Early projection: Liberal minority in Canada

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-29 07:05am

Government gridlock is good! Look at the 1990's boom in the US for an example. neither side could relly push an agenda because the democrats held the white house and the Republicans held the congress and neither was strong enough to override the other. Stupid law passage was minimized. Canada is looking at a similar possibility.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2004-06-29 09:50am

Saw a joke elsewhere on the results.

Crooks: 135
Fascists: 99
Traitors: 54
Commies: 19
Freaks: 1

TWG

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-06-29 11:23am

So the Liberals have a minority...which means they won? Man, parliamentary government sure is complicated.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-06-29 11:30am

Andrew J. wrote:So the Liberals have a minority...which means they won? Man, parliamentary government sure is complicated.

Be quiet Yankee,you Americans have a war whacky President while we have a bank robbing Prime Minister.

muse · Post by **muse** » 2004-06-29 11:34am

Andrew J. wrote:So the Liberals have a minority...which means they won? Man, parliamentary government sure is complicated.

I can see how it's hard to understand...for people who haven't mastered the art of counting votes, and who can't figure out how to read a simple ballot among other things...

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2004-06-29 12:07pm

I just want to make an observation here. According to the official results the NDP/Liberal is 153 seats ( 154-1 seat for the Speaker) and Bloc/Conservative Opposistion is 154 seats (153+1 Right of Center Independent). I don't think that qualifies as even a remotely stable minority government.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-06-29 12:40pm

Don't you Canadians do coalition governments?

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-06-29 12:56pm

Dahak wrote:Don't you Canadians do coalition governments?

Simply - No, we don't. Natural coalitions don't really exist - each major party goes for the win - minorities are pretty rare.

Both the Libs and the Conservatives probably want a year or so before another election.

The Conservatives probably want a year to pass to give them a chance to build stability (the new party is less than a year old at this point) and organize in key ridings - also try to get at least one Quebec seat. I doubt they will "non confidence" the government on a whim (although some of the NDP financial policies could easily push them to do it).

The Liberals need a year (in my view) to bury the scandals in time and create a more stable atmosphere. Also, they will need a good reason to call an election (deliberately losing a non-confidence vote in a way that makes the other parties look bad could be one method.) Calling one without a solid reason could easily lose them the next election.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-06-29 01:16pm

Jalinth wrote:
Dahak wrote:Don't you Canadians do coalition governments?
Simply - No, we don't. Natural coalitions don't really exist - each major party goes for the win - minorities are pretty rare.

Both the Libs and the Conservatives probably want a year or so before another election.

The Conservatives probably want a year to pass to give them a chance to build stability (the new party is less than a year old at this point) and organize in key ridings - also try to get at least one Quebec seat. I doubt they will "non confidence" the government on a whim (although some of the NDP financial policies could easily push them to do it).

The Liberals need a year (in my view) to bury the scandals in time and create a more stable atmosphere. Also, they will need a good reason to call an election (deliberately losing a non-confidence vote in a way that makes the other parties look bad could be one method.) Calling one without a solid reason could easily lose them the next election.

Curious...
So you can get a government without actually having a majority?
Doesn't the PM needs to be elected?
Just asking, 'cause you couldn't really get a minority government here. For it to work, you had the opposition to let you do it. Which they wouldn't...

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-29 01:28pm

Dahak wrote: So you can get a government without actually having a majority?
Doesn't the PM needs to be elected?
.

thats a damn good question. this might be fun to watch!

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-06-29 01:47pm

Dahak wrote:Don't you Canadians do coalition governments?

The platforms of the 4 current political parties in the House are so diametrically opposed, that coalition is next to impossible: the only possible cooperation would be between the Liberals and the NDP. The NDP do share some common ground with the Liberals, and would be willing to cooperate on some issues (this would also force the Liberals to keep their corruption in check, and make it harder for them to break their campaign promises). However, there are many other issues where they will part ways (like the US missile defence shield, which Martin is commited to). In short, neither party will ever compromise enough for a Liberal/NDP coalition to be possible...

So you can get a government without actually having a majority?
Doesn't the PM needs to be elected?

Given that we have 4 political parties (granted, the Bloc and NDP combined only hold 1/4 of the total seats), Martin doesn't need a majority to win, just a plurality. The Liberals do have the largest number of seats (which is all that's needed to win), just not the majority of the total number of seats...

Besides, the only votes that go directly to the PM or prospective PMs are those from their own riding. The only person people in other ridings vote for is their own member of parliament (MP). Since these votes are what determine how many seats each party gets in Parliament, they directly determine who gets to be prime minister.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-06-29 01:48pm

muse wrote:
Andrew J. wrote:So the Liberals have a minority...which means they won? Man, parliamentary government sure is complicated.
I can see how it's hard to understand...for people who haven't mastered the art of counting votes, and who can't figure out how to read a simple ballot among other things...

Hey now, that's just Floridians. How would you like it if I extrapolated the intelligence of, say, Newfies to be the intelligence of all Canadians?

J · Post by J » 2004-06-29 01:49pm

Dahak wrote:Curious...
So you can get a government without actually having a majority?

Yup, we can indeed, but the situation we have right now, with the potential coalitions all tied up hasn't happened before to my knowledge. What happens next will truly be interesting.

Doesn't the PM needs to be elected?

Yes, but we don't have a separated vote for the PM, the PM is the leader of the winning party. In the case where the party wins but the leader is defeated in his home riding, a party member from another riding will step down and allow the party leader to take his place. I don't recall if this requires a by-election in the riding, though I imagine it likely does.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-06-29 02:56pm

jmac wrote:Yes, but we don't have a separated vote for the PM, the PM is the leader of the winning party. In the case where the party wins but the leader is defeated in his home riding, a party member from another riding will step down and allow the party leader to take his place. I don't recall if this requires a by-election in the riding, though I imagine it likely does.

Ok, that explains a lot

When we have elected our parliament (currently 5 parties), the Chancellor still needs to be elected by an absolute majority of the newly elected government. Thus in our whole, post-war, history we had only one non-coalition government...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-29 05:20pm

President Sharky · Post by **President Sharky** » 2004-06-30 01:08am

YAARRGGGH!!!

Why? Why did Stephen Harper have to blow it for us in the last week? The Conservatives were heading for a minority government, and then in a flash he turned into an arrogant snob. Now look, the crooks are still in power, and now they have to pay service to the fucking socialists!

There has to be some serious re-evaluation of the Conservative Party's policies, namely going back to the Progressive social agenda of the former PC party. At the party's policy convention later this year, significant changes better take place. Toronto and the GTA were untouched by the Conservatives, an absolutely pitiful display. When high-profile candidates like Tony Clement and David Johnson are getting slaughtered at the polls, something is definitely wrong with the overall strategy.

Harper ought to take a lot more consultation from Peter McKay and Belinda Stronarch, who are much better icons for a progressive party, before the next election if he plans on presenting a more comfortable alternative to the Liberal sleazebags.

On a related topic: who wants to start placing their bets on how long this parliament is going to last? I wager a brief 12 to 14 months.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2004-06-30 01:50am

You could always get Alberta to secede. There've been rumblings from there about all the federal aid Quebec is raking in.

TWG

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2004-06-30 12:04pm

Although I'm certainly cashing in a bit late on this subject, I'm rather pleased with the whole turnout.

The Liberals needed to be brought into check with their wasteful spending habits, the Conservatives need to be kept from enacting their neolithic social policies. Granted, I see it as something of a dysfunctional government, but I'm crossing my fingers in hopes that the NDP play ball with the Liberals in exchange for seeing some of their better leading political ideas coming to pass.

muse · Post by **muse** » 2004-06-30 12:39pm

President Sharky wrote:Why? Why did Stephen Harper have to blow it for us in the last week?

Because he's a fucking idiot who doesn't deserve to win, with his policies I feel he's completely unfit to govern canada, he'd fit in just fine in say...Texas. He's just showing his true colours, and it reads "asshole".

There has to be some serious re-evaluation of the Conservative Party's policies, namely going back to the Progressive social agenda of the former PC party. At the party's policy convention later this year, significant changes better take place. Toronto and the GTA were untouched by the Conservatives, an absolutely pitiful display. When high-profile candidates like Tony Clement and David Johnson are getting slaughtered at the polls, something is definitely wrong with the overall strategy.

It's not surprising, the GTA is the most socially progressive area in Canada, why would be surprised that we turned our backs on the socially regressive conservatives? Also, with a PC federal government, relations with the Ontario liberals would be shit to say the least, meaning no funding, meaning the city is sucked dry, neglected, and left to rot. The Liberals and NDP have both promised increased funding for the city, the PC didn't, think about that.

Harper ought to take a lot more consultation from Peter McKay and Belinda Stronarch, who are much better icons for a progressive party, before the next election if he plans on presenting a more comfortable alternative to the Liberal sleazebags.

If the Cons want a shot at Ontario, they have to dump Harper and the rest of the ex-Reform party dinosaurs and elect someone progressive like Belinda Stronach as their leader. To win a majority, they have to win in Ontario, and to do that, they have to win in the GTA, which means they have to look after our interests. They didn't, and they got killed.