Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

That coalition trying to take power in Australia is pretty illegitimate, isn’t it, Harper?

Just an aside on the Australian general election that took place over the last few days. Australia’s electoral setup is a modified Westminster-parliamentary system similar to Canada’s (the main difference being they use preferred ballot or Instant Runoff voting to elect their lower house, and Single-Transferable Vote to elect their Senate). The election has resulted in a “hung Parliament”, or a minority Parliament – the first since World War II. The battle is between the Labor Party and the conservative Coalition.

What’s that? A coalition you say?

A coalition of 4 parties actually. It’s led by the Liberal Party (which is not very “liberal”; think of it in the same way as the BC Liberal Party – they’re not really liberals either); and joined by the LNQ (which seems to be an offshoot of the main Liberal Party), the National Party, and the CLP.

At the moment, there’s a bit of confusion as to what the exact numbers are – but the Electoral Commission has the count (as of this blogpost – things will change obviously as they count all disputed seats) at Labor 72, Liberal 41, LNQ 21, Nationals 7, CLP 1 – for a coalition total of 70. That leaves the balance of power with the independents (2 or 3, depending where you look down there) the lone Green Party member, and about 4-5 seats still too close to call. The national two-party preferred popular vote also is slightly in Labor’s favour.

If Stephen Harper is consistent, he will immediately call the Coalition’s attempts to form government “illegitimate” and a “coalition of the losers” and demand that they allow Labor to properly form a minority government.

I suspect Mr. Harper won’t be consistent.

UPDATE @ 10:53 am: The Jurist was thinking the same thing I was. I swear I didnt see his blogpost before I posted my own. Great minds….

17 comments to That coalition trying to take power in Australia is pretty illegitimate, isn’t it, Harper?

  • ridenrain

    The point is on the top of your head.
    Calling the folks of Australia are wise because they want a coalition then dumping on them because they don’t want Tamils just makes you look silly and hypocritical. I guess that’s a side effect of that red kool-aid.

    • Jon Pertwee

      @ridenrain, um not really ridofbrain. Apples and oranges. What you are trying to do is say that elections and coalitions are the same discussion as the Australian refugee policy, which it is not. Trying to tie two discussions into one discussion to prove your point really doesn’t.

      There is nothing wrong with criticizing Australian refugee policy. Last I checked we are free to express ourselves and criticism of a government policy is still allowed. Trying to tie that together with how Australians elect governments and their history of coalitions is weak and makes no sense. Therefore there is no point there.

      That was a really weak insult with the pointy head jab. Really? Recycling Dalton McGuinty insults and kool aid jabs? Has Conbot land really gotten that pathetic?

    • Redrum

      @riddenraw, um, no. The point being made isn’t that the Aussies are _wise_ because they’re likely to have an(other) coalition: it’s that there’s nothing illegitimate about a commonwealth nation having a coalition gov’t, even one comprised by parties w. less than a simple majority, contrary to the falsehoods uttered by our current PM.

  • ridenrain

    They also have a tradition of coalitions where Canada has none.

  • Redrum

    well, it is backwards since they’re swinging to the right. They may not be enlightened, but at least they’re not anti-democratic or revisionist and realize they have a Parliamentary system, unlike Mr. “Losers Can’t Form Coalitions” (only, er, ‘Alliances’).

  • ridenrain

    And here I thought Australia was some backward province that Liberals disliked:

    “This is Canada, not Australia,” Ignatieff said. “That means Canada has principles, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our international obligations.“

    • Jon Pertwee

      @ridenrain, and that was being used in reference to Australia using poor countries like Nauru as drop off zones. Ever looked up Nauru ridobrain? It’s one of the poorest countries in the world and is this really a great method of economic development? How about Christmas Island? Did you know that the interment camps that they have established there have been killing off the endemic fauna and flora? Or how about Papua New Guinea? Im sure the government of Canada would be thrilled if another Child Overboard Affair happened. Do you want Canada to be associated with a similar incident? When I read opinions like yours ridofbrain, I see ignorance and stupidity. Sorry but I dont think holding camps in poor countries is a Canadian solution. Maybe if you didn’t just follow the talking point blindly and did a bit of research yourself you might have an opinion. BTW, wilson has already been putting this lame talking point out for days and I explained why the media isnt taking it. Simply put, Iggy is boring. Boring does not attract the camera when you have flailing fools like Tony Clement and Stockwell Day to hog it. The camera loves the flailing man.

      Why shouldnt we be able to criticize another country ridofbrain? We’re a country that allows freedom of expression and if Ignatieff choses to criticize Australia about it, then it’s his right. You’re trying to create a tempest in a teapot and doing it badly. It seems that Australians are able to criticize their own government so why shouldnt we?

      So what are we to expect from you now? More conjecture? More hot air? More talking points?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/asia/05island.html?_r=1

      http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/24/1093246520431.html?from=storylhs

      http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/truth-overboard–the-story-that-wont-go-away/2006/02/27/1141020023654.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

      http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/c03.htm

  • Roll Tide

    Ignatieff should RUN as a coalition leader, the way Tony Abbott did. That way the voters arent hoodwinked. I will bet you that Ignatieff will take a pass.

  • TofKW

    If anyone remembers the Czech federal election earlier this year, the victorious Social Democrats had their win snatched away by a centre-right coalition between three parties. Harper needs to straighten out those Czechs because their government is illegitimate.

    And don’t get me started about Israel’s 2009 election.

  • Will M.

    Coalitions in the UK and Oz.

    Losers right Harpo?

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    Does that mean that Harper’s and Bush’s hero, the example followed (or plagiarized) by Harper in his speeches, led a coalition of losers?

  • Michael Harkov

    One little caveat, guys –

    The Coalition in Australian politics refers to a group of centre-right parties that has existed in the form of a coalition agreement since 1922. The Coalition partners are the Liberal Party of Australia (or its predecessors before 1945) and the National Party of Australia.

    Merger plans came to a head in May 2008, when the Queensland state Liberal Party announced that they would not wait for a federal merger blueprint, but would merge as soon as possible. The new party, the “Liberal-National Party”, has a self-imposed deadline of late July for party registration.[9] Candidates for the new Liberal National party contested the 2010 Australian Federal Election, with previously-elected members of parliament retaining their affiliation until their next election.

    Oh where to even begin. But I don’t really have to, do I. It’s pretty self-evident. ;D

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_(Australia)#Liberal.2FNational_Merger

    • Jon Pertwee

      @Michael Harkov, so are you saying they should form a coalition then wait 90 years to merge?

      It’s funny how you conbots dont like to discuss your merger and the whole Peter McKay cant honour a promise thing. Obeying your own laws, honouring promises. Why should we accept a caveat coming from such a dishonest source as the Conservatives?

    • @Michael Harkov, The points still apply, as far as I’m concerned. They’re listed by the Australian electoral commission as separate parties, but in a coalition.. they’ve included the CLP in that coalition and they have less seats currently then the Labor Party, but are trying to take power.

      Perfectly legitimate in a parliamentary government – Netyanhu has done the same thing in Israel – but not according to Stephen Harper circa 2008 and to the present day.. So, I still await the Harper condemnation on this coalition’s legitimacy and it trying to steal power – and for him to be consistent.

      Again, I neither expect him (or you, or any other Conservative Kool-Aid drinker) to do so.

      • Michael Harkov

        Then, Scott, I assume that Ignatieff will have NO problem starting off any subsequent election campaing by declaring his intention to run as a coalition with the NDP and/or any other party.

        No, eh? Yeah, I didn’t think so. 😀

  • ck

    He ain’t gonna say anything. Besides, I think Australia, to him is another one of those fringie places at the other end of the world he doesn’t have to pay any heed to, anyway, no matter who’s leading it.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.