Coalition

[esdras]

To those who complimented my post - thanks, but I can't take full credit.

As I said, I'm a political junkie, and I've found this whole mess fascinating. Essentially, I've been scanning Google News for every political commentators take on this situation. Obviously, many have fallen into supporting one side or the other.

The National Post writers might as well be on the Conservative Party payroll - they threw around words like "coup" and "un-democratic" frequently, even though they knew (or should know) that in our system a coalition is neither of those things.

On the other hand, when I checked out a number of the columnists from The Toronto Star, they - of course - defended at least the legal right of the coalition. However, with Ignatieff taking over, you would think that they believe that the Liberal have a Messiah. They call him a cross between Trudeau and Obama. I'd call that a little partisan myself.

I have - however - been fairly impressed with The Globe & Mail. While they do have some partisan columnists, some of their analysis has actually been critical of both the Liberals and Conservatives.

Essentially, most of what I have posted has been taken from reading from all three publications and doing my best to get to an accurate truth - which I definitely don't think lies at either extreme.

Essentially I will disagree (respectfully) with anyone who thinks that one side or the other is blameless in this fiasco. I'm a little more tolerant of those who consider the "sins" of one side to be worse - even though that belief may come from partisan motivations - but at least they admit that their side was partly to blame.

I should admit that my own partisan views probably do come out a little - although I've tried to be as neutral as possible. While I don't think the "sins" of one side is significantly worse than the other, I do believe that Harper started it with a "fiscal update" that had partisan elements which would seriously hurt the opposition parties without really saving a significant amount of money for the federal government.

After that, things just got crazy.

Right now, while I think the worst of the crisis is over, this still has the potential to get bad. In all honesty, the two main players in this are the Conservatives and the Liberals - and I think both sides need to be careful:

• The Liberals need to make Ignatieff appear legitimate - but this is a fine line. He needs to be a strong leader, but he would be an idiot to actually topple the government. If an election were to take place before May, the Conservatives would question the validity of him being PM since he didn't become leader of the Liberals in a truly democratic manner. Likewise, if the GG asked if he could lead a coalition government, the Conservatives would play this up in the media as the end of Canadian democracy as we know it. The Liberals are definitely better with him - but they aren't out of the woods yet.
• The Conservatives might actually want an election before May - but getting one without risking the wrath of the voters might be tough. Right now, they might consider Ignatieff at his most vulnerable - questioning his validity as a Party leader just might work. This might be a consideration for them - if they couldn't get a majority with Dion as their main foe, their chances AFTER Ignatieff passes the leadership review in May could be significantly worse if Ignatieff proves to be a good leader. However, the only way to force an election quickly is to present a budget that the Liberals can't support. Considering that Ignatieff is actually (like Paul Martin) a fairly fiscally conservative Liberal, he could probably support any budget that isn't blatantly ultra-conservative. If Harper presents a budget like that, forcing the Liberals to defeat him - he will have to campaign against accusations that all his promised to cooperate with the opposition parties were lies. The polls have the Conservatives well into majority territory right now - but, could a message of "un-willing to cooperate as promised" stick enough during a campaign to make them drop in the polls?

Basically, the Liberals REALLY don't want an election or to be asked to lead a coalition government before May. They've finally chosen someone who might actually have leadership qualities - but he needs time to prove that to the general population - and, perhaps, face a leadership review at the May convention to at least reduce the ability to question his legitimacy as leader of the Liberals. If the Liberals go into an election before May, the BEST they could hope for is to hold the Conservatives to a minority yet again.

The Conservatives MIGHT want an election before May, since Ignatieff is potentially vulnerable. But this is a gamble. If Ignatieff turns out to be a lousy leader, they're better off waiting - but that's another gamble. If the Conservatives force an election over the budget, they'll have to overcome a lot to get a majority - including looking uncooperative in terms of the budget and they will probably lose the vast majority of seats they currently hold in Quebec. On the other hand - they still have a lot of money, and (as we saw during the U.S. election) that can go a long way to winning.

Once again - sorry for the length of this post - just trying to consider every angle.

 

[Tantor]

Great post. Always like reading you thougts

Just saw an article in the Star, Angus -Reid poll has the Liberals and Consevatives tied in the polls.

It should be an interesting 5 weeks before the budget.......................

 

[braddillman]

OK, lots of people don't like the $1.95/vote funding. I can respect that, though I personally disagree. I don't support the BQ, but I support a funding formula which doesn't favor the richest party. A limit on pre-election advertising and spending is my suggestion.

But why were these measures introduced as part of the economic update CONFIDENCE VOTE, and not as separate bills which aren't confidence matters?

Like others I didn't vote Conservative, and the cumulative result is a minority, not an unchecked majority. The last parliament saw many more confidence measures than usual, because the government knew the Liberals didn't want an election. The Liberals were labeled as Conservative sympathizers in the last election.

Why should the Conservatives dictate party funding reforms unilaterally? Shouldn't other MPs get a say, especially in a minority government?

Why was there little to no spending in the economic update? My theory is that Conservatives think spending will be ineffectual or only somewhat effective after a long time - perhaps too long for them. They're baiting the opposition to contribute spending suggestions for them to include in the upcoming budget. If/when anyone complains, they can blame the suggestions from the opposition, e.g. "We didn't plan to run a deficit, but we were forced into it - and still unemployment is at a record high! Next time, give us a majority so we don't get hamstrung by the opposition."

I think Iggy is wise to this, too. He's asking for real numbers from the Conservatives before responding, which makes sense. How could anyone make credible contributions to a budget without solid assumptions from which to start?

My $0.02.

 

[damo]

Great post. Always like reading you thougts

Just saw an article in the Star, Angus -Reid poll has the Liberals and Consevatives tied in the polls.

It should be an interesting 5 weeks before the budget.......................

That is weird considering yesterday's Star has this,

"Canadians favour the Conservatives over the Liberals by 45 per cent to 26 per cent, an Ipsos Reid poll showed. The New Democrats (NDP) had the backing of 12 per cent."

http://www.thestar.com/article/553440

Angus and Ipsos must disagree!!!

 

[Tantor]

That is weird considering yesterday's Star has this,

"Canadians favour the Conservatives over the Liberals by 45 per cent to 26 per cent, an Ipsos Reid poll showed. The New Democrats (NDP) had the backing of 12 per cent."

http://www.thestar.com/article/553440

Angus and Ipsos must disagree!!![/QUOTE

I know, I saw that too. I wonder why.

 

[digskat]

That is weird considering yesterday's Star has this,

"Canadians favour the Conservatives over the Liberals by 45 per cent to 26 per cent, an Ipsos Reid poll showed. The New Democrats (NDP) had the backing of 12 per cent."

http://www.thestar.com/article/553440

Angus and Ipsos must disagree!!![/QUOTE

I know, I saw that too. I wonder why.

Different test group. Both make a couple hundred random calls across the country, and call it a mixed demographic. They could both do it 100x and get a different number each time. They should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[declansdad]

That is weird considering yesterday's Star has this,

"Canadians favour the Conservatives over the Liberals by 45 per cent to 26 per cent, an Ipsos Reid poll showed. The New Democrats (NDP) had the backing of 12 per cent."

http://www.thestar.com/article/553440

Angus and Ipsos must disagree!!![/QUOTE

I know, I saw that too. I wonder why.

Perhaps one is a liberal polling firm and one a conservative????

 

[Ham Ham]

Polls

 

[esdras]

Different test group. Both make a couple hundred random calls across the country, and call it a mixed demographic. They could both do it 100x and get a different number each time. They should be taken with a grain of salt.

Perhaps one is a liberal polling firm and one a conservative????

I can't remember, but I think each was asking a different question - I think the Angus poll (with the Liberals tracking better) was a leadership poll. Angus was comparing Ignatieff to Harper in terms of who people thought would make a good PM.

The Ipsos asked who people intended to vote for.

The two questions don't always result in the same percentage.

If I remember correctly - Dion's personal approval rating in terms of being PM was actually lower than the percentage of votes received by the Liberals.

So, if you want to attempt to read anything into these polls, it MIGHT be this - while most people think Ignatieff would make a good PM, that isn't necessarily enough to make them vote Liberal.