Pages

Sunday, 27 March 2011

On Coalitions

March 27, 2011

Since 2008, "coalition" has become a dirty word in Canadian politics. I shared the shock after the last election when the Liberals, who had just come from one of their worst showings in Canadian electoral history, decided to try and overturn the results of the election, install Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister and welcome the NDP in cabinet.

Here we are, two and a half years later, and heading to the polls once again. As we know, Stephen Harper is using the coalition issue to garner support for the Conservatives, while Michael Ignatieff disavows himself of trying to form a coalition government. 

The debate on this issue, in my opinion, is distracting. As we saw in the U.K., coalitions are a legitimate form of government in a parliamentary democracy. I agree with Harper, however, that the party that wins the largest number of seats, should form the government. That said, though, there is the potential in this election for the Tories to be returned with a minority, Parliament to return and the government to be voted down on the Speech from the Throne. It would be likely, in that situation, for the Governor General to ask the Official Opposition (likely to be the Liberals) to try and form a government that can command confidence of the House. In this situation, a coalition is necessary for the political stability of the country.

This election should not be about constitutional convention. Instead, voters should focus on their pocketbooks. Who is going to provide economic growth, keep taxes low and reduce the deficit? The Conservative Party of Canada. Do we need political stability to stop the insanity of constant electioneering in minority parliament? Yes. This election should be about economic and political stability. Those are the issues I want addressed - and to address them, I'll be voting Conservative.

5 comments:

  1. 'Who is going to provide economic growth, keep taxes low and reduce the deficit? The Conservative Party of Canada. Do we need political stability to stop the insanity of constant electioneering in minority parliament?'

    Good questions!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for reading, Jenn! Hope you'll keep reading throughout the campaign - and beyond!

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK, genuine questions and comments here:

    On ecomonic growth: the CPC is constantly going on and on and on about what a wondeful job they did on the economy, and how it is strong (even if financial experts don't necessarily agree). Bring an election to the table, however, and all of a sudden, the economy is fragile and shouldn't be disrupted. Which one is it?

    On the taxes front, and I preface this with WITHIN REASON, I firmly believe that if we are in the position to help our fellow neighbour then we have the obligation to do so. This is why I would rather pay higher taxes and be able to invest in social programs that benefit everyone. That being said, there are some programs that are floated around that I really disagree with and I find the pendulum then swings too far the other way. Also in terms of lowering taxes, I don't think that's a good idea when you are simultaneously spending the country into a huge deficit.

    I'll also remind you that if the Conservatives were more willing to work with the other parties, we might not be in an election at this time. They lost the confidence of the House two years ago, and the opposition parties (in my opinion) since that time gave the government the benefit of the doubt and tried to make the dysfunctional relatinoship work. This election was therefore inevitable - it was just a matter of time.

    And then huge rant b1tchfest about the "coalition," because I have never been so upset about anything in my whole entire life (and I think you remember where I worked at the time.)

    I cannot respect the Prime Minister for taking advantage of the ignorance and apathy of the average Canadian voter to garner votes. I think it could have been an opportune moment to teach Canadians about their political system, but the PM instead misinformed the people and sowed anger and resentment where there shouldn't have been any.

    Second, the framework in which the coalition presented itself in 2008 was perfectly valid. The most important part of our Parliament is that the government has to keep the confidence of the House of Commons. If it is unable to do so, then the House should be dissolved for either an election or for the GG to give someone else the chance to govern (and hopefully create a more stable situation in the House in the meantime). The Economic Update was full of poison pills that the opposition was never going to agree to and so the CPC knew that the House would fall, but instead of allowing for the House to express its opinion, the PM asked for a prorogation. To me, THAT was completely undemocratic because it completely undermined the foundation of our parliamentary system. While the CPC won the highest number of seats, the opposition party MPs were duly elected by the electorate and should have been allowed to express their opinion of their constituents (which they would have done by voting against the Fiscal Update, aptly nicknamed the Eff You). They were denied this opportunity, and so for those two months of prorogation, those constituents were not allowed to have a voice.

    And what people keep forgetting to mention is that it's not like the opposition parties can just take over "wham bam, thank you ma'am." This change in government has to be approved by the Governor General. It's not like they can have a coup and take over the government.

    All of this is what upset me the most about the 2008 Coalition Crisis, and I would have been equally upset if a Liberal government had done the same. Except that the Liberal government of 2004 did not run screaming bloody murder when Harper wrote that letter to the GG.

    Sorry for dumping this all on you... I still have so much anger about December 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay... I had written a response, logged in to post it and the entire thing vanished. Let's try again.

    On the economic front, the argument that is being made (albeit not very clearly - I'd frame it differently, but what do I know, I'm just in PR) is this: the economy is improving, but changing course could impact the recovery. I think it's a fair and legitimate argument to make.

    On taxes, we disagree. I firmly believe that the government should not be the first stop for support. I think that community organizations have a far more vital role to play and are far more connected to the needs of a community than the government. I don't argue that government shouldn't play a role, but it should not play the primary role.

    On the coalition, I never argued it was illegitimate. I didn't support it and, quite frankly, would have been happy to see it happen. I know that it would have faltered big time and the election that followed its spectacular collapse would have been a glorious Tory majority that I would cherish for all my days. In all seriousness, the legitimacy of the coalition as a whole was not in question; the legitimacy of one of the most unpopular political leaders in history becoming PM after facing spectacular defeat, however, was massively illegitimate and it backfired, as shown by public opinion polls.

    PJC, we're not going to agree on politics - ever. But I am very pleased that we don't take it personally. There are people out there who do that. And if we become those people, well... we would make fine MP's.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the economic front: fair enough, but I agree with Paul Wells when he says and I paraphrase, that Canadian politics always default to the least exciting outcome. I personally don't think an election threatens the economic recovery.

    On taxes/community organizations: these organizations are already cash-strapped under the best conditions (when people are working and generous and they have grants from a benevolent government) and are forced to close down when there is a fragile economy, because voters close up their pocketbooks... and so many have been forced to shut down because the government pulled what little funding they had.

    I think that the government has an interest in investing in social programs: the more they help people get on their feet (or back on their feet), the more they will have taxpayers filling the public coffers and spending money to support the different industries (services, manufacturing, sales...)

    On the coalition, you never argued its illegitimacy but the party and leader you support did.

    I think I am going to have nightmares - you just said Tory majority *shudder* I wouldn't mind it if it were a PC majority (Joe Clark is the sweetest man ever) but the current incarnation of the Conservative party? Pity tha fool who votes for them.

    Stéphane Dion didn't face a spectacular defeat, he won his riding. We vote for individual MPs, not prime ministers. True, many people vote for the leader they would like to see be a PM or for the party the candidate represents, but ultimately, the ballot that they check off is for the local candidate, and as a local candidate, he did well. I know you're talking about his personal popularity and the popularity of the Liberal party, but I would argue that the misinformation campaign the CPC put out with regards to the affected both of these tremendously. Kudos cause it worked, but shame because it's putting the success of one party above the process.

    But even at that, I can't blame the CPC for Stéphane Dion's defeat - his own party did just as much to bring him down. For that, you guys should thank the Iggy and Rae troops :P

    I still love you even if we always have to agree to disagree <3

    ReplyDelete