[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Surely that's a political calculation for the Lib leadership to make, no?  If Ignatieff thinks the Canadian public will buy a coalition including one or both of the Bloc and the NDP, go for it.

That is exactly why Iggy isnt going for it or giving any impression that he might.  Far from Josephus saying opposition to a coalition is a figment of Harper's imagination, opposition is real for the very reason Malthus identified:

The problem here of course is that the Libs are competing for the centre votes, who in general dislike the NDP and the Bloc far more than they dislike the Conservatives.

[crazy canuck]

Harper is less of a coalition risk than Ignatieff though.

Obviously. The real question is how big the small c conservatives who vote liberal and consider the idea of a coalition anathema is.

So far, it seems most of the people who talk about how awful it would be are voting Conservative already. I mean, I expect that someone like CC might one day vote Liberal, but I don't think that his vote is really up for grabs in this election.

Exactly.  And the number of Liberal voters who would jump to the Conservatives if there were to be an NDP coalition would give the Conservatives a majority.

Also, lets not forget that Iggy himself is not exactly a left of centre politician.

[Grey Fox]

No one in the Bloc can in their right mind be a Cabinet Minister.

If there's a coalition the Bloc help it, not be part of it.

I agree.  But didnt the Bloc leader sign the coalition agreement a couple years ago?

Yes but around here they phrase it has "NPD-Libs coalition backed by the Bloc".

[Malthus]

In Canada, the way to form a successful coallition seems to be this:

Step 1: hold election. Each party runs seperately.

Step 2: the losing parties notice that, together, they outnumber the nominal winning party.

Step 3: losing parties form coallition. Form government.

The way to test whether Canadians really like the notion of a coalition would, surely, be to reverse that, and announce the intention of forming one in advance of the election (should the election numbers justify or require such a step).

[crazy canuck]

No one in the Bloc can in their right mind be a Cabinet Minister.

If there's a coalition the Bloc help it, not be part of it.

I agree.  But didnt the Bloc leader sign the coalition agreement a couple years ago?

Yes but around here they phrase it has "NPD-Libs coalition backed by the Bloc".

So the Bloc cannot be viewed as being part of a Federal coalition for the same reason that Iggy cannot be seen to be part of a leftist coalition.

[Grey Fox]

Pretty much.

[Jacob]

It is a bit of a pickle for potential coalition supporters. It makes sense that it has a fair amount of support from the NDP types I know, as it would - as CC says - define the Liberals as further left than they like to position themselves currently; those people would dearly love for the Liberal party (and voters) to be more to the left than they are.

But like Malthus says, the Liberals are really contending for the centre (vs NDP and CP), centre-left (vs NDP) and centre-right (vs CP) voters, leaving the left to the NDP and the right to the CP (leaving out Quebec for the time being, as it has its own dynamics).

The thing to do, of course, is to run without a coalition and then coalesce,as it were, after the election; but that would be seen as pretty dishonest and could be damaging.

In the end, it comes down to how well Ignatieff and Harper run their campaigns, and to the national mood.

[Jacob]

I think that it'd be good to see the BQ as a formal part of a governing coalition one day; I don't think perpetual oppositionhood is a good thing.

Seems unlikely for quite a while, though, from both sides.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

What Yakie said pretty much sums up how I feel, minus the stuff about owning a house. I'm definitely older and crankier. and want harper gone to become the footnote he deserves to be.

Whatever Harper deserves it is certainly not a mere footnote.  He has governed successfully under a minority government.  That is a feat that has rarely occurred in our form of Parliamentary democracy.   If you really want Harper gone you should be upset at the fact that the opposition is causing an election now.  Chances are Harper will be here for a long time because of that decision.

Does not change how I feel about it. I didn't want our almost yearly elections to happen again. Even if Harper gets a majority, I don't think Canada will be any less fractious afterwards, likely more polarized. the blood Soaked anti-Iggy ads alone should stop anyone with a brain from voting Con. Childish and lamer than lame. makes us far too American in our politicking- only real issue is negative- Iggy's an asshole? likely. But likely so is Harper. And Layton.

I want to see one ad from any of the parties taht's actually about issues instead of bashing people running. Vote for me because the other guy is a jerk doesn't cut it for me.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

The more I see al these political ads and threads about politics the more I think the only gov we should have is a coalition. work together for the people you bunch of privileged jerks.

[crazy canuck]

Buddha, our resident political Nihilist.

[Neil]

How can you have a campaign based on the issues when both the main parties are substantively similar on the issues?  The parties that are out there have no chance of getting into government, and in the case of the Greens have little chance of even electing an MP.

[Malthus]

What Yakie said pretty much sums up how I feel, minus the stuff about owning a house. I'm definitely older and crankier. and want harper gone to become the footnote he deserves to be.

Whatever Harper deserves it is certainly not a mere footnote.  He has governed successfully under a minority government.  That is a feat that has rarely occurred in our form of Parliamentary democracy.   If you really want Harper gone you should be upset at the fact that the opposition is causing an election now.  Chances are Harper will be here for a long time because of that decision.

Does not change how I feel about it. I didn't want our almost yearly elections to happen again. Even if Harper gets a majority, I don't think Canada will be any less fractious afterwards, likely more polarized. the blood Soaked anti-Iggy ads alone should stop anyone with a brain from voting Con. Childish and lamer than lame. makes us far too American in our politicking- only real issue is negative- Iggy's an asshole? likely. But likely so is Harper. And Layton.

I want to see one ad from any of the parties taht's actually about issues instead of bashing people running. Vote for me because the other guy is a jerk doesn't cut it for me.

The problem here is that the cons and libs just aren't very different in terms of actual policies. They can't come up with pithy campaign ads highlighting the virtues of their policies, because neither have any that distinguish them. 

The cons seem to have given up their vision of a conservative social policy more or less - that is, they allow individual cons to pursue bits and pieces of it, but without any conviction from the party as a whole - because, basically, they do not wish to scare away centerist voters. The libs have seemingly given up the Trudeau-era vision of a liberal Canada, but have not replaced it with anything much.

It would be difficult to articulate exactly what is really different about the actual policies of these parties without refering to their histories. Certainly, their support splits up along regional lines, but what of a unifying national vision? 

[Grey Fox]

I think that it'd be good to see the BQ as a formal part of a governing coalition one day; I don't think perpetual oppositionhood is a good thing.

Seems unlikely for quite a while, though, from both sides.

Imo, the BQ is pose for a change when Duceppe finnally leaves to go lead the provincial PQ.

[crazy canuck]

It would be difficult to articulate exactly what is really different about the actual policies of these parties without refering to their histories. Certainly, their support splits up along regional lines, but what of a unifying national vision?

Surprisingly a difference of sorts has emerged.  The Libs are talking about spending programs while the Cons are talking about taxation policies.

Although I agree with you that there isnt a defining issue to separate them - other than the fact that Iggy is more likely to form a coaltion with the left.  Which is probably another reason the Cons raised it.