Undemocratic?

Okay, who's going to be the first to talk about the "undemocratic" NDP-Conservative coalition after Layton meets Harper today?

Update: On Twitter, Liberal folks are having some fun with the prospect of a Harper-Layton deal.  Big City Lib is talking about   "purple coalition" -- the result of mixing Tory blue with NDP orange. And   the Liberals' national director, Rocco Rossi, is suggesting that what really unites  the two parties is the  desire to shed part of their names -- democrats that aren't new and conservatives that aren't progressive.

Comments

[Darwin O'Connor]

The Star editorial has that covered already, "Now, the NDP has evolved as more of an enabler for the Conservatives..."

I email the Star public editor about that patently untrue statement, but I received no reply.

[anonymoose]

you are susan. In case you have been living under a bridge, the PM has met with oppostion leaders prior to every session. My guess is that Jacko will come out and stand at his press conference, look at the assembled press person, put on a long face and bemoan the fact that Harper won't bend to his will. Then Mr. Scrubbing Bubbles will get fired up and say that HE won't vote to support the government. It is the only way he can be seen to be relevant.

[Greg Farries]

Meeting together is hardly a "coalition."

When Harper signs a formal agreement with the socialists and the separatists, then you can (and I will too!) cry to the heavens about "undemocratic" coalitions undermining the foundation of Canadian democracy.

In the mean time however, we'll just have to watch the game of political brinkmanship play out between Harper, Layton and Ignatieff.

[NB Sparrow]

Did someone fail to invite Gilles Duceppe, or is he just going to sign a paper promising not to vote against the socialist coalition for 18 months?

[jason]

"Okay, who's going to be the first to talk about the "undemocratic" NDP-Conservative coalition after Layton meets Harper today?"

You are. You'll also be the only one foolish enough to suggest that discussing EI is equal to forming a formal coalition government.

[Dennis]

Harper is our elected prime minister, isn't he?

[paulsstuff]

Nobody. I would think that a supposed political journalist might be able to discern the differences.
1. They are not unseating the elected party.
2. They are not giving cabinet seats as an enticement.
3. The election was held 10 months ago.
4. There is no document signed by the leader of the Conservative Party agreeing to an official coaltion, as there was by both the current and previous Liberal leaders.
5. No where are seperatists included.

It's also worth pointing out that at no time did you call Iggy's support for the government an un-democratic coalition. Toronto Star readership numbers are in the tank, and this is a fine example why.

[Observant]

Susan !!!! ... Have you no empathy for semi-socialist Jack Layton in his geo-political quandary??? Who is he to offer his hand of support ... Liberal crypto-fascist USian Ignatieff backed by defrocked Dipper BobRae ... or all-Canadian rightwing Conservative Harper backed by wise old PC Tories...???!!!

Come on, Susan ... Jacko is not yet dead (politically) and he's attempting to breath some life into an informal working coalition to spare Canadians an unwanted federal election ... so give him a break..!!!

[Wascally Wabbit]

Me first me first ;-)

Not being a Dipper - I can only speculate - but I have to suspect that any dalliance by Jumping Jack with Harper is going to be treated with suspicion - not just by those with other party affiliations - but by long term NDP members.
I can think of many who would have difficulty getting into bed with the Liberals - but Jack getting into bed with Harper - to SAVE HARPER's skin....Jack better be getting a whole lot of skin in return!

[True North]

anonymoose: you mean like Harper not meeting with the other leaders after he went to the GG and prorogued parliament? No meeting at the beginning of that session.

[Bryan L.]

Dennis, we do not elect Prime Ministers. We elect MPs who then pick a PM. So the answer to your question is "no".

[DQuintin]

"Harper is our elected prime minister, isn't he?"

No, actually he's not our "elected" prime minister. We don't elect PMs in Canada.

Harper is the elected MP for Calgary West.

The members of the CPC elected him the leader of the party.

As that party won more seats than any other party, he is the Prime Minister.

Subtle but important difference.

[Mapsonburt]

One more reason why I don't pay to read the Star... What a totally useless piece of "analysis".. there is no way in $&*& you could call this journalism.

[hollinm]

Wouldn't it blow the socks off Susan and the rest of the lefties if Harper and Layton announced a coalition where the NDP agreed to support the Conservatives for the next year. Of course Harper would have to give something to the used car salesman but the PM can be innovative when he wants to be.

[Natedawg]

Wow. All that Jacko said at the press conference was how uncooperative Harper was. And this is somehow a "coalition"? No documents signed, no swapping of cabinet seats, not even an informal agreement on anything. If anything it's a Con-Lib coalition, as long as Iggy keeps propping up the Cons indefinitely.

[Scott]

The progressives were an agrarian protest party from the west. not Sure Rocco should be boasting about his party's accomplishments in either one of those categories. ;)

[Dennis]

To the predictable responders to my post:

a) If you want to get technical, I have yet to see anywhere any indication that Harper is willing to form a "coalition" with Layton. Yet that's what was originally posted on here.

b) Ask any Canadian on the street who our elected PM is, and they'll say Harper. It may not be technically correct, but it's certainly how politics is done here and in most countries today, which tends to be almost completely leadership oriented.

As far as Canadians are concerned, the man they elected as PM is PM. Try to change that, as the opposition parties did with the coalition, and Canadians will not be pleased, as the polls and public anger showed at the time.

[KRB]

Coalition?! Any "understanding" reached wouldn't even qualify as an "Accord" (see Ontario 1985 Lib-NDP Accord).

Coalitions are when a government consists of ministers from more than one political party ... I'd go so far as to say it's only a truly "formal" coalition when the leadership of each of the parties within the government agree to it (so the Unionist coalition of 1917-1920 was only an informal coalition). Coalitions are what Jack wants with Ignatieff after the next election.

Accords are what Ignatieff wants with the NDP after the next election. But see, Accords really only work when you have 1) the most seats, or 2) very close to it. The more seats you need of the junior partner, the less attractive the Accord is to the junior partner, especially a junior partner with Jack Layton as leader.

It's odd in democratic countries with coalition governments to see one that doesn't include the largest party in its midst, and even stranger to see a coalition gov't that is smaller than the single largest party, and with a minority of 78 (meaning it would be the smallest ever government in Canadian history). It's not that The Coalition was undemocratic; it was that it was just so bone stupid, on so many levels.