CanPol: May(?) 2011 Election. Vote today!

[notyoueither]

This is one of my few (believe it or not) policy issues with C- policy. The entire Justice file is a mess under this government. I haven't heard of this particular issue before now but it really doesn't surprise me.

It needs to be funded properly so the police can investigate crimes, the courts can handle the cases, and criminals can be housed while they do their time.

[Wezil]

Budgets have not needed Bloc support.

It only matters if they are "giving away the farm". That can be done in many ways (most non-budgetary).

[Wezil]

It needs to be funded properly so the police can investigate crimes, the courts can handle the cases, and criminals can be housed while they do their time.

I'm more concerned about the increase in statutory jail times for a host of offences (including some an Ontario court has ruled aren't even offences) in order to manufacture the criminals to fill the new jails. It is dumb on crime.

[C0ckney]

The coalition in Britain is brought up frequently by commentators. However, they stop short of saying the obvious. There would not be and never will be a coalition in GB that includes Sinn Fein or the Scotish National Party.

there was some talk after the last election about a grand coalition of the losers including the nationalist parties in scotland and wales. there is no constitutional problem with this and there are some scenarios where it could happen. one reason it didn't happen (other than the fact any such coalition would have fallen apart in about 5 minutes) was that many scottish labour MPs refused point blank to work with the SNP.

obviously a coalition with sinn fein would be a bit hard because they don't take their seats...

[Wezil]

Canada is very uncomfortable with coalitions and has little experience with them. Combine that with a FPTP system in a regional country where it is near impossible for any party to get a majority of seats and you will understand where we have been the last number of years.

[notyoueither]

I'm more concerned about the increase in statutory jail times for a host of offences (including some an Ontario court has ruled aren't even offences) in order to manufacture the criminals to fill the new jails. It is dumb on crime.

We have a lower incarceration rate than the Netherlands and the UK. Nice talking point though.

[notyoueither]

Canada is very uncomfortable with coalitions and has little experience with them. Combine that with a FPTP system in a regional country where it is near impossible for any party to get a majority of seats and you will understand where we have been the last number of years.

Nonsense. We've won a war under a coalition. We haven't needed them much because minorities have been productive without them on the whole.

There would be no problem with a coalition that did not depend on seperatists and special interest parties to govern.

[notyoueither]

there was some talk after the last election about a grand coalition of the losers including the nationalist parties in scotland and wales. there is no constitutional problem with this and there are some scenarios where it could happen. one reason it didn't happen (other than the fact any such coalition would have fallen apart in about 5 minutes) was that many scottish labour MPs refused point blank to work with the SNP.

obviously a coalition with sinn fein would be a bit hard because they don't take their seats...

I'd read about this and recollect that Labour holding on under this 'coalition of losers' was not politically feasible even though constitutionally valid.

Same here. If Ignatieff admits that he would form government without having the most seats and that government would require the BQ to remain in power, the Liberals would get wiped out.

[Wezil]

We have a lower incarceration rate than the Netherlands and the UK. Nice talking point though.

What in my statement is untrue? Comparing our rate to the Netherlands is a talking point.

edit - Is Harper trying to make up for lost ground with the UK?

[Wezil]

Nonsense. We've won a war under a coalition.

Once, while we were at war, a hundred years ago. Yes, we are real comfortable with them.

We haven't needed them much because minorities have been productive without them on the whole.

Agreed.

There would be no problem with a coalition that did not depend on seperatists and special interest parties to govern.

Again agreed in that it would be politically distasteful. That's why I think a formal arrangement is the wrong way to go. Make them no promises.

[Wezil]

Budgets have not needed Bloc support.

The Canadian federal budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year was presented to the Canadian House of Commons by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on March 19, 2007. The federal budget included $14 billion in new spending and $5.7 billion in tax cuts. This was the second budget of the 39th Canadian Parliament.

Since the government held a minority, the budget needed support of at least one opposition party. On March 29, 2007, Bill C-52, the enabling legislation to implement the budget, received First Reading in the House of Commons with the support of the Bloc Québécois. The New Democratic Party and Liberal Party voted against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Canadian_federal_budget

Care to rephrase?

[C0ckney]

Canada is very uncomfortable with coalitions and has little experience with them. Combine that with a FPTP system in a regional country where it is near impossible for any party to get a majority of seats and you will understand where we have been the last number of years.

are people comfortable with the current situation or does it create pressure for a change of the voting system?

[C0ckney]

I'd read about this and recollect that Labour holding on under this 'coalition of losers' was not politically feasible even though constitutionally valid.

Same here. If Ignatieff admits that he would form government without having the most seats and that government would require the BQ to remain in power, the Liberals would get wiped out.

yes that's pretty much correct from the UK perspective.

[notyoueither]

The Canadian federal budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year was presented to the Canadian House of Commons by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on March 19, 2007. The federal budget included $14 billion in new spending and $5.7 billion in tax cuts. This was the second budget of the 39th Canadian Parliament.

Since the government held a minority, the budget needed support of at least one opposition party. On March 29, 2007, Bill C-52, the enabling legislation to implement the budget, received First Reading in the House of Commons with the support of the Bloc Québécois. The New Democratic Party and Liberal Party voted against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Canadian_federal_budget

Care to rephrase?

I smell a rat.

This is the list of votes for Bill C-52

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Housebills/BillVotes.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&Bill=C52

No vote listed for Mar 29 (first reading). It is noted as 'deemed adopted' in Hansard for that date.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2819077

Now go back to the voting records.
Vote number 186 (second reading on May 15). 115 nays. There were 124 Conservatives in that Parliament, and the Liberals were not in a really big hurry to go back to the polls (IIRC).

I do not think the Conservatives needed the Bloc to pass a budget when the opposition was not trying to stop it (vote totals).

[Wezil]

are people comfortable with the current situation or does it create pressure for a change of the voting system?

Define "comfortable"?

There is always talk of changing the sytem but thus far only two (iirc) provinces have actually somewhat seriously considered it, BC and Ontario. The option of changing to some sort of PR system was on a ballot as a plebiscite and failed to garner enough votes to be enacted. Supporters will tell you the game was fixed (prechosen form of PR, too high a threshold, etc). Opponents will argue the public doesn't want it.

It's unlikely to come to pass anytime soon at the federal level as both main parties oppose the idea (for obvious reasons).