It Makes Sense

I haven't been in favour of a coalition yet; but after yesterday's disastrous showing by the Liberals, and the way Thomas Mulcair goes after the Tories; I'm beginning to think that this has to be done before Canada is ruined, and we become the 51st State; as Ann Coulter has predicted.

Did you read your paper yesterday, John?

Winnipeg Free Press
Ignatieff rules out coalition

By: Frances Russell

24/03/2010

"Canadians hoping for a coalition or realignment on the centre-left of Canadian politics will have to wait for Michael Ignatieff's departure from the Liberal leadership.

"Everybody talks loosely as if we're all on the left in the same box," he said in an interview. "I've never thought that. I think a Liberal is a Liberal and an NDP is an NDP. They have related but separate political traditions and I respect that."

I'd be interested to hear what Dr. John thinks the mood in Québec would be when they are told by Toronto's Iggy that although they were invited to the last party, this time they are not. The Bloc would just love that to happen and the Québec Liberals would be desperately scrambling to try and tell Québecers that this was not another rejection by Toronto and English Canada. Iggy would drop his Québec base like a stone. Jack and Mulcair would have some 'splaining to do too. Gilles Duceppe would get high just thinking about it!

The only way this could come about is if Duceppe declined to join after being asked, publicly. That's not going to happen since Iggy has already dealt out Jack, so, with the NDP out the Bloc 'ain't in.

Why Conservatives win elections

The electoral system is designed to prevent change.

If today Harper and Campbell and their fellow travelers sat down to design a system where they would win they would decide the present system is best.

Of course the people have been convinced to believe that having a system where the outcome reflects the votes cast is undemocratic.

Coalition is a great idea

Ignatieff was too stupid to realize it in 2008 - why would he smarten up now. As for gaining the cooperation of the Bloc to rule - that's hardly an impediment - it's a necessity.

A coalition without a recognition that the majority of Quebecers need to be included - even if they are nominally separatists - is not going to be legitimate anyway.

Francophones make up a quarter of the population of the country - to leave them out would be insane.

Many of the most equitable and best countries in the world are ruled more or less constantly by coalitions - only idiot countries like Canada and and US - and of course the stupid mother of parliament in Westminster have such an affectation for government by a single party.

Besides, the last coalition did not 'include' the Bloc in anything other than the fevered imagination of the traitor and dictator Stephen Harper.

Liberals are tied up

We already have a coalition government.

If Harper ever gets a

If Harper ever gets a majority, we can kiss Canada goodbye.

Coalitions work all over the world, why we have to hang on to this single party dictatorship is beyond comprehension ?

Competition destructs, cooperation builds.

Anything is better than Harper and corporate dictatorship. The problem is that Ignatieff is also a political disaster area, who wants to rule, not much different from Harper.

Ed Deak.

There will be no “more distance from the Bloc”

As usual, british-columbians are utterly clueless about Québec.

Québec has been voting Bloc for 20 years because no other party has anything worthy to offer Québec.

We have stopped voting liberal in 1984 after Trudeau gave us the constitutional finger (remember the finger???) and unilaterally rapatriated the constitution and concocted his famous backroom-deal with other provinces.

And we have stopped voting tory in 1993 after the tories clearly demonstrated that Canada would not have anything to do with us.

Given that what is acceptable for Québec clearly is not for the rest of Canada, Québec will simply remove 50 votes from the mainstream party votes for the foreseeable future.

The liberals were able to stay in power for so long because they had something to offer to Canada (without Québec), and they obviously no longer have that.

In order to beat Harper and his hordes of mouth-breathing neanderthal talibans, they will have to offer something better than theit current leadership…

There are other coalitions that could be made

I think that the most obvious coalition would be a Liberal-Green. That should bring in enough votes to bring that party up to 40 something percent.

If Iggy has really ruled out a coalition, the NDP might want to look at a Bloc/NDP/Green, which should be able to garner enough votes to get a minority government. It would offer huge advantages to all three parties.

Someone will decide to begin working with others. We just have to wait.

chaiwalla

Liberal-Green?

Iggy says that gooey stuff keeps us together.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090227/iggy_oilsands_090227?s_name=&no_ads=

What is The Green Party position on the oil sands?

A Lib/Green pact doesn't jump out in my reading of the tea leaves.

The Yawning Left 1...

I don't have a lot of time to get into it... though maybe later. BUT... frankly, in my analytical view from a quite different position to the left of the "centre left" (or the muddy middle), this won't work but briefly, in strictly electoral terms either.

What is happening amongst the population is, increasing masses of people are walking away from and not voting for "any" of them. Not a one of the "liberal capitalism" Big Three has proved satisfactory or to have the answers in any regard to the entrenched and growing ills of capitalism, post the collapse of "Socialized Capitalism". (Which currently remains only for the ruling class/corporate sector of society.)

But the central reason an "alliance" of the "centre left" won't work is the absence of a "serious", more radicalized left to bring to the group sex bed. It is this ingredient of a "serious" left, prepared to challenge the norms of capitalist bedroom etiquette and behaviours, to say nothing of politics and economics :-), that alone can bring new life and vigour to the entire menage et trois.

Bring these three alone to the party, and what you will get is the same old, same old dull, hoisted pinky cocktail party, sans cock or tail. They have already dominated the political and economic opposition and alternative for too goddamn long. They have become hackneyed and tired, and devoid of any new content that will bring anything more than their jaded sensibilities and an over brief excitement that will end in disappointment, certainly for those of us on the bottom. :-)

Those of us on the "serious", more radicalized, or "transformative/ revolutionary" left, in my view, would be better to avoid this tweaking attempt of the same old party or parties. Certainly there is nothing wrong with engaging in the debate, some may even want to "change the system from within"... which has been tried and failed substantively so many goddamn times, just over my lifetime, that I've lost count. The Trots worked at that for a long time, probably still are, even the old CP, and failed.

But what the new, struggling to emerge transformative, or revolutionary left really needs to do is, to concentrate on its own game, and influence developments that way, from the outside. Which doesn't bar working together with at least some elements of the centrist left on particular projects of shared interest.

Continued next post...

The Yawning Left 2...

Continued from above...

But what this revolutionay left, of which I speak, needs to do is, build up itself, to of an influence and political weight, that it is in the end, over time, invited to the party because this proposed "alliance" of the centre and left simply doesn't or can't do it on its own without us, and the "serious" left is seen as indispensable to the mix.

There are few, if any shortcuts in politics. Which doesn't seem to stop folks looking for them, or trying out what appears to be shortcuts, in any case. :-)

But this party of "the boring" is destined to be, in the end, only more massively boring... without that ginger that only the transformative/revolutionary left can bring to it, not from a position of weakness, but of strength.

My view.

Coalition

The fact is that a coalition would win the next election...would make our government more accountable and responsive...and best of all...get rid of scary Harper and Co. We need to be able to vote for the person we believe is best for the job....

Dangerous gamble

The author and others here rightly fear what a Conservative majority would do to Canada. However, if the Liberals, NDP and Greens were to announce a coalition, this would be used by the Conservatives against the other parties. Coalitions work but Canadians have little experience with them and so distrust them.

Ironically, this move could actually hand the Conservatives their much-desired majority government.

If I were advising the leaders, I would advise them to be cautious with this approach.

I'm confused as usual

Political power must be akin to some drugs in the sense of a mental addiction, because why would a politician not choose do what is best for the country and it's people?
Being as obvious as it is, that a number of politicians will only do what is good for the party or the individuals within the party and it's business cohorts, well, then we should do away with the parties we presently have. Because they most certainly are not motivated by whats best for the country and it's population.

I also wonder if in a coalition there wouldn't be more of a dynamic atmosphere that would foster wide ranging progress meant to enhance the people and the country?

Or is life so full of GREED, ENTITLEMENT and SOCIOPATHS that life will continue on as it has for thousands of years.

Maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with politicians and everything to do with society, it's just that one line, "change the people and you change the world".

More On the Menage et Trois bed...

"...well, then we should do away with the parties we presently have. Because they most certainly are not motivated by whats best for the country and it's population." writes Noggy.

With whom I actually agree the most here. He is actually the "least" confused, in all probability.:

That said, brother/sister, I fear we are not going to see this development, this side of capitalism. And the reason for it is actually simple enough: capitalist society is divided into competing classes for share, and even within classes, especially the working class, there are further "strata" divisions, unskilled, skilled, managerial stratas etc. And these classes, to say nothing of some of the larger and more influential stratas within them, have competing likewise political interests, which get reflected by political parties... in "a few to some" cases. And these classes and the struggle that goes on between them, is hardwired into the system.

"Or is life so full of GREED, ENTITLEMENT and SOCIOPATHS that life will continue on as it has for thousands of years." Noggy again.

Now, whether its a further thousand years or not, I doubt it, but who can say for sure. People seldom start thinking in new ways on their own, but are more typically dragged kicking and screaming into it by real evolutionary development.

But stepping back from that for a moment, I'd like to comment on what realisticman has to say above. And Grania.

I don't think there is any question that there would be initial electoral success with this coalition-, disallowing major fuck ups in the early going. But the fact is, the make up and the dynamics to the new alignment are the same old wishy washy, double speak liberal and left-light that are there now, and have been for too long. They are currently part of the problem, and will continue to be so-, which the electorate that actually participates even, are bound to catch up to or have revealed to them sooner or later. There is nothing new here except a return to the hated bullshit two party majority system, with its long history of screwing over and selling out the country and the people.

With one more fly in the ointment, at the first blush of the Liberal Party seriously thinking of joint up with the NDP and Greens, given that these guys actually in their minutia difference, the right wing Liberals, the wolves in sheep's clothing, will exit and join up with the Conservatives. Which is where there hearts really are anyway. They just been slow to catch onto themselves.

After that split within the Liberals, I suspect there would still be enough getting into the menage et trois bed to secure some, like I say, early going electoral success. Until folks catch on, of course, to all that has really happened.

Sorry Mr. Ryan, but it doesn't add up

1) In no way can the Green Party be said to demonstrate the interests of enough Canadians to warrant their inclusion in a center-left coalition--their practically non-existent presence in the House is proof enough. It would be an insult to the parties that have spent so long crafting platforms that represent the interests of their supporters.

2) What would this leave us with? Essentially a right-of-center party and a left-of-center party. And if you've been anywhere near a Canadian city during an election, you'll know the idea of an essentially two-party system is so detestable to enough Canadians (and to most of the Canadian media), that it would never, ever fly. I love the idea, personally. But anything that tastes too American is rejected out of hand in this country.

Correction

Apology, in the second last paragraph above, which should read, "With one more fly in the ointment, at the first blush of the Liberal Party seriously thinking of JOINING up with the NDP and Greens, given that these guys actually BELIEVE in their minutia difference..."

Will there ever be another majority government in Canada?

Was there ever? We are so regionalised, one can only say we have a representative govrnment if you live in Ontario or Quebec.

What we need is a representative government. How that happens is a whole lesson in history. I for one am not eager to throw our democracy out of the window until I know what the alternative is.

Proportional representation is long overdue. The Green Party should be represented by the same proportion of MP's as there are Green voters. That does not include me, by the way, because the Greens have too much baggage for me already.

Minority governments should be bound to govern by consensus, and should be voted out if they do not. As I have said on another topic, it is a pity we do not recognise substance when we see it. Stefane Dion had substance, but no charisma. He was criticised for not being slick on TV. We have Mr. Slick in Michael Ignatieff, but he has no substance. Stephen Harper is a slick tyrant.

The old labels "Tory", "Liberal" and "NDP" are meaningless. We have Liberals in BC that would make Diefnebaker blush. We have Tories in Ottawa who would make Pierre Trudeau proud. The words, "Just watch me" apply really well to Harper and Baird. Unfortunately, we have to watch them and they make me sick.

Too many don't vote.

In the '84 and '88 federal elections, over 75% of registered voters cast a ballot.
If the same ratio showed up this year over 18 million voters would be engaged, about 5 million more than in Oct.'08.
Turnout has been falling in Canada and growing in the US. This is partly due to more inspiring candidates like Obama, but other factor can't be ignored.
Canadian campaigns were longer in the '80's with much better media attention. We should make voting easier with longer access to advance polls and voting by mail.
We don't need a year long US election, but 32 days is a joke. Election day registration should be easier, not the hassle it was last time.

The Flying Ants of Capitalism

"The old labels "Tory", "Liberal" and "NDP" are meaningless."

Fundamentally true. Certainly they are all the various "shades" of the parties to capitalism. It's just that the Tories are its, one degree away from fascism, extreme right wing. Not yet openly fascist. But they are there in the their background woodwork, like flying termite ants, awaiting the next major crisis of capitalism, when they will suddenly become respectable again, looked to, to save capitalism with ruling class sanctioned terror one more time.

My view, lovekins. :-)

Too cool and wet to saddle up and ride today. :-) Figured I'd pester you "centre-left" folks, just a tad. :-)

Love and peace. :-)

good article -- good reminder

Given that about half of the Liberals vote along the lines of the Conservatives, I don't see that a Liberal dominated coalition would be that much better than the Conservatives. Paul Martin's Liberals put Canada into Afghanistan, a dubious mission which the majority of Canadians have always been against. Of the roughly 50% of people who actually vote about 50% of them vote for corporatist MPs from the ranks of both the Liberals and Conservatives. I see very little difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I think that the best things Jean Chretien did for Canada was keeping Canada out of Iraq and keeping Paul Martin from becoming PM for as long as he did.

What we need is a temporary coalition that's sole reason to be would be to bring in Mixed Member Proportional Representation. With such system, everyone's vote would count. And, rather than voting "against", instead we could vote "for."

I doubt that the scattered majority of parties will come to their senses, so in their absence, I will either vote Conservative in protest, or scratch my vote altogether.

Money Based Democracy...

"...or scratch my vote altogether."said mmphosis.

Which has been my recent choice... to join the growing masses who are choosing not to vote. It helps, in my view, to make clear that what is, is simply a bullshit system of democracy. And its time for folks of conscience and some in depth understanding to simply start walking away from it altogether.

And I agree with your "true" proportional rep view as well. It's the only representative system that has the possibility of bringing a broader range of ideas and analyses to the socio-political table. The "party" option in just about any configuration. Certainly anything resembling a "two party" system is "purchasable" by ruling class wealth.

It's this, what is actually a "money based" democratic/electoral system that is in most desperate need of undercutting. In short it is but the perpetuation of the notion that the more money you have, the more democracy you are entitled to.

True proportional representation MAY NOT do away with this notion altogether, but it will begin the process of closing in on it.

What is but clearly keeps society and "actual" democracy stuck in the mud.or scratch my vote altogether.

Coalition 2.0

There appears to be a growing agreement in these comments that some the electoral system needs to be re-formed.

Words are good; action is needed.
Googling "Canada proportional representation" provides some avenues for action.

wasteland

these parties and leaders are wasting our time,
wasting their time
while our country wastes away.

Not bad enough yet?

If the majority of Canadians are not Harperites, and I believe this to be so, what do we do to get the non-Harperites out to vote? Therein the majority vote will be realized.
How bad does it have to get before these non-voters decide to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem...and a big part at that? Whining about minority governments isn't really going to achieve much.

Reality

If anyone thinks that when they vote for a candidate of a political party they are being represented by said candidate, then they are sadly mistaken. The winning candidate in each riding really represents the party whose banner he or she ran under during the election. Nothing will ever change politically until the political party concept becomes extinct.

we need parties

crankypants:
So what exactly is wrong with us knowing in advance what our representatives will support?

Would it be better to trust your local used car dealer / turned politician with no affiliation and no written agenda?

new party

Lets start the bicycle party! I'd vote for that!

We don't need new parties...

We need a new electoral system, and only then will new parties and true representative democracy be allowed to flourish.

First-past-the-post (FPTP) systems breed cynicism, apathy, and a political atmosphere characterized by negative voting behavior. Under FPTP, we invariably end up voting against parties (lesser of evils) rather than for parties. A prop-rep or mixed-PR, or STV system would allow us to entertain more options and begin voting our true political conscience. But alas...

We had our shot in BC to implement limited electoral change (just about any change is an improvement over the status quo), and we blew it, thanks, in part, to the dedicated efforts of NDP old school stalwarts like Tieleman and Schreck, who lobbied as hard against STV as they ever have for any NDP candidates, perhaps more so. We may not see another opportunity in the coming decades. For Tieleman, I guess this is just fine because it keeps him employed as a critic-editorialist.

Federally, PR isn't even on the NDP, Liberal radar. Minority governments hint at what is possible under a different system, but even here, we see that hundreds-year-old Parliamentary habits die hard. Party discipline reigns supreme. We wouldn't be talking about muzzled scientists, prorogued houses, detainee scandals and attacks on the poor if the NDP-Lib-Bloq had united in allowing a creative parliamentary experiment to be put to the test. Shame on them all. However, it's not too late for redemption.

Frank

"The electoral system is designed to prevent change.

If today Harper and Campbell and their fellow travelers sat down to design a system where they would win they would decide the present system is best."

Frank, at least Campbell did offer to change the system based on any recommendation of the impartial Assembly he set up - and the voters said no to change, with quite a few of your buddies in the NDP leading the fight for the status quo.

Whose Interest Majority Governance?

"Frank, at least Campbell did offer to change the system based on any recommendation of the impartial Assembly he set up - and the voters said no to change, with quite a few of your buddies in the NDP leading the fight for the status quo." wrote realisticman.

Which is still not outside the norm of things. It often takes more than one run at an issue to finally change it. And as we can see here, the issue is still far from dead.

The 1% ruling class minority wants a return to a two party system, that allows for the governing majorities which will allow them to impose their will (legislation agenda) on the majority. And that is what this desire for a new form "coming together" of the liberal and left-lite parties really represents; that desire for a ruling majority again. Which they can buy or blackmail, without having to make concessions to the majority will. No matter which party is in "formal" power, their power remains the only real one with any decisive heft.

But minority governance, as negative a phenomena it seems at first glance, is what continues to be needed, in order to deny them their privileged wish. Minority governance weakness and the massive turning away of folks from participation in what passes for the electoral "democratic" process, is building a pressure within capitalist society for "serious" change. Such as is anathema to their ruling class interest, and they are loathe to allow to continue.

But for the eventual democratization of the economy and meaningful governance change in the political process, in the end, that leads to a more real democracy, what is, is precisely what is needed, frankly. This crisis is important to the creation of an eventual "new opportunity" to transform society more in the direction of the real majority interest, (Access to a more diverse range of ideas and options, not ruling class forcibly restricted ones.)

It is only thus, in my view, :-) that the class system with ruling control of the economy and politics always winding up in the hands of the top 1# of society, can begin to be broken up and dispensed with.

Quote- "At least Campbell

Quote- "At least Campbell did offer to change the system based on any recommendation of the impartial Assembly he set up and the voters said no to change"

Actually voters said "yes" to change. More than 50% voted for electoral reform which for the past few thousand years has been the traditional benchmark of Democracy. It was Campbell who raised the bar to 60% majority plus X number of ridings in favour in order to pass. If Mr. Campbell himself had had to garner that percentage of the electorate in the last election he would not be premier today.

Catch 22 Harper Conservatives campaign

While many voters would sympathize with the views expressed in this post and will try to use their vote as effectively as they can to defeat the Conservative government, a pre-election coalition is a long shot.

That the author received no responses to his letters from any of the party leaders is not a good sign. The letters sent to the same party leaders by Fair Vote Canada in January proposing a path to electoral reform were also ignored.

That's part of the reason that the new Catch 22 Harper Conservatives campaign has developed a grassroots strategy to defeat the Conservatives which does not rely on party co-operation. Voters can act in their own interest. If the parties co-operate, that's great. If not, it is still possible to defeat the Harper government by focusing on the ridings where they are the weakest.

http://catch22campaign.ca

BDD63

You may think that a simple majority has and is the benchmark but, in fact, when substantial changes are voted on a 'Double Majority' is perfectly normal and in practice worldwide. Sometimes this is referred to as a Supermajority.

A Double Majority is usually called for to increase the chance that true democracy is employed.

http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/double_majority_en.htm

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0919/1224254861134.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_majority

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Supermajority

Federally, PR isn't even on the NDP, Liberal radar.

Quoting Barney: "Federally, PR isn't even on the NDP, Liberal radar."

PR actually is on the federal NDP radar. One example: Layton's response to the latest throne speech. http://www.ndp.ca/press/layton-sets-out-expectations-for-throne-speech

It's been part of the party platform for a few elections. (Cue the "It doesn't matter what he says - the NDP will never get elected" comments)

coyoteman

Stats show that decreased voter turnout favours the existing government. Harper, being at least as cunning as Chretien (who didn't have to "work" to form/keep his governments), knows this and uses it to his best advantage to govern as though he has a majority. He will continue to push his envelope, knowing the Liberals under Ignatieff will never amount to an oppostion credible enough to present him with a serious threat, as long as the public who bothers to vote can see no viable reason to vote against the Cons.

So Harper can "ride his dinosaurs" (they being the Liberals/NDP) to his heart's content, and voters will excuse what they regard as a "foible" -- as long as they are fed the perception that their incomes, jobs, pensions are essentially safe. And his PR machine cranks out assurances daily - in the best imitation of Geobbels.

So I would urge you to not not vote. Both the NDP and Greens want electoral change. Vote that way, if only to sharpen that thin edge of the wedge.

RickW.

"So I would urge you to not not vote. Both the NDP and Greens want electoral change. Vote that way, if only to sharpen that thin edge of the wedge." urges RickW.

First, brother, you know that I hold your views in the highest regard here. Their integrity and thoughtfulness are of the highest order.

That said, however, on this one we shall have to disagree.

Though I find myself constantly revisiting my position here, as to the usefulness or not of participation in what passes for the evolved electoral system within capitalism, I remain convinced that nothing exposes the hollowness to its democracy claims, than the massive and growing non-participation rates of the masses within it. (And we may yet see them attempt to compel participation, as a means to "preserve appearances". But in any case, it is certainly preferable and of more value at this juncture, in my view, to participating in its hollow Her Majesty's Government and Loyal Opposition rituals.

Which is not to say that may never change, given the eventual emergence of an effective and credible alliance of reformers and revolutionaries that emerges out of a struggle against capitalism that will likely be rooted, again in my view, on the streets, in the institutions of learning and workplaces etc. of our society. We are not there yet, however. Possibly a fair league from it. :-)

On the other hand, this debate may all yet turn out to be moot, for this dynamic may yet all be further changed radically by the increasing signs of open and naked fascism emerging within a rapidly failing Amerika. And were this to happen, everything would not only be changed there, but here as well. Their desire for hegemony over our resources, hence our politics, would not be diminished, as they get pushed out of the other parts of the world they have sought to control and steal resource share.

And against the spectre of all this, and what it may well mean, voting or not voting for a Liberal, NDP and Green coalition, in my view, pales in significance.

On the other hand, the day it becomes clear, presuming, that you and Frank are right, and I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it. I promise you. :-)

theres yet another ...

Yet another option that is far out and from way out side the box. Why not consider supporting the BQ to run candidates outside of PQ? Who knows, their vision of a sovereign Quebec may in turn lead to a strong a vibrant Sovereign Nation of Quebec AKA Canada.

I mean heck, every other variation of coalition or majority/minority party seems to have been discussed here except this one. The BQ has been continually elected for the last 20 years to represent the interests of the PQ, who's to say that if they were given the chance to represent the entire nation, or at least a majority of it, they couldn't have a better grasp of the cliche "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

COALition 2.0

We have had a coalition government since the last election.
The
Liberal/Harper COALITION.

John Ryan understands neither politics nor arithmetic

Or possibly John Ryan is simply a huge Stephen Harper fan, because the ONLY party that would benefit from this stupidity is the Harper Conservatives.

Ryan's daft suggestion is based on a flawed assumption - that the average voter is a sheep who will do what s/he is told by party elites.

Well, a Conservative elitist like John Ryan may well believe that. Out here in the real world we call it BS.

It is a FACT that, absent a candidate of their preferred party, a significant number of voters will simply stay home.

It is likewise a FACT that, absent a candidate of their preferred party, some number of voters will choose to vote CONSERVATIVE rather than for whichever party John Ryan instructs them to vote for.

Taken together, it is virtually impossible to cobble together a coalition victory. It would take a NET 70% retention rate (based on the last elction) simply to give the putative coalition more seats than the Conservatives. (That's NET retention, meaning that the coalition candidates not only need to retain 70% of voters from the other parties, but enough to offset the number that vote Conservative. Thus, if 10% of those voters choose to vote Conservative, the coalition party then needs 80% retention. If 10% stay home, that effectively means that the coalition party is operating on retaining 100% of the remainder.)

The other massive stupidity here is the assumption that the Liberals actually disagree with the Conservatives on anything of substance. This is further evidence that John Ryan is barking mad.

Coalition leader wanted

Coalition is a good idea, but unfortunately the opposition parties don't have an acceptable leader.

Now if Iggy would go back south, that would be a start.

(I'm not a conservative)

Coalitions are formed after elections

...not before. How do you run against eachother and who decides which party candidate will run in which riding??

This is precisely why as soon as an election is called, the NDP turn their guns towards the Liberals AND Greens despite having a common enemy in and out of Parliament. I'd like to see a coalition formed in Parliament, but the NDP have to be more strategic at election time. May and Dion understood this and got flack from the NDP even more than the Tories! May has persistently tried to engage in dialogue with Layton, who would not have any of it. Ignateff wants to rebuild the default governing party and must attract from the soft-Tory vote in order to grow the base. That is the hard reality. The NDP have to find the neutral ground and play nice at election time if we are to put the Tories back on the other side of the bench. It is statistically and demographically impossible for Layton to get his dream PM position. Why the NDP does not support proportional rep or forming a coalition is beyond me...

I think Iggy isn't really fooling many people

This confirms john flys statement that we all ready have a liberal/conservative coalition.

Kinda makes one wonder if the "internal dissent" in Liberal Party ranks is deliberate.........

This Ain't No Party

Our voting system is horribly flawed. Too often the vote is split between two groups of similar orientations (i.e. left or right) and a government is elected that is actually the third runner.

The system of allowing candidates and parties to take “donations” (read “graft”) for their campaign fund results in the expected appointments and contracts (read “pay-back”) that allows big business to effectively run the government. The only people who are allowed to play in this arena are the already privileged and rich. This does not give ordinary average Canadians any say or representation.

The politicians are never going to change this system because it benefits them. So the people (that’s you & me) have to do it. But how?

The answer is a three stage set of changes; encourage people to run for office independently and then Vote Independent, to weaken the official parties and gain a say for the people in parliament; table legislation outlawing party campaign contributions, to strip the power big business holds over the government; and set up a government funded and run system of disseminating campaign information to replace expensive political campaigns.

For more information on the This Ain't No Party, please visit my FaceBook group;

Common Interests / Politics / The This Ain't No Party.

Boycotting The Vote

to register your disapproval with the process does nothing but dis-honour our ancestors. Remember, if you run from the man with a gun, you make yourself a target. When he won't keep it in his holster, you sometimes have to wrestle him for it at the risk of your life.

Allowing a bully, any bully, to win the argument, is never just the first opportunity he will take to countervail your influence. Force and violence against you will follow as sure as the progression of the seasons. Don't let the winter of our discontent morph into that dark night of the soul.

nice metaphors...

Des, and others. coyoteman, others might dispute that I am the fair VivianLea, but your chivalry and graciousness are appreciated.

Our system of representation originated in dark and far off days, and I believe there is no question we must needs move to a proportional voting arrangement.Never the less, under our current system a coalition before the fact of an election would simply play into the citizens' weariness and distate with all things political. It seems however, that minority governments will continue to be the norm, and all political parties will need to come to terms with this. Who can listen to debates in parliament - in Ottawa or Victoria - and not be dismayed? I think the Canadian electorate would like to see them work together in far less partisan fashion - whatever the configuration of seats, and frankly, whether majority or minority. As an example, Ignatieff was just speaking about the need for preventative medicine and home care (among other ideas) to rein in health care costs...great! Let's get on with it. We have watched the politicians pretend to debate upon the subject for to long...and it is not rocket science, we understand that these things must come to pass.

The point here, I guess, is that parties need not abandon their platforms and/or principles (er, those parties that have them)in order to make some kind of progress with pressing issues that face Canadians every day.They simply need to face the fact that we all have to play nice with one another to accomplish anything. Most people understand this to be true in work or social life, and simply get on with it.Left versus right versus middle has nothing to do with it, in my opinion - rather, a recognition that the input and engagement of citizens is the crux of democracy. That said, I share the frustrations of those who would opt out...while rejecting it as an option.Voting is only one of the ways we engage in democracy, though, surely...