[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[viper37]

The Liberals had many faults. Chrétien governed with an iron fist, and intervened everywhere. But I have no recollection of similar contempt for Parliament procedure and its sovereignty. But if you have examples, I will be happy to include them in my criticism...

It was a majority government, all the time, except for Martin.
Have you ever seen in the history of the Commonwealth, a political party accusing itself of contempt for Parliament?

[Josephus]

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.

Yes. But the fear in the Liberal camp is that the notion of "separatists and socialists" will drive away more conservative (small c) Liberals (big L). The Conservatives and Liberals are really not that far apart ideologically, and "right wing Liberals" might see the potential of a coalition government as worse than a Conservative government.

This bit of propaganda is really a smart play for Harper, which is why the opposition is making noise of how Harper himself once tried to do the same thing.

[Neil]

Harper is less of a coalition risk than Ignatieff though.

[Jacob]

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.

[Fireblade]

So what I don't get.. if Harper is expected to win another election, why would the Liberals/Bloc/NDP pass a vote of no-confidence? I would expect that they would have done so if the Liberals or NDP thought they were going to make big gains, but if the outcome is going to pretty much the status quo, then what's the point?

Did Ignatieff think that because Harper was found in contempt of Parliament, the voters were all suddenly going to dump the Conservatives? Or were they pretty much "forced" to pass a vote of no-confidence because Harper was found in contempt of Parliament?

[Jacob]

On a related topic, what would be the likely practical implications of a coalition government including the BQ? How would it likely act and what would the outcome be? I mean, other than the overblown rhetoric?

Would it lessen or increase the "two solitudes"? (Though we obviously have more than two in this country).

What would their influence be on more day to day issues? The BQ are vaguely liberal, leftish right? Do they have any other pet causes beside the cultural sovereignty of Quebec?

[Jacob]

So what I don't get.. if Harper is expected to win another election, why would the Liberals/Bloc/NDP pass a vote of no-confidence? I would expect that they would have done so if the Liberals or NDP thought they were going to make big gains, but if the outcome is going to pretty much the status quo, then what's the point?

Did Ignatieff think that because Harper was found in contempt of Parliament, the voters were all suddenly going to dump the Conservatives? Or were they pretty much "forced" to pass a vote of no-confidence because Harper was found in contempt of Parliament?

The Economist says it's because both the Conservatives and the Liberals (and one assumes the NDP) believe that they can do better than what the polls indicate if they run an effective campaign.

Sounds reasonable to me.

The Liberals probably view this as Ignatieff's proving ground, which seems alright to me. Either he goes out and improves the Liberals position and formulates something coherent or he packs it up and the Liberals continue to reinvent themselves.

If you think about it that way, it actually makes sense. He's taking his leadership of the Liberals to the electorate.

[Malthus]

I find the way that whole thing played out quite interesting.

Personally, I'm fine with a coalition and think it's a fine way to run a country; the Scandinavian countries do fine with it and I don't think the UK is faring too badly either.

On the other hand, if there is such a visceral opposition to it amongst the broader Canadian population then fair enough, we shouldn't have a coalition government. The thing that's not completely clear to me is how much that "visceral opposition" is real and how much it's a chimera created by Harper's team.

I think if the opposition parties formed a coallition *before* the election, the move would ensure a Conservative majority. Which is why you will not see them do it.

The only way for this coallition plan to work, would be to run an election as if there would be no possibility of a coallition - then form one *after* the election. 

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. 

[Malthus]

So what I don't get.. if Harper is expected to win another election, why would the Liberals/Bloc/NDP pass a vote of no-confidence? I would expect that they would have done so if the Liberals or NDP thought they were going to make big gains, but if the outcome is going to pretty much the status quo, then what's the point?

Did Ignatieff think that because Harper was found in contempt of Parliament, the voters were all suddenly going to dump the Conservatives? Or were they pretty much "forced" to pass a vote of no-confidence because Harper was found in contempt of Parliament?

There have been a series of small-scale Con gov't scandals here, which while perhaps indicative of a government growing in arrogance and corruption were not really blockbusters in and of themselves - but lead to considerable heated rhetoric and a contempt of parliament charge.

I suspect that the opposition parties were in effect seduced or trapped by their own posturing. Haven made a big noise about the Con's mis-deeds, they could not then tamely rubber-stamp the Con's budget (by coincidence introduced at the same time) without looking like giant pussies.

The problem for them is that the scandals are not really horrible or memorable enough to survive in public conciousness right through to election day. Nor are there any really serious points of doctrine or policy seperating the two major parties. Economically, Canada has weathered the recent storm reasonably well, which bodes badly for the opposition. The opposition has to hope that new and better scandals emerge by election time to discredit the gov't.

[Fireblade]

Thanks. Canadian politics are both very amusing and interesting.

I did find it interesting that the Greens, Bloc, and NDP were all very similar to each other ideologically. I don't see why they couldn't all merge into one party (assuming the Bloc stops insisting that Quebec should become an independent nation), kind of like how the PCP and the Western Alliance (or whatever) merged to become the Conservatives.

[Malthus]

Thanks. Canadian politics are both very amusing and interesting.

I did find it interesting that the Greens, Bloc, and NDP were all very similar to each other ideologically. I don't see why they couldn't all merge into one party (assuming the Bloc stops insisting that Quebec should become an independent nation), kind of like how the PCP and the Western Alliance (or whatever) merged to become the Conservatives.

They are broadly similar in overall political orientation, but each has one single "big issue" which is really the reason for its very existence, and they are to an extent at odds over than one big issue - respecively, the environment (Greens), the unions (NDP), and Quebec interests and nationalism (Bloc).

[crazy canuck]

But the very notion that Coalitions are "bad" are purely a Harper invention

Wow, what a pursuasive guy that Harper is!  His ablity to single handedly create the notion that a coalition amongst all the opposition parties is bad AND get Iggy to adopt that position is something to behold.  Someone with that kind of ability would make a great PM!

Coalitions are part of several  good western and democratic countries(Britain, for one) and part of the parliamentary ideal. As the leader of the party with most seats, Harper has first dibs on forming a government; but our constitution allows the opposition to form a coalition and rule instead.

I think you are being a bit intellectually dishonest here.  The coalition works in Britain because two parties who are fairly close ideologically are able to work together.  The reason the Liberals have to run from the idea of a coalition (and the reason it is not simply a creation of Harper's imagination) is that the Liberals would have to admit that they are ideologically left in order to work with the NDP and the Bloc -  and that would get them defeated.  As I said, no one, other than NDP supporters, want to see and NDP cabinet minister.  And certainly no one outside Quebec wants to see a Bloc Cabinet Minister.

A bit hyperbolic. The Conservative Party had a visceral reaction, not sure about Canadians.

Again, all you have to do is look at how fast Iggy tried to distance himself from any coaltion with the left to know I am right.

[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.

[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?