Confusing Canadians about coalitions to score political points

We hear a lot about coalitions these days, and it seems clear there’s a bit of confusion out there about what it means and just what the post-election options for cooperation are – confusion likely deliberately spread by the NDP.

I was canvassing in Scarborough the other day. It’s a riding that was Liberal for many years, until 2011 when the NDP took enough Liberal vote for the Conservatives to win with little growth in vote. And they’re trying hard for a repeat. I knocked on the door of a woman who told me she had voted Liberal all her life and really likes Justin Trudeau, but she’s thinking of voting NDP for the first time. Why? Well, she wants to get rid of Stephen Harper, and the NDP was at her door recently and told her that Trudeau doesn’t want a coalition to defeat Harper – he’d rather see Harper stay.

It’s an example of the NDP strategy across the country – try to solidify the anti-Harper vote (even in ridings where it would likely just help elect Conservatives) behind them by painting the Liberals as unwilling to cooperate to defeat Harper, or worse, to even prop him up instead of supporting the NDP. It’s a pretty disingenuous, not to mention dishonest, approach to take, but it may prove effective.

Like any good strategy, there’s at least a modicum of truth: yes, Trudeau has said no to a coalition. Consistently so, in fact. Unlike the NDP; Tom Mulcair’s position has flip-flopped too many times to count, usually tied to their position on the polls.

For example, here’s what he said on the topic in 2012:

“N.O. The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop.”

Now that the polls show he could form a minority government that would need support from someone, his tune has changed. If you notice though, the word the NDP keeps using, and what Trudeau actually said no to, is coalition. And that’s the operative word.

What is a coalition? A governing coalition is a joint governing agreement where the two parties sit on the government side, and share cabinet ministers and a legislative agenda. Think the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats in the last UK parliament. We’ve never had a governing coalition in Canada before, and the word never really came up before 2011 when the Liberals and the NDP briefly tried to form one.

We may not have had coalition governments, but we’ve had minority governments. Many of them long lasting and extremely productive. Lester Pearson’s Liberal minorities brought us many of the progressive social policies Canadians cherish today. All without a coalition. David Peterson’s Ontario Liberal minority provides a great example. The NDP agreed to support a Liberal government for two years, in exchange for action on several specific NDP legislative priorities. The NDP didn’t sit with the government, and was free to vote as it wished on bills that weren’t matters of confidence.

Cooperation. That’s the word you don’t hear the NDP using today. Because Trudeau hasn’t said no to cooperation. That door is very much open, and so it should be. Should the NDP be in the position to form a minority government (which is frankly rather presumptuous at the moment) I could certainly see the Liberals agreeing to support a budget and throne speech in exchange for the inclusion and support of a number of key Liberal policy priorities. It would need to be negotiated, but the door is very much open.

And that is what the woman whose door I knocked on in Scarborough wanted: the door open to cooperation to defeat the Harper Conservatives. The NDP tried to confuse her with talk of coalitions; she was relieved to learn cooperation was definitely not off the table and she could still vote her conscience, instead of being bullied into a strategic vote that, in her riding, would not be very strategic at all.

A poll today, from a notoriously unreliable pollster, says most Canadians favour a Liberal/NDP coalition. I don’t doubt the respondents said that, but I do doubt the difference was explained to them between coalition and cooperation. I believe a majority of Canadians want to see progressives cooperate to defeat Harper; I don’t think they care which of the “c” words gets us there.

Why no to a coalition?

Why do Liberals oppose a coalition? Well, I can only speak for myself, but I believe being the junior partner in a governing coalition with the NDP would be the death of the Liberal Party. The right flank of the party would flee in revulsion, into the hands of the Conservatives. And the other half of the party would come to the conclusion that they may as well just join the NDP since we’re in bed with them anyways. And frankly, while both the NDP and the Conservatives want to see the Liberals disappear and are working towards that end, the Conservatives certainly believe the math of a two-party state (putting aside the Greens and BQ for a moment) favours them. And I tend to agree.

Thankfully though, despite the misinformation the NDP is trying to spread, coalition is not the only option. Liberals are open to cooperating with them, even if they seem very determined to make it hard to do so.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Moving past the coalition on day one

It's only day one of this election campaign but we're well into year five of the permanent campaign, which perhaps is why while Michael Ignatieff's Liberals released a statement ruling-out a coalition after the next election before Stephen Harper even made it to Rideau Hall this morning to pull the plug on this Parliament and officially begin the 41st general election in Canada's history, it still felt like an overdue move.

Still, getting it out of the way on day one had to be done. It had become a media pre-occupation the last few day. Here's a snippet of the statement, which I think is about a clear as we could hope for under the circumstances:

Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.

(snip)

We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties. In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function.

We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.

Seems pretty dammed clear to me. No to a coalition. The party gets that gets the most seats gets to form the government. If the Liberals are called on to form a minority government, they'll govern just like past Liberal governments have done, and just like the last Conservative government has done (but slightly less arrogantly, I trust): seeking support from the other parties in the house on a case-by-case basis.

Let's pause briefly on policy and democracy. It's a shame Ignatieff has to explicitly rule out a coalition. They are a perfectly legitimate constitutional option, and I'm glad the statement makes that point. The Conservatives have deliberately confused and misled to such a point that the well is poisoned and it's a shame, because our democracy suffers as a result of the ignorance they stoke for their narrow political ends. They erode trust in our democratic institutions, and we all suffer for that.

And really, what could be more symbolic for the attitude of this Harper Government? A coalition is about cooperation, about different groups working together for a common goal. And the Conservatives have made cooperation a dirty word. Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

As for the politics, I think this settles the issue for most people, at least those who would be open to considering us in the first place. The media interest will fade out and the pack will move on. I hear they actually gave Harper a rough time on this at his five-question presser this morning.

The Conservatives, of course, will still keep harping (sorry) on this theme. Even if the media won't amplify it, their speeches and ad buys and their surrogates will keep spreading the secret evil voodoo coalition boogedy-boo. But I'm doubtful how effective running around calling Ignatieff a liar will be.

There is a certain irony though. A few elections back Harper knew the abortion question would be a big barrier to him breaking-through. The Liberals warned of a hidden agenda. On day one of the campaign, Harper came out and addressed it: I will do nothing on (edited: same sex marriage) . It settled the question, and let him move on to other issues. Now, Ignatieff has ruled-out a coalition on day one, and it's Harper warning people of a Liberal hidden agenda.

If Harper wants to keep reversing roles, I hear Stornaway is pretty nice... :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A picture to caption, and possibly my most favourite video ever

The events of the last weekend with the G20 deserve serious blogging, and I do hope to find the time to do that serious writing soon. Right now, I'm weighed-down doing serious day job writing. In the interim though, I do want to share two things.

One is this photo from the G8 in Huntsville of Stephen Harper and British PM David Cameron, which I think is richly in need of captioning because the look on Harper's face is just priceless. My contribution is below, feel free to leave your's in the comments.

Cameron: Steve - can I call you Steve? - Steve, let me tell you why post-election coalitions are excellent ideas...

And the second is what may possibly be my favourite Youtube video ever:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Re-frame the question: Who will make Parliament work?

Interesting watching the fall-out of Ignatieff's clarification on coalitions, and the predictable Conservative response of fear mongering and doomsday prophecies.

In the latest return-fire from unnamed Iggy spokesthingy, I see the seeds of a promising way to turn the narrative on this and reframe it on better ground:

The Ignatieff official says that their plan – “repeated many times” – is to form a Liberal government.

“So there you go. We’ll run to form a Liberal government. And we will work with everybody – Conservatives included – to make Parliament a place where respectful and meaningful debates happen, not the disgraceful Bairdesque circus Conservatives seem to love so much.”

I like where this is going. We need to pivot back to prorogation and the Conservative abuse of Parliament, an issue the Conservatives took a serious hit on.

We're about making Parliament work, and the Conservatives aren't. Unlike the Conservatives, you can trust the Liberals to respect the will of Canadians and to work with members of all parties in the best interests of Canadians. The Conservatives have shown they're unwilling to respect the democratic will of Canadians -- they've locked the doors of Parliament twice to avoid the accountability of the people's representatives -- and believe Parliament is just a nuisance to be swept aside at a whim. We believe differently. That's why we need to elect a strong Liberal government. Because you can count on us to respect you votes and be ready to work with anyone -- even the Conservatives -- for the betterment of Canada.

Something like that. But shorter. Flip the issue around and re-frame it.

Since I slagged him the other day, I'll say Scott Reid had it right on Power and Politics tonight. We need to stop being so dammed frightened of Conservative talking points, or what they'll say in their scary ads. Man-up, get on the offence and take it to them for a change.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ignatieff clarifies Liberal position on coalitions

I was very pleased to wake-up this morning and find two things. One: it's not raining so I can hopefully go watch some Maple Leafs baseball this afternoon at Christie Pits. And two: Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has brought some much needed clarity to the Liberal position on coalitions. Indeed, the position he outlines in this CP article today seems exactly what I've been asking for:

Michael Ignatieff says coalition governments are "perfectly legitimate" and he'd be prepared to lead one if that's the hand Canadian voters deal him in the next election.
..
"Co-operation between parties to produce political and electoral stability is not illegitimate. It's never been illegitimate, it's part of our system,'' he said, noting that coalitions have been formed in parliamentary democracies around the globe.

"But the right way to do it is to run your flag up, (opposing parties) run their flag up, you fight like crazy, you put your choices clearly to the Canadian people, they make their choices and then you play the cards that voters deal you.''

Ignatieff insisted he still believes the Liberals can win the next election. But should no party win a majority and the numbers make it feasible for a Liberal-led coalition to provide ``progressive, stable, compassionate, good government,'' Ignatieff said he'd ``make it work for Canadians.''

"I can make all kinds of electoral arrangements work and people should have confidence that I can. I'm a unifier, I'm not a divider.''

I think Ignatieff has it exactly right here, and it's as I've been arguing for some time now. Don't get bogged down in pre-election coalition speculation. Run hard to win in all 308 ridings. But don't rule out a post-election coalition or other arrangement. If we don't make the point now that it's a legitimate possibility then it won't be on the table down the road, and we're limiting our options. And he was absolutely correct to rule-out any sort of merger or pre-election arrangement, and also signal working with the BQ wasn't in the cards.

Now that Ignatieff has finally brought clarity to the official Liberal position, the question is where do we go from here? Where does this issue go from here? That will be interesting to see. My advice to Ignatieff would be, now that he's make his position clear, whenever asked just reference back to it and move on. "My position on this issue is clear. We'll play the hand Canadians deal us, and in the mean time we're working hard to earn their trust." Then talk about policy, and why we deserve a strong hand.

Of course, the Conservatives won't want to let it end at that. They see a coalition as the best shot right now at costing them power after the next election. That's why they're hell-bent on de-legitimizing it as an option, despite meeting recently with coalition leaders from England and Israel, the latter of which leads a "coalition of losers" by Stephen Harper's definition. There's no need for us to let the Conservatives shift the narrative though, no matter how much they'd rather scare-monger on coalitions instead of answering for their billion-dollar G20 boondoggle. Deprive it of oxygen by shifting the conversation to issues negative to the Conservatives, or to issues of policy positive for us.

While we can predict the Conservative go-forward, what will be more interesting is to see what comes from within the Liberal camp. For a great many Liberals, myself included, Ignatieff's interview was exactly what we were looking for and we're happy to move on. For some others, I suspect it won't be. Some legitimately believe other options -- be they merger or pre-election cooperation -- are necessary. I think they're a minority, but I respect their views. I think that's a debate that can happen amongst the grassroots, nothing wrong with that. Clearly though, it's not on the table officially.

For another group, I suspect it has been less about mergers or coalitions and more about taking advantage of the issue and current party and leader weakness for leadership positioning. For that group, I have no time. They're continuing the cycle of stupidity, they're hurting the party, and deluding themselves into thinking the ends justify the means when really it's just about personal interests. We have a leader, everyone gets at least one election, and they should get on board or get the hell out of the way. You're part of the problem, or you're part of the solution. Your choice.

There's work to be done, and we need everyone on board.

Other takes:

Ignatieff Hits Right Tone
Very pleased to see Ignatieff's stance on coalitions clarified
Iggy Shows Flashes Of Gloriousness Re Coalition
Iggy speaks unequivocally!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Pass the popcorn, Scott Reid is tilting at coalition windmills

Scott Reid – yes, that Scott Reid – is working himself up into a righteous lather on the op/ed pages of the Globe and Mail today on the coalition issue. Thing is, I’m not entirely clear just who he’s in such a dander about, because he goes off the rails in his very first sentence:

Inexact language and a shocking lack of constitution are lending momentum to the dangerously flawed idea of a formal coalition between the Liberals and NDP prior to the next election campaign.

And who, exactly is proposing a “formal coalition” happen “prior” to the next election? I would love to meet these straw men that Scott spends the next 800-odd words arguing against with such energy because, frankly, I’m not aware of many Liberals, certainly of any prominence or with any vigor, who are arguing for a pre-election coalition at all. A merger, pre-election coalition, joint candidates, none of that is seriously on the table.

Instead of picking an extreme to build-up and then argue against, Scott would have done better to address what the vast majority of the people, certainly on the Liberal side, currently raising the coalition issue are actually talking about: the possibility of a post-election coalition.

Speaking for myself, and indeed I think many other Liberals, all we’re asking is that a post-election coalition between the Liberals and the NDP remain on the table, if the math warrants it. That’s it. I agree with all of Scott’s reasons why pre-election coalitions and/or mergers are bad ideas, so he can save his typing. My issue is that the current Liberal leadership is explicitly ruling-out the possibility of a post-election coalition. That, by and large, is what this debate is about. Not preemptively limiting our options.

Rather than tilting at windmills, I’d rather Scott tackle the real issue.

I do agree with Scott on this, though:

There is an obvious and superior alternative: Do better. Improve the effort, sharpen the message and bring the fight. In the weeks and months to come, the ambition of the Liberal Party should be to defeat Stephen Harper.

That is true, but let me put a slightly different spin on it than Scott. The simple fact is there's a reason why there's suddenly all this coalition talk: we're weak. We're floundering in the polls, our leader is unpopular, we're not resonating with the public. People from the centre and left are desperate to be rid of Stephen Harper but they don't see how that can realistically happen right now, and they certainly don't see how we can do it solo. So they're grasping at a coalition as a means to the end.

The way to end coalition talk is to make it unnecessary. If the Liberal Party was seen as a viable alternative government that could legitimately defeat the Conservatives, if we were competitive with them in the polls and the chance of governing on our own wasn't seen as a Vegas long-shot, then these conversations wouldn't be happening.

If I saw some light at the end of the tunnel, or at least had the confidence we had a strategy that could get us there, I’d be happy to buckle-down as Scott suggests. But I don’t. Our party has suffered a steady erosion in support for over a decade that we haven’t yet come to grips yet, and Scott had a front-row seat.

It’s time for new ideas. Not tilting at windmills. You want to stop this coalition talk? The answer is simple: stop sucking.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You say you want a coalition...but do we need to hear the plan?

Much controversy and debate within and without the Liberal Party lately about coalitions with the NDP and/of the Green Party. And unfortunately, according to media reports (so take it with a grain of salt), it may be breaking-out along leadership lines. I don’t put too much stock in that.

There does, however, appear to be two emerging schools of thought. One that wants lots of debate and discussion to start happening now at the party grassroots, favoring options ranging from a post-election coalition to a pre-election coalition to, for a minority, an outright merger. And, on the other side, those that say coalition never ever, we promise.

Like a good Liberal, I suppose, I think the proper course lays somewhere in the middle. Coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition.

First, I don’t think an outright merger makes any sense. “Uniting the left” is nice in theory, but the practice would be very different. The merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance wasn’t as much “uniting the right” in the broad sense as it was re-uniting the party that was broken apart when the Reform Party tore a big chunk out of the old PCs. And even then, you saw many of the more progressive Conservative, both voters and MPs such as Scott Brison, come to the Liberals. It wasn’t a 1+1=2 scenario at all. A Liberal/NDP merger would be even more inefficient, as they really are very different parties with no common history. I think you’d see bleeding on the Liberal right to the Conservatives, and on the NDP left to possibly a splinter, more ideologically pure “Real NDP” party, so just how much of the two parties’ former support would be retained is debatable. It would be more like 1+1=1.5.

Second, I don’t think we (as an official party) should be spending much time pre-election discussing coalition scenarios. I think we should run candidates in every riding, and we should be running to win. As I’ve said before, the more we talk coalition before an election, the more Liberal votes bleed to the NDP. Both parties want to position themselves as the stop-Harper alternative, and while that’s a well we’ve gone to too many times with diminishing returns, we can’t afford to cede that ground entirely.

Third, the current OLO line, which seems to be flatly ruling-out a coalition, is a mistake. I understand the rationale – I outlined in above – but it’s still a tactical mistake. We may find ourselves post-election in a situation where a coalition arrangement would be advantageous. But the ONLY way it would be feasible is with public support and credibility. And if you’d just said coalition never during the campaign, that credibility is hard to achieve. Ruling it out now – particularly for the increasingly fleeting dream of a big solo election victory – is unnecessarily limiting your options in advance. I'd also add there's a reason the Conservatives want us to rule it out -- they see a coalition as the best chance of them losing power. Let's not play into their hands.

As I’ve said before, I think our line should be simple, and it’s really not that far from what either side are calling for. We should simply say: “We’re running to win in all 308 ridings and are asking Canadians to elect a Liberal government. Post-election we’ll look carefully at what the Canadian people have said, and move forward in the best interests of the country.” Period. Repeat ad-nasaeum. Run to win, rule nothing out. Don’t get drawn into coalition speculation, just pivot to our plans and platforms (assuming we have one by them), but don’t rule anything out.

Finally, on the possibility of a coalition post-election, those of us that aren’t party spokespeople are free to speculate, and so I will. I think much, obviously, will depend on the results.

First, I think the party with the most seats is in the driver’s seat and gets the first crack at either governing solo or seeking an arrangement. So if the Conservatives again get a minority, they get first shot. But if they fail or are brought down in the House within a short period of time (let’s say less than one year, and only if it’s with good reason) then I think the Governor-General should seek options within the House before dropping the writ.

Second, a coalition may not necessarily be necessary.

Let’s say the Liberals win the largest minority of seats. I think their negotiating power, and their actions, would depend on the size of that minority. If it’s a large one, they could (and should) just govern solo, seeking support in the House on a case-by-case basis. As long as they govern responsibly, in the public interest, and treat the House with respect, that’s entirely feasible.

With a smaller minority, a formal coalition may still not be necessary. A governing arrangement could be worked out, where support is secured for a defined period of time in exchange for a serious of legislative promises. Think the Pearson minorities of the 1960s.

With a small minority, the NDP’s bargaining position becomes stronger and the likelihood of a formal coalition, with shared cabinet and the like, becomes stronger. Which way of the three it goes will depend on the bargaining power of each of the parties, based on their post-election seat counts.

Third, no coalition agreement can include the Bloc Quebecois. As a sovereigntist party their presence, even at arms-length, is toxic and will make obtaining the public support and credibility crucial to any possible coalition impossible. While desirable, it’s not necessary for the LPC+NDP number to equal a majority for any coalition or arrangement to work. Even with a minority, it’s perfectly acceptable and feasible to govern seeking majority support on the House on a case-by-case basis, as the government does now.

Anyway, while it’s all academic now, ruling anything out in advance is just silly. And for those Liberals who shudder at the thought of cooperation, I say this: we wouldn’t even be having this conversation were we not so low in the polls and public support. So rather than trying to rule these scenarios out, the better course of action is working to make them unnecessary in the first place by strengthening our position.

Until that happens though, the debate will continue.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On coalitions and Liberals

Lots in the Canadian press following the historic British coalition government formed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats speculating whether we on this side of the pond can draw any lessons from our British cousins.

It's been amusing to watch conservative pundits in the media insisting no, it doesn't apply at all. Their culture is completely different (they find Benny Hill funny) and their system is too different (our Westminster model being named after Westminster, Romania or something). And on the other side, liberal pundits saying the UK example is proof it's acceptable and can work here.

And, of course, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives and are trying to revive their coalition bogeyman strategy, seeing Liberal/NDP cooperation as a threat that could hurt his hold on power. The UK example could hurt his efforts to demonize a coalition as some kind of anti-democratic coup by showing no, actually it's perfectly benign and in the best democratic traditions. He can't have that.

I think there are some notable and significant differences between the UK coalition and the one attempted in Canada. For one, the UK one involves the largest seat-holding party. Secondly, the Canadian one involved a party that the voters had just punished at the polls, a leader who (as much as respect him) Canadians had clearly rejected, and also relied on a separatist party for support. All those factors cost it public support, making Michael Ignatieff's decision to back away from it after forcing economic concessions from the Harper government the right move.

That doesn't mean, though, that we should rule out a coalition in the future. Should the circumstances be right, we need to absolutely be open to going down the coalition road. Just because it didn't make sense yesterday doesn't mean it won't make sense tomorrow.

It's a dicey political strategy question for the Liberals, though.

Obviously the Cons want to paint the Liberals into a corner, trying to both demonize coalitions and them force us into disavowing them. It's a transparent strategy: they see a coalition as a threat they want to quash.

For the NDP, it's in their interests to play-up the possibility of a coalition. It gives them added relevance and the potential for clout. And it firms up their vote. Which is also why it's dicey for Liberals. They compete with the NDP for those centre-left swing votes.

The Liberals want to solidify the anti-Harper vote under their banner; that's their key to returning to government. Only the Liberals can stop Harper, so unite with us will (once again) be the line. But if a coalition is firmly on the table, it makes it harder for Liberals to make that argument, and easier for those swing voters to feel safe parking their votes with the NDP, knowing there can be a coalition and wanting to give the NDP a stronger hand in it.

So, it's a tough line for the Liberals to take on both sides. My advice for Team Liberal? Don't rule-out a coalition, but don't get drawn into deep discussions on the issue either. The line is simple: we're not ruling anything out, but we're committed to electing a strong Liberal government that will once again give Canadians the strong, responsible government they need and deserve.

Plain and simple. Rule nothing out, but focus on electing Liberals. And when the dust settles, we'll see what's what.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal/NDP coalition viable without the BQ and Dion?

There were two major factors that made last December’s opposition coalition a tough sell and, ultimately, likely doomed it to failure: the presence of the Bloc Quebecois if only on the tertiary, and the unpopularity of Stephane Dion. The fact we’d just had an election that had increased Conservative seat count didn’t help any either. But what if Dion and the BQ weren’t in the equation – does a coalition become more viable?

Some numbers today from pollster Angus Reid suggest that, while it would still be an uphill battle to sell it, under the right circumstances a Liberal/NDP coalition may not be as toxic as originally thought by some, including, well, me.

Asked if they’d support formal power-sharing coalition between the Liberals and the NDP, 42 per cent said yes and 47 per cent said no, with 11 per cent undecided. Those 11 per cent would be critical, and much would demand on the circumstances at the time: electoral result, issues of the day, and so forth. Some 64 per cent of Liberals would support a coalition, and 70 per cent of NDPers. Interestingly, a majority of Green supporters, 51 per cent, would be opposed.


Angus Reid also polled other questions under a “unite the left” theme. While support was highest for the coalition option, they also polled running joint candidates to avoid vote-splitting and a party merger. Here it’s the Liberal and NDP supporter numbers that are really most relevant, as they didn’t ask if the options would change voter intention.

On an agreement between the Liberals and NDP not to run candidates against each other where it would split the vote, 55 per cent of Liberals and 51 per cent of NDPers were supportive.


And on a full-blown merger between the Liberals and NDP, 50 per cent of both Liberals and NDPers would be supportive.

Frankly, I don’t consider the latter two likely enough scenarios to discuss at length. Even if agreements could be reached around non-competes in swing ridings, the per-vote subsidy, which both opposition parties ironically fought hard to keep, is a major disincentive to not running strong with 308 candidates on the ballot.

As for an out-right merger, there’s not the historical unity on the left there is on the right. I doubt the far-left would be willing to be shut-out or would be placated as easily by a LPC/NDP as the far-right has by the Conservatives. There would be much more likelihood of a left-wing splinter party emerging and, while the remaining moderates would still be a force, there would be some bleeding on the centre-right to the Cons. And besides, I don’t think the lefties would let the NDP go without a dogfight.

Back to the coalition question, while it appears the battle wouldn’t be as uphill as I’d previously thought, I still think it’s highly unlikely. For starters, I think both parties would need to signal openness to the possibility before an election. You can do it after, but to try to arrange one after an election when you went into it saying no makes the sales battle all the much harder. It could be overcome, but it wouldn’t be a good start.

Declaring openness to a coalition before an election though is highly unlikely, at least for the Liberals. The NDP would probably be fine with it. That’s because the possibility of a coalition going into an election will bleed Liberal votes to the NDP. The Liberals run to win, and part of that strategy is always going to be “we’re the only party that can stop Harper and form a government” which means solidifying the anti-Harper vote in the Liberal column. Openness to a coalition gives license to NDP swing voters to avoid going Liberal to stop Harper, ie. voting strategically. I know that’s cynical, but this is politics.

So, in the next election I expect every party will run hard to win, and then the chips will fall where they may. I think a far more likely option than a coalition, other than a Conservative government of some variety, would be a Liberal minority with a governing agreement short of a formal coalition. That would mean no joint government caucus, no joint cabinet, but a Liberal government with NDP support for a given period based on a set of agreed-to legislative priorities.

Whether the NDP would accept that scenario instead of a formal power-sharing coalition would depend on how well each party does in the next election. The NDP would likely of course want the formal coalition; their chances of getting it would be dependent on their bargaining power, determined by their support. Neither party would want to be seen by Canadians as putting personal ambition ahead of a progressive government. And such governing agreements have a strong history in the Canadian system, and so would be seen as credible by the public.

But anyways, looking at those Angus Reid horse race numbers, that’s still a bridge far, far away.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

One year ago: Don Newman depants John Baird

As long as we're looking back to coalition anniversary moments, one year ago today was the day the Harper government went hat in hand to the Governor-General to beg her to prorogue parliament and save him from a confidence vote he was certain to lose.

And one year ago this morning, while we waited for the GG's meeting with the PM to play out, John Baird went live on CBC Newsworld with the great Don Newman, who proceeded to kick the crap out of him on national television, while Baird desperately looked around for an exit.

Vintage Newman, and certainly one of my favourite moments of last year's drama:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Looking back on The Coalition, one year later

It’s hard to believe that, one year ago, political Ottawa was in a tizzy of coalition madness, and even in the rest of Canada, the political interest alert system rose from “who cares” to “meh, wha?” Looking back one year later, who were the winners and losers and what are the lasting impacts?

In the short-term, certainly, while they may have over-played their hand the coalition was the right move for the opposition parties. With the Conservative economic update that ignored the worsening economic realities and instead tried to destroy their political opponents, the opposition parties had to act.

The coalition succeeded in forcing the Conservatives to introduce a budget in January that, while unfocused and imperfect, did make needed changes in areas such as Employment Insurance as well as spend billions in necessary stimulus to help the economy. It wasn’t the budget we’d have written, but it went much further than the Conservatives wanted to go because their feet were held to the fire by the coalition.

At that point, while I had misgivings at the time as well as quibbles with the strategy, Michael Ignatieff made the right decision in backing-away from the coalition. If they’d tried to take the government, after it has gone a long ways toward meeting their demands, the public would have revolted. No matter how constitutionally legitimate it would have been, in the eyes of much of the public it would have lacked moral legitimacy, and without such legitimacy no government can, or should, govern the people.

So, on the positive side for the opposition, the coalition forced the Conservatives to address the economic reality, dramatically change their policy in our direction, and bring in necessary economic policies to help Canadians deal with the recession. And for the Liberals, however messy the aborted leadership process triggered by the coalition drama may have been, it did get our new leader in place much sooner, saving us many, many dollars that could instead go into party coffers. We emerged with a new leader, a united party, and a healthy war chest.

That said, there were missteps and many negatives.

Did we overplay our hand by proposing a formal coalition, rather than just a Liberal government that would seek to govern with NDP and BQ support on a case-by-case basis? Certainly the NDP saw this as their opportunity at real power and wanted seats at the table. And it was important to demonstrate to the Governor-General and Canadians that the new government would be stable. But it made the separatist-socialist coalition messaging easy, and that resonated with Canadians. And we needed public support for legitimacy. We may well have over-reached.

Having Gilles Duceppe at the table for that press conference/photo-op was a mistake too. It lent credence to Conservative lies about the BQ being in the proposed government when they weren’t, and hurt our chances to sell this to the public.

And as much as it pains me, having Stephane Dion at the head was a deal-breaker for many Canadians. I argued at the time it had to be Stephane, and for us, there was no other viable option at the time. But he had just been pretty soundly rejected by the electorate and I talked to many Canadians who said, they’d support the coalition, but not with Dion. While he was the PM we needed, he wasn't the salesman we needed to sell it. It was another factor that made it harder for us to gain public support.

Looking back now, I’d have to say I total more wins in the Conservative column one year removed from the coalition crisis.

While they were forced into stimulus spending they’ve embraced it, using the opportunity to paint themselves as Conservative Santa Clauses with a multi-billion dollar slush fund. They’re showering money on their own ridings to cement their re-election chances and on key swing ridings they need to get to their elusive majority, all with giant prop-cheques emblazoned with the Conservative logo.

We can point out all we want that the distribution of funds is politically-motivated, that they’re blurring the partisan/government divide, but for most people any outrage is largely of the “a pox on all their houses” variety. Conservative popularity has largely held steady through this downturn. That’s a remarkable feat, and due in no small part to the stimulus spending forced on them by the coalition.

More long-term, the prospect of a future coalition government, which would be perfectly democratically legitimate and could be an antidote to both the perpetual minority governments that Canadians are tiring of as well as a good opportunity to unite the centre-left against the Conservatives, has been poisoned and will likely be a no-go for a generation.

We had to sell Canadians on the concept, and we blew it. We were hobbled by the factors mentioned above and we couldn’t overcome the Conservative campaign of smears, lies and distortions. Now the concept of coalition governments, which are the norm in so much of the rest of the world, is as politically toxic as, well, the green shift. Which is a victory for the Conservatives that greatly increases their chances of continued governance by playing the NDP and Liberals off each other. A divided left helps a united right.

So, overall, while the opposition parties largely played their cards as best they could and did achieve some tactical victories, in the long-game it’s Stephen Harper’s Conservatives that emerged as the winners from the coalition madness of one year ago. They continue to govern, their opposition is divided, they held (and even increased) their popularity through a punishing economic downturn, and are inching closer to majority nirvana.

It has been quite a year.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) The League of Hypocrites: Harper, Layton, Duceppe

Looks like GritGirl is at it again:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Videos) Ignatieff's coalition scrum and Power Play appearance

Here's a few video highlights from Michael Ignatieff's media scrum on Friday where he put the coalition bogeyman to rest:



And here's Ignatieff's appearance on CTV's Power Play with Tom Clark on Monday:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Duceppe dishes: Harper's coalition negotiations with the BQ

For all of Stephen Harper's bluster about how evil coalitions with "socialists and separatists" are, more information continues to emerge about Harper's efforts as opposition leader in 2004 to put a coalition in place should they defeat Paul Martin's Liberal government.

Today, following the release of a secret Harper speech where he again resurrected the coalition bogeyman, BQ leader Gilles Duceppe took a few more skeletons out of Harper's own coalition closet:

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe said the video demonstrates the hypocrisy of Harper's approach to politics. He noted that Harper, as opposition leader, tried negotiating a deal with the Bloc and the NDP five years ago so that he could become prime minister.

"In 2004, Mr. Harper met me and (NDP Leader) Jack Layton at the Delta Hotel in Montreal to discuss a number of things," said Duceppe in an interview with the French-language LCN television news network.

"It was Mr. Harper who did this with those he called the `evil socialists' and the `evil separatists.' Today he's blaming others of supposedly doing this, which isn't the case."

Duceppe also blasted Harper for criticizing opposition parties for allegedly negotiating "backroom deals," saying that it contradicts what he did in the past and is causing Canadians to lose respect for politicians.

"He came to my office (as opposition leader) saying, `If I become prime minister, what would you like to see in my program to ensure that you'll support me and that I have a majority?"' Duceppe said. This is intolerable in politics. He wants an election at any price, just like Mr. Ignatieff wants and election at any price."

So Harper convened a backroom deal, with the ink still drying on the ballots that elected a Liberal monority government, summoning, in his words, "the separatists and the socialists" to try to negotiate a deal to form government. He was ready and willing to bargain for BQ support.

The three of them even held a joint press conference on Parliament Hill, and co-signed a letter to the Governor-General:

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice
has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

Look, just to be clear, my issue isn't with coalitions. You can go back to my archives and read about my clear position through last November/December. My issue is, again, with the breathtaking hypocrisy of Stephen Harper. He says one thing and does another, and he'll do and say anything for political advantage. He seems to have no moral compass to guide him. A coalition will be the bees knees one day and the devil's scourge the next.

The guy just can't be trusted. And that's why he's got to go.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Stephen Harper's undemocratic coalition

The Harper reformatories seem to think ghosts of coalitions past will be a major issue in this election. I'm sure they don't mean their own Entente cordiale with the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, do they?

Yes, that's right. Back in 2004 when Paul Martin was Prime Minister, then opposition leader Stephen Harper got together with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. They wrote a letter to the Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, asking her that if the Martin government should fall on a confidence vote please don't give him an election. No, no. Instead, turn the reigns of government over to the Conservatives, who are confident they can govern with the support of the NDP and the BQ.

Here's the letter that Harper signed with Duceppe and Layton or, as he prefers to call them now, the "separatists and the socialists" where he asks the GG to turn to him after a confidence vote, an action that he and his party would later liken to a "coup."

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice
has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

I guess coalitions are only undemocratic if they don't involve Stephen Harper. But then, Harper has flip-flopped on every position he has ever held in the name of political expediency, so what else is new?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael should stop talking about the coalition, and Maclean's should get a clue

A couple of related coalition thoughts this morning. First, I’d like to comment on Michael Ignatieff’s comments in Montreal this weekend:

"I'm in politics to unify people, not to divide them," Ignatieff said.

"There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me."

The power sharing deal between the Liberals and New Democrats, with support from the Bloc Quebecois, was not undemocratic, Ignatieff told the crowd of some 150 Montrealers gathered in a downtown theatre, but it would nonetheless have given Canadians the feeling that the parties had "in some sense or another stolen power."

For one thing, Michael, why are you even talking about this at this point? And in Quebec, of all places, where the coalition was rather popular. It makes no sense for us to be talking about this at this point, there’s no upside.

If it was a question, pivot back to how it forced the Conservatives to make major concessions and we’re now focused on continuing to ensure this government takes the economic crisis seriously, and brings Canadians the help they need. And then segue nicely into employment insurance.

In other words, stay on message.

But if you are going to talk about this, or not deflect the question, then for Pete’s sake why are you playing-up the false Conservative narrative about its legitimacy? If you are going to go down this road, it should be to attack the false Conservative propaganda, playing West against East, English against French, as the true cause of the divisiveness around the issue.

I’m not saying the decision to leave the coalition behind after the budget wasn’t the right decision. It was. But that doesn’t make the coalition any less legitimate. And who knows what the future may hold. Helping the Conservatives discredit the very idea of parliamentary coalitions isn’t in Liberal interests.

And then there’s Maclean’s. I’m a few issues behind in my dead tree issue reading again, and on the weekend I read this editorial from the May 11th issue praising, of all people, Jason Kenney, for his righteous crusade to raise civic literacy.

Jason seems to only be concerned with the civic literacy of new Canadians, while Maclean’s wants the campaign to go population-wide. In principal, I’m find with that. But here’s where Maclean’s lost credibility with me. In the middle of their love-letter to Jason Kenney, the Maclean’s editors offer this:

Nor do we understand how our government works. The various parliamentary and constitutional issues raised by the Dion coalition last December caused mass confusion, with many Canadians mistaking normal political gamesmanship for an attempted coup.

Indeed. And who exactly raised that confusion? Who fanned the fires of division, who spread misinformation about our parliamentary system, who raised the rhetoric by falsely calling the coalition an attempted coup? That’s right Maclean’s, it was your BFF Jason Kenney and his Conservative colleagues.

Kenney and Co. breathlessly and maliciously spread misinformation about the workings of our civic institutions, dramatically setting-back the civic literacy you insist he’s just the man to advance, exploiting the civic illiteracy of rank and file Canadians for narrow political ends.

Sorry, Maclean’s. You need another hero.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On coalitions, budgets and deficits

Note that I write this without having read or listened to any coverage of the throne speech, or the throne speech itself. That will come tonight. Going into the throne speech though, as I continue catching-up on my blogging here are a few thoughts on the next few days, and the way forward.

* The phrase Coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition has come to make more sense during the weeks since perogy madness. The fact is, things have changed a great deal since then.

Last year, based on the economic update, bringing down the government and replacing it with an opposition coalition was absolutely a justifiable play, and the right thing to do. The Conservatives had shown themselves unwilling to be reasonable and to address the real economic concerns of Canadians. They escaped that judgment by the skin of their teeth, and bought themselves time.

Now with the budget we’ll have an entirely different set of circumstances to judge than we did last time, and just because a toppling/coalition was right then doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right now. And we need to frame the question correctly. Do I think a coalition government would be better for Canada that the Conservatives? Sure. But that doesn’t mean we should go ahead and topple Harper, budget be dammed. Canadians won’t accept such a move.

Only if Harper comes in with a budget that, like the economic update, fails to rise to a level of action and seriousness needed can we contemplate bringing them down. And even if the budget doesn’t do everything we want can't just bring it down. It won’t be a Liberal budget. But if it moves far enough in the direction we want then we need to let is pass, considering the coalition threat a success and continuing to hold Harper to account in the future. And yes, over time, the coalition becomes less of an option, so going forward we need to demonstrate our readiness, and willingness, to force an election if necessary, particularly if Harper decides to play the confidence game again.

I’ll say it again though, Canadians will not accept a coalition that's a mere power grab. It needs to be justified on policy grounds based on Harper’s action, or inaction. This isn’t our chance to simply do what we couldn’t in an election. That dog just won’t hunt.

* A few points on deficits. First of all, yes, the opposition has been advocating spending increases that will necessitate a deficit, and most observers have accepted the need for a period of deficit spending until we’re out of this economy. The fact is, though, the $64 billion deficit over two years figures that the Conservatives pre-leaked is higher than it need be because of Conservative financial incompetence, their inability to see this storm coming until a month or so ago, and their complete squandering of the substantial surplus the previous Liberal government left them.

The Conservatives squandered the surplus on high spending that doesn’t seem to have bought us much (I can’t honestly say where it went, but went it did), and hugely expensive cuts to the GST that took many billions of dollars out of government coffers. And they eliminated the Liberal tradition of a $2 billion contingency reserve to cushion unexpected difficulties.

A deficit at this point would still have been largely inevitable, but it need not have been near as big. Conservative mismanagement, and their ideologically-driven crusade to strangle the federal government’s fiscal capacity, has left them with very little room to maneuver now that times are tough, and an even bigger hole to climb out of than would have been necessary.

* Finally, the budget. It certainly seems like the spending will be there. The question, though, is where will it go. I’ve already outlined at length my preferred methods of fiscal stimulus, and the problems inherent in the broad-based, and permanent, middle class tax cuts Harper has been signaling he favours.

In addition to the method of stimulus, I’m going to be looking for a plan and roadmap to get back out of deficit, and permanent tax cuts would make that doubly difficult. Infrastructure projects are a one-time expense. But tax cuts, besides being ineffective stimulus, are permanently lost revenue that can’t only be made-up by tax increases (politically unsaleable) or why cuts to program spending.

And that’s my fear with this budget. It’s no secret Harper wants to strangle the federal government’s fiscal capacity, rendering it permanently unable to play a strong national role. I’m fearful they will use the guise of this economic crisis to push through large permanent tax cuts that, while ineffective as stimulus, will neuter the federal government and force massive cuts to program spending down the road.

Such a move, while more wily than the political gamesmanship of the economic update (voting against tax cuts is much harder than voting against ending pay equity), would be just as dangerous to Canada, and would have to give the opposition serious pause.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Not hot: Jane Taber's analysis

I really don’t know why I read her column. I guess it’s like a car-wreck, you can’t look away. But this analysis from Ms. Taber though is particularly not hot:

Not: The coalition. The Ignatieff Liberals appear to be lukewarm to the idea of it. Cozying up to the NDPers does not seem to be something that Mr. Ignatieff, who comes across as a centrist, is comfortable with.

Perhaps sensing this, NDP Leader Jack Layton seems to be less committed to the idea, saying on CTV's Question Period last week that the coalition has achieved what it set out to do: make a better budget.

Actually, as a coalition supporter I’m pleased with this development, and actually amused at Ms. Taber’s completely off-base read of the situation.

Ignatieff’s messaging on the coalition has been consistent all along. It has worked, it has brought the Conservatives to heel, forced them to back down on their controversial attacks on their opponents, on pay equity, and on public sector unions, and forced them to speed-up plans for the budget and for stimulus. With Harper proroguing until the budget, now we need to wait and see what’s in the budget. If it does what Canadians expect, we’ll support it. If it fails the test of leadership, we’ll vote it down and move into government to give Canada the economic action it needs. But we can’t say we’ll vote down a budget we haven’t seen. It’s not about grasping for power, it’s about the economy.

That has been the consistent position of Ignatieff and now the Liberals, and I’m very pleased to see the NDP and Jack Layton are now onboard with this same messaging. The fact we’re both pursuing the same strategy would seem to speak to the strength of the coalition, and as I’ve argued before this strategy gives a potential future coalition a greater chance of success. A coalition needs public support to succeed, and to secure public support it can’t be about just grabbing power or voting down Harper no matter what: it needs to be about the economy.

Now the Liberals and the NDP are both working toward that end, from the same page. And that’s hot.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Do we want this coalition to succeed or not?

I want this coalition to succeed. I would like nothing more than to see the Harper Conservatives out of power yesterday. But we need to be realistic and reasoned in how we proceed. We don’t need to put our cards on the table six weeks before Parliament returns. And we must get the public on our side.

And we don’t have the public onside yet. Conservative partisans say it’s a coup. Liberal and NDP partisans say throw Harper out on his ass. The non-partisan majority are confused. They don’t understand the parliamentary system. They may or may not like Harper, but they know we just had an election and they wonder just what the heck all those idiots of all parties up in Ottawa are doing farting around during an economic crisis.

We need to make our case to the public. We need to do a little education to warm people up to the fact that, if the Harper government loses the confidence of the house, a majority-led progressive coalition is a perfectly legitimate option. We need to make clear that Haper has been playing political games when he should have been focusing on the economy.

Now, sure, we could just defeat the government in January, no matter what the public says, and petition the GG to turn the keys over to the coalition, no matter what the public opinion is. That would be constitutionally legitimate. But it would be a mistake that would well doom the coalition to failure. It would give the anti-democracy messaging of the Conservatives credence. And it may well precipitate an election we’d lose: while it shouldn’t technically be a consideration, when the GG has to decide coalition vs. election, don’t doubt for a second that public opinion may well play a role in her decision. If opinion is majorly anti-coalition, an election is more likely.

If we want this coalition to succeed, we need public support. And if we’re to get public support, the coalition can’t be seen as simply a naked and partisan power grab. The public will not accept that. They will not see the means as justifying the ends. Most Canadians aren’t partisans, they don’t share our strong feelings. They just want government to work and stay out of their way.

This needs to be about the economy. It needs to be about ensuring Canada has the economic policies and leadership it needs in these troubled times. Canadians want and expect all parties to work together to that end. That means we need to be willing to consider what the Conservatives will bring forward in January.

We need to make the case that the coalition so far has been a clear success. We have succeeded in getting Harper to back down on campaign finance, on the public sector strike ban, and he moved up the budget. Those were concessions he wouldn’t have made without a strong and united coalition holding his feet to the fire. He has failed to deliver immediate and serious economic stimulus, and he has yet (to my recollection) to back down on the regressive changes to pay equity.

We need to make clear that we expect real, serious and meaningful action from the Conservatives in this budget. If he has genuinely gotten the message, if he has taken the action needed for the economy, then we’re open to considering it. If it falls short, the coalition is ready to vote it down and form government itself to give Canada the leadership it needs.

Now, I have my doubts that Harper is genuinely willing to compromise. And I don’t see how we can ever again trust a guy who has repeatedly lied to Canadians, called us treasonous coup plotters, and questioned our patriotism.

However, Canadians expect us to be reasonable, and they won’t consider it reasonable for us to be dismissing out of hand a budget document that won’t be presented for six weeks, and hasn’t even been written yet. That will turn the public against us in a big way.

And that brings us to Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. Bob is touring the country, having appointed himself as the chief coalition booster, giving fiery speeches saying we’ll bring down Harper in January no matter what. And his supporters are making this a leadership wedge issue, saying because Ignatieff isn’t saying let’s vote down the budget before we see it, that he isn’t committed to the coalition. That he’s ruining our chances of taking power. This is a load of crap.

First of all, those fiery speeches of Bob’s sound great to Liberal partisans. Dump Harper, ra ra. But to Canadians it’s the worst kind of crass political opportunism. It shows us as nakedly hungry for power, and sends the message this isn’t about the economy. Now this strategy may help Bob gain some Liberal delegates for the leadership. But it will cost this coalition public support, and makes it less likely to succeed. It may help Bob, but at the cost of the coalition.

Despite the attempts to distort his position on the coalition, Michael has been quite clear: the coalition has succeeded so far, let’s see what Harper does on the budget, if it’s not good enough we vote it down. That’s a pragmatic, principled position that Canadians will accept and support. Maybe it doesn’t satisfy the rabid firebrand partisans hungry for blood. But it’s a position that satisfies mainstream Canadians, that puts the interests of the country ahead of leadership politics, and gives this coalition its best chance of success.

Remember, a majority of Canadians voted for progressive parties. They’re naturally inclined to be supportive of a progressive coalition. But we need to win then over first. Let’s be smart about this.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

El Presidente Harper is not a leader

While I strongly disagree with Madame Jean’s decision, I think she was in a no-win situation no matter what she did, and there was no precedent to inform a decision on prorogual under these circumstances. So I don’t blame her.

In a no-win scenario she opted to maintain the status quo. Perhaps, given the fact she holds an unelected position, that was the right thing to do. It wasn’t the right thing to do constitutionally however, and perhaps we need to look at reforming the role of the head of state in our system of government. We shouldn’t be putting an unelected figurehead in this position if they lack the moral authority to use the powers of their office to make the right decision, using the powers granted to them by the constitution. We need a head of state role in our system of government, but they also need to have the degree of legitimacy needed to play their role when called upon.

But I’ve digressed. I don’t blame Jean. I blame Harper. He put the Governor-General in this position, and now a very dangerous precedent has been set: illegitimate governments that have lost the support of the people’s representatives can govern with impunity, fleeing parliament at will to avoid accountability. Mark my words: Conservatives, and all Canadians, will come to regret the precedent set here today.

What we have today, however, is an illegitimate government that has lost the moral authority to govern. As El Presidente would say, Let Me Be Clear. Stephen Harper has lost the confidence of the House. You know it, I know it, he knows it. It is a fundamental tenet of our system of parliamentary democracy that, to be Prime Minister, you must command the confidence of the House. And he does not. That is abundantly clear.

Harper may go on to govern for many years. And he may even do some good things, anything is possible. But his scorched Earth, nuclear war campaign to maintain his tenuous grip on power has besmirched and weakened the very institutions he claims to be fighting to protect.

He has stoked the fires of Western alienation by exploiting the legitimate concerns of Western Canadians for his narrow political ends.

He has stoked the fires of Quebec nationalism with his narrow-minded attacks on the Bloc Quebecois, a party that draws broad support from Quebecers not for its pro-sovereignty policy, but for its pro-Quebec policy.

He has exploited the lack of understanding many Canadians have of our parliamentary system to portray opposition parties representing the majority of the population exercising legitimate mechanisms available to them under our system of government as undertaking acts of treason that constitute a coup, thereby weakening the confidence and respect the public has in its system of government. That’s very dangerous.

And he compounded the danger by putting the Governor-General in the untenable position of having to make a decision he should never have asked her to make, further weakening our system of governance. It was only his blinding ambition and lack of respect for democracy that but her in this bind, and his inability to do the right thing.

The faith of Canadians in their democratic institutions may never have been lower than it is now.

But hey, at least El Presidente Harper has hung onto power a few more weeks. Viva le revolution.

(I’m heading out to a holiday party for the evening, which means I’ll be away from my computer and unable to approve comments, I’ll approve when I get back. It will also be good to have some time to mull over the day's events and the way forward before writing more. Much to consider. In the mean time though, I want to make clear I stand four-square behind Stéphane Dion.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers