I woke up with a start last night, vaguely disoriented and slightly upset. I’m pretty sure I was dreaming about the prospect of a Liberal/NDP/BQ coalition. And possibly a dancing wildebeast.
It’s not so much that I’m against a coalition government. It’s that I don’t really know what I think about a New Liberaquois Party calling the shots. And for me, that’s a new and confusing feeling. I usually have an opinion about everything, no matter how misinformed and ridiculous it may be.
I’m no fan of Stephen Harper, and last week’s economic update managed to be both tawdry politics and inept policy. No question, Parliament should exact some form of censure. I also don’t think a coalition government is undemocratic. This is the Westminster system, folks. Power is more fluid than in a presidential system, and there is a lot of precedent for this kind of move. And, taken together, the New Liberaquois Party represents significantly more voters than the Conservative Minority
Unfortunately, I dislike all political parties equally, so the prospect of a ‘progressive’ coalition replacing Harper provides little comfort. I also think this kind of tumult is a bad idea going into a recession. As we’ve seen, the almighty market gets a little jumpy around words like “instability” and “Jack Layton”. And it’s pretty jumpy already.
As Adam Daifallah, one of Canada’s more thoughtful conservative commentators, points out, a coalition government would short-circuit the Liberal Party’s “wilderness years”, a time of rebuilding and reflection it sorely needs in the wake of scandal and defeat. The Progressive Conservatives went through a similar process post-1993, and it worked wonders for their electability. Wilderness years are important to the Liberals, because Canada needs a solid Liberal Party. It’s political mutability makes it a party of the center, which is the only logical position from which to govern a modern, cosmopolitan state. If the Libs take the reigns now, they do themselves- and the country- no favours.
All that aside, the biggest problem for me is the optics of this whole thing. A Stephane Dion-led, NDP-heavy coalition government is sure to enrage the Western provinces. That’s a bad thing. Moreover, while I think a coalition government plays well within democratic rules, it will look to many like one party without a mandate to lead grabbing power, supported by another party with even less public approval to govern. This will feed a lot of animosity and cynicism about our political system. It may also tick off a good number of moderates and independents, who may in turn grant Harper an actual majority government out of spite. A coalition sets up this unfortunate cycle of political attack and retribution that will effectively poison government for years to come.
OK. So maybe I’m starting to come down on the “coalition = bad” side of the coin. But I leave it open to you: if you feel passionately one way or another, leave your thoughts in the comment section. Educate me. Convince me. Take away these political nightmares, because let’s face it: those are the lamest kinds of dreams to have.
I know this isn’t a particularly politically well-informed opinion, but I can’t help thinking this is a result of that crybaby Dion needing to get his way (cut to shot of him in his bathtub playing with his battleships).
Hey Graham – I like your analysis, and you’ve done a much better job than I have at breaking it down in a non-partisan fashion. I’m especially in agreement of the need for the Liberals to recreate themselves. That’s hard to do from a position of power, and I was really looking forward to them becoming a party I could once again respect.
My biggest concern with the coalition at this point is that it’s replacing a minority Government – which by definition must work with the Opposition to get work done – with a de-facto majority Government. We’re replacing, in my opinion, a House that is bound to be forced into responsible, measured action with one that can act unchecked. Further, the coalition Government when formed will be made up of parties with less of a mandate to rule unchecked, yet the leaders of that coalition are already talking as if their mandate is stronger. Finally, the coalition forces have made it clear that no modification to the legislation proposed by the Tories will change their mind. They’ve apparently decided that they have no confidence, and that’s a binary switch that can’t be restored. It doesn’t make me confident that they’ll be reasonable and responsive to criticism once installed. In fact, it gives me what political scientists call “the heebeejeebies”.
There are other concerns, as well. The Bloc has stated they’ll only support the agreement until 2010 because not enough concession to naming Quebec as a nation was given in the deal. That makes me wonder what concessions *were* given in the deal, and indeed what the nature of that deal was. I would feel far more confident if the Coalition:
– didn’t hold the NDP and BQ to supporting the government without recourse
– revealed the full nature of their agreement to rule together
I agree that Harper’s choice to go petty and partisan has hurt him, and believe that regardless of what happens, he should at the least apologize, and at the most step down (though to be replaced by whom?). I think, though, that there are ways out of this without resorting to measures the opposition found insufficient when faced with the Kyoto, Afghanistan and Criminal Reform issues of the last Parliamentary session.
You do make a compelling case.
A few nit picks:
“The Progressive Conservatives went through a similar process post-1993, and it worked wonders for their electability”
Nope, the PC are no longer. The current Conservative Party is merely a warmed over Reform party. Many of the old guard PC went to the Liberals rather than stay in the CPC – there is a reason the dropped “Progressive” from their name.
So I’ll disagree with that one.
I will agree on the Dion issue – bad optics all round.
“This will feed a lot of animosity and cynicism about our political system.”
You say that like its a bad thing. Our system is clearly broken and maybe a little cynicism and animosity will finally force people to try to fix it. Or abandon it altogether and create something new.
Its unfortunate that this is becoming the Pyrrhic choice – either the authoritarian bully who clearly can’t be trusted, or the other guys with a weak claim to having a mandate and a weak coalition?
How about neither and none? I want to choose None of the Above. Send them all home.
Would that work?
(LOL wv: “one unfit”)
For a non-partisan supporter I thought you’d be the first to jump on this! I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know the specific details of the agreement but I assumed that with a coalition government any legislation proposed would have to be made up by that coalition. Won’t the very nature of the coalition force legislation to be middle of the road?
So I disagree with the idea that this ‘majority’ will be able to push things through unchecked. The NDP aren’t going to be able to push through a far left-wing legislation because the Liberals wouldn’t agree to that legislation, same goes for the Bloc with any separatist legislation. Please tell me if I’m wrong, but I assumed that the very nature of the coalition will force legislation to have concessions on all sides and, to me, that’s a good thing. You’d think it will force them to make policies that they feel are legitimately good for the country because they won’t be able to make the policies that are just good for their party’s politics.
As for this creating cynicism and animosity towards our political system. Frankly, this makes me feel the opposite, much more confident in the system. What gives me the heebeejeebees is the economic legislation his government proposed because it demonstrated that he still is
A) a believer in the far right economic theory of government deregulation and ‘the free market will sort itself out’. This is troubling given the monumental failing of this theory in the US that is literally smacking us all in the face right now.
B) Far more uncomfortable for me was the proposed pulling of the 1.95 per vote for Canadian political parties. THIS is cynical and creates animosity. To me, it’s speaks to being far more interested in retaining power than it does to making good policies.
So I totally understand the other parties saying nothing will change their mind. It’s like Harper has just pulled a gun on them, they have revolted, and now he’s saying ‘Ok, ok, I’ll put the gun away, just let me stay in power.’
I’d like to believe that the other independents in parliament as well are smart enough to see the whole picture. I’m sure as independents they cannot have been happy at what Harper was doing with this legislations so why would they not want to give the coalition a chance? I’d hope they wouldn’t vote anyone out only out of spite.
This is Harper just finally pushing things too far. This coalition just makes me proud to be a Canadian. I bet 51% of Americans wish they had had our system for the last 8 years.
[...] Graeme (who is worthy of a vote for Best Non-Partisan Blog, incidentally) is somewhat wrong here: [...]
Sorry…I think I misspoke. When I said the PC’s had their ‘wilderness years’, I meant it was this that allowed the conservative movement to reconfigure itself into an electable form. And yes, that does include killing of the carcass of the sickly PCs and feeding it to the Canadian Alliance.
I have no objection to a coalition government in theory, but the New Liberaquois Party gives me little confidence. It freaks me out that there’s may be a coalition in power and I don’t really know what they’re going to do (if they’re going to be able to do anything). I want to see the terms of this agreement to rule. What kinds of deals with the devil were made?
I don’t, for one minute, think that any of this posturing by the Conservatives or the New Liberaquois Party is what the country needs in these precarious times. None of them are doing what is best for Canada. I think they are all playing dangerous and irresponsible games with no end other than blostering their own egos.
I think the only thing to be understood here is that government has proven, yet again, that it runs rampant with myopic and power-hungry people. 100 per cent leadership FAIL.
I think the Forbes summed up fairly well all the things that I wanted to say. But there’s a final thought here that I thought you, given your professional history, might find as amusing as I did.
If you take a closer look, and see who orchestrated this whole debcole you see three of our old friend from the Harris days: Clement, Flaherty, and Giorno.
Hmmmm…putting together a program that antagonized the opposition, was painfully ideological and more or less harmful to its citizens?? Who does that sound like.
As for your original question, to be honest, I feel like you. I just don’t know how to feel. Wait…I mean, I know how to feel, just not about the coalition. I know that this isn’t a coup, and I don’t think that this would hurt the country anymore than the conservatives already have/would. I guess, I’m just excited at the prospect of the Liberals finally having some backbone and standing up like they should have done for the past 2 and a half years.
ok…i’m done rambling. maybe I should start a blog?? jokes.
One small factual correction @Forbes who said: “The NDP aren’t going to be able to push through a far left-wing legislation because the Liberals wouldn’t agree to that legislation, same goes for the Bloc with any separatist legislation.”
The NDP and the Bloc have both signed an agreement not to defeat the coalition in a confidence motion. So no, I suppose since not all legislation is a confidence motion we’ll see some opposition, but nothing substantial when it comes to budgets, throne speeches or major motions.
While it’s nice to see some leadership from the Liberals, sure, I’ll also note that it’s come more from Ed Broadbent and Paul Martin than anyone actually in the party.
I am terribly concerned about what behind-the-scenes deal the Bloc got out of this. Isn’t anyone else!? I sure it involves mass amounts of money and promises of power.
Wouldn’t Elliot Trudeau roll over in his grave if he knew the Liberals were GIVING money to the Bloc so that they could seperate. Because, in the end, that is what their goal is. And THAT is why they will only support the merge until 2010.
And more importantly, on a personal level, I don’t want to go out and vote again! Why is it Canada can’t get their act together and just LET SOMEONE RUN THE COUNTRY for four years. Sure, it might be painful at times, but we’re certainly not living in a Communist country with zero freedoms. There are peolpe a lot worse off and we need to remember that.
Canada needs to adopt a strict schedule of Election. Two Federal votes in less than a year is a ridiculous waste of time and tax payer money!!
I’ve yet to be convinced by anyone that the obvious course of action for Michelle Jean isn’t to just throw this whole mess back to the electorate. Given that she likely never expected to have to make an actual political decision – let alone one of this magnitude I always suspect the most likely course of action is the one that covers one’s ass the most. “This is a decision that must be decided by the people, not an individual” is never going to be a stance that is going to make her look bad in the history books (even if it’s wrong). Letting a potentially explosive coalition (including a separatist party), led by a party leader who had previously resigned (due to his perceived lack of resonance) rule the country for an indeterminate period could be.
I think the strongest argument *for* the coalition is, ironically a different take on the “wilderness years” debate. Like the rightist parties have already done, a coalition could give the fractious left-ist parties a chance to realize that governing is a lot better than never-going-to-have-a-chance-endless-opposition and spur them to further consolidate into some type of coherent unified option that could better reflect the actual political will of the country. As it stands three center-leftist parties are *never* going to beat one unified rightist one (schizophrenic as it may be).
The opposite side of the coin is the fact that as unified as it was under Harper the conservates are very much schizophrenic, and have no obvious leadership depth. With no chance of governance in the short term we might fast track some of the in-party schisms that I think everyone expected to play out eventually.
As someone with absolutely no partisan leanings, even a faint chance of fewer (if somewhat ideologically muddied) parties, or a greater number of smaller, ideologically distinct parties would both be very beneficial for the long term political health of this country.
Yes the timing sucks in the current economic climate, but the contrarian in me would also point out that the economy is going to suck like nobodies business in the short term, and airing some of this dirty laundry now could potentially do less harm than at a time when the economy is in an upturn, no matter how much the bay street old-guard complains. Which they will. Loudly.
[...] will, however, cross-post an edited and updated version of what I wrote in a comment thread over at Nunc Scio, just because it summarizes a couple of odds-and-end random thoughts I haven’t seen get a lot [...]
I am deeply appalled by the crude and transparent way the Coalition has gone about grabbing power. I do understand that as responsible opposition, it is their duty to censure the ruling party and ensure a just outcome to decisions made. If the coalition really wanted to do something, they could’ve forced Harper to reconsider the points in his budget speech and work with the ruling party through such a turbulent time in economic history.
Responsible leaders would do just that, they would resist the temptation to topple and use brute force in a coup.
This is a coup.
This is so not done. That too seven weeks into the new Parliament?
To begin with, this sinister conspiracy to topple Harper has been going on for a while now, the budget was not the reason but simply the excuse these partners in crime have used to dislodge the govt.
These scoundrels are now rationalising their decisions over the budget in order to sound patriotic and like they were making a supreme sacrifice.
Man, I am a nine year old citizen of Canada and I thought I saw the end of this sick politics when I left India. Sadly, the immigrants from that part of the world might simply have influenced the Liberals into following the sick politics that drove them here in the first place.
Pradip Francis Rodrigues