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.
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.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 4:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home