Official Liberal/NDP Coalition begins in Alberta
Despite how much they try and avoid talking about it, the reality is never far below the surface... if the can't beat us, they'll just join forces.
For now, it's just in Alberta. Not likely going to happen anytime soon in BC. But who knows what might happen nationally if Harper wins another minority after the next election?
For now, it's just in Alberta. Not likely going to happen anytime soon in BC. But who knows what might happen nationally if Harper wins another minority after the next election?
Labels: coup d’état 08, Liberal/NDP Coalition, Liberals, NDP, Ontario NDP Premier Bob Rae
posted by Christian Conservative @ 8:01 a.m.
10 Comments:
At Mon May 17, 08:44:00 a.m. EDT,
Bert said…
Official Liberal/NDP Coalition
What, all 3 of them ?.
At Mon May 17, 08:54:00 a.m. EDT,
Anon1152 said…
"[I]f the can't beat us, they'll just join forces."
Sounds almost like... The Reform Party/Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.
BTW, what are your thoughts on the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition in the UK? Undemocratic?
At Mon May 17, 09:03:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Forming a coalition before an election is more like a merger of parties.
They call the Conservative rule in AB. regrssive.Really?
AB is among the best places to live in the country.They are losers that are tired of losing. Nothing more.
At Mon May 17, 09:11:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Ok, so will this translate into more or less votes for the Opposition? This might work in Ontario or Quebec at the federal level, but Alberta provincial politics? I can't see this being a winner, but what the hey, go for it! Cheers. FernStAlbert
At Mon May 17, 09:13:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
As for "Uniting the Right", it was just that... a RE-unification of that which was once already together. Don't see how that can be consider a "coalition"!
Personally, I'm not thrilled about the coalition in the UK, but I can understand it as a necessary evil... I am a pragmatist, after all.
I also view coalitions overall as perfectly democratic, a natural part of our Westminster system of government.
The reason I opposed the previous (and impending, post next election) federal Liberal/NDP coalition is because they attempted to usurp power from the Party that won the most seats... which did happen to be my Party.
Likewise, had Labour and the LibDems formed a deal in the UK, I would have also opposed that coalition because they would have prevented the Party that got the highest support from the people from forming a government.
A fine line I know, but a fairly clearly defined one I think.
At Mon May 17, 10:27:00 a.m. EDT,
wilson said…
The coalition in Britain was born from the neccesity for a stable government due to their disasterous economic situation resulting from 13 years of socialist rule.
The failed 2008 coalition of losers in Canada was born out of the arrogance of Liberals wanting to get back into power expressly against the will of the electorate.
And Dippers salivating at the chance to sit in cabinet.
And the BLOC wanting to disrupt Canada from the 'inside'........
This 'LibDipper arrangement' in Alberta is not going over so well with their grassroots
"Party president Tony Sansotta called the motion "defeatist."
"This says we can't win as Liberals --
let's try and trick the electorate," he told delegates before the vote.
"That's not what we're about here."
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Liberals+reluctant+wooers/3036727/story.html#ixzz0oCFSS7wQ
At Mon May 17, 10:30:00 a.m. EDT,
Anon1152 said…
As for "Uniting the Right", it was just that... a RE-unification of that which was once already together. Don't see how that can be consider a "coalition"!
How could it be considered a "coalition"? It involved to separate entities, coming together. The word "coalition" is related to the word "coalesce."
I'm also suspicious of the re-unification claim. The old party system fell apart in 1993, a trend that was confirmed in 1997. If I may quote the Canadian 1997 Canada Federal Election Study: "[I]t is not certain at all that [Progressive] Conservative voters would be willing to support the Reform party or vice versa. In fact, more Conservative voters gave the NDP than Reform as their second choice, a finding that challenges the view that supporters of the two parties 'on the right' really do see themselves as part of a single ideological family." (p.16).
Joe Clark says he feels like "a political orphan" for a reason.
*
"The reason I opposed the previous (and impending, post next election) federal Liberal/NDP coalition is because they attempted to usurp power from the Party that won the most seats... which did happen to be my Party."
Forgive me, but I can't help but think you opposed the previous coalition because you opposed the parties involved. Not that that's illegitimate per se. But I do think it's illegitimate to call it undemocratic. A Liberal/NDP government would have represented far more MPs and far more of the popular vote than the Conservatives.
For the record, I think that the current Conservative/Liberal Democrat government is more "democratic" than a Labour/LibDem government because the former represents more of the popular vote and more of the seats than the latter.
At Mon May 17, 11:03:00 a.m. EDT,
wilson said…
And Iffy is back to 'coalition if neccesary but not neccesarily coalition'.
It's why we call him IFFY.
not a leader
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/ignatieff-prepared-to-form-a-coalition/article1571211/
At Mon May 17, 02:17:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Anon1152,the UK and Canada share the "first past the post" system for a reason.
It's to keep the more populist parties under control and out government, otherwise we'd all fall victim to group think policies rather then more libertarian ones.
As for Joe Clark, he essentially was our Stephane Dion of the 1990's. That isn't to go against everything the man may of stood for but it is certainly how he allowed things to play out.
At Mon May 17, 06:50:00 p.m. EDT,
Anon1152 said…
We share a first-past-the-post/single member district system because that's how things developed in the early days of British democracy. It's a historical accident.
Our system tends to exaggerate the victor's support, rendering majority governments out of all proportion to the votes cast. It is an insult to the principle of "one person, one vote"--unless, too [mis]quote/paraphrase Orwell, some votes are more equal than others.
How does that keep "populist" parties out of power? If anything, it would help them gain 100% of the power with less than 50% of the popular vote. Populist parties have had success in Canada and the USA over the last couple of centuries. Some have called the Reform party a populist party...
And if anything, the exclusion or emasculation of certain "voices" that first-past-the-post results in seems more likely to lead to "group think" than a more proportional alternative. For example, the Green party's poll numbers are similar to the Bloc's. They might be higher if it were not for the fact that people know they have little or no chance of victory. Yet the Bloc commands a significant number of seats; the Greens have none.
People vote. Square feet do not. Yet we continue to tolerate a system that privileges the equality of square feet [should I switch to metres?] over the equality of people. At least insofar as the electoral system is concerned.
BTW, this is something that should disturb people regardless of party affiliation. David Cameron's conservatives received slightly more of the popular vote than Labour did in the previous election, but Labour was able to gain a clear majority of the seats.
Sorry for ranting about this (repeatedly).
Thanks for listening[?], though.
I feel better already.
Post a Comment
<< Home