Look at India and Hong Kong, they too were under British control (the difference here being that they were not founded as nations under their rule) but they gained independence and don't look like nations who still have to suck on a teat to get by. 

While I get what you're saying about this coalition in particular, and while I agree with you to some extent (though, I think the Tories are dangerous as long as Stephen Harper is the party leader), I don't think that coalitions in general are undemocratic. I mean, what if the coalition had campaigned as a coalition; this one didn't, but what if they did? In that case, at least, I don't think you can argue that it would be undemocratic.

Um you're slightly off on this one.  Hong Kong is not independent.  It belongs to China now.  

Yeah, I actually was going to mention that but I totally forgot. If the people actually voted in the coalition government, then I'd be fine with it. However, in this case, that didn't happen, so I believe that it is undemocratic.

This sort of system exists for practical reasons really. If the left-leaning parties have more seats than the right-leaning ones, obviously they'd vote against the right-leaning ones, with or without a "coalition". Not just out of spite, but out of ideological differences. And when a governing party lose most of the votes in parliament, one can argue that they form a pretty useless government that can't get anything done. Without a vote of no confidence, the country would be at a standstill for the rest of the term. And without coalitions, the cycle would repeat itself until people forced themselves to vote for a party they don't necessarily agree with, just to get a majority and the country working again.

Won't a vote of no confidence mean a new election?

I'm watching CTV. Stephen Harper is now filling empty seats with Conservatives...

This is unbelievable. Harper needs to be called out on being the hypocritical little weasel that he is.

NO CALLING ELECTIONS WHEN YOU'RE UP IN THE POLLS: Nope, he did that this fall.
NO BLOCKING NO CONFIDENCE VOTES: Nope, he did that this fall.
NO STACKING THE SENATE, WHICH IN HIS OWN WORDS IS INEFFECTIVE, UNEQUAL, AND OBVIOUSLY NOT ELECTED: Nope, he's doing THAT now too.

This is a guy who made his CAREER campaigning against the very things he's doing. His response to a worsening financial situation is to hold the country's pursestrings as tight as possible, and he's breaking every word he's ever made. I've never been so frustrated with my own country before.

The majority of conservative party members want him out apparently. Once this is all over, he'll most likely be gone.

The thing that really weirds me out here is how many people refer to the PM as hot...

And yes, I'm pissed off about him stacking the senate. This is getting ridiculous, but if he called an election, he'd still win since he's turned this thing into a whole "coalition government is anti-canadian"

His eyes may be souless. But he wears fuzzy blue sweaters. Only nice people wear fuzzy blue sweaters. O.o;



On a side note, apparently there's a stray cat colony on Parliament Hill, and Harper has a thing for cats, so every time a visiting dignitary comes, he tries to get them to adopt one of the cats...

And that's what makes our country great...

Letting you guys know in advance, I'm American. (I love how I can use this phrase to extort pity from everyone in any given situation)

First, supposing that the liberal parties don't opt for the 'coup,' don't the conservatives still need to compromise with them in order to pass legislation? I hardly see the reason for disregarding the outcome of a democratic election when the liberal parties still have a say in how to run the government.

Second, why should the three liberal parties form a coalition JUST to oust the conservatives? They all tout different policies, right? Supposing they do form that coalition, how do we know they'll make efficient legislation together? And if you're gonna say that it's better than having the conservatives run the country (having to compromise with half of Parliament), if the liberal parties make that coalition, wouldn't they still have to compromise with a good 40% of your parliament -- now pissed off because they've been ousted?

As far as I see it, with or without the coalition people are still going to need to compromise, unless the winning party has significant excecutive power over the legislature. And even with the coalition, the coalition parties still need to flesh out a concrete agenda -- whereas the conservatives already have one which is ready for debate.

I'm also pretty miffed by some of the one-liners against our 2 party system. It's not like 3rd parties don't have power at all in our country. In fact, after Nader ran in 2000 for the Greens and got a significant number of the general vote, the democrats decided to incorporate Green policy in the 2004 elections. Obviously, that didn't win them the election because of some fuck-up in Florida, but this still shows that our two-party system is willing to adopt other doctrines. Sure it's slower, but it seems a helluva lot more stable that other countries.

Source?