Sunday, December 07, 2008

A Coalition If Necessary, But Not Necessarily A Coalition

The Tories are shifting bodies around in advance of their auto-sector bailout package:

Newmarket-Aurora MP Lois Brown has been named vice-chairperson of the Conservative Party's auto caucus.

The committee is responsible for meeting with representatives of the Canadian auto industry and bringing forward recommendations to Industry Minister Tony Clement.

So my question is: if, as many people seem to be suggesting, the Tory's January budget contains something substantial in the way of an auto-sector bailout and general stimulus package (and none of the economic update's poison pills), where does that leave The Coalition?

My personal opinion is that it will have served its purpose, and should at that time be abandoned. What would its ongoing rationale be? Merely to take power away from the Conservatives? Such a strategy may well lead to electoral disaster down the road, esp. if the government falls in, say, mid-Febraury and the GG decides that enough time has passed for another election to be a preferable option to coalition rule.

No. It is far better for the opposition parties to let the government of the day implement the opposition agenda. That is what this is about, right? What policies are operative, not who gets to put them in place.

12 comments:

RuralSandi said...

Well said and I agree, but we have a bunch of Rae supporters acting like goon squads and using this to attack Ignatieff.

Rae is running a slimy campaign - do we want this?

I notice no one is complaining about LeBlanc's silence on this.

Everyone likes Obama - Obama is careful, pragmatic.

This is becoming insanity.

Just what if the financial package is a good one? More delays possible is not an option if there is something substantive.

Mike said...

If we are going to prop up the Tories then there is no need to elect a new leader before May. I certainly don't see one. Electing a leader before May does send a bad message to the West who were going to finally get the convention (which is never been there in party history) and does clearly favour one candidate over the others, so I just can't see it as justified to bypass all the rules and our constitution.

Quite frankly it's much better for an interim (whether Dion or someone else) to take the hit of propping up the Tories than having that be the first official choice of the new leader.

Mark Francis said...

Real simple: the coalition lost the vote (because it wasn't held).

Harper will have gotten away with this.

People need to realize what that means.

bigcitylib said...

Mike,

That's a good point. But I am worried about Harper trying to engineer an election between January and May. What if the budget contains a stimulous package AND poison pills?

Dr.Dawg said...

if the GG decides in, say, mid-February that enough time has passed for another election to be a preferable option to coalition rule.

Um, hold on a minute, BCL. Jean doesn't rule. She doesn't get to dissolve Parliament unless she is asked to. If the coalition succeeded in forming a government, it could rule until it falls.

Taking power from the Conservatives is just fine by me.

bigcitylib said...

Dawg,

What I mean is we go through the whole thing again and the GG accedes to the PM's election request.

"aking power from the Conservatives is just fine by me."

Me too. But getting plastered in an election is not my idea of a good time.

Ti-Guy said...

What I mean is we go through the whole thing again and the GG accedes to the PM's election request.

She's already on thin ice, and calling an election around February is still too soon. Way too soon.

Davey's Politics said...

Hey, I already used this title for a post of mine last week. Stop stealing my ideas. :) Ok, I know it's cribbed from a Mackenzie King quote, but it's nice to know great minds think alike.
http://daveyspolitics.blogspot.com/2008/12/not-necessarily-coalition-but-coalition.html

wilson said...

'Electing a leader before May does send a bad message to the West'

You have got to be kidding.
Libs want to reduce the Wests representation by 49 seats, and install the Bloc with that representation,
and you're worried about the location of a convention not being in BC!!

''engineer an election between January and May''

Better get your constitutional 'experts' out on this one BCL,
precedent since the beginning of time is if the GG appoints an unelected government,
that government resigns and goes to the people, within 6 months or LESS.

July 2008 election or bust!!

burlivespipe said...

Concur with BCL here; the coalition, from the Liberal standpoint, only works if it is in response to a very serious threat (to the economy, national security etc) and will not fly if its just based on Harper's inability to 'play nice.'
Right now Harper's meme men are out and about trying to drum up bitter patriotism, but if we're able to get concessions in the budget we can let this gang stand to soak in their immoral stench for a little longer. I say let's get some quick decision on the leadership post-haste, let the new leader take charge. The coalition, as currently composed, would have a hard time hanging together past May anyways.

noonespecial200 said...

Wilson: Better get your constitutional 'experts' out on this one BCL,
precedent since the beginning of time is if the GG appoints an unelected government,
that government resigns and goes to the people, within 6 months or LESS.

July 2008 election or bust!!


Last time I checked every single member of the House of Commons, be that member a Conservative, a Liberal, a New Democrat, or a Bloc MP, are duly elected. As such, we wouldn't have an unelected government should the GG decide to turn over the government to the opposition.

Learn about the political system you're bitching about dipshit.

Ti-Guy said...

Wilson needs to be publicly flogged.