough.

And I'm not a Liberal…never have been.
lenny

"However, they show even less support for the opposition parties. "

That would leave a lot of undecided voters.

The reality is, polls show support for the opposition parties at around 65% – a significant majority of Canadians.
TimesArrow

In fairness they do vote for different parties…coalition anyone?
hollinm

Nice try. Votes are not fungible. That means people get to vote for one party and only one party. So each of the parties on their own got less votes than the Harper Conservatives. You cannot add them up and say somehow that the current government does not have the right to implement their agenda. No party gets 50% of the national vote in a five party system. Did you complain about Chretien winning a majority with 38% of the popular vote?. Thought so.
lenny

"Nice try. Votes are not fungible"

Who said they were? I was responding to your clearly false assertions:
"However, they show even less support for the opposition parties. "
"For five years Canadians have said they support the Conservative government."

For five years 1 in 3 Canadians have said they support the Conservative government. 2 out of 3 Canadians have said they don't.

"Did you complain about Chretien winning a majority with 38% of the popular vote?."

Yes.
hollinm

You are in denial my friend. All the polls over the last five years show that those polled, who are suppose to be a representative sample of the public, support the Conservative government. Show me one poll where any of the opposition parties have been ahead of the Conservatives.

Yes that 2 out of 3 may not support the Conservatives but the fact remains their votes are spread among 4 opposition parties. So none of the opposition parties get more votes than the Conservatives. How tough is that to understand.

If you complained about Chretien at 38% that is good. However, our system is FPTP and under that system and with 5 parties it is seldom if ever that the winning party will get 50% of the vote.

Loraine Lamontagne

Would he accept to put aside party differences if he knew, as he claims, that his party could not gain the confidence of the House at the first opportunity?

hollinm

Why bother with an election from here on out. Lets just let the left wing parties form a coalition and take over the government. No need to have one of those pesky things called elections. What you are saying is because the left wing will not support a right wing agenda then why bother with an election because they will never have the confidence of the House. Think about what you are proposing. It may fit your ideology but hardly a way to run a country.
We have a FPTP system. Votes are not fungible. Harper got the most votes of any party and therefore has a right to form the government. Yes he has to maintain the confidence of the House but it is not as black and white as some of you would suggest.

Loraine Lamontagne

Coalitions are not a way to run a country? There are plenty of examples out there.

The reason to have an election is for you and I to chose a person to represent us and those in our riding in the house of commons. That's all. And that's what Harper, Ignatieff, et all will have to deal with.

It's his claim that the opposition would want to throw him out the day following an election should a party fail to gain a majority of seats – not mine. Maybe Harper should follow your suggestion and think about what he is proposing.

Would Mr. Harper accept to put aside party differences in the interest of Canada if he knew, as he claims to know, that his party could not gain the confidence of the House at the first opportunity?

Emily

People have publically noted that a coalition doesn't actually exist outside Harper's mind, so now he's trying to push the opposition into creating one so he has something other than phantoms to denounce.

hollinm

Emily…….you are so delusional. There was a coalition in 08 and there will be one again. The Libs are so desperate to get back to power they will say or do anything including getting in bed with the socialists and the Bloc. It would be fantasy if it had never happened before and we all know it did. Do you?

Emily

The Liberal party has been around since about 1861, and they have always run as the Liberal Party….nothing else.

They will do so again this time.

So spare us your dark imaginings.

hollinm

There is no question that the Liberal party has been one of the most successful political parties in Canada. However, since the Trudeau years it has been falling in its influence. Chretien won because he had no real opposition. He would have lost the 97 election if there had been a unified right. The party internally is in a shambles and no amount of lipstick will change that fact. Leadership has been virtually non existent since Chretien left the scene and the party is broke with little support coming from grassroot donors. So yes the brand has some appeal but it is rapidly losing its lustre. Running at 25-28% in the polls is not a recipe to form the next government.

Emily

LOL well that's just your Con propaganda speaking.

Libs were down to 40 seats in 1984, and came back. They will again.

Chretien got 3 majorities in a row, and a 'unified right'….which you've never been….wouldn't have changed that.

The Liberals aren't broke either

Harper…even after 5 years…has yet to get anywhere in the polls.

You have to be realistic in politics hollinm….you can't let wishing take the place of facts.
Emily

I really wish wordpress would fix this board!

Jan

He's really sounding paranoid on this and it's trickling down to his base.

Emily

Yes, when they are down to ranting about even imaginary 'enemies' they've gone over the edge. LOL

hollinm

Don't you wish. Watch for more interviews with the PM. Watch him put his case before the Canadian people more often. Watch Ignatieff running around the country talking about things that Canadians have little interest in.

Emily

If you think Canadians are suddenly going to turn right wing….'you're dreaming in technicolour'.

'If wishes were horses, even beggars could ride'

hollinm

Not paranoid but simply warning the country that their next vote is very important if they want to end the games and the dysfunction of a minority parliament.

hollinm

"People have publicly"….no Emily it is only you who is offering this scenario in your comments.The only way the Libs can attain government is to form a coalition. There are limited votes for Igantieff in the West, he has his traditional base in the GTA but the rest of Southern Ontario not so much. Now the GTA is under assault. There is not much outside of the island of Montreal in Quebec and there are a few seats in the Maritimes. Where is he going to pickup 44 seats to even win a minority government. So yes the coalition is a reality no matter how many times you spout your nonsense.

Emily

I'm afraid there have been many media comments about how a coalition is non-existent, hollinm.

Libs will run solely as Libs….same as always. And eventually Libs will form a majority govt again.

The rest is your partisan imagination.
Emily

I'm afraid there have been many media comments about how a coalition is non-existent, hollinm.

Libs will run solely as Libs….same as always. And eventually Libs will form a majority govt again.

The rest is your partisan imagination.

gottabesaid

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a sec. They waited too long? You mean it would been OK if they had done it right out of the gate after the last election? That is a criticism of the coalition I have never heard: They waited too long.

There's no such thing as 'too long' or 'not long enough'. It depends on how long the government of the day can command the confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

And his his contention that opposition parties will form a coalition 'the day after' is baseless. Politically useful for him, but baseless.

LiveblogginJunkie

Prof. Nelson Wiesman, in the HillTimes (no link cause of subscription wall) wrote that there is only one window, the first Throne Speech following an election. Since it had passed the PM had received confidence and after that point, convention dictates the GG follow the PM's 'advice'. Any subsequent vote of no confidence means the PM goes to the GG and says election, not 'hey, hand over the government to the other guys.'
So, yes, the coalition waited to long.
Also, it isn't baseless to contend that opposition may try the coalition gambit again. Bassless is the belief that faced with a thrid Harper minority the opposition parties will just roll over and put up with it.

alfanerd

Thank you for that. It will be a very useful point to make in the weeks and months ahead when the coalition-of-losers groupies start making noise again.
Emily

The formal motion after a throne speech is to thank the speaker…usually the GG…for giving it.

It does not mean the opposition agrees with either the speech or the govt.

Any subsequent vote of no confidence means the PM can ask anything he wants of the GG…and the GG can say no.

hollinm

You are wrong. They must vote for the Throne Speech which is a confidence vote. Thanking the GG for coming out? Emily you are funnier than you realize.
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90852/62…

If your scenario is right why does the media make such a big deal aobut the Throne Speech eh Emily. Get serious.

It is established protocol that the GG accepts the advice of the GG and that in a nutshell is what Jean did. She accepted the advice of her PM. There are instances where the GG can refuse but they would need to be pretty good. Eliminating subsidies which had already been taken off the table was not sufficient to hand the government over to a party whose leader had been deposed by his own party and part of which was a Separatist party. Given what happened with the global economy the right decision was made. If you think our deficit is bad just imagine what the coalition of fools would have done.

Emily

No, I'm quite correct.

It merely thanks the speaker, it does not imply that the opposition agrees with it.

In fact the change to the anthem was something that no one agreed with…including Cons….and it was promptly dropped after a national uproar.

I'm not responsible for what the media does….they made a big deal out of eyebrows after all, or Peter Mansbridges chair!

The GG listens to advice from the PM….it doesn't mean the GG goes along with it. I'm sure you've gotten advice in your life that you ignored. LOL

Kindly stop repeating nonsense about the coalition.

The only question a GG needs to ask is if the PM commands the confidence of the house.

hollinm

I inadvertently typed…..It is established protocol that the GG accepts the advice of the GG. Obviously it should say….. It is established protocol that the GG accepts the advice of the PM.

Need to proof read a little better.

Emily

'Convention dictates'….'established protocol'…..mmm, all those conventions and protocols that Harper has repeatedly thrown under the bus.

Many things in our system have been done in the past as a 'gentlemen's agreement'….except that Harper has shown that he isn't a gentleman.

So I'm afraid you can't rely on any such thing, merely because it's now convenient for you to do so.
McC_

In fact Canada's only ever had one gentleman as PM, as I learned last week: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/07/the-longer-hes…
Emily

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman
gottabesaid

PROOFREAD IS ONE WORD!

: )

McC_

Yes and no. In general, if Parliament supports the Speech from the Throne, then Parliament has indicated confidence in the Government to bring forward measures broadly outlined in that speech. In that specific case, there were several major new measures proposed in the EFU that were nowhere to be found in the Speech from the Throne (nor in the CPC's election platform e.g., elimination of the per-vote subsidy, elimination of the pay equity process in the public service, removal of the public service's right to strike…), as well as the dubious forecasts of budget surplusses and good economic times for years to come all the while the world economy had been going south for months, all of which muddied the situation considerably. In that case, Parliament had expressed confidence in the Government to do certain things, and upon receiving this endorsement, the Government immediately proposed a number of new things and demanded Parliament approve them BECAUSE Parliament had already expressed confidence by accepting the Speech from the Throne. So the actual facts of the case complicate the generally sound convention that you point to quite a bit.

McC_

must add standard disclaimer: none of the above should be interpreted as an endorsement of the Dion-Layton-Duceppe accord, how it was presented to Canadians, its merits, its feasibility, etc. It is simply my comment on how the general convention applied poorly to the specific situation based on my knowledge of parliamentary procedure and practice.
hollinm

hollinm continued….

Remember these are three parties on the left with the government on the riight. That means no minority government would be workable in the future if the left wing parties decide they do not support the party of the right in power. Don't like the results of the election simply form a coalition and take over the government. To hell with what the people say..

Emily

I have no idea who or what you're responding to. I just know that you have no idea how parliament works.

But then you're hazy on the events surrounding the coalition and the global financial crisis as well, so I suppose it's not surprising.

Con—venient excuses for a Con of convenience.

TimesArrow

"Since it had passed the PM had received confidence and after that point, convention dictates the GG follow the PM's 'advice'. Any subsequent vote of no confidence means the PM goes to the GG and says election, not 'hey, hand over the government to the other guys.'
So, yes, the coalition waited to long.'

That's not clear at all. The GG granted Harper a prorogation not an election – Ignatieff turned down the option of a NC vote. We might have had an election at this point, we might not – only the GG knows for sure.

Crit_Reasoning

He meant that they waited too long after the election to be successful in their coalition-forming attempt.

He's suggesting that if Dion, Layton and Duceppe had gone to the Governal-General the day after the election with a signed Coalition Agreement, which is how these things are usually done, the coalition would have formed the next Government.

He's also suggesting that if his party fails to win a majority of seats in the next election, he thinks it inevitable that the other parties will form a coalition right out of the gate (i.e. the day after the election).

I thought the last graf of Wells's recent column aptly summed up the current predicament:

Harper has warned for two years that the opposition parties are conspiring for his job. Most days that’s just not true. But the only way they can defeat him this year is to conspire. If they do, the benefit of the doubt will lie, on balance, with the Conservatives. And until they manage to conspire, Michael Ignatieff will keep twisting in the wind.

McC_

Agreed, and reading Susan Delacourt's blog post on Harper's interview made me think even more about Wells (my paraphrase: 'Harper's already told you what he's going to do to you, and somehow he surprises you dolts every single time')
TimesArrow

'He's suggesting that if Dion, Layton and Duceppe had gone to the Governal-General the day after the election with a signed Coalition Agreement, which is how these things are usually done, the coalition would have formed the next Government.'

As has been noted above [Mcc?] this does not take into account the subsequent FU, which was essentially a deliberate provocation [ a poision pill] presumeably in response to info the govt already had about a possible coalition. It badly backfired. And even though the govt removed the offending legislation the opposition seemed to conclude this govt could not be trusted – a reasonable assumption from their pov. In hindsight the opposition might have done better to let the govt take its lumps politically and retreat the aggrieved party, and the clear poltical winners; Coyne took this view at the time – i thought he was right.

TimesArrow

But i seem to remember Kady saying there was not an option for them[ proceedurally] to vote down the FU without triggering a NC vote [ anyone remember this?] So, perhaps Harper was just too clever by half? In an case my point is if you can only make your intentions known immediately after an election, what's to stop an unscrupulous govt slipping another such unmandated provision onto the opposition's plate after the throne speach has been accepted? – coalitions should be possible at any stage of the mandate when the confidence of the house is lost – although i would suppose the closer to the last election[ thanks MT] the better.

hollinm

One of the reasons that may have been considered by the GG is that the opposition had already shown confidence in the government by supporting the Throne Speech and I think that is what Harper is alluding to in his interview. One of the tests of a new government is an ability to gain the confidence of the House by supporting the Throne Speech which is the government's coming agenda.
Ah, but it is not baseless. As I said one of the first things that comes up is the Throne Speech. The opposition will need to support it. If they do not so soon after an election and if they don't want an election the GG could go to the official opposition and ask the party that won the most seats after the government if they could form a coalition which will have the confidence of the House.. So it is not baseless.
However, the anti Harper crowd is absolutely terrified that Harper will win the argument in an election campaign and so they vilify any discussion about a potential coalition.

McC_

Parliament showed confidence in the Government to implement the broad agenda outlined in the 2008 Speech from the Throne, but the opposition parties felt (and on this I would agree) that the Government strayed too far from the mandate it had been granted in the election and Speech from the Throne with its first major act after receiving the endorsement, the EFU. As a result the Gang of Three got together, signed an agreement and held a press conference where they announced their intention to vote non-confidence in the Government at the first available opportunity (which never really came for a number of reasons that we probably all remember). I think this was all still ballpark for the amount of time Parliament has to change its mind about who it has confidence in to govern. The GG's opinion on this is neither here nor there, she was considering whether to approve PMSH's request for prorogation, not the legitimacy of the abortive coalition.

alfanerd

That's a good point about the mandate. I wish people thought about the idea of mandate a bit more than they do.

There used to be a time when Canadian politicians knew that the legitimacy of their government depended on them getting a mandate from the electorate. That's why for example, Paul Martin called an election in 2004, because the previous mandate had been given to Jean Chretien. Paul Martin needed to get his own mandate from the people. That was all good.

And it also applies on the throne speech as you discussed above.

Now, if the coalition had taken power, they would have had absolutely no mandate whatsoever. They would have been illegitimate, maybe not in a strict constitutional sense, but in a broader democratic sense. Stephane Dion after having been soundly defeated would have become PM. What kind of nonsense is that?

If a new Liberal leader feels the need to get a mandate when he has a majority in the HoC, how can a Liberal leader who has been so soundly rejected by the voters pretend to have any legitimacy?

gottabesaid

Yeah… what McC said.

Mike T.

There's no such thing as 'too long' or 'not long enough'. It depends on how long the government of the day can command the confidence of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

***

I agree, but would like to add that the closer to the last election it is, the more sense it makes to allow the opposition to form the government rather than have another election.

Leo

One of the best interviews yet!!! We need more of these.

hollinm

Absolutely. I don't know if this is the work of Nigel Wright but if it is good on him. Harper is very good in interviews and if there is one weakness of this government it is their communication strategy. I hope this spells a new day and we see more of the PM giving interviews. None of them can sandbag him and he may not like the media but he needs to take control of the public communications strategy. He is his own best advocate.

MostlyCivil

My favourite line:

"It’s also the case that parties get assistance on rebates when they spent money on elections both nationally and locally…"

Almost as if the money came in, then went out again. In, then out.

McC_

we don't agree with public support for political parties except for the public support for political parties that we agree with.
Blue

I thought that answer was an excellent explanation about why Harper believes the automatic vote subsidy is wrong.

I am also beginning to think that some political Parties like the Bloc and Liberals that seem to depend on the vote subsidy for the majority of their funding are in favour of more frequent elections.
So instead of waiting every 4 years to receive the automatic vote subsidy cheque they get it every couple years—same number of votes—-just get paid twice as often for them.

Jeez, i think it is a scam.

McC_

the per-vote subsidy is paid out annually between elections based on the results of the election, more elections don't change this. Knowing a bit about public accounting, it's probably pro-rated when elections are in mid-year. So I don't think there's a scam to have more lections to up their public financing. One could construct a similar (and equally fatuous) arguent about the credits that parties get for their campaign expenses: the more often there's an election the more often they can write off their campaign costs and receive a credit from the public treasury (I can hear Kramer's voice "They just write it off Jerry"… at least I think it was Kramer). The problem is the credit is less than 100%, so you're spending a dollar to get back (let's say) seventy-five cents. Again it doesn't provide a financial incentive to have more elections.

Mike T.

But his way makes it easier to create a mis-truth about the Liberals, so is better for his purposes.
Blue

My mistake. I will defer to your public accounting skill.
So if the political parties are receiving the vote subsidy annually, then it is probably a money-maker for a Party like the Bloc. They spend very little during a campaign and probably make sure all their expenses in non-election years are part of the allowed office and travel expense account. The vote subsidy is probably being banked for their next run at separation.
I say dump the vote subsidy now and the money we save—-send it to Haiti.

BCer in Mtl

Taxpayers would save much more money if they scaled back the tax measures for political party donations to the same level of actual charities.

YYZ

I thought it was terrible explantion. For every Canadian willing to kick-in a quater, we'll allow taxpayers to contribute 75 cents regardless of election results. I don't like any kind of subsidies for political parties but at least the $2/vote is aligned to POPULAR support. Since it's all taxpayer money, it seems more logical to distribute taxpayer dollars based on popular support than based on fundraising capabilities.

If they had any cajones (or consistency), they'd seek to elminate all public funding.

Blue

I can understand why you would prefer that taxpayers be forced to support political parties even if those parties cannot convince any Canadians to voluntarily contribute to the Party that is closest to their principles.

Their is a fundamental difference between supporters of the Conservative Party who believe that political Party support should be voluntary and opposition Parties who believe financial support for political parties should be mandatory.

I do also have a little problem with the 75% tax relief for political contributions, however if the maximum contribution remains at the amount Harper lowered it to ( $1100.00 ) then it close to acceptable.

EeeOar

Their is a fundamental difference between supporters of the Conservative Party who believe that political Party support should be voluntary and opposition Parties who believe financial support for political parties should be mandatory.

From a taxpayer's perspective neither method of funding political parties is voluntary. Whether the (mandatory) $1.95 subsidy is eliminated or not, taxpayers will still be paying the mandatory (up to) 75% tax credit, no matter if they vote or not, no matter who they voted for, no matter if they make a contribution of their own or not.
Blue

The first individual taxpayer is forced to pay his portion of the $1.95.
The second individual who chooses to contribute to a political party pays the first 25 cents of the dollar and then must pay his share of the remaining 75 cents.
The difference is the freedom of choice the second individual has. I kind of like that freedom in our democracy.
EeeOar

The second individual who chooses to contribute to a political party pays the first 25 cents of the dollar and then must pay his share of the remaining 75 cents.

That 75 cents is being paid by someone who is being forced to do so, with absolutely no freedom of choice, none at all.
lenny

You're free to not vote, and save the taxpayers $1.95. In fact, I'd encourage you to.

Blue

lost it again
EeeOar

For every Canadian willing to kick-in a quater, we'll force taxpayers to contribute 75 cents regardless of election results.

I edited your statement to be more accurate.

alfanerd

No its not but on the bright side it might settle the issue and then we'll be able to move on to better things. Im not one who's opposed to a coalition in any circumstances. But the attempted coup in December 08 was disgusting.

If parties want to form a coalition, they should campaign on it, or at least not rule it out during the campaign.

In any event, I think in December 08 Harper saved the Liberals from themselves. They would have had Dion as PM (gross), Conservatives polling in the high 40's, while managing a huge economic crisis with socialists on one side and guys who want to destroy the federation on the other. That's like driving drunk on an icy road with two backseat drivers, and Stephane Dion was never a particularly good driver in the first place. Had they succeeded in gaining power then, they would have significantly helped Harper's long term goal of destroying the Liberal Party.

brooster2

"If parties want to form a coalition, they should campaign on it, or at least not rule it out during the campaign."

All parties, in every election? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Jan

Sounds terribly unfair to the Christian Heritage Party…
alfanerd

Yeah you're right. On second thought you make a good point: it's ridiculous!

Just imagine, a politician, in an election campaign, making a statement about what kind of government he wishes to form. What was I thinking?

OH MY LORD THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LdKitchenersOwn

Can you point me to the site where the Tories lay out what coalitions they would consider entering in to and what coalitions they would not?

alfanerd

What the hell does that have to do with anything? What I suggest ought to apply to the tories as well: if they dont campaign on a coalition they shouldnt get to form one.

Nice strawman though. You totally nailed that.
MostlyCivil

"Im not one who's opposed to a coalition in any circumstances. But the attempted coup in December 08 was disgusting."

When is a coalition a coup, exactly? When the liberals are involved?
alfanerd

from dictionary.com
coup: a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment.

I kid I kid…

Am I not allowed to use colourful language when describing the slimy slimeballs of the coalition? Are you going to go after everybody here who uses metaphors, hyperboles or similes and scold them too?

It must suck to be you.
MostlyCivil

I just find it interesting that when a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment. like enlisting the separatists to pass your budget happens, nobody uses that word.

Must all be in my imagination.
LdKitchenersOwn

My point was more that the Tories are as unlikely to preemptively commit to forming or not forming a hypothetical coalition as any other party.

If the Tories shouldn't get to form a coalition if they don't run on one either then fair enough, but it's a lot easier for a party to rule out forming a coalition if they know in advance that no other electable party in the country would ever form a coalition with them.
alfanerd

but it's a lot easier for a party to rule out forming a coalition if they know in advance that no other electable party in the country would ever form a coalition with them.

Indeed it is. But call me old-fashioned, I think the voters have a right to know when they vote what the parties intend to do when elected. I know it sounds crazy and all…

Funny thing is, the same people arguing against this (I dont mean you, this is not the first time I discuss this point) also say things wrt wikileaks like 'a democracy is only as good as the electorate is informed' and other sensible-sounding things like that. until you realize that they want the electorate to be privy to every diplomatic secret of the state, but not crazy super-secret stuff like what kind of government the parties will form if elected.

alfanerd

All parties, in every election? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

That's the kind of thoughtful, erudite, and scholarly opinions from Liberals which makes me reconsider my allegiance to, not just the CPC, but the right-wing movement as a whole.

I mean, I just spent 10 minutes outlining a couple of points about coalitions, and this guy in just a couple seconds and one word, and totally repoodiates my arguments. Ridiculous!

If only I had the intellectual heft to get me a social science degree and participate in groupthink with other Liberals. Alas…

brooster2

Excuse me? You made the statement that "If parties want to form a coalition, they should campaign on it, or at least not rule it out during the campaign." So let's explore that comment a little more thororouhly.

First, no party has stated its desire to form a coalition since Ignatieff assumed office and repudiated it. It's Harper and his shills, like you, who keep repeating that allegation, in the absence of any empirical evidence. So, what you really seem to be saying is "our opponents should campaign on their intention to form a coalition because we accuse them of that". Why should the opposition, singly or collectively, be compelled to address such groundless allegations during a campaign?

Second, the current opposition parties are under no more obligation, before the next election, to discuss hypothetical coalition options than any party before or during any election (hence, my comment). It's not an expectation, nor a convention, nor wise strategy that any party should discuss coalition arrangements before the distribution of seats is even known. Why, for example, shouldn't Harper be equally compelled to state his own intentions regarding coalition options during a campaign?

Third, placing such a preposterous expectation on the opposition is of the same order of logic as the opposition insisting that, during an election, Harper should come clean with his "hidden agenda" in the event he gets a majority. How would he respond to such a demand?

alfanerd

Let me spell it out for you genius.

In the last campaign, Dion and Layton were asked if they would form a coalition. They answered 'no', categorically.

Do you think that in this campaign they will be asked that question? I would think so. They can lie about it, and that will have predictable consequences in the polls when they turn around and form a coalition.

But the idea that the coalition parties can avoid any speculation about coalitions is pretty funny.

PS: your use of 'empirical' in this context is not quite right.
brooster2

Allow me to re-post parts of my comment from another discussion on this coalition issue:

"I concur that (two of) the opposition parties, the NDP and Liberals, may well explore coalition options if the post-election distribution of seats indicates that such an arrangement would hold the possibility of forming a government. Before that electoral outcome, there's clearly nothing for them to gain from such discussions.

Aside from the fact that there's absolutely no empirical evidence of such discussions at this point, if any "coalition" were to have a meaningful impact on the election dynamics, it would probably involve non-compete agreements on a riding by riding basis. While I'm not familiar with the constitution of either party, I have little doubt that such arrangements would be challenged by more than one riding association in one or both parties. It would be a legal nightmare and a morale killer for the ground troops in a campaign. So, it's not going to happen, as I keep repeating, until the numbers are in, if ever.

If the numbers are there for them at that time, I hope they will consider the possibilities.

In the meantime (i.e., during an actual campaign), I expect the Liberals will attempt to poach votes from soft NDP support by claiming that they (the Libs) present the only plausible alternative to Harper. That's a call for strategic voting…about as far from a coalition as it's possible to get.

And that, I suspect, is what concerns Harper."

Empirical: based on observable evidence to support a hypothesis. Please tell me how, in referring to the absence of any tangible evidence of a coalition conspiracy during Ignatieff's tenure, this represents a misuse of the term.

Or show me verifiable evidence of said coalition.
alfanerd

empirical is mostly used in a scientific context, and "empirical evidence" usually refers to data, in the scientific sense. it's not completely inappropriate but it just doesnt add anything in this case. what you mean to say is simply 'evidence'. that's why I just said its "not quite right" instead of "totally wrong".

I agree with much of what you just posted. But the point remains: journalists will ask Iggy and Layton: under the scenario of a minority Conservative government, will you ask the GG to form a coalition government? follow-up will be "Are you prepared to include the Bloc in an informal or formal manner in this coalition government?"

Seriously, there is just no way around that. That's not the same thing as 'evidence of a coalition', which I never claimed there was.

Iggy and Layton can choose to waffle on this question, but that wont help their cause.
brooster2

The answer to questions about coalition intentions would justifiably be framed in terms similar to Harper's response when/if he's asked about his "hidden agenda" in the event of a CPC majority. I think partisans on both sides are trying to trap their adversary into responding to such hypothetical situations.

And I think both sides will avoid answering them. And I think both sides will be accused of waffling or lying.
alfanerd

Perhaps, but I think in one case its a straightforward and easy question, the other is more of an accusation which is easily denied.
brooster2

And one's own biases will probably determine which is which.
brooster2

"empirical is mostly used in a scientific context, and "empirical evidence" usually refers to data, in the scientific sense. it's not completely inappropriate but it just doesnt add anything in this case."

I agree that the term is most commonly used in scientific research but it isn't restricted to that context. I've been using it here to distinguish from hear-say, rumour, and allegation (of which there have been many examples in the discussion of the "coalition conspiracy").
TimesArrow

Harper's basically saying you got to tell me how you're going to play your cards' before' we sit down guys…law? hell no…i just made it up. Let's play!
alfanerd

Its not a law, but if you think journalists wont be asking the coalition parties what their coalition plans are, well, …, what can I say that really reflects that kind of naivete? oh yeah, well then you probably voted for Stephane Dion. i

They can lie, they can refuse to answer, and they can waffle on the question, but the question will be asked. more than once.

Quick question, TimesArrow, what is your broad take on wikileaks? Good or bad?
brooster2

And if the opposition parties truthfully deny any coalition conspiracy they will be accused of having a "hidden agenda". How do the Cons respond when that allegation is made of them?
alfanerd

if they truthfully deny they wont go in a coalition then that's great, it means no coalition. cons just deny the hidden agenda as some stupid opposition propaganda. i suggest libs and dippers do the same.
brooster2

Agreed. I can't speak for either opposition party, but I suspect one or both will choose to ignore the question or simply state that they are each campaigning for as many seats as they can get…period.

It doesn't matter much how they respond because they'll be accused, by the Cons, of lying (as will Harper when he denies there's any "hidden agenda).

It's a pointless, unproductive line of attack (except as propaganda) in either case. Eventually, they all might get around to debating real issues..
alfanerd

It's not the same thing as a 'hidden agenda'. If the opposition suspected Harper of wanting to criminalize abortion, because of a passed failed attempt (this is a hypothetical scenario), he would be asked by reporters repeatedly: will you attempt to criminalize abortion? he cant get away with just not answering such a direct and unambiguous question. Same thing with the coalition. if the libs and dippers go with a 'wait and see' approach that will be read by most voters as 'yes' they want a coalition if possible.

a hidden agenda though is so vague that you can never tell whether it's come through or not. was the census decision part of the 'hidden agenda'? you could argue it either way. but a coalition, like a bill to criminalize abortion, is unambiguous. the voters will know right away if they've been had.

if the libs and dippers want to stop that line of attack, they have only one option: to rule out a coalition categorically. and then they will look pretty stupid if they do try and form a coalition.

also, i cant think of an issue that's more 'real' then what kind of government the parties are prepared to form. that may not be your preferred topic, but its not true that this is not a real issue.
brooster2

"if the libs and dippers want to stop that line of attack, they have only one option: to rule out a coalition categorically. and then they will look pretty stupid if they do try and form a coalition."

Neither the opposition parties, nor anyone else, can "categorically rule out" a coalition during an election campaign (I feel like I'm in an endlessly repeating loop here), because it's ALWAYS a hypothetical outcome of ANY election in a parliamentary democracy. They can only truthfully say there is no coalition in the present (despite Harper's continuing insinuations to the contrary) nor any plan afoot.

The question is similar to the old trick query "have you stopped beating your wife?". Both a negative and a positive answer contain an implication of guilt. That's why Harper won't give it a rest and why all the opposition parties have chosen (so far) to simply ignore it.

As for the CPC' "hidden agenda", there was a fairly good hint of what such an agenda might include with the pre-prorogation budget statement in which the government introduced its intention to eliminate subsidies to political parties, as well as a roll back of pay equity and right to strike in the federal public sector (I won't even bother to mention the long form census fiasco again). None of those policies was mentioned in the CPC's election campaign. So they were either "hidden" or impulsive.

Both the coalition allegation and the hidden agenda contention speak to the parties' integrity in the conduct of election campaigns. I don't see why the opposition parties should be held to a different standard of transparency than the CPC.
alfanerd

I think all parties should be held to the same standard.

But, when you say that a coalition is always a hypothetical outcome, what you're saying is that the Libs and Dippers will form a coalition if the circumstances allow it. And that's the question: would you form a coalition if the circumstances allow it.

They could also rule it out completely – that's what they did last time (and then when and formed a coalition anyways, so that'll be fun to remind the voters that you cant take these people's word for it).

A coalition is not an outcome of an election, its a decision made by parties after the election if the results of the election allow it. They are in control – they can tell us what they plan to do and hold their word, or not.

I dont see why Harper cant categorically rule out a coalition with the bloc or liberals.

Clearly, the opposition parties have to expect that the most likely result of an election will be another conservative minority. They know if they will go in a coalition in that scenario. And they can either lie about it or tell the truth. Its all up to them.
TimesArrow

mixed. Some good, some bad…broad enough for you?
alfanerd

yeah ok. im just checking out your cognitive dissonance. I find many justify wikileaks as good because 'a democracy is only as good as the information that voters have'. But these same people also argue like you that its preposterous for voters to know whether the parties would form a coalition before voting.

typical cognitive dissonance of the left.
alfanerd

yeah ok. im just checking out your cognitive dissonance. I find many justify wikileaks as good because 'a democracy is only as good as the information that voters have'. But these same people also argue like you that its preposterous for voters to know whether the parties would form a coalition before voting.
TimesArrow

I couldn't vote for Dion if i'd wanted to…since we don't choose our PMs and i don't live in his riding.
alfanerd

oooh you got that technicality right on buddy. you super smart guy you.

so lame…
frobisher

"but if you think journalists wont be asking the coalition parties what their coalition plans are, well…"

Hold on a second. Aren't we supposed to believe the whole"lib-left, lamestream, lieberal" media is in some vast pinko conspiracy contra the Harper gov't? Why on earth wouldn''t they just let their fellow travelers skate on this coalition thingy? One would think it in their conspiracy -advancing interests to just whistle and look the other way.

McC_

sounds about right (with lots more words after Ignatieff's ellipsis).
bergkamp

Not only is Harper governing like Chretien/Liberals, he's talking like Chretien now as well.

Loraine Lamontagne

But Harper's spending like Trudeau – actually more than Trudeau.

LdKitchenersOwn

I was about to say… Trudeau never spent like THIS. Hell, Trudeau was eclipsed several PM's ago. We're in a whole new era now!

TimesArrow

I ham go- in fore my forth mandate afder all…whot du yu tink aboot dat buddy? heh heh heh

Loraine Lamontagne

However, it's not clear that the GG would have asked Mr. Dion to form a government had Harper's lost the confidence of the house. The GG may well have accepted a request of the prime minister to call an election.

Mike T.

It would certainly have been with Mme. Jean's authority to do either. The short time since the last election would have been a factor, who can say if it woudl have been the overriding one?

Blue

I suppose it is as dangerous to imagine how the past would have been different if one particular event had happened differently as it is to predict the future, but I`ll do it anyway.

I remember the 2004 election and there was no way the Liberals should have won it after Adscam. Harper should have led a minority gov`t for a couple years and then probably won a slight majority. The Liberals would have had time to rebuild by now, Harper would have lost his desire to fight again, voters would be ready for a change, and the polls would be showing a large Liberal majority in the upcoming Spring election.

Instead we have what we have—coalition or CPC majority.

So those voters who continued to vote Liberal in 2004 are to blame for the mess the Liberals are in now.

Emily

LOL boy it took a long romp around the mulberry bush, and some liquid refreshment no doubt, to come up with that one!
McC_

The problem was that the 2004 election was too early, if the CPC, NDP and BQ had let the Liberals float (flail, flounder and a number of other 'f' words) for a while longer in 2005-06, they could have fought an election after Gomery's final report was released (which Martin had promissed to do anyway) and the CPC would have won their majority (or close enough to it) then and there.

Blue

Your scenario is certainly as possible as mine. There was an impatient atmosphere around the opposition parties towards the Liberals in 2006 and once they smelled blood over Adscam, it was difficult for Martin to survive.

But I do believe that Canadian voters will give the Conservatives one run with a majority government—-whether that should have begun in 2006 or will happen in 2011…….that will soon be history.

McC_

timeline quibble: the "impatient atmosphere" was in Fall 2005, the election campaign was spread over Dec-Jan 2005-2006 (e-day was January 23, 2006), and Gomery released his final report February 1, 2006.

Bryan

I wish half of us that voted NDP in 2004 had voted Liberal; I wouldn't have got stuck with Poilivere for the last 6 years.

hollinm

That is exactly what the next election will be about. The more the coalition partners are trapped into saying no coalition the more hypocritical it will seem when they actually try it.
Of course with no policy that will hide Ignatieff's tax and spend ways. How much will homecare cost? Is it truly going to be an improvment to what is already available? How much will a national daycare plan cost $5-10 billion annually if it is truly a national program? Is he in favour of increasing corporate taxes? So you may want a no policy election campaign because the country is in no mood for big socialist programs.

MostlyCivil

"the coalition partners

The NDP, Liberals and the Bloc, or the NDP, Bloc and the Conservatives?

hollinm

It will be a frosty day in hell before the NDP and the Bloc join the Conservatives in a formal coalition. They would have to swallow themselves whole. Not going to happen.

MostlyCivil

But informal coalitions are okay, then? As in, "help us pass the budget and you get 2.9 billion extra" kind of informal?

hollinm

Negotiating with a party is not a coalition and you well know it. Isn't that how minority parliaments are suppose to work. Oh, I forgot Harper doesn't work with the other parties and that is how he has stayed in government for five years. Right?
MostlyCivil

"Isn't that how minority parliaments are suppose to work"

Yep. He's worked with the other parties for several years now. The bloc and the NDP included. Kind of a long-standing, informal coalition, which is one of the wonderful way parliament can work.

Just to turn the tables, I'd like to see the current PM promise that he would never attempt a coalition if he came up a seat or two short in a minority.
hollinm

He could have tried the coaliton last time out when he was only 12 seats short of a majority but accepted the will of the electorate. I think that tells you what he thinks of a coalition government for Canada at this particular time.

So you acknowledge that in a minority parliament he must work with other parties. You can call it what you want for your own talking points. I simply say he got the support of other parties on specific legislation etc. Thats working together. It has nothing to do with a coalition.
Frank Blackwood

The Liberals will not win under the leadership of Michel Ignatieff.
They need to deal a new set of cards . I would think Canadians prefer to have the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin at the reins. However, since he will not run, I will cast my vote for the popularity of MP Justin Trudeau.
Bill

Yeah, that's what we need… another Trudeau at the reins to help destroy the country… fruit dosen't fall far from the tree!!

McC_

I wasn't forgetting any of that, and I suggest you re-read my post and the comment that it was in response to (in all fairness, I know that it gets tricky to trace these long/complicated threads).

hollinm

I saw the caveat you posted after I had sent my comment.

hollinm

Yeah lets just get rid of those pesky elections. We all know the lefties should be the government and so lets just let them form a coalition whenever they don't like what the party in power is doing. Unfortunately for the left Canadians still want a say in who governs them. (sarcasm intended)

Mike T.

That is neither what I said nor the point – not that my response should encourage you to blather further on the subject.
Mike T.

this is an absurd response even from you.

hollinm

Not so absurd when you look at some of the comments. A lot of them agree that the opposition parties had a right to take power. Technically that may be true. However, if as a lot say the government must maintain the confidence of the House how is that possible when the left wants their agenda implemented and will do anything they can to impede the government from implementing its agenda? So in that scenario if there is no chance of the left wing opposition parties supporting the right wing government then lets not waste our time. Lets simply allow the left wing parties to form a coalition and be done with it. That is the effect of what some on this board are saying.
Lets get real here. The coalition of fools blew it the last time. They will not make the same mistake this time. So the idea of a coalition is there for all to see. Harper will emphasize it and Canadians will be the ultimate judge of whether we should continue with a minority government or appoint a coalition to govern the country.

lenny

"let them form a coalition whenever they don't like what the party in power is doing"

Indeed. It's called "democracy".
Those "them" you're talking about are the only reason your dear Harper is able to form a government. Without their support a man with 1 in 3 votes and a minority of seats certainly couldn't form a government.

hollinm

I have never argued that the coalition is not a legitimate form of government. However, those that support the coalition do not seem to see the irony in allowing a Separatist party who is bent on breaking up the country of participating in the coalition. The sole motivation of the Bloc is to show Quebecers that the federation does not work for them and so it would be his intent if part of the coalition to make sure the government does not function in what he sees is the best interest of Quebec.
Once again this thing about 1 in 3 votes. Technically that may be true but votes are not fungible under our system. We get one vote and we choose the party we support. With five parties the votes are spread all over the place. You cannot add them up and say somehow the government has no right to govern. It simply doesn't work that way.
Your buddies in the opposition could bring down the government at any time but they support the government because they see their own circumstances of winning clearly. They like you and I see the polls. They will lose. The question for the Libs is how badly.

lenny

"You cannot add them up and say somehow the government has no right to govern. "

Maybe you could show me where I said such a thing.

TimesArrow

Does your last point relate to 08, or Harper's new comments? Puzzled?
alfanerd

Yeah I would be very satisfied with that particular answer as well.

Part of the problem here is that the government seems to be trying to vilify the whole concept of government by coalition when, in reality, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept.

No, there isnt anything inherently wrong with the concept. But the coalition proved unpopular with voters in 2008 so Harper hopes to capitalize on that in the next election. It really isnt that complicated and Harper's strategy makes perfect sense.
alfanerd

Yeah I would be very satisfied with that particular answer as well.

Part of the problem here is that the government seems to be trying to vilify the whole concept of government by coalition when, in reality, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept.

No, there isnt anything inherently wrong with the concept. But the coalition proved unpopular with voters in 2008 so Harper hopes to capitalize on that in the next election. It really isnt that complicated and Harper's strategy makes perfect sense.
Emily

I have no idea who or what you're responding to. I just know that you have no idea how parliament works.

But then you're hazy on the events surrounding the coalition and the global financial crisis as well, so I suppose it's not surprising.

Con—venient excuses for a Con of convenience.