We will soon see the budget and based on what it says the Party will support it or not. If the budget is good then all's well but if not... . Try to form a coalition government or just go to an election?
The coalition is viable enough -- and the NDP isn't too far from most Liberal positions -- but it is the perception that the coalition include the Bloc that is the trouble.
And for that reason my view is that we cannot go ahead without an election if the budget is rejected.
A Liberal/NDP coalition is fine. We know the Bloc is not part of the government to be, but, the Canadian people have made it clear that they consider it to be a joining of forces with those who would tear the nation apart.
And so I say no to the coalition.
4 comments:
A party that bases every little thing on opinion polls is not a party that should lead a country.
If you think a Liberal/NDP coalition is constitutional, is Canadian, and what is right, than let's do it. If one worries about public perception when the public is wrong, how are we ever supposed to be right?
I think we should actually lead.
I agree. If we believe the Budget to be lacking, vote it down. Then, Let the Governor-General decide if it should be coalition or election. If she decides to go with an election, fine.. but we as Liberals shouldn't be unilaterally backing off of the idea on our own.
If she offers Iggy the chance to govern with a coalition, and we can show the country that a coalition can work with good policies, and 18 months minimum to work with before an election call, then public opinion will turn soon enough (and it's been turning already since Christmas in the Nanos polling).
"every little thing"
LOL, could it be any BIGGER? Any party that doesn't consult with people, on this fundamental point, is simply "not a party that should lead a country".
Just to add to Scott's point, I hope the budget is "lacking", in some respects. The last thing the Liberals want is a budget that completely reflects their wants, because then they too are on the "hook", if the government policies fail. The ideal circumstance, if you assume the coalition is pretty much dead, the government presents something which you have to swallow hard to accept. "We support this point, and that, but they should have done something here, and this here doesn't quite cut it". No poison pills, just differences in approach, that allow for overall passage, while still allowing ample room for criticism. The Liberals don't want all their demands met, just enough overlap to let it pass. That's where we are here, everything else is marginal.
Steve: Consultation in no way negates taking a position that is unpopular to a majority of the people.
Choosing to remain part of a coalition is not comparable to any policy creation. True being part of a coalition will affect policy, but being part of a coalition will not directly influence Canada as the policy decisions that our party makes. So yes there are many things bigger than being part of a coalition, and those things are any actions we in government are to take.
Furthermore I don't see 'consulting' as being contrary to leading. A party can take a position contray to the people, and consult with them, to explain why such a decision is right and what would be the best means to enact such a decision.
Consultation in no way negates taking a position that is unpopular to a majority of the people.
Post a Comment