[jade_lee]

maxclover writes.

"Ignatieff playing his hand better than a lot of people give him credit for.

He is certainly well aware that the polls say that most Canadians don't want an election this summer. And that the BQ and NDP don't want an election either, as their numbers are down at the moment.

But, if Harper's update contains too little of the right kind of news, or too much of the wrong kind, Iggy can vote against it in good conscience. If the other opposition parties vote with him, he'll become PM; if not, which seems likely, he'll have made a principled stand, which is what most Canadians would like their leaders to display more often. It will benefit him in the long run, especially if Layton chickens out on bringing down the government.

He's got the politics right, and it's benefiting the country too--remember, these "report cards" were a reaction to the jerky stuff Harper pulled last November, "stimulating the economy" by removing unions right to strike and equal pay for equal work. Iggy's got the schoolyard bully playing much nicer than in the past."


This is a very important time to have a new government get in there and have a good look at our government's current accounting.

 

[kEiThZ]

Of course he has the right to govern if they vote confidence in the government, but he has no mandate when there is no political party he could align with and he is such a small percent of the vote.

By saying this you show a complete lack of understanding of our political system. Would you say that the Liberals had no legitimacy when they were getting majorities with only a few percentage points more in the polls in the 90s than the Conservatives are getting today?

I am highly sensitive to those who seek to dumb down our history and political systems. Your suggestion is as bad as Harper's suggestion that the Liberal-NDP (and BQ sort of) coalition would have lacked legitimacy.

Our system does not require a majority seats in the house to form government. Therefore, no party needs to 'align' with another party to form government. They could do so, of course, to form coalition governments but that's largely been an exception for the last half-century or more in this country.

I'm not redefining the political system, I'm explaining how people already think. Harper isn't well liked and if his policies have to be moderated by a Liberal party that will only vote confidence when he has Liberal-esque statements and platforms, then it wrongly makes the Conservative party look more moderate and gives them standing to win a majority in the future.

That a party isn't well liked does not mean they lack the legitimacy to govern. The only day that they need to be well liked is on election day. Suggesting otherwise, is an attempt at twisting our political framework to suit your own political goals.

As for how people already think...I don't think it's quite as clear-cut. And I think it's presumptuous to assume you would know how people think. I supported the coalition in the fall (even though I am no fan of the NDP and detest the BQ), while I had several friends who were regular Liberal donors who could not stomach the idea of Jack Layton having a hand in government and the separatists pulling the puppet strings. They would have rather seen Harper govern for a few more years till the Liberals could overtake the Conservatives without any help. Other than a few Liberal die-hards in Toronto (and their Conservative counter-parts in Alberta), I would suggest that there is significant nuance in political attitudes in the rest of Canada and no where near the polarization that you seem to want.

 

[afransen]

Would you say that the Liberals had no legitimacy when they were getting majorities with only a few percentage points more in the polls in the 90s than the Conservatives are getting today?

I think there was definitely a legitimacy issue in the '90s. These days, if you consider second order preferences, it's pretty clear that Harper doesn't have a very strong mandate in terms of popular support. That is to say, almost no one supports the CPC as their second choice.

Our system does not require a majority seats in the house to form government. Therefore, no party needs to 'align' with another party to form government. They could do so, of course, to form coalition governments but that's largely been an exception for the last half-century or more in this country.

They need to earn the support of Parliament. I don't think bullying Parliament was the intent.

As for how people already think...I don't think it's quite as clear-cut. And I think it's presumptuous to assume you would know how people think. I supported the coalition in the fall (even though I am no fan of the NDP and detest the BQ), while I had several friends who were regular Liberal donors who could not stomach the idea of Jack Layton having a hand in government and the separatists pulling the puppet strings. They would have rather seen Harper govern for a few more years till the Liberals could overtake the Conservatives without any help. Other than a few Liberal die-hards in Toronto (and their Conservative counter-parts in Alberta), I would suggest that there is significant nuance in political attitudes in the rest of Canada and no where near the polarization that you seem to want.

I think the attempt at coalition grievously harmed Harper, and changed his behaviour. Had they not attempted a coalition, Harper would have proceeded with his plan to bankrupt the opposition parties by rejigging the political financing scheme in his favour. It also made him stop blowing sunshine up our asses like he did in November (remember the projection of 5 surpluses in a row? The Ministry of Finance lost whatever credibility it had left).

So even without the coalition being implemented, I think it served a very useful purpose.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think there was definitely a legitimacy issue in the '90s. These days, if you consider second order preferences, it's pretty clear that Harper doesn't have a very strong mandate in terms of popular support. That is to say, almost no one supports the CPC as their second choice.

Oh please, that's just a weak attack at the legitimacy of the current government simply because you don't like them. If apparently the CPC lacked as much legitimacy as you suggest, why didn't the opposition bring down the government earlier?

Does the Governor General consider "second-order effects" when appointing the Prime Minister? Do voters in Canada revolt if the party that wins an election does not score high enough on "second-order preferences"?

If that's going to be the argument, there's quite a few moderate Liberals who would consider the NDP a third choice over a Conservative second. Does that mean that the coalition would have been illegitimate? The second-order preferences argument is BS. We don't have preferential voting in Canada. Till we do, the only rule that determines the legitimacy of a government is the mandate given by voters on election day. End of story.

They need to earn the support of Parliament. I don't think bullying Parliament was the intent.

I don't agree with the tactics but that does not mean that the practices were illegal or anything. You can call it bullying. I'd call it the Opposition bending over. When it comes to a minority government, the level of 'bullying' is largely determined by Opposition parties who command a majority of seats in the house.

I think the attempt at coalition grievously harmed Harper, and changed his behaviour. Had they not attempted a coalition, Harper would have proceeded with his plan to bankrupt the opposition parties by rejigging the political financing scheme in his favour. It also made him stop blowing sunshine up our asses like he did in November (remember the projection of 5 surpluses in a row? The Ministry of Finance lost whatever credibility it had left).

So even without the coalition being implemented, I think it served a very useful purpose.

Read my argument again. I said that how much a party is liked or not does not determine the legitimacy of the government. And I suggested that there is much more to Canada's politicial views that cut-and-dry attitudes that you typically find in Toronto or Alberta (I generally find Toronto Liberals to be as fanatically ideological as Albertan Conservatives). How the coalition played out or its impact on the political discourse is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the government. Did it have a positive impact on Conservative behaviour. Most definitely. Did it impact the legitimacy of the Conservative mandate? Most definitely not. They are the elected government of the day and until they get ousted, they have right to govern as they see fit.

This discussion about legitimacy is ridiculous. Since when do we start debating the legitimacy of governments just because we don't like the party in power? If we were a one-party state perhaps there'd be validity to that argument. But as a liberal democracy, and one which exercises the franchise at a frequency that some would consider excessive, I'd say that there's little danger of any of our governments, of any stripe and at any level, having issues with legitimacy.

 

[Brandon716]

By saying this you show a complete lack of understanding of our political system.

Or I just have some fresh ideas that aren't standard to Canadians. Its not a misunderstanding, its just a discussion of things Canadians aren't used to. I understand a coalition isn't known well in Canada, but that doesn't make me misunderstand or ignorant about the system, or that a party can rule in a minority status. You're not really listening to me.

It seems a common trend on here that if someone disagrees they go after the intelligence of someone instead of just the fact there is a disagreement. But given our past discussions, I wouldn't expect anything better from you. I don't have any pretentions that I have all the answers, all I can do is inject new ideas into an ongoing discussion of how to get Canada's left and centre-left voices more unified and governing the nation.

Ignatieff wasn't my first choice to become Liberal leader, with his war stances and his background being outside of Canada as much as in I think the NDP stands to remain strong for as long as he's leader. In order to tame Ignatieff's right leaning tendencies, I think a coalition with the NDP for people who'd never give Ignatieff the light of day would be a benefit to the nation.

And here goes the part about you not listening to me... I already said I have no pretentions that it'll actually happen, I'm just talking in a discussion about various political scenarios.

Just so you know, Chretien helped negotiate the deal between the Liberals and the NDP, and I think Chretien knows far more about how to lead the Liberal party with his instincts than Ignatieff.

If you want to call me ignorant, you might as well call Chretien ignorant as well.

 

[Hydrogen]

Of course he has the right to govern if they vote confidence in the government, but he has no mandate when there is no political party he could align with and he is such a small percent of the vote.

If the Conservatives have achieved the legal right to govern, then they have a mandate to do so. They will continue to be the government until members of parliament vote in sufficient numbers to indicate no confidence in that government, or until they call an election.

I'm not redefining the political system, I'm explaining how people already think.

No, you are explaining what you think. Don't presume to know what everyone else is thinking.

Market the party as a party willing to take sacrifice in order to achieve a common Canadian purpose.

So Brandon, rather than appealing to some vague notion of a common Canadian purpose, please tell us in detail what that is (and not just your opinion of what it is, but the actual definition and details of that notion). And also, please include the parts wherein you can separate out members of the Conservative party as being either un-Canadian or not part of the common Canadian purpose.

fter the 3 years is over with, campaign and market like crazy how the Liberals were willing to work with others despite differences to pull Canada out of economic recession and to stand up for the values Canadians believe in.

First of all, the NDP could market to the same crowd. It wouldn't have been a Liberal coalition alone, after all. Second, some people might think that the only useful Liberal party is one that has to form coalitions, otherwise it's weak. Third, how do you know the recession will be over?

My comments may seem a little radical to some of you, especially the many Liberals on this board, but I just got finished being raised in the United States ...

This isn't the United States.

That common purpose is health care, keeping Canada out of war at all costs, forging a better economy, and making sure Canada continues to have an accessible, world class education system.

What does that mean? Your expressions are vague here. Many countries have national health services in one form or another. It's hardly a unique Canadian attribute. As for keeping Canada out of a war at all costs, would you include peacekeeping? Would you have promoted Canada staying out of WW2 (We were in long before the U.S. was). Many countries attempt to forge better economies; it's an action that is hardly specific or unique to one nation. Primary and secondary education are accessible. Even post-secondary education is largely accessible. But then again, you are failing to define what "accessible" means. How are employing the word?

Canada can't afford more Harper. Who cares about a $50 billion deficit? That really isn't the problem ...

Come again? That's your opinion and nothing more. Down the road, these deficits will be a problem as they become part of the national debt.

BTW, the Liberals complaining about the deficit is a prime example of a reactionary/defensive position.

Negative. The Liberals were the party that actually eliminated the deficit spending and paid down the national debt. Allow me to inform you that it was a tough process. Many people lost jobs due to enormous cutbacks in government spending that was necessary to these goals. It was a tough action that netted strong long-term gains.

One reason why the country is in the relatively good economic condition it is today (compared to so many others) is because the Liberals did the hard work to bring the situation under control. To call their protest "reactionary" is to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of that task. No party should take these deficits lightly - ever.

And Brandon, the NDP could never have achieved the debt reductions achieved by the Liberals. Never. They whined every step of the way when it was being done.

Or I just have some fresh ideas that aren't standard to Canadians.

That really comes off as arrogant. We're not backwater hicks.

 

[CodeMonkey]

At this point I really don't care if he pulls the plug or not. Other than us, who would notice a election over the summer? No one.

 

[kEiThZ]

....You're not really listening to me.

It seems a common trend on here that if someone disagrees they go after the intelligence of someone instead of just the fact there is a disagreement. But given our past discussions, I wouldn't expect anything better from you.

And I would expect something better than for you to conflate two ideas and make wild accusations. You suggested that the government of the day lacks legitimacy. I suggested your assertion was wrong and that the only way to define legitimacy is according to the standard used by our electoral system. You are confusing my opposition to your suggestion that the government lacks legitimacy with some perceived notion that I was opposed to the proposed Lib-NDP coalition.

At no point did I argue about the legitimacy of the coalition (which I mentioned I supported). I merely said, if you question the legitimacy of the Harper government than the coalition would face an equal question of legitimacy.

Somehow, you can't respond to the argument I made (that the government does not lack legitimacy) so you suggest that I am going after your intelligence. That's entirely not the case. I have suggested that you aren't fully aware of our history or that maybe you don't understand much about the political attitudes of rest of Canada (outside Toronto). But I have never suggested that you were not intelligent. The only reason I am here debating you is because I think you are intelligent enough to engage in a reasonable discussion!

Set aside your persecution mentality. I am not out to 'get you'. I am here to debate you. So back on topic. Tell me why you think the government lacks legitimacy. I might not agree with afransen's argument, at least he has his own idea as to why he thinks the government lacks legitimacy. Thus far you have some vague notion that you think they don't have a mandate because most voters didn't pick them....what interesting results we would have had if that idea was applied over the last few decades. Imagine suggesting that here on in, simple majorities are not enough. By your standard, no party would have a mandate to govern unless they had an absolute majority. Could you suggest how we can go about achieving that, given that we haven't seen something like that in decades? ...a 2-party system perhaps?

 

[kEiThZ]

At this point I really don't care if he pulls the plug or not. Other than us, who would notice a election over the summer? No one.

I would think the voters who have to go to the polls might notice....as would many sub-national governments when the stimulus cheques get interrupted by an election.

Ottawa grinds to a halt every time the writ is dropped. That's just reality regardless of who's in power. No minister wants to make a decision during the election period fearing that any decision would lack legitimacy. Needless to say that the stimulus won't be the only thing interrupted.

That being said. I am not opposed to an election. But let's not think there are no consequences to calling one. I am sure Iggy's weighing all this right now. As are the BQ and the NDP who will have to face the prospect of a reduce seat count in the face of a resurgent Liberal party. If Iggy can convince Jack and Gilles to go down the hill with him to the polls, he'll have my respect for sure.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I think they'll probably wait until the fall for an election.

At this point I think Ignatieff and the Libs should push for the Minister of Finance to immediately resign. Threaten a confidence vote if he doesn't. If the Cons drag their feet, the NDP and the BQ would be very hard-pressed to not back the Liberals.

The Liberals could be smart to just maintain the status quo for a while. The poll numbers look so bad for the CPC right now that Harper will likely make all sorts of concessions just to avoid going to the polls. Push that for a few months THEN go to the polls.

They need to push to get rid of Flaherty immediately, though. It's not about politics or policy with him. It's about competence. He can't do the job.

 

[afransen]

Oh please, that's just a weak attack at the legitimacy of the current government simply because you don't like them. If apparently the CPC lacked as much legitimacy as you suggest, why didn't the opposition bring down the government earlier?

Because they don't care about legitimacy.

Does the Governor General consider "second-order effects" when appointing the Prime Minister?

Nope. There are no precedents for her to do so, and no good reason to set a precedent.

Do voters in Canada revolt if the party that wins an election does not score high enough on "second-order preferences"?

Nope. But our FPTP system does have a flaw that given enough parties and the right distribution of votes, a party can win a majority government with an arbitrarily low portion of the popular vote. Also, a party with higher support can lose to a party with lower support (this has happened recently in Quebec and BC). If you don't think legitimacy issues arise in this situation, than maybe we should agree to disagree.

If that's going to be the argument, there's quite a few moderate Liberals who would consider the NDP a third choice over a Conservative second.

There's some polling from the last election that indicates that fairly few people who would vote liberal first would vote conservative second.

Does that mean that the coalition would have been illegitimate?

Emphatic no. Between them, the Liberals and NDP had more popular support than the CPC.

The second-order preferences argument is BS. We don't have preferential voting in Canada. Till we do, the only rule that determines the legitimacy of a government is the mandate given by voters on election day. End of story.

Voters aren't a monolith. Harper was not given a mandate to rule with impunity. He was given a mandate to seek the confidence of the House. Parliament is from whence legitimacy flows, but there is that nagging issue of our electoral system often giving us poor results.

It's also worth pointing out that particular electoral systems don't create democratic legitimacy. In some African countries where the government intimidates certain groups to discourage voting, the government may still be elected according to the law of the land, but lacks democratic legitimacy.

I don't agree with the tactics but that does not mean that the practices were illegal or anything. You can call it bullying. I'd call it the Opposition bending over.

I'll call it what I like. There is no law against bullying the opposition. Beating the opposition over the head with their fund raising advantage by proposing deliberately incendiary or controversial policies while making every vote a confidence motion counts as bullying. In a minority context, it isn't healthy for the opposition's choice on every policy to be: give free reign to the government or cause an election. It caused the opposition to resort to procedural tactics like tying bills up in committee or the Senate.

Did it impact the legitimacy of the Conservative mandate? Most definitely not. They are the elected government of the day and until they get ousted, they have right to govern as they see fit.

Do they have the right to run from Parliament when they see fit? In other words, would you be satisfied with Harper asking for another prorogation until, say, January? Much of the electoral heat will be off him by then as the economy should be recovering. It's also not unreasonable for Parliament to not sit for the length of time: it happened last year.

 

[Brandon716]

LOL, some people can't take an opinion for what its worth, and I'll leave it at that. I insulted not one person with a single thing I've said, and my stating "fresh ideas for Canadians" is something Jean Chretien was a part of. It in no way has to do with me being an American by birth, remember we don't do 'coalitions' at all under that setup.

I'm looking at the perspective that Canadians aren't used to coalition governments even though Parliamentary Democracies around the world have them all the time.

The time for an official Liberal-NDP coalition where the parties retain their separate identities has come. The right is unified, the left needs to get unified without destroying their separate identities.

That's simply an opinion, and if anyone wants to disagree its all good. I actually hope Iggy does well unseating Harper and taking his title of PM away.

 

[kEiThZ]

Afransen,

Much of what you have brought up are flaws of the first past the post system. And those flaws, of course, become exaggerated when we have minority governments.

It's quite a dangerous idea to suggest that the legitimacy of a government elected by the system in place (FPTP) should be contingent on the second-order preferences. Essentially, you are proposing a double-standard whereby when Conservatives come to power they aren't legitimate because not enough voters would have picked them second. That's a highly dangerous standard for any democracy to deploy....particularly if that bar is not built in to the electoral system itself (since we are relying on garden variety polling of second-order preferences for this discussion).

Be careful with that idea, you might de-legitimize a federalist government in Quebec if you take that idea a bit further. Should this kind of idea spread, what's stopping the PQ from suggesting that win or loose they are the only legitimate voice of Quebecers?

I'd agree that we need electoral reform to better capture the complex preferences of the electorate (I have always believed in preferential balloting). But I strongly disagree that we should allow any sort of question of legitimacy of a government that has been elected freely and fairly by the same process that we have used since the inception of our country....all simply because there are a few folks who dislike the party in power at this moment. What if the day comes and this argument were to be reversed against the Liberals?

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm looking at the perspective that Canadians aren't used to coalition governments even though Parliamentary Democracies around the world have them all the time.

Canadians are probably far more used to the idea of coalition governments than our southern neighbours. After all, the Presidential system does not really allow for coalition governments...unless the President is a member of two parties I guess...

The time for an official Liberal-NDP coalition where the parties retain their separate identities has come. The right is unified, the left needs to get unified without destroying their separate identities.

We've been through this before. The right is a special case in this country. The Reformers split from the original PC party and simply folded back in. It was the Humpty Dumpty scenario.

The Liberal-NDP divide is far more complex. While I would certainly love to see more coalition governments, I don't see how we could have a Liberal-NDP coalition without the Liberals coming out a loser in that scenario. Once the NDP gains a role in government, the Liberals will have to contend with a serious challenger on the left, splitting vote on that ground, while forcing them to shift left and cede moderate voters on the right....and really it's those moderates that give the Liberals their majorities. This could destroy the Liberal party in the long run. And that's probably what the NDP hopes for...a Conservative-NDP two party system.

I am all for Iggy taking on Harper on his own. I just rather not have Jack and Gilles riding his coattails.

 

[afransen]

I guess my point is that even if people don't vote for a government, they often support its right to govern once elected. This government has lost much of that good will. How legitimate is it for a government that 70% of the electorate has lost faith in to proceed to implement policies most would not support, simply because they can bully the opposition due to superior fundraising (if the opposition can't afford to mount a campaign). I think there is something very dangerous about fundraising taking too large a role in politics, and it does considerable harm to the entire process. What does it say for the legitimacy of a government that the only reason that they continue to enjoy the confidence of the house is that the opposition can't afford to rent a plane and buy tv ads until they sell some more plates at the fundraising dinners?