Talk:2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Requested move
First Minority Coalition government?
Just curious. If this Liberal-NDP coalition gets appointed governent in January 2009, would it be the first minority coalition government in international history? If so, it something we could add. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. Several Irish coalitions have been reliant on independents and micro-parties for support in the Dail. The 1948-1951 Everyone-Against-Fianna-Fail government was made up of 5 parties who were still 3 seats short of Fianna Fail but independents made up the gap (with one, an former Fine Gael TD who'd later be their leader, sitting in cabinet). The 1954-1957 government was three parties bobbing along on the borders of majority/minority status, with a fourth party supporting it from outside. 1981-1982 saw a Fine Gael-Labour coalition in a minority that fell on the first budget. 1989 saw Fianna Fail form a coalition with the Progressive Democrats and they had exactly half the seats in the Dail at the outset. In 1997 they formed another coalition (having run on a joint platform) that was 3 short with independents making up the gap.
- In Australia the United Australia Party-Country Party Coalition in 1940-1941 was reliant on two independents until they pulled the plug.
- In other countries it's tricky to say because in both the UK and a lot of the Commonwealth formally organised parties with strict memberships were relatively late comers on the scene. Right into the 19th century in the UK (and even later in some other places) you have the twin problems of many MPs being either independent or ambiguous in their party, making it hard to be precise about party numbers, and "parties" being loose groupings of various factions with personalities being the main elements. So a lot of governments could conceivably be described as coalitions and they didn't always survive in the Commons, though as governments were also freer about resigning on more minor issues than today it's even harder to be certain about whether they were majority or minorities. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS- can we please remove the Ontario government example from this article? That was a Liberal minority government (propped by the NDP), not a coalition government. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Myself I don't understand the need - obsession - to decide whether this is the first or third or tenth or last of anything; this is not the Guinness Book of World Records and unless whatever the true fact of it is relates to the situation in any but a trivia-comparison way it doesn't really mater. It is an extraordinary combination of elements, to be sure. the Joe Martin government in BC was constituted by L-G McInnes with only 6 members out of 31, though there were no political parties in the BC House at the time, and in the back of my head there's something about Pitt the Younger or Pitt the Elder to do with a minority situation - but party discipline in t hose days was not rigid (that's pretty well a Canadian invention....I stand ready to be corrected by our UK contributors here but party discipline is not automatic in the British Commons). As for your exact phrase at teh start of this section: "Just curious. If this Liberal-NDP coalition gets appointed government in January 2009, would it be the first minority coalition government in international history" - in international history, NO, absolutely not; "minority-based coalition government" is the nature of the system in many countries - Norway, Holland, Israel come to mind but they're nowhere near alone; Italy also has several examples (actually Italy went for about 18 months without a government back in the '80s or '70s as nobody could for m a coalition to govern; apparently it was their biggest period of economic growht in that era...). I remember - I think - that Gro Harlem Brundtland formed a goevrnment with her party as its minority basis; and they may not have been the largest of the parties in the Norwegian legislature, I'd have to check. And even limiting it to Westminster-based constitutions, there's a lot of smaller examples out there to be investigated before such a sweeping statement coudl be made; Guyana, Belize, Jamaica, Bahamas, Trinidad, and any number of former African colonies ditto in Oceania (in Africa, of course, many of the countries that had the Westminster model didn't keep with it - and constitutional impasses may have been the reaosns why; I don't know post-colonial history enough to know; and wasn't there a political crisis in Tonga just this last month??. Sweeping statements and "for the first time in history" comments - or as we often hear "the worst scandal in such-and-so history" are dimestore headlines, not really of any meaning except in very abstract terms, and usually part of sales pitches. "The wordt government in BC's history" was how the Clark NDP were vilified by columnists whose political memory went back barely 20 years. "first/worst [xxx] n history" is a gee-whiz construction.Skookum1 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS- can we please remove the Ontario government example from this article? That was a Liberal minority government (propped by the NDP), not a coalition government. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- But Constitutional conventions and precedents are always highly-nuanced and context-specific. We are just trying to see the wood for the trees!
- I think we can say two things, certainly under the Westminster model countries.
- i) No largest party that has increased its strength at an election and passed a Queen's Speech has ever had a subsequent request for a dissolution refused.
- ii) No minority coalition has ever come to power other than as a result of an election.
- (ii) is true only if the phrase "in jurisdictions that have political party systems" - see Thomas Robert McInnes and also if the phrase "excluding provincial/non-federal jurisdictions" is included - see this article in the Tyee about 1941 and 1952 in British Columbia. yes, there were elections preceding those minority governments, but the coalition was not the subject of the election in either case; and '52 also concerned the end of the formal Coalition that had been spawned by 1941...and the '52 instance was political manoevring, not a coalition in the usual sense.Skookum1 (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can we even say those for sure, given the large number of countries that do or have used the Westminster system? Everyone's thinking in terms of Canada-UK-Australia with a bit of Ireland and South Africa thrown in (and poor old New Zealand gets forgotten as ever - BTW they had a minority Labour-Alliance coalition with Green support in 1999, a minority Labour-Progressive coalition with United Future support in 2002 and then in 2005 some very confused arrangements involving Labour-Progressives with New Zealand First technically on conf & supply basis but with their leader in government, whilst the Greens also gave conf & supply), but there are many more countries to consider. I thought the 1994 election-less change of power in Ireland saw a minority Fine Gael-Labour-Democratic Left coalition come in, but it turns out that by-election gains had just pushed the combination into majority status. That there's an obvious example so close to the scenario suggests there may well be others that do disprove both statements if one looks hard enough. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- i) You are really reaching here for some kind of "never had a dissolution refused" confluence of scenarios. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
[undent]Further to the subject of coalitions, though not exactly minorities, in BC political history it'sa given that the Social Credit Party as reconstituted for teh 1975 election was a coalition of the 1952-1972 Socreds with the rumps of the provincial Liberal and Conservative Parties; but since the name Social Credit was used it's not usually seen as aformal coalition, though that's exactly what it was (including guaranteed cabinet seats for the prominent Liberals without whose seats, and also their votes in what would otherwise have been NDP seats but, with Liberal and Conservative votes, became secure, or semi-secure, Social Credit seats; effectively the 1941 Coalition re-born though coalesced around what had been a minority fringe party before 1952. I should stress this is not original research but a common account in political journalism in BC and a "given" in BC political history - that the "Miniwac Socreds" were a coalition that became a formal party ("Miniwac" being Bill Bennett)...the things that we keep behind the Rockies huh? Or that get kept behind the Rockies, that is...an actual analsysis of the 1975 returns by - I think it was - Allan Fotheringham (and he wasn't alone) - explicitly spelled it out as a minority coalition that would not have had a majority without being a coalition. So if Ontario in '856 wasn't a coalition because it wasnt' formalized, how then to account for a colation in BC in '75 that was formalized (i.e. by augmenting an existing party). it's worth noting that the provincial Liberals and Conservatives did not re-appear until after the collapse of Social Credit in 1991....Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I take your minor point about "party-political" whatnot, but since that is what we're dealing with today it's taken as read. ii) needs slight rephrasing, since I don't think your examples undermine what I intended it to mean. So we have...
- i) (unchanged) No largest party that has increased its strength at an election and passed a Queen's Speech has ever had a subsequent request for a dissolution refused.
- ii) No minority coalition has ever taken power from another government*, other than as a result of an election. [*where "another government" means a configuration of which members of the minority coalition were not previously members]
- I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example under the Westminster system, Tim, which is all we're really interested in, so far as constitutionality is concerned. RodCrosby (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No GoodDay, it would not be the first. Actually there was a similar situation in India about 10 years ago. In 1996 the BJP won a plurality (194 seats -- a 41 seat increase on '91) and formed a government but couldn't find stable coalition partners so the government fell quickly. Congress and the Communists both declined to form a government but offered outside support to the Janata Dal lead coalition government known as the United Front which initially had 192 seats but was supported by the 136-seat INC. But I'll bet there are other examples as well.
I agree with Skookum that this isn't that meaningful. Personally I don't think it is all that helpful to compare different jurisdictions because they all have different conventions and party systems. But if you're into that kind of thing, I hope this info helps. Oh and Nunavut also has a non-partisan legislature by the way. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank for that, and for taking the trouble to search for it. India was a good bet for an example. (btw, it looks like the BJP got 161 seats, but no matter) India, of course, while historically connected to and influenced by Westminster traditions, operates under a separate constitution as a Republic, so they have no direct precedent or authority over each other. However, a quick glance at the powers of the President, and the process of government-formation, seems to indicate they are indistinguishable from the Westminster model. What appears to have happened in 1996 is the BJP, who were not the incumbent government (which was Congress) emerged as largest party, and were first commissioned to form a government. They appear to have fallen at the equivalent of the Throne/Queen's Speech, and the next largest party, Congress, then declined a commission, leaving the rag-tag parties to form a minority coalition with Congress support. So the tests are not invalidated. No dissolution was asked for or refused, and the minority coalition took power after an election (and after BJP demonstrated they couldn't form a government) with the support of the defeated government, Congress. RodCrosby (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Westminster system isn't defined by whether a country (or sub-national unit) has a monarch/governor general or President. (Something that republicans in any country seem to overlook when they claim a republic would have automatically better handled either a hung parliament or a lower/upper house dispute but anyway...) So it's hard to exclude Indian examples, and the reason they tend to get overlooked is more due to the "Old Commonwealth" focus in the media (and the web, including, it has to be said, Wikipedia) than anything else. At the end of the day I think situation i) has too many prerequisites, almost as though it's worded with the specific aim of "first ever excluding King-Byng!" and ii) is also a bit iffy if qualifications are needed. Precedents from republics are as valid - note that our own article on the Westminster system lists the following countries as using it: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, India, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Nauru, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United Kingdom and Vanuatu; and that's even before we get onto the "used to use" countries like South Africa, Rhodesia, Nigeria, Ceylon/Sri Lanka, Burma, Fiji, Guyana and Kenya. That's an awful lot to be able to make any sweeping statement of something having "never ever" happened in any Westminster system country. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think I tried to cover this. While many of those countries you mention have indeed modelled or continue to model their constitutional arrangements on the "Westminster system", in terms of precedent and authority most of them now have no standing vis-a-vis HM Queen/Governor General. Neither Canada, the UK or Australia are going to take judicial notice of what goes on in Japan or Israel (for instance, or vice versa.) However what goes on in Canada and the UK is still bound to the common law of the UK, including the Prerogatives of the Crown. When I have used the term "Westminster Model" I am referring to those countries which are constitutionally coterminous. One of the reasons, as a Brit, I am following this crisis so avidly is that the Canadian Governor General's exercise of the Royal Prerogative will be "persuasive authority", perhaps "binding authority", on what HM Queen may or may not do after the next British General Election, if, as widely expected, it produces our first hung parliament in 35 years... RodCrosby (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- While I understand your reason for comparison, surely the Mother Country - never mind HMTQ - would take seriously a precedent from one of the former colonies? i.e. that in the UK, only British precedents apply, the behaviour of Canadian viceroys would be superfluous in terms of precedent ;certainly for reference, but that's not to subtly different). Also the political environment of "the real Westminster" will always be different because of the veritable political weight of the monarch herself/himself, i.e. the personage/personality plus actual public support, i.e. political support, plsu the weight of history and tradition - which no Canadian viceroy, or any other "outer country" viceroy could ever have on their side. Troubled though the House of Windsor may be, they're not appointees and are schooled also in the royal prerogative and obligation since childhood; but most importantly, again, they have teh supprot of enough of the general public that they are a power in their own right; not just a prcedural power, but a personal power. Unexercised, perhaps, but not abasent.Skookum1 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem the assumption is being made that the Governor General operates in complete isolation from the monarch she represents. Of course, because we don't know whether or not Jean called the Queen directly for advice during that two hour interlude when Harper disappeared into Rideau Hall, you may well be right, Skookum, in that the recent decision to prorogue parliament was made by an appointed viceroy with no more gravitas than practiced media savvy and three years in an office she was never remotely prepared for. But, on the other hand, she may well have leaned on that royal weight available to her. Too bad we'll probably never know. I don't think, though, that a viceroy acting in place of the sovereign would make the action any less legitimate as a precedent than if the sovereign herself had made the decision; when the governor general makes a call, it is directly on behalf of that same monarch, anyway. I seem to have heard before that the UK government had looked to Canada for inspiration on multicultural policies and citizenship oaths, all of which had been put into force by a governor-in-council, not the Queen-in-Council herself. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- YOu misudnerstand me: my line of thinking is more reminiscent of "how many divisions does the Pope have?". I'm sure it's quite likely there was consultation with "the Palace" last eek, - G-G's are known to consult and go looking for advcie, sicne they've obviously not going to get it from poliicians ,though of course G-G's ahve a staff of constituional experts t oadvise as well - what I meant was if a G-G did something the poilticians did not like their position could be done away withreltively easiliy; much harder to do with the actual monrachy, ando not just ecause of institutional inertia. The Queen if she wanted to could pack downtown London with supporters - well, perhaps not HMTQ but very possibly HMKW (His Majesty King William, when hte time comes...). A G-G would never have the support of the "London mob", or of a big chunk of the Canadian population; even if the Crown were behidn tehm (50 eyars ago they would have....); some in Britain may pooh-pooh the notion, but the traditional loyalty to royalty in England inflames passions that just dont' exist here; disdain as much as support. A monarch could start a constitutioanl revolution, gambling the throne on the deal; a G-G trying to do the seame thing woudl seem importunate, even silly. "Moral weight" isn't what I'm talking about; it's pure popularity. Counter-popularity might trigger a civil war/ rebellion in resonse, but teh point is that those energeis are there in the UK, which they're not in CAnada. A more extreme case would be tht of His Majesty King Bhumipol of Thailand, whose personal popularity has been one of the few stable elements in Thai society / political culture...now, you UKers here may dump all over this; I'm not meaning it will happen, only that the cultural environment and political culture of the UK suggests that it at least could (given the right reasons, and a opular monarch with the public will on their side, especially). G-G's get crapped on no matter wht they do - when they ahve to do something, as in this case. You cant' please everybody; at least when you're the Queen (or King) there's something more than ceremonial constitutional power; the power is real, not writetn up ina document. In Canada it's foramlity ,a technicality, almost an abstraction; in the UK it's a very real, tangible thing....remember Mountbatten's funeral? Chuck & Di's wedding? Diana's funeral? That's political power yousaw in teh streets of London; unused political power, but still political power. A G-G has no such thing behind them...Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you overstate it. Britain has beheaded one King, deposed another, and forced the abdication of a third, and would no doubt do each of those things again, if the need arose. The latter example is interesting in that it also involved the Governments of the Commonwealth. See Abdication_crisis#Options_considered
- I think you rather prove my point than disprove it; the passions incited by the monarchy simply are of a different order than those surrounding the office of a viceroy. Britain beheaded kings because they had political/emotional clout, and while Windsor and Hanover have toed the parliamentary line since the point is that the historical foundation, the cultural foundation, to monarchy is very strong; Canada and Australia have yet to behead a viceroy, or to be pushed to civil war by their excesses; political loyalty of the military to the Crown would maybe be a divided camp in the UK; in Canada it would be to the PM. This is a total side-issue to what this article is about so I'll leave off, my point was largely the potency of the royal institution in English, its political potential, is much higher than it is in Canada. Or those beheadings wouldn't have been necessary, for one thing....Skookum1 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you overstate it. Britain has beheaded one King, deposed another, and forced the abdication of a third, and would no doubt do each of those things again, if the need arose. The latter example is interesting in that it also involved the Governments of the Commonwealth. See Abdication_crisis#Options_considered
- YOu misudnerstand me: my line of thinking is more reminiscent of "how many divisions does the Pope have?". I'm sure it's quite likely there was consultation with "the Palace" last eek, - G-G's are known to consult and go looking for advcie, sicne they've obviously not going to get it from poliicians ,though of course G-G's ahve a staff of constituional experts t oadvise as well - what I meant was if a G-G did something the poilticians did not like their position could be done away withreltively easiliy; much harder to do with the actual monrachy, ando not just ecause of institutional inertia. The Queen if she wanted to could pack downtown London with supporters - well, perhaps not HMTQ but very possibly HMKW (His Majesty King William, when hte time comes...). A G-G would never have the support of the "London mob", or of a big chunk of the Canadian population; even if the Crown were behidn tehm (50 eyars ago they would have....); some in Britain may pooh-pooh the notion, but the traditional loyalty to royalty in England inflames passions that just dont' exist here; disdain as much as support. A monarch could start a constitutioanl revolution, gambling the throne on the deal; a G-G trying to do the seame thing woudl seem importunate, even silly. "Moral weight" isn't what I'm talking about; it's pure popularity. Counter-popularity might trigger a civil war/ rebellion in resonse, but teh point is that those energeis are there in the UK, which they're not in CAnada. A more extreme case would be tht of His Majesty King Bhumipol of Thailand, whose personal popularity has been one of the few stable elements in Thai society / political culture...now, you UKers here may dump all over this; I'm not meaning it will happen, only that the cultural environment and political culture of the UK suggests that it at least could (given the right reasons, and a opular monarch with the public will on their side, especially). G-G's get crapped on no matter wht they do - when they ahve to do something, as in this case. You cant' please everybody; at least when you're the Queen (or King) there's something more than ceremonial constitutional power; the power is real, not writetn up ina document. In Canada it's foramlity ,a technicality, almost an abstraction; in the UK it's a very real, tangible thing....remember Mountbatten's funeral? Chuck & Di's wedding? Diana's funeral? That's political power yousaw in teh streets of London; unused political power, but still political power. A G-G has no such thing behind them...Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem the assumption is being made that the Governor General operates in complete isolation from the monarch she represents. Of course, because we don't know whether or not Jean called the Queen directly for advice during that two hour interlude when Harper disappeared into Rideau Hall, you may well be right, Skookum, in that the recent decision to prorogue parliament was made by an appointed viceroy with no more gravitas than practiced media savvy and three years in an office she was never remotely prepared for. But, on the other hand, she may well have leaned on that royal weight available to her. Too bad we'll probably never know. I don't think, though, that a viceroy acting in place of the sovereign would make the action any less legitimate as a precedent than if the sovereign herself had made the decision; when the governor general makes a call, it is directly on behalf of that same monarch, anyway. I seem to have heard before that the UK government had looked to Canada for inspiration on multicultural policies and citizenship oaths, all of which had been put into force by a governor-in-council, not the Queen-in-Council herself. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Westminster system isn't defined by whether a country (or sub-national unit) has a monarch/governor general or President. (Something that republicans in any country seem to overlook when they claim a republic would have automatically better handled either a hung parliament or a lower/upper house dispute but anyway...) So it's hard to exclude Indian examples, and the reason they tend to get overlooked is more due to the "Old Commonwealth" focus in the media (and the web, including, it has to be said, Wikipedia) than anything else. At the end of the day I think situation i) has too many prerequisites, almost as though it's worded with the specific aim of "first ever excluding King-Byng!" and ii) is also a bit iffy if qualifications are needed. Precedents from republics are as valid - note that our own article on the Westminster system lists the following countries as using it: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, India, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Nauru, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United Kingdom and Vanuatu; and that's even before we get onto the "used to use" countries like South Africa, Rhodesia, Nigeria, Ceylon/Sri Lanka, Burma, Fiji, Guyana and Kenya. That's an awful lot to be able to make any sweeping statement of something having "never ever" happened in any Westminster system country. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I think your GG may just keep her head! (although not necessarily her job; she could still be 'decapitated' politically) There is an extremely subtle point here. It was Sir John Kerr who during the 1975 Australian crisis said "A Governor General is expendable; a Queen is not"....... What do you think he meant? RodCrosby (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie folks. My questions been answered; Canada's possible minority coalition government, would not be the world's first. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to respond briefly to Skookum1's point above:
- ...party discipline in those days was not rigid (that's pretty well a Canadian invention....I stand ready to be corrected by our UK contributors here but party discipline is not automatic in the British Commons).
You're right that party discipline was very weak in those times. The first truly organised parliamentary party in the UK was the Irish Parliamentary Party which didn't come to the forefront until the 1880s. Parties before then had many members who could not be relied on for all matters. However party discipline developed strongly after that with the major parties pretty sure of the numbers for confidence votes (if a little weaker on individual bills) in nearly all parliaments in the twentieth century. The only times I can think of UK coalitions fragmenting parties were the Liberals in 1916-1918 who divided into Asquith and Lloyd George peronalist factions, and the Liberals again in 1931-1933 who split over the National Government into three separate groupings (though one was a micro party of Lloyd George and his family).
To this day you still get some rebellions on bills (and indeed things have got weaker in recent years) but party discipline is strong and it takes a bold or stupid MP to defy a two or three line whip. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Gold Dragon's Edits
Despite repeated requests for reliable, third-party sources citing for various statements in the article written by GoldDragon, none have been supplied. Instead, a number of editorials and newspaper blog entries have been provided to support the claims in question. I specifically removed several uses of poor sources, providing an explanation for why the sources aren't appropriate. GoldDragon has reverted each change, without deigning to supply any reason (edit summaries supplied include principles, sources and prorogation, hardly providing justification for reverting my changes).
Examples:
- my edits to remove a blog (last part of edit) and to remove a newspaper editorial as a source; GoldDragon's edit reverting my change, with the useless edit summary "sources" (I had already demonstrated these were not sources)
- my edit to remove a source which simply quoted an off-the-cuff remark by a CEO, which completely fails to support the claim to which it is attached; GoldDragon's edit reverting my change, with no edit summary;
- my edit to move a deceptively-placed citation, which did not support the claim made
- my edit to remove an editorial position; GoldDragon's edit reverting my change, with the useless edit summary "prorogation"
- GoldDragon's edit restoring a blog post at the National Post as a source for a contentious statement (blogs are not sources)
There are many more examples in this article. Essentially, GoldDragon is doing two things:
- inserting bold claims and supporting them with references that do not qualify as reliable sources
- removing well-cited information critical of the Conservatives, and inserting unreferenced information supportive of the party or critical of the opposition
This needs to change. Mindmatrix 14:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- In general, I support you, but why can't blogs run by national newspapers be reputable sources? Is the distinction between print and the internet really that important when the source is the same? --Padraic 16:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- The point is bias. GoldDragon has consistently removed mention of editorials and blogs critical of the Conservatives, while inserting similar references supportive of them. He has unilaterally unbalanced the section to reflect the Conservative point of view (that the Conservatives accused the coalition of sparking debate about a unity crisis), and removes mention critical of them (that most scholars believe the Conservatives sparked that debate by referring to it as a separatist coalition).
- The other point is that whereas I've patiently discussed this on the talk page, leaving GoldDragon's version intact for long periods, GoldDragon immediately reverts any changes I make which do not suit his point of view, no matter how well-cited they are, and claims that it unbalances the section. This is the very definition of biased editing.
- For statements of fact, the sources must be unquestionably reliable, and should be third-party reporting of the situation. The guideline about reliable sources is quite clear. I've edited the article respecting that guideline, whereas GoldDragon has not, and has continued to evade truly discussing the issue, offering only vague, unsubstantiated statements on this page.
- Is the distinction between print and the internet really that important No, but keep in mind that these blogs are not "published" either; they are contained in the commentary and feedback section of their websites. Mindmatrix 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The National Unity Crisis, when Mindmatrix originally wrote it, was a blatant attempt to prove an thesis. I've attempted to compromise by retaining that as one point of view. I don't see any difference between the opinion of a professor or a newspaper journalist. It might so happen that the prof's opinion was reported in a CTV article, but that does not affect whether it is reliable or not. Plus, upon reading the columns more carefully, when they report that "insider Liberals are furious that...", that would be the factual part of it. GoldDragon (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Read the guideline about reliable sources. It clearly states Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Moreover, it should only include information verified by reliable sources, and self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances. (There's a reason that newspapers don't publish, even in their internet editions, their columnists blogs within their normal reportage and editorial sections.)
- National Unity Crisis, when Mindmatrix originally wrote it, was a blatant attempt to prove an thesis. Bullshit. Every statement was well supported with references, and the section was designed to specifically discuss Quebec. I have never objected to the inclusion of material regarding Alberta, or other parts of Canada. I've only requested material with supporting citations from reliable sources, something you have yet to provide. And if a news article states "insider Liberals are furious that...", it is a statement by the reporter unless accompanied by quotations from their sources. There's a significant difference.
- I've attempted to compromise by retaining that as one point of view This is laughable. You have consistently removed any and all text which demonstrates a critical reaction to the actions of the Conservatives. Mindmatrix 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Mindmatrix on this one. Columnists' opinions are not fact and unless they have some kind of poll or credible evidence then their opinion is not suitable. The exception of course is for nationally known and well respected ones (like Don Newman or Wolf Blitzer in the States), and for they are not found at newspapers (for the most part they just hire someone who seems to reflect the local opinion). In my opinion, blogs and editorials are out and should be avoided if possible (I don't think blogs should be used ever really). -Royalguard11(T) 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not using the opinions as fact, but rather to state that there are different points of view. And these columnists can't be unknowns if they are writing for a national newspaper. If this is so much trouble, I suggest having the entire Unity section eliminated. GoldDragon (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd have no problem with that (eliminating the Unity section). Charest's Liberals winning a majority government in Quebec, surely takes some air out of it. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant. One does not preclude the other, and it doesn't change the history of the situation. For about a week, this was a major issue in the Canadian media. Mindmatrix 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Number one, there are no real "national" newspapers in Canada. That is there are no papers which have the reputation or readership to be considered truly "national" papers (think New York Times or Washington Post). Second, they are still opinions that have no business being in an encyclopedic article. Example, Dion was criticized for the video very publicly and made it to the actual news reports, but whether he "sacrificed principles" or "disallowed dissent" is up for debate by opinion writers and they give their opinion on it. It is not a reliable source. -Royalguard11(T) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, the section will not be eliminated. The issue was covered ad nauseum in the media, and was very clearly a point of interest. We're not going to eliminate well-sourced material because there's a dispute about its wording. There are also other points I have yet to add to this article, such as the "constitutional crisis" about whether a coalition taking control of government is acceptable from a constitutional point of view. Mindmatrix 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I am glad someone brought this up. GoldenDragon, your edits are very biased and are definitely not NPOV. You delete without discussion anything that contravenes your intended bias, and ignore the discussions on this talk page. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite. He has participated in some discussions, but hasn't actually addressed the issues presented. Mindmatrix 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem he's reverted yet again, removing cited material, with simply "prorogation" as the explanation. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to GoldonDragon's removal of the Wedge issue statement. The entire reason that the Unity Issue has become part of the debate is that the Conservative party is attempting to use the issue to define their parties primary voting base. Thus it is a Wedge issue. His removal of this sentence while not participating in the discussion around the phrase is biased editing. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and I was merely noting that he removes more sentences, without participation in discussion, than just those related to wedge issues; in other words, he seems to be demonstrating a wider pattern of editing. I certainly hope someone can restore what he removed without sufficient explanation. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to GoldonDragon's removal of the Wedge issue statement. The entire reason that the Unity Issue has become part of the debate is that the Conservative party is attempting to use the issue to define their parties primary voting base. Thus it is a Wedge issue. His removal of this sentence while not participating in the discussion around the phrase is biased editing. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem he's reverted yet again, removing cited material, with simply "prorogation" as the explanation. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Arts funding doesn't have anything to do with the Unity Crisis or this coalition, so it has no place in this article.
- The reaction in Alberta shows that it wasn't just the Tories that suggested that the Bloc would wield considerable influence, many locals were complaining to their MP about this.
- Refocusing on the reconstructive, the only possible wedge issue (by that article's definition) is attacking the Liberal's alliance with the Bloc, which supposedly made some Liberal insiders and federalists uncomfortable, which may have divide the party. But we can't say that the Conservative attacks on the coalition were aimed at dividing the Liberals, as the three leadership contender said that they would back Dion as PM, the Tory attacks may have also likely for gaining public support ahead of the meeting with the Governor General. GoldDragon (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the section heading back to what it was, as you and your edits are the subject here, and "there you go again", as Reagan quipped about Carter; it seems you want to dispense with the cited national columnnists whose points others have added to the article ,and replace them with your own emendations and interpretations. Given your edit history here I and others can only view all your edits with anything but "good faith"; even in your post immediately above, you engage in speculating - negatively - on the non-Tory sides motives/beahviour, while in the article itself you remove speculations actually made int he media (though admittedly not by Gold Dragon). I'll leave it to the other editors to fix the POV aspects of your changes and replace material that YOU unilaterally removed, in spite of discussions here. And the subject of this section is not the unity material but your material, so its title should remain (it's really impolite to change other poeple's writings on the talkpage, even subject headings, y'know). It's not "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" it's more like "why don't you find a new recipe, because we don't like your cooking".Skookum1 (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also your last post has an incomplete sentence in it...missing a "been" but I'll let you figure out where, plus any other words that would make it good English, which it's not.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Changing the header, again.
- Nice "English" yourself (emendations...made int he media). Otherwise, you definitely need a good dose of Wikipedia:Etiquette.
- That wasn't negative speculation, that was the only possible idea of a wedge issue here that was possibly relevant to the coalition dispute. I have no current plans to add it so far. However, User talk:Clausewitz01's idea of the arts funding has no relevance here. GoldDragon (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Typos aren't bad English, missing words and poor construction are.Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Further to his other questionable edits, in this spot Gold Dragon had planted an exchange between Good Day and myself which was on my talkpage, placed here as if Good Day and I had put it here i.e. with my sig and without proper quotes/links to the original discussion indicating it was a quote; and what it was about was my getting pissed off with GoodDay making asides to me on my talkpage which were irrelevant and which properly belongd here. This is the very kind of irresponsible and disreputable behaviour by GoldDragon that is the reason this section was named (and not by me) Gold Dragon's Edits, which I have put it back to for obvious reasons, considering the very edits he's just made - not jsut to the article, but presuming to use my sig no less and "make posts for me". For the record, I am an anti-propaganda editor, and Gold Dragon - who is clearly pro-Tory/anti-coalition - has defended his mis-deeds by calling me a pro-coalition editor as if that somehow justified his own biases and POV editing - POV censorship of pro-coalition materials, more accurately. For those wanting to read my responses to Good Day's trying to divert my energies towards a separate discussion on my (and yes, I did tell him off, he was being a nuisance) making the very same points he tries to make here, they're welcome to go to User talk:Skookum1 and read it. But as far as posts of mien on this page, I'll make them myself, Gold Dragon, and you should mind your own free-wheeling decision on what other people should or shouldn't say, and don't speak for them. Accusing me of bad wikiquette when you have ben deleting article content you don't like, and placing clearly POV content in its place, is like accusing someone of bad manners for getting upset when you've shot their horse...the anti-democratic nature of your behaviour - i.e. "censorship of material in the article which don't fit your agenda" - is all the more reason to "put the lie to" the supposedly democratic motivations of the anti-coalition fanatics who have made this page such a battleground. You will probably change this section header back, someone else will no doubt change it again as the issue is your behaviour, not the Unity section (except the damage you've repeatedly done to it). And no doubt you will complain about my allagedly bad etiquette as a way to dodge having to answer for your own.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well GoldDragon's at it again on the main page. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Still no explanation for the wedge issue. Aside from that, streamlined the aftermath section, as ending up there was no interim leader. GoldDragon (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- GoldDragon, there was a long discussion about the wedge issue on this talk page, a discussion that you completely avoided. One editor pointed out that it is a self evident statement that didnt require citations. However, because I like to prove what I am typing, I searched for more citations and included them. You did not become involved in that discussion, by editing in your fashion without discussion you have become REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACK. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACK from Skookum1
- No insults, keep focused on the article issues.
- By the way, here was Clausewitz01's explanation, as I did not find the long discussion: The entire reason that the Unity Issue has become part of the debate is that the Conservative party is attempting to use the issue to define their parties primary voting base. Thus it is a Wedge issue. A wedge issue is used to divide a political party and/or their support base. GoldDragon (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Outing you for your bias and your removal of NPOV items is not a personal attack. The truth is obvious here and you are trying to spin away from it. As posted in the other discussion: a wedge issue is a sharply divisive political issue, especially one that is raised by a candidate or party in hopes of attracting or disaffecting a portion of an opponent's customary supporters. It is a common political tactic. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Re "Aftermath" section
I came across this in today's edition of the New York Times in an article on auto industry aid plans for Canada:
- An unprecedented move by Canada’s Conservative government last week to suspend Parliament to avoid defeat on a no-confidence vote has narrowed the public forums available for debating aid to auto companies.
This is the whole NYT article, and it's interesting to note that a newspaper in another country has observed that public debate on important issues has been limited by the prorogation; I know the NYT is considered a leftist mouthpiece by the arch-right, but there are no equivalent bits in USA Today or on FoxNews, so I can't "provide balance" here; but surely there's more than one Canadian columnist/paper that might have made the same observation, or others like it; the NYT despite its leftist reputation (LOL) tries hard to be objective, which is more than I can say for most Canadian news outlets...anyway among the issues in "aftermath" is the obvious point that there is no possibility of legislative debates during the current economic crisis....and again, it's interesting it took an American paper to make that point so clearly....Skookum1 (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Ignatieff v. Dion in infobox
It doesn't work for me seeing Ignatieff's photo in the infobox; granted, he's the Liberal leader, and Leader of the Opposition, now, but during the crux of the "dispute" certainly it was Dion who was one of the "Six main participants in the dispute". If Dion's picture is re-instated, as I believe it should be, the caption should say "leaders of the opposition parties during the dispute". The context of that phrase imputes that the dispute is over; yes, the controversy or kerfuffle or any of the other suggested non-crisis terms is over; if there's a crisis, it's either continuing or it hasn't reached its apex yet (Feb 26 or thereafter, now...). If there'es still a coalition, and theroetically there is, Ignatieff is now the Liberal "legation"/compoennt of the triumvirs, but I'm not - again - sure that his image should have been so hastily added to this article. Dion still has a face, and certainly he was a key player in what happened, in so many ways....Skookum1 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I already raised this issue earlier; I don't see why Ignatieff's image should be there, for all the reasons you state. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Skookum1 on this one, as Ignatieff wasn't a key player in the coalition talks, considering that the main subject of this article is about the proposed coalition and the resulting dispute. Ignatieff's presence only became more visible after the prorogaration, and the GG's call has somewhat lessened the dispute over the coalition for the time being. GoldDragon (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ignatieff is not the Liberal Leader (there is none). He's the interim Liberal Leader. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I differ with the last point. IMO the party has a Leader. He is the Interim Leader, but he is the Leader nevertheless. CBHA (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Only if & until he's ratified in May 2009. He is the Leader of the Opposition, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I differ with the last point. IMO the party has a Leader. He is the Interim Leader, but he is the Leader nevertheless. CBHA (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, Iggy's the boss. He should be removed from the Infobox, as we can always re-add him in late January (if things stir up again). GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Iggy has kind of been thrust into the dispute just by being the new leader of the Liberal party, but he hasn't really played a part yet. It all depends what happens next, if he leads the coalition to defeat the budget in January or lets it pass (that would end the dispute). It really should be Dion as a priciple player though since he was suppose to lead the coalition until parliament was prorogued. -Royalguard11(T) 16:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, Iggy's the boss. He should be removed from the Infobox, as we can always re-add him in late January (if things stir up again). GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about eliminating the box entirely and just adding the photos in sections where the people are mentioned? DoubleBlue (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd have no issues with that, though it would be nice to keep a lead image. We do have several pictures available from the protests that could replace it as a lead. Resolute 18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- In theory I like that idea but the lead photo would need to be neutral. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Five or six images in an infobox is excessive. --Rob (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- 'Tis acceptable idea. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Maybe just Jean since she's technically neutral and plays a large part. -Royalguard11(T) 23:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I've gone and done it. I recognise that it is less than ideal in spots so don't bother telling me, just do what you can to make it better. Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Spelling and other points
1) "Labeling" is correct U.S. spelling. "Labelling" is the Canadian and British spelling. Since this article is about a Canadian issue, "labelling" should be used.
2) I removed this wording and the reference, from the section Catalyst: November 2008 fiscal update: "it was frequently suggested in the media that the main reason for the opposition parties' anger was the elimination of these federal subsidies.[1]."
The assertion of "frequently suggested" is not adequately supported by the reference. The most that could be built on the foundation of Rob Mitchell's piece would be something like this: "One member of the Conservative party suggested that the main reason for the opposition parties' anger was the elimination of these federal subsidies."
06:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sign your posts. And re "frequently suggested" the more accurate wording was "widely reported" or even "most commonly summarized/stated as".....that you can only summon a Conservative "pundit" on this bit of reportage tells me you must not be watching the same TV networks, or reading the same papers, as everyone else in this country...if that's the only cite you can find, you should take off the party brochures you're using for horse-blinkers....Skookum1 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Added it back in with more sources, indeed CTV described the Tories' backing down on the proposal as perhaps diffusing the dispute. The speculation over opposition parties' anger about loss of subsidies not come just from a Conservative pundit, this came from reporters and pundits across the political spectrum. GoldDragon (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Opening sentence of article
The article starts: "The 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute is an ongoing political dispute in the 40th Canadian Parliament."
Is the dispute still "ongoing" in the Parliament, or is this sentence now stale and in need of revision?
Also, there are several mentions of a "minority coalition" in the article. Since coalitions do not normally (AFAIK) include a party holding a majority, it seems redundant to say "minority coalition". CBHA (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- They sometimes do, as in the UK 1918-22 and 1931-35, and when they don't, the elements of the coalition combined usually do have a majority. The Canadian situation is therefore unusual, and has been previously discussed. RodCrosby (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- IMO, the use of "minority coalition" is meant to degrade "the Coalition", i.e. to denigrate it in the context that it would be ostensibly a minority government, i.e. a coalition that's still a minority because its alleged core is only the Liberal-NDP alliance, somehow discounting the BQ's pledge to support it even though the G-G couldn't have granted the coalition the government if they COULDN'T comprise a majority of seats in the House. To whit, the repetitive use of "minority coalition" is, to me, a POV-seeding of the article with a phrase from the Tory playbook/talking points guide. As someone else here has noted, the parallel situation would be to say "minority government: every time the Harper government is named; it's more truly a minority, whereas the coalition would actually be a majority, albeit composed of "minorities within the plurality". If it were simply a Liberal minority bgovernment shored up by NDP/BQ, then it would be a "minority coalition"; but if it had come into being it would NOT have been anything but a coalition forming a majority. In my opinion, ALL uses of the term "minority coalition" are POV as regards this dispute, and should simply be "coalition" - qualifying it by adding "minority" is entirely a Tory POV....Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Less of the personal attacks, please. I'm neither a Tory or a Canadian. The distinction "minority coalition" is made by political scientists, and a coalition is usually defined as being those who hold cabinet posts, which the BQ will not. So the only proper thing to call it is a "minority coalition" RodCrosby (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't saying YOU. And while I haven't seen any such definitions by (non-partisasn) Canadian political scientists/analysts, my point has to do with the context that the term has been used in, i.e. to support a political POV concerning the dispute; the counterpose to it, implicit in the usage (though not to you, but within the Candian milieu) is taht somehow the current government is, since not a minority coalition, somehow more legitimate even though a minority government; the use of "minority coalition", especially repeated ad nauseam, has the effect of implying less legitimacy; I don't recall it being used either by "major pundits" or by reps/spokespeople/analysts from any of the coalition parties, only used in Tory-related/supportive bylines. Dictionary/academic definitions can often be manipulated/appropriated to serve political ends, this is one of those cases. That it's a formla term in Westeminster parliamentary theory is happily incidental to those (Canadians) who have made a point of using it...how you could read a personal attack into my post I'm not quite sure of....Skookum1 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Howabout, a Liberal/New Democrat Coalition minority government? GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- that's certainly much more descriptive as well as NPOV; but still can't be used over and over, not without being incredibly cumbersome; "coalition government" ssems the easiest alternative; that "political science scholars/academics" might define it as a minority coalition in absolute terms, i.e. beyond the Canadian context, is a given, but it doesn't mean that phrase should be used as a catchphrase...without the POV element, the comparison is the use of "ministry" when the most common usage (in Canada) is really "the cabinet"/"the government"....the technical term in politics isn't always clear to general readership; which is why "most common/evident usage in the given context" has to be a consideration....Skookum1 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose. I've no problem with it, just like I've no problem with Conservative minority government. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- As per RodCrosby, minority coalition is technically correct, as the Liberals & NDP combined don't constitute a majority of seats. The Bloc have agreed to provide supply, but for formal purposes they are not part of the coalition. GoldDragon (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- IMO, the use of "minority coalition" is meant to provide a more accurate description of "the Coalition", noting that other Westminster coalitions have resulted in majorities. GoldDragon (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Minority coalition can be explained once; it need not be repeated ad nauseum anymore than we would repeatedly mention the minority Conservative government. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- that's certainly much more descriptive as well as NPOV; but still can't be used over and over, not without being incredibly cumbersome; "coalition government" ssems the easiest alternative; that "political science scholars/academics" might define it as a minority coalition in absolute terms, i.e. beyond the Canadian context, is a given, but it doesn't mean that phrase should be used as a catchphrase...without the POV element, the comparison is the use of "ministry" when the most common usage (in Canada) is really "the cabinet"/"the government"....the technical term in politics isn't always clear to general readership; which is why "most common/evident usage in the given context" has to be a consideration....Skookum1 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Howabout, a Liberal/New Democrat Coalition minority government? GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't saying YOU. And while I haven't seen any such definitions by (non-partisasn) Canadian political scientists/analysts, my point has to do with the context that the term has been used in, i.e. to support a political POV concerning the dispute; the counterpose to it, implicit in the usage (though not to you, but within the Candian milieu) is taht somehow the current government is, since not a minority coalition, somehow more legitimate even though a minority government; the use of "minority coalition", especially repeated ad nauseam, has the effect of implying less legitimacy; I don't recall it being used either by "major pundits" or by reps/spokespeople/analysts from any of the coalition parties, only used in Tory-related/supportive bylines. Dictionary/academic definitions can often be manipulated/appropriated to serve political ends, this is one of those cases. That it's a formla term in Westeminster parliamentary theory is happily incidental to those (Canadians) who have made a point of using it...how you could read a personal attack into my post I'm not quite sure of....Skookum1 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Less of the personal attacks, please. I'm neither a Tory or a Canadian. The distinction "minority coalition" is made by political scientists, and a coalition is usually defined as being those who hold cabinet posts, which the BQ will not. So the only proper thing to call it is a "minority coalition" RodCrosby (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- IMO, the use of "minority coalition" is meant to degrade "the Coalition", i.e. to denigrate it in the context that it would be ostensibly a minority government, i.e. a coalition that's still a minority because its alleged core is only the Liberal-NDP alliance, somehow discounting the BQ's pledge to support it even though the G-G couldn't have granted the coalition the government if they COULDN'T comprise a majority of seats in the House. To whit, the repetitive use of "minority coalition" is, to me, a POV-seeding of the article with a phrase from the Tory playbook/talking points guide. As someone else here has noted, the parallel situation would be to say "minority government: every time the Harper government is named; it's more truly a minority, whereas the coalition would actually be a majority, albeit composed of "minorities within the plurality". If it were simply a Liberal minority bgovernment shored up by NDP/BQ, then it would be a "minority coalition"; but if it had come into being it would NOT have been anything but a coalition forming a majority. In my opinion, ALL uses of the term "minority coalition" are POV as regards this dispute, and should simply be "coalition" - qualifying it by adding "minority" is entirely a Tory POV....Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the discussion which clarified for me the term minority coalition.
- My question left unanswered is whether the dispute is still ongoing in Parliament. Parliament having been shut down for a month, my impression is that the dispute is not "ongoing in Parliament". CBHA (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would say yes. Whether the coalition will take over is still unsettled and the 40th Parliament is ongoing (though prorogued). DoubleBlue (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- the only readl difference right now vs a couple of weeks ago is that hte media heat is largely off it, and so is public attnetion; perhaps fittingly, the machineries of parliament run glacially snow, particularly in the Xmas season...Skookum1 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- The dispute is still ongoing, and may resolve when Parliament resumes in January.
- As well, I have removed the sentence recently added regarding an explanation of what the 'minority coalition' is: this is a self-evident description, for which details can be expanded upon later in the article. Its addition also left an orphan sentence/paragraph. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- It may be self-evident to you, but in the political context of the dispute it's deprecatory towards the Coalition and was over-used in this article, wihtout explanation to the average reader. It sounds like it de-legitimizes the Coalition's claim on constitutionally-derived power; I realize that is not the intent behind the term but it was certainly the context in which the term has been used, both in this article and talkpage as well as in the broader media arena belong. it should be explained the first time it's used so there are no misconceptions that may build during a reading of the article, until someone actually gets to wherever the explanation is. It may be a "self-evident description" and hinges on the Coalition having only two parties that would be in cabinet, despite the third party (which would render a "majority coalition") being a signatory to a formal agreement; it amkes it sound as if the coalition-derived government did not have majority support, rather than the guarnatee of majority support hte BQ have promised). it's a controversial term in context BECASUSE of hte way it's been disabused; and THAT may not be self-evident to you, it certainly is to me.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- the only readl difference right now vs a couple of weeks ago is that hte media heat is largely off it, and so is public attnetion; perhaps fittingly, the machineries of parliament run glacially snow, particularly in the Xmas season...Skookum1 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would say yes. Whether the coalition will take over is still unsettled and the 40th Parliament is ongoing (though prorogued). DoubleBlue (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think this notion is important enough to point out initially, but not excessively and repeatedly: after all, if the parliamentary situation was rather different, a 'majority coalition' (comprising all opposition parties) could have resulted, but that isn't the case. I also suppose that conservative-leaning people may lean to de-legitimatize the coalition because of this. I'm not huge on including it, though, but believe the current version wraps it all up in one package. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Bosonic dressing: Perhaps the meaning of minority coalition is well-understood by students of politics. It is not self-evident to the "average reader". If it was, I would not have asked about it in my post which opened this section. CBHA (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Someone who knows not what a 'minority coalition' is should be equally perplexed by what a 'minority government' is, what a 'majority' is, or what a 'coalition' is. That is why we are able to provide links to articles for those concepts and summarising upfront while explaining later, instead of weighing down the lead with details and wordiness. The current version deals with this succinctly; the prior version didn't. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- The current incarnation of the sentence "reached an accord to form a minority coalition government, with the Bloc Québécois agreeing to provide support on confidence issues and, therefore, enabling a majority in the Commons." gets the point across in a subtle way.
- I would perhaps assume good faith on part of whoever did introduce the term "minority coalition" in this article.
- The accord can be viewed two ways
- it states that the opposition parties are ready to govern for a set period of time
- OR
- it doesn't guarantee stability since it is possible for a party to break it, not considered impossible since these parties have different ideologies and are often frequent rivals.
- GoldDragon (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, it cannot be viewed in those two ways. The first statement is correct, but the latter requires an assumption which shouldn't be made. Coalitions are generally formed by parties with differing views (otherwise, the parties would simply merge), and can operate effectively despite these differences. To suggest that the coalition would break because of differing ideologies is nothing but speculation. Mindmatrix 15:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, both views on the accord are assumptions. There is not guarantee that a coalition would be a stable government. GoldDragon (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Automotive Bailout
Just curious and I admit to not being an expert. How can the Canadian government approve an automotive industry bailout if the Parliment has been disolved? Thanks, 98.28.114.217 (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- An Order-in-Council. OIC's are supposed to be ratified at a later sitting of Parliament, many are not. They'e one of the intrinsically undemocratic things about he Candian system, particularly in the way they've been abused by all parties/governments both provincially/federally. They began as a convention, based on stop-gaps in times when the logistics of convening the House involved huged travel distances and such; they've become one of the main devices of government, adn are often used even when the House is in session. there's not much anyone can do about them; essentially they're an invocation of the power of the monarch by the Prime Minister, and are difficult to reverse, if ever, by the House, and/or by later governments (who simply make their own to override them). Public consultation obviosuly is not part of the process....Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps OICs are similar to the US President's executive orders. While they potentially can be abused, in actual practice they have to be used with considerable discretion...the PM/premier/President is going to have to face the legislative body at some point. For example, while a President can declare war, he must consult with Congress soon in order to get funding to sustain the conflict. GoldDragon (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no similarity between Presidential Executive Orders and OIC's, no more than there are valid simliarities between the nature of Canadian executive powers and American executive powers; the Presidency has the role of the monarch, the Prime Minister is the equivalent of hte Congressional House Leader. Why do you even bother making such a specious comparison? Skookum1 (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps OICs are similar to the US President's executive orders. While they potentially can be abused, in actual practice they have to be used with considerable discretion...the PM/premier/President is going to have to face the legislative body at some point. For example, while a President can declare war, he must consult with Congress soon in order to get funding to sustain the conflict. GoldDragon (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I made the comparison because that is something that I'm familiar with. Whether you are a professor or activist you at least can assume good faith, especially with regard to a new editor's information query. Unlike a congressional house leader who is strictly legislative, the PM has executive powers. GoldDragon (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- There was nothing in Skookum1's answer to the anonymous poster that suggests he wasn't assuming good faith. He answered the query, then provided his own opinion about it, nothing more. AGF considers situations in which editors assume that another editor has acted with bad intent (bias, maliciousness, etc.). If instead you're referring to his reply to you, then be clear about it. The only questionable statement was his closing query, which could probably be better phrased as "Why did you make such a comparison?". Mindmatrix 15:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- The first time, I wasn't criticizing Skookum1's first answer/opinion, though I was adding a more holistic view on it (I find that Skookum's first response, while not incorrect, is otherwise on the cynical side). I took issue with Skookum1's second answer, where he not only proceeded to disagree, he also had some incorrect information on the congress leader/PM. My answer to "Why did you make such a comparison?" is that it isn't such a far-fetched comparison, as both a PM and President have powers to sidestep the legislature (the current President is facing a hostile Congress, while the PM has a minority gov't). While I have had disagreements with you and Skookum1, Skookum1 definitely needs to learn to AGF. GoldDragon (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skookum1 has keep going on despite a few warnings (1, 2, and 3, but this has now become a moot point as he is now on wikibreak. GoldDragon (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Bias in opening section
I'm amazed at the "tweakiness" that seems ongoing in the efforts to "wash" this article. The second sentence of the opening paragraph is entirely misleading and misrepresents the cause of the dispute:
- It was triggered by the intention of opposition parties in the House of Commons to defeat, by a motion of non-confidence, the minority government formed by the Conservative Party only six weeks after the 40th general election on October 14, 2008.
No, it was triggered by the Tory government, two weeks into the sitting of Parliament (which is more relevant than six weeks after the election, also), tabling legislation to strip govt workers of the right to strike and to strip party funding mechanisms, neither of which the government had mentioned on the hustings. It was not "triggered by the intention of the opposition parties to defeat the government in a non-confidence motion", it was triggered by the government attempting to foist policies on parliament it hadn't campaigned on, and which were a deliberate attempt to weaken the other parties once and for all. The paragraph needs major reworking and no amount of self-justification by those defending the sentence in question makes any logical sense, except by way of trying to blame the opposition parties for the diepute, when it was the government's own hauteur and attempted policies which were the trigger, not hte "intent" of the opposition parties. Intent means nothing, only action does, and the action was the tabling of contentious legislation. "Oh, but...." is going to be someone's counter-logic....except it won't be logic, it will be partisan self-justification.Skookum1 (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Further, considering that the attack on party funding, and on the right to strike, were both overtly anti-democratic in nature, i do find it quite hilarious that the Tory supporters have been the loudest about the "undemocratic" nature of the opposition's actions and positions; but Canada is founded upon absurdities and contradictions and undemocratic logics wrapped up in high-sounding rationalizations. I'm not a Liberal or NDP supporter by the way, I just think there's so much bamboozling and lying and name-calling going on that it's the main reason why most of the Canadian public effectively boycotts elections.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Repeated unilateral removal of the POV template by an overtly partisan editor should, in my view, be considered as a valid reason for that editor to experience at least a temporary block.Skookum1 (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- What is this grand rule of democracy that requires that candidates and/or parties must automatically receive tax payers' money? (And on an exact sum per vote basis as well?) It's not practised in many democracies and I've never heard of any international condemnation of a country's political system for its absence or anyone bringing a case that their democratic rights are denied by the lack of it. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the same area of rules that call for a "level playing field", that's where. It's jejune to pretend that a party backed by corporate big-money interests in a system that clearly operates on buying votes through advertising spending is anything but fair. The Reform Party was perfectly happy with these arrangements when they benefitted THEM.....unless you'd like a system where only the wealthy are able to fund politics and politicians. If so, please see oligarchy and forget about democracy entirely.Skookum1 (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- And whoever said that giving huge amounts of public money to corporations that already don't pay much tax to start with, or giving them nearly-free access to natural resources in order to "create wealth", was democratic in nature?Skookum1 (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Compare and contrast: the millions in pay and costs it took for Harper to expand his cabinet from its original "lean" state vs the amount hte Green Party gets....Skookum1 (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- And whoever said that giving huge amounts of public money to corporations that already don't pay much tax to start with, or giving them nearly-free access to natural resources in order to "create wealth", was democratic in nature?Skookum1 (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the same area of rules that call for a "level playing field", that's where. It's jejune to pretend that a party backed by corporate big-money interests in a system that clearly operates on buying votes through advertising spending is anything but fair. The Reform Party was perfectly happy with these arrangements when they benefitted THEM.....unless you'd like a system where only the wealthy are able to fund politics and politicians. If so, please see oligarchy and forget about democracy entirely.Skookum1 (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- What is this grand rule of democracy that requires that candidates and/or parties must automatically receive tax payers' money? (And on an exact sum per vote basis as well?) It's not practised in many democracies and I've never heard of any international condemnation of a country's political system for its absence or anyone bringing a case that their democratic rights are denied by the lack of it. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Repeated unilateral removal of the POV template by an overtly partisan editor should, in my view, be considered as a valid reason for that editor to experience at least a temporary block.Skookum1 (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skookum1, this is NOT a forum for you to vent your opinions. I understand that you have a very pessimistic view of the Canadian political system, but nonetheless you can try to be objective rather than be completely cynical. If anything, you look extremely partisan and very pro-NDP or Liberal in your recent comments, which is never a good thing if you want others to take you seriously.
- The reason why the introduction says "triggered by the intention of the opposition parties to defeat the government in a non-confidence motion" is because it was that move that led to the potential invoking of the reserve powers of the Governor General. The fiscal update, I agree that it is contentious, but that by itself would not have brought in the involvement of the GG.
- The parliamentary dispute can be looked at from two angles:
- The fiscal update was provocative to the opposition parties. Supporters of this view said that the political subsidies would have hurt all of them significantly, so that was what united them.
- OR
- The opposition parties were looking for an excuse to bring down the gov't. The support for this view comes from the fact that the opposition parties would not back down after the gov't removed the contentious proposals.
- The parliamentary dispute can be looked at from two angles:
- Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! GoldDragon (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sarcasm in Xmas greetings is always out of place.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! GoldDragon (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- We all must agree. The Parliamentary dispute wouldn't have occured, if the Liberals, New Democrats & Bloc hadn't threatened to bring down the Conservative government. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- ROTFL "We all must agree. The Parliamentary dispute wouldn't have occurred, if the Conservative government had not tried to kill public vote-based electoral funding to the Liberals, New Democrats & Bloc hadn't threatened to bring down the Conservative government.
- REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACKS GoldDragon (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- We all must agree. The Parliamentary dispute wouldn't have occured, if the Liberals, New Democrats & Bloc hadn't threatened to bring down the Conservative government. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll be honest and admit that I have only glanced over this section rather than reading it in full but it is rather preposterous to put the blame on one side or the other and to do so only buys in to the propaganda. The result of the election was that no party had a majority in the House and thus needed the support of others to get legislation through Parliament. The Conservatives seemed to misjudge the opposition's readiness to defeat them, perhaps banking on the instability of the Liberal leadership, and presented a partisan proposal that did the opposition could easily grab onto as not sufficiently addressing the economic crisis. The opposition was apparently better prepared than anticipated and reacted swiftly. My twopence. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would admit that while the order of words will not satisfy everyone (particularly Skookum1), as that does put the most important aspects first, similar to the style of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. The first paragraph "triggered by the intention of opposition parties in the House of Commons to defeat, by a motion of non-confidence...only six weeks after the 40th general election" would describe why it would be a potential crisis. The second paragraph does explain the buildup to the crisis, but that by itself would not have constituted one. The body of the article, however, will generally go in chronological order. GoldDragon (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote most of the intro, and should note that the phrasing was actually a mixup; I had several versions I had drafted on my computer, which I incorrectly merged when submitting to WP. Skookum is correct that the whole thing was a result of the fiscal update, which triggered the formation of the coalition agreement, which caused the whole media frenzy and political rhetoric that followed. DoubleBlue is also right that, for the most part, this is all just political posturing by all parties involved. The point should be to offer a neutral explanation of events, which I failed to do when I wrote the intro. I'll try to come up with something better. Mindmatrix 16:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- BTW: you state: The second paragraph does explain the buildup to the crisis, but that by itself would not have constituted one: note that the formation of a coalition is not a crisis either (coalitions have formed throughout the world without incidence) - the crisis was a result of the politicking (by all parties) that occurred once the coalition announcement was made. Mindmatrix 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that the non-confidence motion not long after the election constitutes the dispute, as there was no clear precedent for the GG's decision (whether to grant the election call or invite opposition parties). GoldDragon (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the notion of 'trigger' applies at all. Clearly, politicians are reacting to each other's actions, and in principle a whole cause and effect chain can be constructed as far back in history as we choose. The truly unusual step was prorogation, so background should reflect matters once there was a fairly substantive escalation. Peter Grey (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's also the request to prorogue rather than face the inevitable confidence defeat. Should the GG take the advice of a PM, who has clearly lost the confidence of the House, to evade a non-confidence motion? It was multi-faceted and we still have a month of manoeuvring to go. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess that the crisis would have been about the scenarios if a non-confidence vote did occur, that would put GG Jean between a rock and a hard place deciding between a premature election (Harper's choice) versus the potential instability of a three party coalition (Dion, Layton, and Duceppe's plan). By analogy to the 1975 Australian crisis, where there was a deadlock between the Labor House and the Liberal Senate, GG Sir John Kerr had to decide between accepting the advice of PM Whitlam (refuse a House election, call a half-Senate election) or opposition leader Fraser (who wanted a House election). Unlike the Australian situation, though, Harper suggested that Jean had a third option of proroging parliament, and this turned out to be less controversial than either an early election or 3-party coalition.
- Granting the request to prorogue caused the dispute to die down somewhat, whereas in the 1975 Australian dismissal of the PM this inflamed the situation and spilled over into the resulting election. Some feel that the gov't should get a chance to present a budget (that was Ignatieff's view upon becoming interim Liberal leader), and/or that there be some negotiation before any confidence vote occurs (back in Ontario, 1985, the NDP entered into negotiations with both the Tories and Grits before signing an accord with the latter). While not everyone was necessarily happy about the prorogue, this did not cause GG Jean to lose respect, as I don't recall any significant criticism of her, unlike Australia's Sir John Kerr who was so demonized that he retired early. GoldDragon (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- We know though, that the momment the opposition parties began meeting for coalition talks (bringing in Broadbent & Chretien), that's when things began to take an unfamilier turn. As for what provoked them: the proposed cutting of public funds to political parties. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Some poor wording
This line suspending the right for women to seek recourse from the courts for pay equity issues, needs to be rewritten - it's incorrect in its current form. Peter Grey (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Be my guest; go for it. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rewritten by someone who knows what the intended meaning was, i.e. more specific that 'something about funding'. Peter Grey (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Catalysts
The paragraph concerning the political party funding has been removed from the 'catalyst' section. This might possibly have a place as some background information, but it's hardly a catalyst since the coalition only came into existence after the Conservatives had backed on on this specific issue, and none of the non-partisan sources claim a link. Peter Grey (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Archives
I am not sure how to go about fixing this, but when the page was moved, the talk page archives didn't come with it. Does anyone know how to do this? Sethpt (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. This article needs an automatic archiving bot. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone changed the links on this page without moving the archives. Give me a minute, I'll fix it. Resolute 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed, and the talk page is auto-archived already. Discussion has simply slowed to the point where it hasn't crossed a threshold for archiving in a while. Wait until Parliament resumes, heh. Resolute 16:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, the fire-works will be starting again, shortly. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed, and the talk page is auto-archived already. Discussion has simply slowed to the point where it hasn't crossed a threshold for archiving in a while. Wait until Parliament resumes, heh. Resolute 16:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone changed the links on this page without moving the archives. Give me a minute, I'll fix it. Resolute 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Dispute resolved?
Based on the comments by Jack Layton and senior BQ leaders that the "coalition is dead," it appears this dispute is now over. Can we change the opening paragraph to remove "unresolved" and change it to a range of dates? 68.5.189.3 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, the dispute is over. The Harper government is apparently gonna accept the Liberal amendments to the 2009 Budget. Therefore, the amended Buget will pass in the House of Commons. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree and rather regret that the article was moved to "–2009" but oh well. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support moving it back to the single-year title; from a historical standpoint this will probably be remembered as an incident of 2008. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- It looks that way, but I would prefer to wait for a confidence vote. Peter Grey (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree and rather regret that the article was moved to "–2009" but oh well. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Address in Reply
The Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne has still only had one day of debate. Usually, it would have been debated during the first six days of the session and agreed to. Does anyone know why? Is holding off on it part of the deal between the Tories and the Liberals? Are the Tories simply holding off to avoid an unfavourable outcome? In other words, is it in any way relevant here? -Rrius (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I must confess, I've no clue as to what happened. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
2010 Prorogation
The 2010 prorogation, and the events associated with it, is only incidentally connected to the topic of this article. That section should be excised immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.238.29 (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've trimmed it, but there is enough of a connection between the prorogation fight and the initial dispute that it is not out of bounds to include it. -Rrius (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Jim Travers article
This was posted today on a blog, in relation to the current "Harper government" rebranding campaign/controversy - an article by the late Jim Travers on how what he calls "the coalition crisis" has played into making this a more American system, and is a departure from the Canadian norm. I un-watchlisted this article quite a while ago because of the direction it was going in and the clear activities of spinners here, so haven't even looked to see if it's anything but a neutralized, toothless, "objective/NPOV" tract that makes everythying sound peachykeen or just boring......but reading the Travers article brought to mind that being NPOV shouldn't mean being censored or neutralized beyond relevance/intelligence.Skookum1 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
WP editorializing in "rebutting" Harper's quote
Miesianiacal: "rm. baseless claim" for my edit? I changed something said in Wikipedia's voice to rephrase it as an argument by Coalition proponents. Unless you mean it's baseless that Coalition people used that argument, which is bizarre and false. Anyway, your change is still problematic to my view:
- On November 28, 2008, Stephen Harper referred to the accord between the Liberals and NDP as undemocratic backroom dealing, stating that the opposition parties were "overturning the results of an election a few weeks later in order to form a coalition that nobody voted for," even though the election did, in fact, result in opposition parties and independent MPs collectively holding 165 seats, compared with the Conservatives' 143.
Those figures are undoubtedly true. But they're from you and phrased as "Wikipedia's counter" to Harper with the "even though" and "in fact" parts, implying that Harper was somehow incorrect. Selection of which facts to highlight and where easily steps into POV, so I'd be much happier if this could be changed to a rebuttal from a Coalition proponent, e.g. "Joe Brown responded the Coalition really had a majority." There are facts that help both sides; how would the following passage look:
- Stephane Dion stated that "Harper has no 'right' to his position; if he can't defeat a vote of no confidence, he shouldn't be Prime Minister", even though the Conservatives had, in fact, won a decisive plurality and Dion's Liberals had just lost 26 seats in the previous election.
Such a passage would be Wikipedia being blatantly pro-Conservative. Your passage above has the same problem, just it's pro-Coalition instead. It should either be removed or directly attributed to someone who said something along those lines. SnowFire (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the claim you inserted about the coalition supporters was baseless, as in: it had no supporting reference. The point that more there were more MPs in the opposition benches than in the government's isn't a coalition supporters' argument, anyway; it's simply a fact, as you admit. So, I'm a little unclear on what you're objecting to. Is it that there's no cite supplied to affirm it? If so, one can be easily found. And, if the wording is a bit off - an observation with which I might agree - feel free to tweak it to your satisfaction. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- And the hypothetical passage above about the Liberals losing 26 seats is "just a fact" as "you would admit" as well. Look, *both* sides can cite facts that support them: the Conservatives did not have a true majority (the Coalition point) but they did have a plurality that the most recent election had expanded (the Conservative point). As phrased currently Wikipedia is calling Harper out as being wrong and implying that he's denying / obscuring the fact that he only had a plurality. I think it's safe to assume that Harper knew he only had a plurality, and that Coalition proponents would want to emphasize the fact that he still didn't have a majority.
- As for "baseless," yes, there's no attribution currently. That's Wikipedia style, to slap a tag request down to fix it with the {{who}} tag. I'd rather that point be kept and eventually attributed, but I'd rather it be removed altogether than the passage kept as an unattributed POV interjection.
- Also, the other passage I removed and you restored:
- Political satirist and commentator Rick Mercer critiqued the entire affair as "embarrassing" and denounced the Conservatives' claims about affronts to democracy and coups as wilful lies. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wPOLmercer1205/BNStory/politics/home
- "Sourced" material that badly mischaracterizes the source is in some ways worse than nothing at all, as it looks legit. Like I said, I *read the source* and that summary does violence to it - "willful lies" is far stronger than the tone actually used. He's accusing Harper of hyperbole and bluster, not deception. Even if he HAD said that, he's a humorist with no particular access to read Harper's mind anyway. Furthermore, there must have been thousands of editorials written on the affair anyway - it's not clear to me why this particular one by a humorist is especially important. People like Stephen Colbert or PJ O'Rourke can legitly be put into some articles on US politics but that's the exception, not the rule for someone's thoughts to be worthy of their own personal paragraph. Without the "willful lies" part that leaves Mercer saying the affair was "embarassing" which isn't really interesting. SnowFire (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- You have some odd interpretations of things, including Wikipedia guidelines. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Sourced" material that badly mischaracterizes the source is in some ways worse than nothing at all, as it looks legit. Like I said, I *read the source* and that summary does violence to it - "willful lies" is far stronger than the tone actually used. He's accusing Harper of hyperbole and bluster, not deception. Even if he HAD said that, he's a humorist with no particular access to read Harper's mind anyway. Furthermore, there must have been thousands of editorials written on the affair anyway - it's not clear to me why this particular one by a humorist is especially important. People like Stephen Colbert or PJ O'Rourke can legitly be put into some articles on US politics but that's the exception, not the rule for someone's thoughts to be worthy of their own personal paragraph. Without the "willful lies" part that leaves Mercer saying the affair was "embarassing" which isn't really interesting. SnowFire (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the "who" tag, it's no different than slapping "citation needed" on possibly worthy content that nevertheless needs a reference. SnowFire (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Formation of a coalition
This is a great, great, article guys. Awesome work. I wonder, though, if there is a place for references and information from Brian Topp's book, "How We Almost Gave the Tories the Boot: The inside story behind the coalition". I thought it surprising that it isn't currently listed as a reference. Moreover, it's apparently clear in his book that informal discussions about a coalition between the NDP and Liberals were occurring before the Fiscal Update and the election. Akiracee (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Ignatieff-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Ignatieff-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 August 2011
|
| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC) |
Mistaken Citiation
When quoting Prof. Wiseman of the University of Toronto, the quote in question refers to Harper's December 2009 prorogation of Parliament over the Afghan detainee inquiry, NOT the 2008 constitutional crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.166.182 (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008–09 Canadian parliamentary dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090502163238/http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/081203_excellency_en.pdf to http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/081203_excellency_en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Mitchell, Rob (9 December), "Money not principle is the issue", Toronto Star
{{citation}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help)