This article appears in Jan 1-7, 2009.
coalition
To those that say that a merged government is undemocratic, look at how the vote turned out.Harper has a minority, so despite what you think, it means he’s not wanted in power.
Leave a comment
Not wanting Harper in power does not necessarily mean that a person has to be in favour of a coalition government.
The vote clearly indicates who the people wanted as a Prime Minister. What the opposition is attempting is nearing treason, for which they should be hung.
That’s utter bullshit Scott and shows just how much you know about Canadian parliament. If you look at the statistics, over 60% of the country voted for someone else other than Harper. That means the seats in parliament are occupied by more MP’s other than the Conservatives, which also means, by Canadian law, that they can try to remove Harper if they think it’s the right thing to do. Now, if you want to debate whether the coalition government would be any better that is another point all together and to SwampDonkey’s point, you can say that in this case, maybe a Conservative minority would be the lesser of two evils. Anyway, point remains Scott, inform yourself, please, before giving your opinion.
5 weeks ago called. They want their headline back. Yawn.
BRoc you have no idea how well informed I am or am not. It is a minority government. But just because the Conservatives do not have more seats then all the other parties collectively, does not mean that Canada didn’t pick who they wanted. The single party that has the highest percent of votes, well, their leader gets to be the PM. That is how it works in Canada. The 60 some odd percent that did not vote for Harper means fuck all. I am pretty sure all or most of the people that vote understand that, well I hope they do.
Actually Scott, in Canada, we vote for parties in Canada, not the specific person. What you propose is actually a US-style type of politics. Harper in fact does not have the final say in the creation of legislation, he just happens to be the leader of the party that has more than 50% of the vote. Let’s please make that clear.
What country are you in Dr. Fever? We vote for people in Canada. Did you ever see those funny little election signs? Names belonging to people are on those. Also, Harper does not have more than 50% of the votes, nor the seats in Parliament. Let’s make that clear.Let’s also make clear as Qwerty says: 5 weeks ago called.
I didn’t vote for the usless excuse for a PM that we have. And my vote does NOT mean fuck all. If the PM is not doing what the people of Canada want, not just what 40% of them want, then he should be removed. Simple as that. Our current PM is a useless tit. Although I do not necessarily agree with this coalition gov’t either.
Thank You BRoc.My response was a bit emotional. Because I want the Bloc Québécois as far away from Canadian politics as possible. And the possibility of them being ‘the balance of power’; I am not sure if that frightens me or pisses me off.
Political discussions on a form suck. It is more geared for a real-time discussion. But I now feel the need to re-act. The whole non-confidence seems to based largely on the lack of an economic stimulus package. No country has really proved this works. The rest of the countries that are struggling economical that have tried to stimulate the their economy by throwing money at the problem, are still spiraling in to the ‘black hole’; aka ‘recession’. There are also a few other stupid reasons such as political party subsidies, which there should not be in the first place, or at least lower. The suspension Civil Servants ability to strike. They are not even stopping it all together, just temporarily saying you can not do it. They should not be allowed to strike. Again, these people knew what they were getting into prior to taking the position. Besides that, isn’t that what the fucking Labour Relations Board is for. So there really is no need to strike in the first place. Get rid of Labour Relations Boards if they are not there to resolve employee/employer disputes. And the temporary suspension of Female right to go to court to settle wage parity disputes. Again, the are not saying women can not go to court just not right now. Obviously, they are going table a motion of sorts, they have something in the works. Every women that feels they got slighted because of there pay verses the next persons pay, a male, can not go to court over it. We do not have that kind of resources to throw around. I am not saying it is not a worthy cause, just too expensive and time consuming. There has to be some sort of blanket policy that covers this issue.So, in my opinion there should be no coalition at all. It is not needed. It is an over re-action, much like most of the Governments knee-jerk decisions. And personally, I think there are of ‘sour grapes’, you know sore losers. Mix those reasons with the Bloc Québécois making decisions for our/my country. How could I not say ‘Let them Hang’?
Scott you are wrong.Under Canadian Legislation people vote for individual MP’s, when a certain percentage is attained then their PARTY is recognised. The recognised party has a voice in the house. Now, the PRIME MINISTER is selected by these members based on CONFIDENCE by the other members. Traditionally this is determined by which party has the most members present in the house to enact laws and legislation. Conservatives edged out hence the other parties stepped aside to prevent the wheeles of government from coming to a screeching halt.NEVER in the vote has there been Stephen Harper, Stephan Dieon, Jack Layton and Gil Guiseppe all on one ballot for Prime Minister. That is because in Canada the policy is not to vote for the Prime Minister, rather just your elected official. That being said, all four members in question WON their riding and as a result is just as viable to be PM. This problem becomes more murky since there isn’t a two part system to etch out a definitive winner and no disputes of confidence can be made becuase the votes arn’t there. Since more than 60 per cent DIDN’T vote conservative the votes of non-confidence can happen with far more frequency (albeit with more questionable validity) than with a two party system. A coalition actually essentuates the reality of the vote because without some coalition official or just for the moment, NOTHING would get done.Imagine IF the Liberals, Bloc, NDP, Green, or whichever simply decide to vote against everything the Conservatives decide to pass simply becuase it isn’t their party. then there would effectivly be no government until the next election when hopefully a party wins at least fifty percent of the vote to be able to pass whatever they want.Minority government meanst that there MUST be a coalition in order for it to function. Nevermind the rhetoric, Canada already voted for a coalition by not bringing a sound majority.
The people voted for a conservative-led minority parliament. They didnt vote for a liberal led minority parliament.While the rules say that Dion could try and become PM with the backing of the other two, it was immoral and unethical to overthrow a PM elected 6 or so weeks beforehand, and one that he supported earlier that week.and 2 more things…- 60% voted against, harper but 75% voted against dion. 100% voted against a lib-NDP coalition.- the bloc have the balance of power for the tories too, and survived a few budgets already because of this “seperatist” support. These guys are elected to their seats by Candian citizens, and have every right in the world to vote for whatver their constituents (or party) think is right. They arent treasonous.
It isn’t pretty, but Harper caused this problem himself. Had he not tried to become oppertunistic and manicial in his policy makings then the coalition would not exist. Harper, tried to set policy that would destroy and bankrupt the other parties. Fuck that shit, this fool gots to go. THAT why they stood against him, and the fact that he was talking shit about ‘The economy is fine, nothing to worry about” made their case easier…JUST like when Harper dissolved government HIMSELF to host an early election. THAT is unethical so I have no sympathy for his shit.
“Minority government meanst that there MUST be a coalition in order for it to function. Nevermind the rhetoric, Canada already voted for a coalition by not bringing a sound majority.”No, most of Canada didn’t vote Conservative, it’s true. But not voting for the tories ≠ voting for all the other parties to get together. Particularly since the Bloc wasn’t included on an awful lot of ballots out there that had Green, NDP and Liberal on them. I don’t have an actual stance on anything as of yet since this is more or less stalled until the 26th anyway, but the inferences that everyone not Tory wants a Coalition is driving me nuts.
swampdonkey, you are the first person in a while who’s comments i agree with.
I’d have no problem with a coalition government if the voter turn out was higher. Maybe we wouldn’t even HAVE a minority gov’t if almost half of all eligible voters hadn’t sat on their lazy asses instead of expending the little amount of effort it would’ve taken to vote.Sure, MOST people didn’t vote conservative, but close to MOST people didn’t vote. FFS.
I understand your initial point and concern Scott, however, let’s look at the situation: technically speaking, yes, the Conservative party did indeed win a minority government. However, they did not win the the majority of the votes (nor the actual popular vote no less) the issue is that there is no confidence in the parliament that we have. As such, a vote of no confidence happens on an issue that needs to be passed (such as a budget). This means that the ruling PARTY needs to make legislation that appeases both side (this is the benefit of of a minority government) and if they do not, they fall. The problem is, there was just an election and the people do not want that, but we cannot allow things like public service sector employees to not have the capacity to strike. The compromise is the coalition. Coalitions work in Europe and have functioned for some time. Until we reform our electoral policies to reflect more towards representational elections it’s, the best we’ve got. Otherwise we can accept the Republic-style of politics ( the US) and allow a disgrace like the outgoing President. As to the comment of: “5 weeks ago called. They want their headline back” you’re the reason voter turnout was so low in the past election. If politics were more animated like this and capturing people’s opinions we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.
I just look at it like this: the people who actually got up off their asses voted in such a fashion that the conservatives got the (minority) balance of power. More people voted to have conservative representation in their ridings than they did any one individual party. While I can see how the argument that “more people voted NOT to have the conservatives in power”, the vote turned out the way it did. I’m not saying I particularly enjoy Stephen Harper this time around, but if it were the OTHER way around and the conservatives were trying to usurp liberal or NDP or whatever power, people would be doing A LOT more bitching about it……although that could be telling of something. Fuck this is such a non committal response. heh.I’m pretty sure it was Dion that fucked the liberals this past election. With Ignatiaff (hope I spelled that right!) as leader I honestly think the Liberals would have a good chance at a majority if another election was called.
Dr. FeverA quote from my previous post: see below ↓ “The single party that has the highest percent of votes, well, their leader gets to be the PM.”How much more clear do you want it ?As for ” The 60 some odd percent that did not vote for Harper means fuck all.” I was more or less paraphrasing BRoc. Who said, “If you look at the statistics, over 60% of the country voted for someone else other than Harper.”
Dr Fever, hate to say it, but Scott is right on that one. In Canada a lot of the campaign is driven by who the party leaders are. Case in point, is Dion who was not the right leader for the Liberals and probably lead to their defeat in the election. Scott, you obviously know how Canadian parliament works, however, my reply was more an emotional reaction to the wording of your bitch calling the coalition treason, which is total bullshit.