Recent Events

Its been a while since I have posted and a lot has happened here in terms of the domestic political scene, so below is my summary on what has happened and my personal views on it.

Coalition

I am glad to see that it is no longer a guarantee, but simply a possibility. Harper has become quite arrogant in the way he has governed and I agree the opposition needs to stand up to him when he oversteps things, but that does not mean that the alternative will automatically work. I don't buy the argument of an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just because I don't like Stephen Harper doesn't mean I will automatically support any alternative. I would accept the idea of a coalition as a last resort if there is no other alternative. Otherwise keep the idea around to keep Harper in check, but only pursue it if it absolutely necessary. It contains many risks which should not be underestimated. The Bloc Quebecois is a legitimate party, however they are a Quebec only party and I believe that any national government should be one that governs for the benefit of all of Canada, not one particular region. We should focus on issues that united Quebecers and English Canadians, not ones that divide them and unfortunately in the past, all too often, the Bloc Quebecois has focused on issues that split the two. Likewise I am not very comfortable about working with the NDP. If they were like New Labour in Britain or their provincial counterparts in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I would be far more comfortable working them as in those cases they may share the same ideals as the federal NDP, but they are far more pragmatic and less rigid in their ideology. Rigid ideology, be it left wing or right wing doesn't work and is especially undesirable at this time. In addition the Coalition contains other risks including regional alienation and lack of democratic legitimacy in the eyes of some Canadians. Considering how unpopular the coalition was in Western Canada, I worried this would only encourage further Western Alienation. Also this would be bad for the Liberals and NDP long term as both parties need to do well in the West if they wish to remain strong. Also, although the coalition is entirely legitimate within our parliamentary system, as recent polls, have shown, many Canadians don't understand our system very well and if the public doesn't like the idea, it is likely to backfire. Also being constitutionally legal, doesn't make it morally right in the eyes of all. Floor crossing is perfectly legitimate, yet many oppose this. Now I am not against the idea of coalitions neither do I see them as undemocratic, but I am aware that for those who don't follow politics closely, their views may be a bit different. Ideally, I would rather one of the following two things happen
1. Harper resigns as Conservative leader and they choose a new leader who is more moderate and more willing to cooperate.
2. We go to another election and hopefully with a new leader, the Liberals can win it and govern on an issue by issue basis like they did after the 2004 election or if the Tories win again, they will likely be forced to cooperate while they are in the process of choosing a new leader.

Both of these scenarios would be preferable to a coalition, but I understand neither two seem likely. Some say coalitions are the norm in other countries, but I should point out we don't have a history of them so just because it works elsewhere doesn't mean it automatically will here. Also coalitions in most European countries usually include the party with the most seats and also parties usually during the election will state who their preferred partner is, who they are willing to consider, and who they will not align with under any circumstance. Finally, Europe is not monolithically full of centre-left governments, in fact quite the contrary. At the moment, there are more countries with centre-right governments in Europe than centre-left so Europe is not the left wing paradise some like to think it is. In addition many coalitions in Europe, have parties on both sides of the spectrum such as in Germany amongst many others. In fact only a minority of countries in Europe have coalitions that are entirely right wing or entirely left wing, most are mix. Some also say, 62% voted for the coalition, but the reality is you cannot add the sum of separate parties and assume everyone who voted for each would vote for the combined. In 2000, the PCs + Alliance got 38% of the popular vote, but in 2004, the Conservatives only got 30%, otherwise uniting two or three separate parties does not result in the sum of the two. And if one looks at the recent polls, this seems to bear out as I have a tough time imagining the Tories getting around 50% in Ontario if the Liberals, NDP, and Greens run as separate parties, but as one, then it suddenly becomes possible.

Michael Ignatieff chosen as new Liberal leader

I think Michael Ignatieff is a good choice and he would make a good PM, so I am not at all opposed to him becoming Liberal leader, although I wish we had an actual race since as nasty as they can get, this would help rebuild the party. We all remember how nasty the race between Clinton and Obama was, however I would argue this helped the Democrats in the November election as it created more interest in the party resulting in new members and therefore more volunteers come election time. If the Liberals had a similiar type race, I believe it would mean more members, more money in terms of fundraising, and more volunteers for the next election since if the Liberals want to win outside their strongholds, they need to grow their members and have active supporters in all parts of the country. The only danger with such a race is if the infighting continues after the race is over. Otherwise have a strong fought leadership race, but once the leader is decided, then all sides should unite behind the leader. But now that Ignatieff is the leader, the focus should be on a full re-building of the party. That means not thinking about the quickest way back to power, but thinking long-term. Too many Liberals I fear are interested in short-term answers rather than long-term ones. The Democrats in the US spent eight years in opposition, but during that time, they went through a whole re-building process and were able to come back in areas few thought they could win in as they built up their organization from Coast to Coast. The Liberals need to do the same. Increasing the membership, donors, and building up strong riding associations in all 308 ridings is something the Liberals should remain committed to. The goal should be not just to take back power, but to be a truly national party that is competitive in all parts of the country. The party should also plant itself firmly in the centre, not on the left. They should try to appeal to both soft NDP and soft Conservative supporters as the party needs both if it wants to ever win another majority government. If the Liberals do end up forming a coalition, it is essential the coalition stay as close as possible to the centre and if the NDP are unwilling to do this, then go to an election instead and let them take the blame for wanting to govern by ideology rather than pragmatism.

Parliament Prorogued

Certainly what happened here sets a bad precedent and I fully understand why many were against this. That being said, I am glad parliament was prorogued. Anger on both sides was so strong that decisions were being made based on emotion, not reasoned thinking, so both sides needed a cooling off period. During union negotiations this is commonly done and often works as both sides take a step back and look at things rationally. Hopefully, come January, a workable solution, whatever it is, can be reached. That being said, I am dead set against Harper making any senate appointments. I think he should be required to secure the confidence of the house before he makes any senate appointments. If he insists on making them, though, he should at least ensure the opposition gets to appoint some members as well, otherwise no stacking the senate. If he agrees to have each party appoint senators in proportion to the seats they hold, this would be an acceptable alternative, so that would mean 8 Tories appointed and 10 opposition members. However, I would much rather we wait until after parliament returns and one party regains the confidence before any appointments are made.

Finally, turning South of the Border, I must say I have been quite impressed with the appointments Obama has made and I think the US has a very competent government in waiting. Four years ago, I talked about how proud I was to have the government we did and how glad I was I didn't have to have the government the US has, but today I almost wish we could trade our government for the US one in waiting. Unlike in Canada where parties are fighting and thinking about what is best for their party, the Obama administration has included Republicans and they are working cooperatively on trying to deal with the issues at hand.

Liberals win in Quebec

The results are still trickling in, but it is clear that Jean Charest will win the election with a majority government this time around. I believe this is a good thing as during these difficult economic times, it is important to have stability and of the three leaders, Jean Charest is clearly the best leader to handle this. Mario Dumont is too inexperienced and his caucus is full of many erratic members which would be a disaster during these difficult economic times. Also interestingly enough, this cannot be good news for Stephen Harper as the ADQ was the party that was coziest with the federal Conservatives and it appears they will lose their official party status. The Parti Quebecois also has not the best track record on economic management as well as with our current difficulties federally, it is important to have a federalist in power provincially. If Ottawa is stroking the flames of separtism it is important they have someone provincially who can put them out. Also the PQ is generally social democratic in its policies which as we saw with the NDP in BC in the 90s and NDP in Ontario in 90s, this is not the best course. So I am pleased to see the Liberals win a majority in Quebec.

Why I reluctantly accept the coalition

There has been lots of political drama over the last week and we still don't know for sure what the final results will be. Although it looks likely that the Harper government will fall on December 8th and be replaced by an opposition coalition, we are entering unchartered waters meaning nothing is for 100% certainty. So until things are decided one or another, I am limited in what opinion I can give, but as the coalition details become more clear, I can at least give my opinion as to what I would think if the coalition were to actually come to be. I don't support the idea of a coalition, but I accept it. There is a difference here as support implies I think it is a good idea, while accept means I am willing to live with it. The harsh reality is neither the option of keeping Harper in power or supporting an Liberal-NDP coalition backed by the Bloc Quebecois are ones I feel supportive of, but we are in a situation where what I desire is highly unlikely to happen. My ideal scenario would be Harper would resign as PM and the Tories would choose someone more moderate and concilatory such as Jim Prentice and therefore the Conservative government could continue or The Liberals would govern by themselves and present a strong economic plan that any party which opposed it would pay a price at the polls. But the unfortunate reality is neither scenario is likely to occur. So we must deal with what possibilities are on the table. Until today, I was dead set against the idea of a coalition. In the case of the Bloc Quebecois, I realize separtism is on the backburner so that is not a major issue for me, but I am dead set against policies that favour one region over another. Quebec is an important part of Canada and their concerns must be fully addressed, but so must every other region in Canada. The reality is a strong Canada is good for Quebec and a strong Quebec is good for Canada. Likewise I have seen the NDP in power in BC and the thought of them being in government terrifies me. I may dislike the Conservatives, but I would prefer them over them over the NDP. Why my views changed today is the Liberals did a decent job of assauging many of my concerns. The NDP will not get finance, treasury board, PM, or deputy PM and this is big for me. Had the NDP gotten any of those positions, I would have torn up my Liberal membership card in an instant. However, despite having 1/3 of the seats between the Liberals and NDP, they will only get 25% of the cabinet posts and nothing anywhere near finance. If anything this will probably deal more with regional issues as including them would give more representation to the West, allow Alberta to have at least one cabinet minister, and ensure the cabinet in Ontario is not solely in the GTA as with only the Liberals they would have no cabinet ministers (asides from the senate) in Alberta and few selections in the non-GTA parts of Ontario. However, this alone was not enough. What made a difference is the Liberals promised to only run a deficit through the recession (which we already have anyways) and return to a balanced budget at the earliest date possible. Also the $50 billion corporate tax cuts, despite earlier reports, will continue. I am shocked the NDP agreed to allow this to happen, but glad it will go through as rejecting this would be bad for the economy. The reality is I care what is best for the country, not for anyone party, so if the NDP have to sell out their principles to make this work, that is their problem. Also I think choosing Frank McKenna, John Manley, Paul Martin, and Roy Romanow on the economic advisory board was wise as all have shown they are prudent fiscal managers. John Manley and Frank McKenna are both Blue Liberals while Paul Martin was a strong finance minister despite his weaknesses as PM. Roy Romanow may be an NDP
er, but if anything he is more like the Labour Party in Britain than the NDP in Canada and considering Britain has done alright until recently I would hardly worry about that. At least he is a social democrat who has modernized unlike the most of the NDP.

Now I still have serious reservations about this coalition if it goes through and could still turn against it if things don't work out right. The three parties involved still have major policy differences and while it maybe easy to put those aside when you have a common enemy, that can change once the enemy falls off the radar. I hope for the sake of the country, the NDP doesn't go back to its usual socialist positions and the Bloc Quebecois don't go back to their usual favouring Quebec over the rest of Canada positions. But if they do, it is imperative the Liberals say no, even if it means another election and causing the coalition to collapse. If the other parties want to govern by ideology rather than pragmatism, let them expain that to the electorate, don't give into them. I also worry about this causing Western Alienation to increase. Most of my family lives in Alberta, I was born in British Columbia, and I currently live in Ontario so I am able to see things from both sides. The reality is many in Alberta will be enraged by this feeling that Central Canada once again decided to take away a government that represented them. Whether one agrees with these feelings or not, they must be addressed as the last thing we need is another national unity crisis. Likewise, I know this is perfectly legal and legitimate under the Westminster system, but the harsh reality is the West tends to be far more populist than the East and this will not be well received. That doesn't mean the coalition cannot proceed, but this must be kept in mind and their needs to be a plan to deal with it. I would suggest that once Harper resigns as Conservative leader, the party offer an olive branch to the Conservatives should they choose a more moderate leader. I would even be willing to form a three party coalition with the Conservatives if they were to choose someone like Jim Prentice. More importantly, the opposition should make clear that after the next election whichever party gets the most seats will be given a chance to govern even if a minority and this will only be done as a last resort when all other options are exhausted. Likewise developing policies that are good for the West may help deal with some of the problems too.

There is much debate whether this is legitimate or not. I understand it is perfectly legal, but I do agree that both sides have legitimate points. For me, the legitimacy is not an issue, I care what is best for my country. In fact I would be willing to support giving the Tories another chance if they could show they truly were willing to be more moderate and concilatory, so this is not an issue of party politics. We are entering tough times and regardless of who forms government, the time has come to put partisan politics last and country first. What is irnoic is that is what almost every other country is doing. Barack Obama has agreed to include Republicans in his administration while Labour PM Gordon Brown is working cooperatively with opposition Conservative leader David Cameron despite their political differences and despite the fact Labour has a majority in Britain, since both know it is the right thing to do in their country. Why can't we do the same. Ideally I would like to see all four parties work together cooperatively as each one has their share of good ideas and by working together you get better results than working alone. Unfortunately, Harper is more concerned about his partisan agenda than the good of the country and that is why he needs to go as PM one way or another. I am more than happy to accept him resigning as PM in replacement of a more moderate Conservative in return for letting the Conservatives stay in government, but either way he needs to go. It is ashame that this type of partisanship has to take place at the moment. I just hope that whatever the result is, we can move beyond the current partisanship.

As for what should be done. I agree Canada is in better shape than most other industrialized countries largely thanks to the policies of the Martin/Chretien government, but we are not immune. I think doing nothing is not an option, but the stimulus package should be very reasonable, not overboard. Spending yourself out of a recession will not work. At the moment I would suggest putting more money towards infrastructure and loosening the rules for qualifying for EI, but beyond that I would wait until we see how bad things are or not, but more importantly what the administration under Barack Obama does. The reality is what the US does will have far more impact than anything we do. If we decide to bailout the big three auto companies, but the US administration lets them go under, it will be wasted money, so I am not opposed to holding off on some things until Barack Obama takes office and puts his plan in place. But a good government would say this and would be in contact with the Obama transition team so that they could prepare a plan that was complimentary to it.

Regardless of the outcome, I hope Canada comes out the winner as neither option is fully attractive and we are in one of the worse situations in years.