Updates on the Canadian political scene
We have had some pretty dramatic things happen in the last few days here in Canada. No doubt passions are boiling high on both sides. This is unfortunate as during a recession we need all parties to work together not pick fights and I hope after this ends, whatever the outcome, we see a more collaborative approach. Below I will try to give a non-partisan summary that at this objectively.
Those supporting the move to form a coalition claim it simply representing the will of the majority of people who didn't vote Conservative while those opposing it are claiming it is a coup d'etat, although both sides have a valid point, they should consider the other side for a moment and maybe we would get a more rational decision.
In Canada, we vote for individual MPs, not the prime-minister and the individual MPs colletively can decide whoever they think would be the best PM. If the majority decide someone from the opposition should be PM, that is perfectly legitimate and within their right in a Westminster parliamentary system.
On the other hand, those claiming this represents 62% need to be careful about saying this. The reality is each vote was for an individual party, not a coalition and no can say for certainty how the public would have voted had they known such coalition would happen. The reality is despite their similiarities, all three parties have some fundamental differences so although I am positive if they ran under a single slate they would get more than either did on their own and possibly win the election, it is unlikely they would get the sum of their votes as some Blue Liberals might find supporting a coalition with the NDP too much to stomach and likewise the Bloc Quebecois due to being a separtist party might be hard for some to support. It is true the Bloc Quebecois has largely put separtism on the backburner and I think that is the only reason the coalition is even plausible. In most countries where coalitions are the norm, parties usually give their preferred partner, who they would be willing to work with if that doesn't work, and which parties they would never consider. Since Canada doesn't have a history of coalitions no party addressed this, but either way I am sure it will be brought up next election and either it will be shown to be legitimate by the Tories losing seats or losing outright or the public will say it is not by giving the Tories a majority.
As for the Governor General, she has a number of options and lot will depend on the results in the next week. If the Liberals + NDP + BQ formed a formal coalition she would have no choice but to grant their request. If only the Liberals + NDP form a coalition, this would put them at 114 seats, 29 seats less than the Conservatives so she can only say yes if there is a written agreement from the Bloc Quebecois pledging support to such coalition. Finally she can exercise another discretion, which is refuse to dissolve parliament due to an election being so recent and also the fact we are in an economic crisis where an election would be harmful to the national interest. In that case she would ask the opposition to form government and if they could get the confidence of the house, they would form government, but if not, there would be an election. Although I am sure she faces a difficult decision, I am sure it will be one done based on constitutional precedence not her own feelings.
As for the precedence of this, it does have precedence in the King-Byng affair in 1926 as well as David Peterson's agreement with the NDP in 1985. Where this becomes unchartered territory is the fact Meighen actually beat King in 1926 in seats and was only not PM since he formed a coalition with the Progressive Party. Likewise in 1985, David Peterson won the popular vote and also the NDP + Liberals had the majority of seats and the Liberals were only four seats behind the Ontario PCs. This time around, the Liberals got significantly less votes than the Tories and significantly fewer seats, at the same time, never have we seen a prime-minister so partisan and confrontational and so vindictive towards his opponents. Also we are in an economic crisis, not a boom. If the economy was doing well, expect such a coalition would be far less likely to fly with the public. In fact that is probably why one never materialized in Harper's first term despite the fact he had far fewer seats.
Now as for what will happen, I don't want to make any bets. I think Harper likes being PM and suspect many of his new MPs, especially those who are in cabinet are probably giving him an earful on this, so he may very well blink, although the opposition could say too little too late. Also, public opinion could come out strong against this causing one opposition party to blink although I wouldn't count on that happening. I think that is what Harper is hoping for, but it seems if this has done anything, it has only polarized the nation further, not united it. Also I think the coalition has a very good chance of going ahead, but there are still many things to be worked out so whether it will be a short lived one that lasts only until next spring or one that lasts a few two years remains to be seen. The longer it lasts the issue of how it came about will fade from the public mind and the next election will be based on its performance not how it got there.
As for my opinion, I think Harper's arrogance got the better of him. He probably figured a leaderless Liberals having just fought an election and performed poorly wouldn't have the stomach to stand up to this. Also this time around, only 11 members needed to come down with the diplomatic flu. However, I think the Liberals reached their boiling point in which the bullying by Harper was too much to take and they were going to fight back. As for my preferable outcome, unless Harper makes changes to his economic statement, they need to not back down, but at the same time they shouldn't go ahead no matter what. As a Blue Liberal and a strong federalist, forming a coalition with the NDP and working with the Bloc is not something I am very comfortable with and in fact if such a coalition had existed on the ballot, I probably would have voted for a smaller party is neither option is desirable for me. I am a centrist, not a left winger, not a right winger and I feel both options stray too far from the centre. If Harper does back down on this, I hope he changes his tone dramatically, although my guess is he will go back to his own ways in about 6 months to a year when he has a better chance at getting the governor general to agree to a dissolution. By the same time, a Liberal-NDP agreement is somewhat worrying to me as well as relying on the Bloc's support. I don't mind helping Quebec industries and workers who are struggling, but all regions should be helped equally, no favourtism to one over another. If the NDP gets cabinet posts like environment or foreign affairs that is fine with me, but for heaven's sake, keep them as far away from finance as possible. This would be a disaster and if they get finance, I will have to reconsider my options. Harper has put partisan interests ahead of the country, therefore any replacement coalition must place country first and party last. Also, if this only increases Harper's chance at a majority next time around, I would look for a way out. Governing temporarily only to see Harper get a majority is not desirable. I would rather let him govern longer and then lose in the next election than the former.
Those supporting the move to form a coalition claim it simply representing the will of the majority of people who didn't vote Conservative while those opposing it are claiming it is a coup d'etat, although both sides have a valid point, they should consider the other side for a moment and maybe we would get a more rational decision.
In Canada, we vote for individual MPs, not the prime-minister and the individual MPs colletively can decide whoever they think would be the best PM. If the majority decide someone from the opposition should be PM, that is perfectly legitimate and within their right in a Westminster parliamentary system.
On the other hand, those claiming this represents 62% need to be careful about saying this. The reality is each vote was for an individual party, not a coalition and no can say for certainty how the public would have voted had they known such coalition would happen. The reality is despite their similiarities, all three parties have some fundamental differences so although I am positive if they ran under a single slate they would get more than either did on their own and possibly win the election, it is unlikely they would get the sum of their votes as some Blue Liberals might find supporting a coalition with the NDP too much to stomach and likewise the Bloc Quebecois due to being a separtist party might be hard for some to support. It is true the Bloc Quebecois has largely put separtism on the backburner and I think that is the only reason the coalition is even plausible. In most countries where coalitions are the norm, parties usually give their preferred partner, who they would be willing to work with if that doesn't work, and which parties they would never consider. Since Canada doesn't have a history of coalitions no party addressed this, but either way I am sure it will be brought up next election and either it will be shown to be legitimate by the Tories losing seats or losing outright or the public will say it is not by giving the Tories a majority.
As for the Governor General, she has a number of options and lot will depend on the results in the next week. If the Liberals + NDP + BQ formed a formal coalition she would have no choice but to grant their request. If only the Liberals + NDP form a coalition, this would put them at 114 seats, 29 seats less than the Conservatives so she can only say yes if there is a written agreement from the Bloc Quebecois pledging support to such coalition. Finally she can exercise another discretion, which is refuse to dissolve parliament due to an election being so recent and also the fact we are in an economic crisis where an election would be harmful to the national interest. In that case she would ask the opposition to form government and if they could get the confidence of the house, they would form government, but if not, there would be an election. Although I am sure she faces a difficult decision, I am sure it will be one done based on constitutional precedence not her own feelings.
As for the precedence of this, it does have precedence in the King-Byng affair in 1926 as well as David Peterson's agreement with the NDP in 1985. Where this becomes unchartered territory is the fact Meighen actually beat King in 1926 in seats and was only not PM since he formed a coalition with the Progressive Party. Likewise in 1985, David Peterson won the popular vote and also the NDP + Liberals had the majority of seats and the Liberals were only four seats behind the Ontario PCs. This time around, the Liberals got significantly less votes than the Tories and significantly fewer seats, at the same time, never have we seen a prime-minister so partisan and confrontational and so vindictive towards his opponents. Also we are in an economic crisis, not a boom. If the economy was doing well, expect such a coalition would be far less likely to fly with the public. In fact that is probably why one never materialized in Harper's first term despite the fact he had far fewer seats.
Now as for what will happen, I don't want to make any bets. I think Harper likes being PM and suspect many of his new MPs, especially those who are in cabinet are probably giving him an earful on this, so he may very well blink, although the opposition could say too little too late. Also, public opinion could come out strong against this causing one opposition party to blink although I wouldn't count on that happening. I think that is what Harper is hoping for, but it seems if this has done anything, it has only polarized the nation further, not united it. Also I think the coalition has a very good chance of going ahead, but there are still many things to be worked out so whether it will be a short lived one that lasts only until next spring or one that lasts a few two years remains to be seen. The longer it lasts the issue of how it came about will fade from the public mind and the next election will be based on its performance not how it got there.
As for my opinion, I think Harper's arrogance got the better of him. He probably figured a leaderless Liberals having just fought an election and performed poorly wouldn't have the stomach to stand up to this. Also this time around, only 11 members needed to come down with the diplomatic flu. However, I think the Liberals reached their boiling point in which the bullying by Harper was too much to take and they were going to fight back. As for my preferable outcome, unless Harper makes changes to his economic statement, they need to not back down, but at the same time they shouldn't go ahead no matter what. As a Blue Liberal and a strong federalist, forming a coalition with the NDP and working with the Bloc is not something I am very comfortable with and in fact if such a coalition had existed on the ballot, I probably would have voted for a smaller party is neither option is desirable for me. I am a centrist, not a left winger, not a right winger and I feel both options stray too far from the centre. If Harper does back down on this, I hope he changes his tone dramatically, although my guess is he will go back to his own ways in about 6 months to a year when he has a better chance at getting the governor general to agree to a dissolution. By the same time, a Liberal-NDP agreement is somewhat worrying to me as well as relying on the Bloc's support. I don't mind helping Quebec industries and workers who are struggling, but all regions should be helped equally, no favourtism to one over another. If the NDP gets cabinet posts like environment or foreign affairs that is fine with me, but for heaven's sake, keep them as far away from finance as possible. This would be a disaster and if they get finance, I will have to reconsider my options. Harper has put partisan interests ahead of the country, therefore any replacement coalition must place country first and party last. Also, if this only increases Harper's chance at a majority next time around, I would look for a way out. Governing temporarily only to see Harper get a majority is not desirable. I would rather let him govern longer and then lose in the next election than the former.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 11:04 AM
6 Comments:
I think that if the coalition gets away with it, then watch support for separation in Western Canada skyrocket...
I doubt Western Canada will separate. Lets remember, the longest this coalition will last is 2 years and Canadians will then get a chance to pass judgement. Yes I agree that opposition to this will be much stronger in the West than elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it will result in separtism. Also almost half of Westerners voted for a party other than the Conservatives and I suspect the majority (although not all) support the idea of a coalition. My reading through the weblogs and comments section suggest it has the support of most who didn't vote for Harper, but not all and considering he was only 12% shy of 50% who knows how the public will view this. I suspect the arrangment of the coalition and how far down Harper backs will matter greatly
Is this the "democracy" that tens of thousands of Canadians died to fight for?
Liberals = despots. The Governor General, having a Haitian heritage, should know better than to allow this coup d'etat.
Liberals should be ashamed to have even considered this - clearly thier arrogance knows no bounds.
Anonymous - I would argue it is still democracy since under the Westminster system one votes for the MP, not the prime-minister and whoever the majority of MPs have confidence in becomes PM. Lets remember regardless of what happens, the composition of the house will not change and all those who are elected as MPs will remain MPs. In addition, we will get another election, so if one states it is morally illegitimate, you will get a chance to make that statement next election. And you also have every right to punish those who decided to form the coalition at the polls. At the end of the day, coalition or no coalition, the voters will pass the final judgment come next election. A coup on the other hand involves a government takeover without not possiblity of changing it.
We agree then - an election it should be.
What willl the coalition call itself I wonder. I mean, you are willing to face the electorate as the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition right?
You know - truth, democracy and all that annoying trivia that tens of thousands of Canadians have died to protect?
You do believe in freedom?
Anonymous - The coalition will eventually face an election. How this will play out is anybody's guess so I don't want to make any predictions quite yet.
Post a Comment
<< Home