Monday, August 23, 2010

Canadians are Now Receptive to a Progressive Coalition to Get Rid of Harper

Australia's election results reveal the desire for a coalition government. David Cameron came to power on a coalition in Britain. We can do this. Harper lied about the legitimacy of such a move, despite the fact that he tried to do the same thing himself in 2004.

This is not a merging of parties, only a pre-election agreement that they will join forces, after the election.

Can you imagine being able to select a dream cabinet from the best of the House. There are many in all parties who could do so much for this country, and without the toxic partisanship, we might have some hope in moving forward with such things as climate change.

I think we are ready.

People who may have been persuaded by the first blast of the Tory Rage Machine's hysterical response to the coalition idea have now had a little time to think about how our Parliamentary democracy really works, and how they've observed it working elsewhere. Moreover, they’ve also had nearly two additional years to see Harper in action. It's been -- and continues to be -- an educational experience.

As a result, going into the next federal general election, Canadians have had their consciousness raised about Parliamentary coalitions. Sure, lots of folks will still be opposed. And the Rage Machine will still scream at us that coalitions are an outrage. But Canadians have had a couple of years to ponder what really happened 2008, and what could have. It seems likely, in these circumstances alone, that many more voters than not will have moved from the anti-coalition camp to the group that is at least prepared to consider the idea.

What's more, going into an election that could result in a coalition from the get-go is different from being surprised by the idea a few days after what you'd thought was a foregone conclusion.


  1. Realistically, the only way it would gain acceptance is if the Liberals and NDP gain 155 seats between them. Involving the Bloc was what made it HIGHLY unpopular outside Quebec, and if it was successful, it would have likely lead towards a serious movement towards separation in Western Canada.

  2. You're probably right, though I think the West is already looking to at least be another Bloc. The Wildrose Alliance looks like a separatist party to me with the Calgary School firewall mentality.

    In fact most of the people behind the WRA are the same people who were behind Stephen Harper.

  3. A 155-seat LPC+NDP total is only likely in a Liberal minority government, unless there is a really bad 3-way or 4-way split or a close result with historic NDP gains. If the CPC form another minority government, a coalition would be unlikely to succeed as they would have to form it with the LPC or (less likely) NDP, who have considerable distance between them on most issues, except for some older Liberal backbenchers.

    Anything involving the Bloc would be political suicide for the parties involved (other than the Bloc themselves who would make huge gains in Quebec) - polls consistently had Harper well into the 40s and even pushing 50% during the coalition period, despite having almost no support in Quebec (it would be worth about 80-90 seats in Ontario, a good result in the Atlantic and a virtual sweep of the West). If the CPC were dumb enough to push a full or partial coalition with them again, they would once again tank in the polls like they did after the 2004 election.

  4. He polled high during the coalition threat because he painted it as a "coup". I think Canadians now know better.