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.
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.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:36 PM
8 Comments:
The coalition is really getting good airplay and support in the Lower Mainland of BC. I was on a South Asian radio show this morning, and over 90% of callers on Radio India supported the coalition. Many spoke of how Liberal NDP partnerships have been great for Canada in the past.
Being a former resident of AB and born in Sask., I kind of consider myself a citizen of the West at large. I think the idea will be tough to take for Albertans, but will have a lot of supporters in Sask and Man (all those millions who voted NDP and Liberal, for sure). I know it is being taken quite seriously, and not-to-surprisingly, positively by Lower Mainland denizens.
I think we can be pretty assured we have a lineup of the Canadians BEST SUITED TO LEAD US IN THIS TROUBLED TIME ready to carry the torch for us.
I agree the West is not monolithic, and true in the Lower Mainland it will probably be better received than elsewhere in the West, although it should point out that outside the city of Vancouver, only four suburban ridings didn't vote Conservative. Also BC, I have found to be quite populist. BC after all has recall and the ability to launch initiatives which would go nowhere in other provinces. Also the STV vote got 57% in BC, whereas MMP which probably far to easier to understand only got 39% here in Ontario so I get the impression BC tends to be a bit more grassroots than some other provinces. As for the other Western provinces, I should note the Tories did get over 50% in Saskatchewan and 49% in Manitoba, although I agree the outrage there will be far less than Alberta.
I am hoping in the long-run the coalition can find a way to deal with the angst in Alberta. I have suggested we consider inviting the Tories to join once they dump Harper provided they choose a more moderate leader such as Jim Prentice. In fact I suspect, we wouldn't be in this mess had Jim Prentice been Conservative leader. It is really the Harrisites and Reformers who don't know how to compromise and are all about picking fights. The old Progressive Conservatives are fine and the Liberals can work with them easily. Even a few former Reformers such as James Moore and Diane Ablonczy we could work with.
From the preamble of the Accord:
"a belief in the role of Government to act as a partner with Canadians and Quebecers."
You have already partitioned the country! This is the first government ever to have agreed to such a thing. Woe, Canada!
This is treasonous behaviour. Shame, shame, shame. Liberals will regret the day that they undermined our country for the sake of power.
JC Kelan
Anonymous - This certainly is not good, mind you I would argue pretty much every government over the past 40 years has in some form or another pandered to Quebec. This more or less just being open about whatever party already does. I am not saying I agree with this, but lets not kid ourselves that the Tories didn't do this as well. The only real difference is the Tories had a tendency to say one thing in French and another in English so that is how they got away with it.
Either way, I agree this could cause problems for national unity, although sometimes division leads to a uniter coming about. Look how divided the United States was in 2004 between the blue and red states and how bitter the feelings were towards each group. And then look at how much that has changed in 2008. Just maybe, this will be the type of thing that encourages our own version of Obama (whoever that is) to enter politics. At least one can hope. I should say if Obama were a Canadian, I would vote for him no matter which party he led and I suspect either the Liberals or Conservatives could have won a majority with someone like him. However, people like him, are a rarity not a norm in politics.
I have commented on the not too distant prospects for the Grits, which will remain weak, due to Layton's bargaining strength. Now I will comment here on Harper blowing this big time.
Harper's obsession of destroying the Grits led him to underestimate Layton and squandering all the good will he built up in Quebec.
The 2008 election campaign was not good for Harper. He blew Quebec big time with his funding cuts and sounded more like Dumont rather than Charest. It was the anti-carbon tax suburban vote that swung towards him. When he tried to make concessions with the Bloc, he realized that Layton had tied Duceppe up long before making overtures to Dion.
The next Liberal leader after Dion will need to do much better in Quebec once the Bloc disengages itself from the coalition. This is where the future strength will lie since Layton will be much strengthened in the West.
Lenin was right - the west will hang itself - starting, it seems, with Canada.
If the coalition is willing to face election I say bring Harper down. But only if the coalition is willing to face the electorate within 30 days of doing so.
That is democracy. This is not. Not by any stretch of even a severely demented and morally challenged imagination.
Four words that will cause economic nuclear winter: Prime Minister Bob Rae.
This means it could happen and there's diddly you could do to stop it - even ripping up your Liberal membership card.
*shudders at the mere thought*
Mushroom - Interesting points. I think all parties have hurt themselves in different areas. Harper only needed another 12 seats to get a majority and considering how many ridings the Tories nearily won in English Canada, this did not seem too far fetched. But after this, he has burned so many bridges in Quebec, that he will likely lose seats in Quebec next time around. Ironically enough, Maxime Bernier is probably the only Tory in Quebec assured re-election.
By the same token, I agree the Liberals have put themselves in a bad position long-term. As power shifts towards the West and as the option of sweeping either Quebec (not as long as the Bloc exists) or Ontario (not as long as the right is united) continues to exist, the Liberals need to win at least 20 if not 30 seats in the West to get another majority. This will only make this more difficult. If they really want to return to office, how about following the 308 strategy much like Obama's 50 state strategy. If done properly this could work quite well and allow them to win in areas they never thought possible much like Obama was able to do.
Anonymous #1 - From a strictly legal point of view, what the coalition is doing is fully democratic within the Westminster system as we elect MPs, not the PM. Whoever enjoys the confidence of the house becomes PM. In fact in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, all MPs run as independents and the premier is selected by the legislature, so hardly undemocratic. Still when one considers that most vote based on party rather than local candidate, this should be considered. Either way, Canadians will eventually get a chance to vote on whether they agree with the coalition or not. And if they make the wrong decision, they will pay in the long-run.
Anonymous #2: Won't happen until at least May and considering Ignatieff's organization within the Liberal Party, I suspect it will probably be prime-minister Micheal Ignatieff after May 2nd if this goes ahead.
Post a Comment
<< Home