Budget and death of "Conservatism"

It appears the budget will pass, albeit with one caveat, the government present updates 3 times a year on its progress and at anytime it can be defeated. Although my preference was to amend the weaknesses in the budget, this is not a bad idea as its keeps Harper on a short leash and prevents him from returning to his previous style of government. Also for the Liberals it allows them to focus on re-building and increases their chances of winning the next election. Right now, I don't think they could win an election, but as the recession wears on and as Michael Ignatieff becomes more known to Canadians, I think a Liberal win, while difficult no matter what, becomes more plausible. The coalition is also dead, which I am pleased to see as while I think it was a good threat to keep Harper in check, allowing the NDP to be part of government and the Bloc Quebecois to hold the balance of power would be bad for Canada. Neither party has ever formed government and they both appeal to a much narrower base, one geographic and one ideological. Since the Liberals have formed government in the past and plan to in the future, they will make realistic promises rather than pie in the sky ones. It does look like Ignatieff has one problem which is at least 2 and possibly up to 6 MPs from Newfoundland & Labrador. Danny Williams is furious at the budget and wants the 6 Liberal MPs to vote against it unless amended. I don't think one province should hold the whole country hostage, but I don't think his demand of a one year moratorium on equalization changes is totally unreasonable. At least this buys time to do a more thorough analysis. Up until now, I have been generally supportive of Newfoundland & Labrador's demands, but this was when it was still a have not province. The idea of a have province still receiving money beyond regular transfer payments just doesn't seem right to me. That being said the equalization formula has been so bent out of shape that it was bound to create problems. My solution would be to have an independent panel make the recommendations and even make them binding on the government so that why we could remove the politics from equalization. And also if Canadians were more mobile and we had a more centralized government we probably wouldn't need equalization as the programs it funds would be handled by the federal government as well as when one region has more people than jobs available while another has a labour shortage, the people would move from where the labour surplus is to where the labour shortage is. Most European countries such as France don't have it as they have a very centralized government, whereas the United States has a highly mobile population. Still both are unrealistic and until such time as they are achieved, equalization needs to stay in place.

The other issue is many Conservatives are screaming mad at the fact Harper introduced a non-Conservative budget. I would argue they need to brush up on both their understanding of our parliamentary system and Canadian history. I can assure them that if Harper had a majority government he would have introduced a truly Conservative budget, the only reason he couldn't is he would have been defeated and the coalition would have likely formed. Under our parliamentary system, one must get the majority of MPs onside to pass any legislation. The Conservatives have a plurality of seats not a majority. So it is not possible under our system to introduce a "Conservative" budget. Besides Harper like most complaining about him was a Reformer, not a Conservative. And Conservatism in the Canadian sense is very different than what most complaining are advocating. They are advocating neo-conservatism, not conservatism. Conservatism comes from the word "conserve" and it is about putting the interest of the community ahead of the individual and preserving government institutions. Joe Clark, Bob Stanfield, and Bill Davis were conservatives; Stephen Harper, Mike Harris, and Preston Manning are not. They are ones who advocate implementing American style conservatism which is simply a meshing of classical liberalism and social conservatism, both ideologies which have little in common with each other and were largely combined in the US for the goal of creating permanate Republican majorities as the South is predominately socially conservative whereas the Midwest and Mountain West are more libertarian. Thankfully that coalition was eventually blown apart in the US. Also Canada has always been a fairly centrist country and likely always will. As a country that is both diverse in culture and regions, running it successfully requires compromise and consensus, something that neither right wing nor left wing ideologues seem to understand or believe in. That is why Canada is one of the few countries in the Western world asides from the US to have never elected a socialist government nationally and also never elected a majority neo-conservative one federally. About 20% of Canadians are right wing ideologues and 20% are left wing ideologues, but the remaining 60% are close to the centre. Some lean a bit to the left, some a bit to the right, but they are largely not highly ideological and pragmatic. Otherwise one cannot form government without appealing to this group which is why the NDP has never formed government since they only appeal to the left wing ideologues and why the Reform Party couldn't win elections since they only appealed to the right wing ideologues. For those referring to Reagan, Thatcher, and Harris, I can easily explain why neither can win in Canada right now.

1. Reagan - The United States was founded as a country on individual liberty and limited government. Smaller government is in their blood, whereas here in Canada it has never been a dominate ideology. In addition things tend to go in cycles in the US and if anything the recent financial crisis has probably made those policies not so popular. Also, the Republicans largely only appealed to White America and as this demographic shrinks, their ability to win will become more difficult unless they can expand their appeal to African-Americans and Latinos, which they have failed to do. And never mind White America was never monolithic as usually only 50-60% would vote Republican while 40-50% would vote Democrat. However, today even 60% of the white vote may not be enough to win for the Republicans.

2. Thatcher - In many ways she simply cancelled out Labour's hard swing to the left. The Labour party in 1979 was to the left of the NDP today. Major industries were being nationalized, taxes were way higher, unions were out of control in terms of their power and militancy, and government was far larger than it is here in Canada. Once the Labour Party moved towards the centre under Tony Blair, the Thatcherites stopped winning and the Conservatives are only in the lead in the polls in Britain again since their current leader David Cameron is farily centrist himself. If Jack Layton were prime-minister for three terms, I suspect Canadians would be open to electing a Thatcher style government. In fact I suspect that is why the Tories want the Liberals destroyed so badly since they know if the NDP is their main opponent, they can move further to the right as there would be no centrist option. As long as the Liberals exist and remain a centrist party, the Tories will have to stay to close to the centre if they want to win.

3. Harris - In 1995, Bob Rae was extremely unpopular and Harris was the antithesis of the Rae government so he won largely as a backlash to the Rae government. In 1999, the economy was doing very well in Ontario thinks to the strong economy in the US. Since most people were better off in 1999 than 1995 that is why Harris was re-elected. If there is any politician he should thank for his re-election, it is Bill Clinton. Also, even if we take the dubious assumption Harris could still win in Ontario, this would still put the Tories will short of a majority. The policies he advocated would ensure a near wipe out in Atlantic Canada and Quebec which have 1/3 of the seats. In fact rural Southern New Brunswick and the Appalaches-Chaudiere are about the only right wing areas east of the Ottawa River. So that means such a leader would have to make up the ground in Western Canada and Ontario and I doubt they could do that.

That being said, I see this as a positive development. The Tories overflowing cash largely came from their right wing base not the centre-right voters they were trying to appeal to, so this means they likely won't have the same monetary advantage. But more importantly, if Harper fails to win a majority, he is gone as leader, and if the right wing base deserts the party, the next leader will hopefully be a more moderate one who Canadians won't have to fear and one I might even be willing to vote for. Besides, I've always argued as Roger Gibbs from the Canada West Foundation argued that for every hard right vote you lose, you pick up five moderates. And I doubt the right wing base will vote for any other party since as mad as they are at Harper, where else can they go. Joe Clark won this vote in 1979 and 1980 and he openly despised them and did nothing to appeal to them, but they voted for him since as much as they hated him, they hated the alternatives more. Also in Alberta, Peter Lougheed who was a Red Tory won the biggest landslide of any Tory premier and in this is in the heart of Conservative country so if anything moderate conservatism versus ideological conservatism probably is more successful throughout the country. Never mind here in Ontario, Bill Davis is still extremely popular, while Mike Harris remains quite controversial so it seems people like moderate consensus builders not conquere and divide ideologues. Bill Davis is liked be people across the political spectrum while Mike Harris is hated with a passion by those on the left and disliked by those in the centre and only well liked by those on the right. After all, as a Conservative you may never get the left wing vote, but if they don't hate you, they probably won't spend a lot of money and time trying to see you removed from office, whereas if you are a right wing ideologue they will do everything possible to see you get defeated and since Canadians generally don't like confrontation, it usually results in the right wing ideologue losing even if people don't care much for the left wing opponents. From what I have seen of Stephen Harper he is very much a right wing ideologue, he is just more patient than his base as his goal is to build a right wing Canada 20-30 years down the road not instantly as if you move the country incrementally to the right it is more likely succeed than if you go too fast.