Seriously, I don't know on what major issues the NDP and the Liberals disagree. It always seemed to a difference more on governing style than in actual policy disputes.
But I agree this could backfire on the Canadian left the same way the California GOP thought they had a "mandate" to run the state when Arnold and Tom McClintock got a combined 61% of the vote for Governor and they intrepreted as the the state being "in play" for the Republican Party. Unfortunately for them, the only thing McClintock & Arnold had in common was a desire to beat Gray Davis, but they had very different ideas on how to govern California. Arnold will never get the support of the 18% that voted McClintock to impliment his agenda.
It seems the only thing the NDP, LD, and BQ are united on is a desire to beat Stephen Harper and institute marxist government. How they'd run their socialist government is the big sticking point. The problem with the BQ voters being part of that "majority" is they didn't cast their votes in favor of a national government, if they were voting BQ they wanted local officials who would put Quebec's interests first and free them from Canadian rule. Likewise, I'm surprised the NDP would agree to a coalition with Liberal Party Dion as PM because I think his party actually LOST seats in the most recent election -- putting him in charge of the country is obviously a slap in the face to the "will of the people" (not the left ever cared about that). If anything, the NDP is the left-wing party with the biggest "mandate" from the voters because they gained power in the last election, but I think they only got 18% of the popular vote and the LP still won more seats.
This could end up collapsing within monthes, like when Prodi was so elated to "beat" Belusconci in Italy but his alliance of left-wing loons quickly fell apart once they were in power and Belusconci came back stronger than ever.
It's sleazy, but I don't have a problem with the LP and NPD getting a majority by agreeing to back the same person for PM. After all, in theory the Republicans outnumber the Dems in our current lame duck Senate (49-48), but the Dems run the government because the two "independents" caucus with them. And those two "independents" (Lieberman, who was kicked out the Dem Party for support the GOP on the war, and Sanders, who's so far left he thinks the Dems are a "conservative party") have very little common besides a desire to stop Mitch McConnell from having the gavel.
I do think the Governor-General ought to step in and prevent the BQ from being part of a national governing coalition as long as their party calls for Quebec secessionism though. The intent of the BQ voters was specifically NOT to have a national canadian government rule over Quebec. Period. If they wanted a socialist NATIONAL government, those Quebec voters would have voted NDP or LP, both of whom were on the ballot. Take the BQ out of the equation, and Harper's conservatives still have more seats than the LP and NDP combined (I think).
And if the Governor-General is going to sit on his hands and be little more than a ceremonial ribbon-cutter, then Canadians need to seriously question why they bother to have a "parliamentarian" system of government in the first place.
No, no, I should’ve said some aspects of the Liberals are perceived as “Centrist.” Trudeau was a Nazi-cum-Stalinist, well on the left, but not all the members of the Libs were moonbats. Of course, again, by our standards, most of them really are, anyhow. Just their compass got thrown out of whack about 3-4 decades ago.
I also can’t see the CA Recall election being comparable, either. You’re talking about a specific Gubernatorial race vs. an entire nationwide parliamentary election. If each of our states had races like that, CA wouldn’t have had a GOP Governor since the late ‘60s because they couldn’t win a majority in the legislature (for whom the “Governor” or “Premier” would be the party leader — you’d have had Willie Brown leading the state for a dozen years, a terrifying thought).
There’s advantages and disadvantages to the parliamentary system. I tend to favor our way down south, but those living in Canada and Oz have good arguments against implementing a republic, as the Gov-Gen equivalent can halt (at Her Majesty’s discretion) extremist hijackings of gov’t. Come to think of it, this is a prime example of why the Gov-Gen ought to give the thumbs-down to this mess. The sole reason that participated the unbridled panic from the left was Harper’s plan to defund the moonbats. I’m not even sure what the equivalent to that would be in our country.
That isn't really true because races largely cease to be local in a parliamentary system, the elections would have turned out differently. The USA certainly would have had some GOP PMs between the 50's and 90's. In Cali I presume GOP statewide winners carried the majority of districts including some held by rats. In a parliamentary system many of those seats would have elected Rs instead as people vote for the leader or party with the strength of the local candidates being just one factor.
I prefer a parliament is some ways. Easier to pass things (bad things to of course) and no divided government. Reagan would have been PM and no rat congress to hold him back. Given the 40 year vice grip they had it would have been better for us.
I think Bama carried a majority of house districts but rats would not have been elected in all those conservative seats.
Of course there are downsides as well.