According to Don Martin, the fateful – and possibly fatal, at least for the government – decision to take advantage of the fiscal update to declare war on the public financing system may have been the result of an error in judgement by an overzealous, overtired …. Prime Minister? Hang on, that can’t be right, can it? And yet:
[...]Stephen Harper has to wear this political mess himself. He personally ordered the incendiary paragraph inserted into Thursday’s fiscal update, ignored warnings from his own MPs who felt it was a lousy idea and clearly under-estimated his opponents’ resolve to defend their cash at any political price.
Which puts a whole new slant on the rumours of rancour and recrimination around the caucus room, doesn’t it?
It would certainly explain why the guilty party hasn’t yet been marched out of Langevin for a political perp walk.
Also, having now seen this particular talking point trotted out approximately nineteen thousand times in the last 24 hours – including a record-breaking effort by Ezra Levant on CTV News last night, where he managed to work it into every single response, sometimes more than once in the same sentence – I have to ask: Is there any reason at all to think that either Jack Layton or Bob Rae would get the Finance gig in a coalition government — or, frankly, that either of them would even want it?
I mean, seriously, think about it: given the economic meltdown currently in progress, would someone who harbours the hope of running for the top job sometime in the foreseeable future — which both Layton and Rae, as it happens, do — really want to be the political figure most closely associated with the budget during such a bleak era? It doesn’t just not make sense, it makes negative sense. In fact, its very existence – and the fact that even some otherwise intelligent columnists are apparently willing to buy into it, if only for a catchy lede – may well send us into a sense deficit, and in these uncertain times, can we really afford that?
Anyway, pending even a shred of actual evidence that such a possibility is under consideration, ITQ’s advice is dismiss the whole notion as nothing more than desparate fantasy on the part of the attack ad writers at Conservative Research Group. It’s about as credible as the idea of Justice Minister Myron Thompson or Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Anders, or any of the other nightmare scenario Conservative cabinet choices that were floated out during the 2004 election. (Okay, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day did happen, but he actually turned out to be a surprisingly good choice.) If we actually do end up with an NDP/Liberal coalition, it’ll most likely be Finance Minister John McCallum — or possibly Ralph Goodale — and Jack Layton as deputy PM, which doesn’t make for nearly as effective a scare tactic.
UPDATE: The Montreal Gazette’s Elizabeth Thompson has the full slate of official talking points, courtesy of the ever-helpful Conservative Party. So if you’re listening to talk radio, and wonder why the fourth caller in a row seems to be using exactly the same words to describe his or her outrage — an example: “Sure, it bothers me that parties Canadians rejected are trying to seize power through the back door” — you’ll know why. (For fun, try to spot ‘em in the comment threads here at macleans.ca!)
Print
Comment
>The hell with what’s right for the country, eh? It’s all about winning and losing. This is the problem that the conservatives have that, at least a few of them apparantly,
Tell that to the “elder statesman” Chretien, who apparently is required to negotiate with that other “elder statesman” because the people who would run the coalition government are apparently unfit or unwilling to negotiate themselves.
The Conservative Caucus can still control this. Ask Harper and Flaherty to fall on their swords, and go to the House with a new PM and a new Finance Minister, and seek the confidence of the House.
The alternative the a Harper minority is NOT necessarily a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition, it is a Conservative minority headed by somebody else…say Jim Prentice.
The Conservative Caucus should ask that Harper and Flaherty resign, so somebody like Prentice can going to the House of Commons and seeks its confidence next week.
There is no need to for Conservatives to follow Harper and make a second fatal mistake and lose government. Select a new PM and finance minister from the caucus, and go to the Commons.
Personally, I’d prefer the conservatives were not in power, as I’d like to see an honest auditing of Deficit Jim’s cooked books.
However, I’d be willing to accept a conservative gov’t if it meant Harper and Flaherty got back-benched or disowned entirely.
Andrew,
Might be a little low, but we are into major detail here. That all parties face the same rules and their abilities dictate success is the part that matters. The boundry cases are definintely having a limit that cant be met, meaning no limit and a limit that is too low that drags everyone to the lowest common denominator, all leaders take the train a la Lizzie.
I am sure there are happy mediums in between….
But I will say again, IF this is THE issue this is all about then it hardly justifies the sturm and drang we are going through, this is housekeeping and normal politics. This is now about something very different. and that is the desire of the Libs and NDP to get what they couldnt get through the election process, which is the only process that creates generalized legitimacy. ( god I hope I said that different enough from the official talking points not to get dinged by Judge O’Malley, they dont call her “maximum Kady” for nothing”)
This is a dangerous path the Libs and NDP seek to explore. I dont see the justification for it…UNLESS there is formal agreement from the Bloc. get that and life is different, even then the GG could legitimately say this needs approval of the people. Who knows.
Despite the confusion we are in rht now. Parliments are designed to settle down and get to work one way or another. If a majority of us wanted a minority parliment which works, this could be the path to it. Realistically any coalition will have to have modest goals and no liberal leadership candidates in charge. (Hey Jack becomes PM till May then the new LPC leader takes over,or else Harper!?)
A workable non scary solution is much more likely than someting really bad happening.
I blame Harper’s mentor, Lowell Green from CFRA radio.
There are costs of changing govt…lost time, change of strategy…..the case for change isnt clear, an election that the cons lose makes it clear.
This is fundamentally a screwed up way to do things. You want to change governments, call the election and vote.
>The Conservative Caucus can still control this. Ask Harper and Flaherty to fall on their swords,
Yes; the Liberals and NDP shouldn’t have to roll over and die if their critical funding needs are cut, but the Conservatives should be expected to gut themselves.
Can we move past the weird and unnecessary brinksmanship?
It would hardly be gutting. Two members, and they still lead the government. It’s far too exciting a scenario to actually happen.
You know, what would be really great is if there WAS to be a non-conservative coalition government, the first order of business after the budget would be to implement some form of proportional representation in the elections act. I really think that would be the single biggest, and probably most popular measure that it could take.
And before everyone screams, “No, that won’t work, look at Italy!”, may I point out that while Italy has had 45 + “elected” governments since WWII, the actual mechanisms of government, i.e., departments and programs, have actually been pretty stable in spite of that. Not perfect (what government is?), but all in all not that bad, either. It’s akin to the old saw about not letting formal schooling get in the way of getting an education; don’t let political parties get in the way of good government.
I suspect that Germany provides a better example in any case. There’s a federal system that uses p.r. to elect members to the lower house(with, I believe, a 5% threshold) and where the provinces(lander) also directly elect half of the upper house. A similar system in Canada would address a lot of the concerns about our Senate, which would appeal to many, even in the CPC.
The point is, there are many examples to consider, not just the rather limited (and limiting, AND confusing) options that have been presented in B.C. and Ontario to date.
Any proposed “coalition” govenment that commited itself to electoral reform( And executed it, not just promises) along these lines would probably gain a significant amount of popular support.
Regarding the funding of political parties by the electorate, the changes that were implemented by Chretien were designed to prevent the hi-jacking of the political agenda by those with large amounts of money. That was also the intention of limiting “third-party” advertising during campaigns.
I think most Canadians adhere to the principle of “one person, one vote”, and recognize that the influence of vested specific interests (unions, corporations, think tanks, etc.) can in some instances be to the detriment of the free expression of popular will.
In my view, it is evidentally fair that the population as a whole support the political process by providing direct support to political parties. I would even be in favour of restricting ANY funding for parties to this method; it levels the “playing field” beyond reproach, and would limit the costs of campaigning and elections. I’m sure advertising interests wouldn’t like it much, but it would require that advertising expenditures be carefully considered so that the population wouldn’t be swamped by a tsunami of mostly negative messages.
Those that object to “supporting parties financially that they don’t support electorally” need to be reminded that their particular vote determines where “their” $1.95 is allocated. Again, eminently fair.
And isn’t that what Canadians are all about?
Question: How does the Bloc get by as a ‘national party’ when it never runs candidates outside of Quebec?
Just to expand; the two most obstreperous move aside. The party doesn’t lose any seats. They still are the government. There is less blockade against working with Parliament. Conservatives stay in power, which is what they want – presumably.
Lead by example of returning their own taxpayer funded subsidy and challenge the other parties to do so. No loss to them at all.
“Those that object to “supporting parties financially that they don’t support electorally” need to be reminded that their particular vote determines where “their” $1.95 is allocated. Again, eminently fair.
And isn’t that what Canadians are all about?”
Thanks for the voice of reason but I prefer donating $199.99 to 308 con riding assoc. 10 times – untraceable . Further the $ 1,100 / $ 2,200 75% taxpayer refundable limit ? steve or the rest don’t have the honesty to reform political finance without loopholes ? Please see Democracy Watch 10 year campaign . politicians phew
“Which puts a whole new slant on the rumours of rancour and recrimination around the caucus room, doesn’t it?”
FINALLY!!! It’s about damn time those sheep in the Tory caucus woke up and stood up to Harper. I hope they tar and feather the man all the way back to Alberta!
“FINALLY!!! It’s about damn time those sheep in the Tory caucus woke up and stood up to Harper. I hope they tar and feather the man all the way back to Alberta!”
Get rid of the radical right harperites and lets have a real election .
Thinking about the kind of government this country desperately needs right now, it seems that there’s a need for consistency, and reassurance that Canadians can depend on their government to prioritize and make considered decisions about a course of action.
The current page of NNWl:
(latest item) “Tories reverses decision on political subsidies” – http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081129.wtories_message1129/BNStory/Front; (older item further down) “Finance minister won’t back down on vote subsidies” – http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/545794
I’m not losing sleep over poliitical subsidies, but the flip-flopping on it does give me cause for pause.
(For fun, try to spot ‘em in the comment threads here at macleans.ca!)
You really are my favoritest Canadian blogger.