tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post7589161189298318827..comments2023-10-22T09:18:16.885-04:00Comments on Far and Wide: Polls, Coalitions and HarperSteve Vhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-33109783298111090062009-01-03T18:29:00.000-05:002009-01-03T18:29:00.000-05:00I read anlogy of a coalition on another blog &...I read anlogy of a coalition on another blog & it has me doing some serious thinking. Reform/ Alliance & conservatives= coalition. IMO that was what really happened with Harper & company a few years back. That was the only way that the alliance/reform party was ever going to make gains past the western provinces. It happened & see where that got them. I say Iggy, form a coalition if necessary & throw those systers right out of Canada. We have had just about as much as we can handle with that party.<BR/><BR/>There!!!! that's my take on this phonny party & HarperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-45397483770272484722009-01-03T11:42:00.000-05:002009-01-03T11:42:00.000-05:00"What you seem to be suggesting is that nothing sh..."What you seem to be suggesting is that nothing should ever change, and the public should be left in its mire of misinformation and spin. Not my idea of democracy, thanks."<BR/><BR/>What I'm suggesting is realism, as opposed to some idealistic notion that the Canadian public will become informed in a matter of weeks. We can talk about 62% all we want, if the concept isn't resonating, it's a mute point. I'm not particularly interested in ensuring a Harper majority thanks, which is exactly what this purism would result in. <BR/><BR/>Let's see the budget, nothing is absolute, but this rigid detachment serves no one.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-16122685031512755752009-01-03T10:25:00.000-05:002009-01-03T10:25:00.000-05:00but you can't run a government without the accepta...<I>but you can't run a government without the acceptance of the people."</I><BR/><BR/>A keeper, and the crux of the tale.<BR/><BR/>Harper has never had the "acceptance of the people." 62% voted against Conservative MPs and for Opposition MPs in the last election.<BR/><BR/>We have to think outside the box. Of course the Coalition has the moral authority to govern. It has the most votes and the most seats. Last I heard, that was called democracy.<BR/><BR/>Let's not play into Harper's BS. Why not watch public opinion swing back once the perfectly democratic coalition is in place. <BR/><BR/>What you seem to be suggesting is that nothing should ever change, and the public should be left in its mire of misinformation and spin. Not my idea of democracy, thanks.<BR/><BR/>wv= "press," believe it or not.Dr.Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416571487451925246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-35482384077997724612009-01-02T18:47:00.000-05:002009-01-02T18:47:00.000-05:00I'll throw this in this post, from today's Ipsos p...I'll throw this in this post, from today's Ipsos poll:<BR/><BR/>"The survey also sampled opinion on possible parliamentary politics around the planned Jan. 27 budget. It said seven in 10 of those interviewed said they wanted "the politicians on Parliament Hill to start co-operating so that the budget is passed and we get more stability in Parliament." Three of 10 said that "if the opposition says the budget is insufficient, they should defeat it so we can have an election and clear the air, once and for all."Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-29707296300362324732009-01-02T16:55:00.000-05:002009-01-02T16:55:00.000-05:00"Seriously though, I think Iggy is itching for a f..."Seriously though, I think Iggy is itching for a fight."<BR/><BR/>Well then, you're using selective quotes, because in totality, "itching" is about the last word I would use. "Measured" seems more apt from here.<BR/><BR/>Just to add, I know full well this point of view isn't popular on our side of the blogosphere, but please don't give me this Con talking point crap, just because I don't happen to subscribe to the group think. It's my opinion, and frankly I don't even consider how things "go over" when I post.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-42321066223700745922009-01-02T16:48:00.000-05:002009-01-02T16:48:00.000-05:00Actually, Anonymous is my real name. I mean I coul...Actually, Anonymous is my real name. I mean I could call myself Phil or Greg or something, but what would be the point?<BR/><BR/>Seriously though, I think Iggy is itching for a fight. He is not going to give Gee (Greatest Economist on Earth) Harper the satisfaction of running around the country trumpetting his budget and running attack ads at the same time.<BR/><BR/>Iggy is no wimp, and I doubt the legitimacy argument has his knickers in a knot. He'll probably spend most of January trumpetting his own budget proposals and try to build a base of support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-18149972229630971472009-01-02T16:28:00.000-05:002009-01-02T16:28:00.000-05:00philThat to me is the more reasonable path, becaus...phil<BR/><BR/>That to me is the more reasonable path, because I think you can make a credible case, that if you want parliament to work, you need to remove the irritant. You don't reward the Cons with another mandate, given their behavior, nor do you reward a package which only comes about because you're cornered and desperate to hold onto power.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-11010093593604699362009-01-02T16:26:00.000-05:002009-01-02T16:26:00.000-05:00anonI have no clue what your babbling on about, bu...anon<BR/><BR/>I have no clue what your babbling on about, but pointing out the idea of legitimacy isn't a Con talking point, it's sort of common knowledge.<BR/><BR/>greg<BR/><BR/>When I say no downside, I mean this lame argument of "propping up" the Cons, which in this case doesn't wash. I just don't see how this budget passing suddenly absolves the Cons for the last year, while simultaneously giving full accountability to the Libs.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-56260812491119071242009-01-02T16:23:00.000-05:002009-01-02T16:23:00.000-05:00you're right, the CPC is hurting.screw the coaliti...you're right, the CPC is hurting.<BR/>screw the coalition, we want an election. <BR/>let's get rid of the CPC and Harper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-10676145554545244522009-01-02T15:46:00.000-05:002009-01-02T15:46:00.000-05:00I'm at a loss to understand what SteveV is doing h...I'm at a loss to understand what SteveV is doing here. If he is moderating the blog and encouraging a debate with all viewpoints, that's one thing. <BR/><BR/>Increasingly though it seems like he is - unwittingly perhaps - echoing the Conservative talking points as to why the Liberals should keep them in power. <BR/><BR/>In other words, he doesn't appear to point out how supporting Mr. Harper helps the Liberals. He is pointing out how forming a coalition would be morally objectionable and not accepted by Canadians, which is precisely the Conservative argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-60138001622151234202009-01-02T15:35:00.000-05:002009-01-02T15:35:00.000-05:00I see absolutely no negative fallout for the Liber...<I>I see absolutely no negative fallout for the Liberals, should they choose to support a reasonable budget. None.</I><BR/><BR/>That just means you aren't looking hard enough, Steve. Harper will find a way to make any deficits your fault and any further downturn a shared responsibility. And what can your party say? Yes we supported the budget, yes we kept Harper in power, but no we don't support him? That has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? I think it would be almost better for your party to propose a real coalition with the Tories. At least you would have more influence and if you are going to get blamed for the deficits anyway, you might as well have a seat at the table. Anything would be better than this fan dance your party seems addicted to.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06509182679650412982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-83992361688507469532009-01-02T14:13:00.000-05:002009-01-02T14:13:00.000-05:00It probably would have helped the concept, if Cana...It probably would have helped the concept, if Canadians didn't see an overwhelmingly rejected Liberal leader center stage, not exactly the best optics for an alternative government. Couple that with an abysmal sales job, which makes amateurish look good, and that's part of the problem.<BR/><BR/>Let's say the election didn't give Harper a stronger mandate, or the Liberals improved, enough so, that they could form a majority with the NDP. That scenario would be more acceptable to people. I think some would have to at least concede, the results of the last election weren't the best for an introduction.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-67546282079920508812009-01-02T14:07:00.000-05:002009-01-02T14:07:00.000-05:00I suspect that coalitions will become more more ac...I suspect that coalitions will become more more acceptable as Canadians get used to the idea and recognize their legitimacy. The "cooler heads" period has brought out political scientists and constitutional experts and journalists who are patiently explaining the rules and misconceptions about how our system works. <BR/><BR/>I hope that the pollsters find a good way to track public opinion on this. I suspect that opinions will shift from "The coalition was staging something akin to a third world coup" to "Yes, a governing body needs to have the confidence of the majority of MPs". <BR/><BR/>One nagging question: In future elections, if there is no clear majority, will the coalition option automatically be on the table?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-2947739731714537802009-01-02T13:50:00.000-05:002009-01-02T13:50:00.000-05:00Anti-coalition reaction was spun by the corporate ...Anti-coalition reaction was spun by the corporate media that was itself being spun by our Con PM. It's called propaganda, and both Harper and his friends and allies in the corporate news rooms spun the country like a top and that's what those polls and public opinions represent: Tory talking points set whirling around the body politic like gnats, masking the truth that will eventually set us free from Stephen Geoffrey Harper and the Principality he represents.Jerry Pragerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054428435443042500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-45510225761574875802009-01-02T13:17:00.000-05:002009-01-02T13:17:00.000-05:00We do need to figure this out Jeff, as you say coa...We do need to figure this out Jeff, as you say coalitions are going to be part of the equation moving forward. <BR/><BR/>My position is somewhat different than Murphy's, on the impetus. Given the fiscal update, a response of this kind was entirely legitimate, entirely justified, and I think Canadians do understand that Harper bears ultimate responsibility. Once, the GG gave Harper a reprieve, then I think it all changes, because that "cooling off" period allows for something more to be brought forward, as well as the opinion to cement itself. It was a viable option, but the re-group aspect now makes it less so, more likely it's now a matter of another election or not.<BR/><BR/>Maybe history will show that this introduction of a coalition was the first step towards acceptance, the next time it rears, it might be more palatable. I suspect we will hear talk of it in the next election, particularly if we have one as a result of this budget- I'm sure the Conservatives will make it a centerpiece, fear mongering and duplicity comes natural.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-91205599672028311542009-01-02T12:58:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:58:00.000-05:00Steve, I’m really not comfortable with the Rex Mur...Steve, I’m really not comfortable with the Rex Murphy argument. Once Mr. Harpoon pulled his boneheaded stunt in November, the options were 1) let him get away with it, 2) force an election or 3) offer a coalition government that can take over. Since we had just had an election, #3 was the only viable alternative. <BR/><BR/>But if we accept the Murphy position, then moves like #3 are off of the table, because they don’t have popular support with the general population. So what should have happened, then? Should the opposition have stood aside or forced another election?<BR/><BR/>Now I agree that TIMES HAVE CHANGED, and the 2009 coalition question not the same as the 2008 version. And I agree that public opinion about the coalition must be a factor, for moral and practical reasons. But in the context of Harpoon’s 2008 antics, Murphy’s position is bunk. <BR/><BR/>And I would add: we’d better figure this one out, because coalition options are likely going to become more significant in future parliaments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-24442213979598285282009-01-02T12:30:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:30:00.000-05:00I'm okay with another election.I'm okay with another election.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-76897294613759101882009-01-02T12:29:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:29:00.000-05:00PovAbsolutely not, I think you confuse parliamenta...Pov<BR/><BR/>Absolutely not, I think you confuse parliamentary procedure with what people will accept.<BR/><BR/>And, you yourself mentioned CBC/Faux, which begs the question- where exactly will you find your voice of legitimacy in the media?? If we have near universal disapproval of the "three headed monster", that will further erode any sense that is a responsible alternative. Who's going to champion it, and make no mistake, it will need some friendly voices?<BR/><BR/>This coalition is a national unity crisis, and given the feedback to date, if we plow ahead and don't heed the warnings, then...Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-32016537338290111562009-01-02T12:24:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:24:00.000-05:00Where you and I differ:I do not believe public opi...Where you and I differ:<BR/><BR/>I do not believe public opinion polls can be used to ascertain "moral authority".<BR/><BR/>I think you confuse "moral authority" with short term electoral-success-prospects.Northern PoVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04670080478290108536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-78132717303860059982009-01-02T12:21:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:21:00.000-05:00Speaking of moral authority to govern, this is wha...Speaking of moral authority to govern, this is what Stephen Harper said about Paul Martin's govt when they cancelled an opposition day:<BR/>"When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern" <BR/>Stephen Harper resolved to defeat the government at the next possible opportunity no matter what they did. Stephen Harper won the next election.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-28898072624659838872009-01-02T12:16:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:16:00.000-05:00"To govern (or oppose) by public opinion polls is,..."To govern (or oppose) by public opinion polls is, well ... undemocratic"<BR/><BR/>To try and govern without the moral authority to do so, is irresponsible in the extreme.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-78056462742127849482009-01-02T12:14:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:14:00.000-05:00The whole point of a Parliamentary representative ...The whole point of a Parliamentary representative democracy is to bring together REPRESENTATIVES of the people who will listen to each other and make the necessary compromises to make a civil society work. We do not have a system of direct democracy (thankfully). <BR/>Harper ignoring his minority status for the past two Parliaments and then successfully bullying the media and public opinion into opposing "the over-through of the gov't" by the coalition come from the same scorched-earth handbook that seeks to dumb-down the level of debate.<BR/><BR/>I agree with the other commentary ... a well-run coalition gov't would turn public opinion around, and ultimately an election will show that (or not).<BR/><BR/>We need to look very closely at the budget and not just the "stimulus $" size, but how it is spent. EI and tax-credits for poor folks would be the place to start. Bush poured billions into post-Katrina but most of it went to his buddies, not the people that needed it.<BR/><BR/>Ignore the current polls - given the current media environment where even CBC-TV sounds like Faux News and given the way the questions are asked: to yield the exact answers being sought by our public opinion makers. They come awful close to being "push polls".<BR/><BR/>To govern (or oppose) by public opinion polls is, well ... undemocraticNorthern PoVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04670080478290108536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-45698958327279881122009-01-02T12:10:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:10:00.000-05:00anonPeople like income splitting, so it's a hard s...anon<BR/><BR/>People like income splitting, so it's a hard sell.<BR/><BR/>As for the GST cut, I would see this one as entirely different. You will note, many of the economists that criticized the Cons initial two cuts, are now re-thinking the rationale for an additional one, and I agree. Part of the problem is consumer confidence, a GST cut rewards consumption, which is a critical way to get out of a recession. I guess my opinion will be contingent on whether it's a temporary drop or permanent.<BR/><BR/>I don't see how acknowledging a different reality now, takes away from the deficit argument.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-33276032888521930492009-01-02T12:05:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:05:00.000-05:00"I agree with the stance that the liberals are in ..."I agree with the stance that the liberals are in a tight spot."<BR/><BR/>I see absolutely no negative fallout for the Liberals, should they choose to support a reasonable budget. None.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-28144814893302832202009-01-02T12:03:00.000-05:002009-01-02T12:03:00.000-05:00Ok Steve (btw Anon 11:57 is a diff one, I was comm...Ok Steve (btw Anon 11:57 is a diff one, I was commenting on GST and income splitting). So to you is it really all about optics and not at all about future Liberal policy then? With income splitting there will be NO money left for Liberal priorities, it will be $5 billion a year gone and you will never be able to get rid of that just like the $2 billion a year $100 a month baby bonuses we knew were useless. What's the point of EVEN BEING THE NEXT GOVT if you can't do anything with it because of the cupboards are bare?<BR/><BR/>And I thought you wanted to CRUCIFY the Conservatives on economic management saying they put us in deficit, etc... Passing another GST cut would invalidate all that since the only reason the coffers were bare was because the cuts to 5%. You said if we CAN'T make that argument on them putting us in deficit WE LOSE the next election. That was the WHOLE BASIS of your argument against Bob Rae remember?<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying those are poison pills in the public eye but that to pass them would do long term damage to our prospects both in an election and governing context. Surely that should be a consideration for our caucus in voting too no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com