You really are my favoritest Canadian blogger.

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.

Get rid of the radical right harperites and lets have a real election .

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!

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

Lead by example of returning their own taxpayer funded subsidy and challenge the other parties to do so. No loss to them at all.

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?

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?

This is fundamentally a screwed up way to do things. You want to change governments, call the election and vote.

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.

However, I’d be willing to accept a conservative gov’t if it meant Harper and Flaherty got back-benched or disowned entirely.

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.

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.

As someone who leans heavily Conservative at present and is frustrated by the unwillingness of the politicians I currently support to rise above some of the politicking: nope. I don’t have a count at hand, but the important difference is that the Conservative government needed the support of only one party at a time. The Liberal/NDP coalition will also require the support of only one party at a time, but there are only two options rather than three. Unless there is a reasonable expectation the Conservatives are going to be gentlefolk, it means the Bloc are de facto part of the coalition; as soon as they are not, we have an election. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that; the Bloc’s allegiances and interests are not really germane to the argument except by appeal to emotion. What is wrong is that we need continuity of government at this juncture. If the comments by some on these boards to the effect that the BQ is likely to play nice (meaning, support a Lib/NDP coalition without making demands which will infuriate many non-Quebeckers) are accurate, then we can have that continuity. That leaves the central issue of whether the government chooses wisely its “fiscal stimulus” targets, and doesn’t enter into a moderate program and spending orgy of three-way backscratching.

If the Conservatives have backed off their ill-considered/masterful threat to cut public party funding and will agree to shelve it for some arbitrary number of months, I think it’s really important for the opposition to take their seats again.

As someone else mentioned, I don’t agree with the Bloc’s ideas, but the people who support them probably don’t agree with mine. Why should my ideas hold any more power than theirs, considering we’re all part of this country? So if a majority of the elected representatives feel that an NDP/Liberal coalition could do a better job of governing our country, then, subject to the constitution, charter, and various laws, that’s what should happen. Hey, don’t worry, you’ll get a chance to express your vote in 2013 at the latest. Presumably if Canadians didn’t like what went down, they’ll make it known at the polls.

If we don’t want our elections bought, the campaign spending limit should be in the range of a couple million.

How the heck is that the case? And is that the reason not to have one, because one party cannot generate enough monetary support from its supporters or overborrowed in the past? Come on.

If that is the issue the Libs and NDP should say thats the issue but somehow I dont think they’ll come out and say…”we want the GG to give the government to us, for the moment, so we can have the time to raise money and have an election when WE want.” Thats essentially the position.

If you arent ready, prepared or funded to go into an election dont bring down the government…..My god you can register your opposition and still have members not show up for a vote. Make the government wear its decisions.

An extra week will allow people to speak to their MP’s, Parties to check their rediness, canadians to write the GG to express their opinion on what they think her role should be.

Last question, if a party isnt ready to fight an election then how in the world are they ready to govern? Honestly.

Sorry to tax your patience.

Re election: It is a discipline all parties need to face, since it represents an uncertain outcome and the voters can punish, as they did with Petersen in 1989 or around that time, unecessary election almost caused Chretien to lose his grip as well.

Arrogance: Cant answer that one, one persons arrogance is another persons determination…..once again elections tend to be the great equalizer in terms of judgement, so Harper may well pay for arrogance. But at least it is a result we could all accept rather than the opinion of few.

Election financing: Red Herring, but geez the tories lowered the limit to $1,000 per person per year from the Liberals $5,000 per person per year…..I think the cons would be happy to see that go down to $500 or even lower. Cons just happened to figure out how to tap more individuals than others…..so I dont think your point applies. But if thats what this is really about then make that the issue.

Is it possible for Harper/Flaherty to put the measure to stop taxes being used to subsidize political parties for a vote before the other fiscal update bill?

If it’s possible, I would suggest Cons do it. Lets see how sincere the oppo parties are about their claims that their desire to bring down the government has nothing to do with the Cons trying to reduce their funding.

I have a question. How many believe that the Bloc would give unconditional support to a unilingual Liberal for PM? Hmm.. that’s a hard one, not.

OK, if you still want to play the game, let’s try the idea of McCallum. How many believe the NDP can accept McCallum?

Putting together a credible coaltion with a credible platform is going to be more difficult than most over excited party hacks in Ottawa think.

Unless the BLoc FORMALLY assent to this doesnt this overturn our own conventions. King Byng was about the fact that the governor General DIDNT assent to an election request from a PM.

I say again, because the election was so recent the LIBS and NDP policies were chosen by fewer people. They arent the same, btw. If the reason for switching is need for new policies then the normal way of doing these things is an election…if the policies are the same well didnt we get our answer 5 weeks ago.

Formal agreement only that demonstrates a working majority and the policies they would follow….this is the standard set in Ontario. Lib/NDP doesnt pass…..you need the Bloc to sign on. Failing that there is no majority and the HoC has to work it out themselves, including the option that an election be called.

To say Canadians wanted a minority is divination based on result. That is the result people got not necessarily the result people wanted. I seem to remeber hearing Liberals saying they really thought a Liberal Minority was going to happen. Cut the Ms Chloe Pshycic politics and lets get down to what the core.

Canadians have more information now, so have the bloddy election. If we have money for a stimulus package we clearly have money for an election, and I believe elections can be run in 4 weeks. boo Hoo if it is over Christmas and Boo Hoo if it is in winter.

If a government is facing UNPRECENDENTED crisis and is contemplating UNPRECEDENTED action then shouldnt we have a collective debate on the wisdom of all this and charter a government to do these things…….Sorry but all this avoidance of elections, debates and desire to see arcane measures used is troubling. I dont like election after election either, but if the opposition wont let the government govern then usually an election is the way to proceed. Why is Mme Jean wiser than the Canadian people? Once again, King Byng was defintiely NOT about reinforcing the role of the GG, it was about the opposite

One more point, if the NDP and Libs want to run as coalition partners, divy up the country and run candidates to defeat, then fine state it and do so. But once again, shouldnt we get the darn assent of the people? If they win, this whole argument goes away. Kady you were the one so concerned about questioning neutral instriutions and the corrosive effect that would have on the legitimacy of government, a very “tory” point. This ultimately will be and is about legitimacy…..safe position for the GG is to 1) Let the existing government present a budget or 2) Call an election and let the new coaltion go at it. Only a tri party formal agreement gets her over the “thumb on the scale” accusation.

Finally, Kady, sorry you worry about Tory talking points…..ulm……in the desire to avoid freezing your butt off waiting outside the debate hall you are losing some your curiosity . I dont want to say you have swallowed the Liberal talking points but I cant say you are questioning their line. Where are the cynical jaded journalists who dont take any sides talking points for granted? All I see is acceptance that the GG can do this so we dont have this eeevil election. Legitimacy, if “Canadians” dont want this kind of government then let them say so in an election. The harm caused by ledgerdemain will be worse than a 4 week expense, its worth it to resolve it.

Do you even read what I wrote?!? Where on earth did I support the status quo?

And where, exactly, did you concern yourself with the interest of rural Soutwestern Ontarians, who are voting *exactly the same way*?

Yeah, Grumpy, you can quote the literature on western alienation all you like. While you’re at it, perhaps you might read the numerous literature out there that challenges the legitimacy of the concept and the arguments that flow from it.<<

The issue here is there is NO middle ground. Those who support the status quo refuse to even consider addressing the historical concerns of westerners in a meaningful way. The proof is as simple as reading yours and Mike Moffat’s and LKO’s response to what I’ve brought up. It’s dispiriting and disempowering and strengthens my steadfast belief that as far as respecting the views of westerners or even acknowledging them, it just won’t ever happen under our current political system.

I published one myself a few years ago in the Journal of Canadian Studies. It’s called ‘Understanding Alienation in Western Canada: Is ‘Western’ Alienation the Problem? Is Senate Reform the Cure?’ If you can’t access it online, I’d be happy to provide it to you.

Make no mistake, the whole enterprise of ‘western alienation’ is contested, often by ‘westerners’ such as myself.

Alberta has been blindly voting for something like the conservatives since long before the NEP. It’s just an excuse to act like lemmings.

See, and I think to most of us in Central Canada, “Western Alienation” boils down to something a lot simpler:

A frustration that 20 million people are given more power and influence than 10 million people.

I’m just not particularly ashamed of not wanting that to change.

The problem, as I see it, is that Westerners seem to falsely equate “more” power with “disproportionate” power. I’m fully willing to concede that Central Canada exerts about 60% of the power in Canada.

And it’s because we have 61% of the people.

(and boy, did we ever high jack this thread, eh? Perhaps we should get back to talking about a potential Coalition Government).

As far as electing MPs, yes, it is (32 of 40 MPs from the Liberal party). That’s all I’m talking about.. not the culture of the place, etc. Just which parties they’re sending to Ottawa. That’s it.

But Toronto is?

Anyway, it’s a poor arguement against parochialism to just direct the focus on some other arbitrarily defined area.

Right.. but we could say the same thing about Southwestern Ontario.

And given that I’ve never voted Liberal nor NDP in my life, I’m not going to lose any sleep over the fact that a bunch of people in Alberta aren’t either.

>>The ‘West’ does not overwhelmingly vote Tory;<<

Ah, well I guess that explains the reason there are just SOOOOOOOOO many Liberal MP’s from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

You are looking percentages of the vote, I am looking at who is sitting in Ottawa collecting a gold plated pension. Incidentally, I am an Ontario transplant – so clearly, because you are a born and bred westerner, you’re right and I’m wrong.

Here’s the facts for you, Mike Moffatt and LKO – If sufficient enough numbers of westerners didn’t feel some sense of alienation, they would shift their vote to the Liberals or NDP and there would be far more Liberal or NDP MP’s from the prairie. Right now, there ain’t. It’s been that way for most of my adult life and it isn’t going to change any time soon because the political establishment in Canada is such that the issue of western alienation isn’t taken seriously.

That people like you, Mike Moffatt, LKO and many millions of other Canadians don’t even wish to discover why westerners feel as we do is a source of frustration.

This sums it up better than I can ever hope to:

“Western alienation refers to the longstanding regional discontent in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Since the early settlement of the prairies, western Canadians have expressed dissatisfaction with the geographic distribution of power and influence across Canada. Western Canadians feel that their provinces are not given their fair share of federal transfer dollars, and that western interests are poorly represented in the federal government. These feelings have been relatively consistent over time, despite considerable changes in the western Canadian demography, economy, political landscape and global environment.

Western alienation’s roots lie in the quasi-colonial nature of the region’s development. The west was in many ways the creation of the federal government and its policies. It was a debtor region, with debt largely held by central Canadian financial institutions; and western Canadians confronted a national government that was geographically and psychologically distant from their own region and concerns.

Numerous policy decisions inflamed western alienation over the 20th century, as western Canadians viewed national policies as corrosive to western interests and aspirations. For example, from 1879 to the end of World War II, a large source of regional discontent was the National Policy, a tariff policy that was seen to benefit central Canada alone, while increasing costs for goods across Canada. In 1980, the National Energy Program was seen to have damaged the Alberta and Saskatchewan economies for the benefit of central Canada. However, specific policy grievances are matched by an equally large grievance that western Canada is not treated equitably: many western Canadians feel that western interests are seen as “regional” rather than “national,” and that people outside the west are not concerned with the interests of western Canada.

Over the decades, western Canadian efforts to improve the representation of western interests in the federal government have included protest parties, populism, as well as calls for decentralization and for electoral and Senate reform. To date, none of these efforts has been successful at creating systematic change in the distribution of power in Canada, and western alienation remains high after more than a century.

Overall, western alienation is deeply rooted in the west and is an integral part of the west’s political culture. While residents in all four western provinces express regional discontent, Saskatchewan and British Columbia residents are found to be the most aggrieved, while Manitoba residents are the least dissatisfied. Albertans, despite their longstanding outspokenness on regional issues, tend to fall between their highly discontented (Saskatchewan and British Columbia) and less discontented (Manitoba) neighbours.

It’s about a policy which died 20 years ago that was put in place by a guy who died a decade ago. Unfortunately, that generation wears their “never forget” badge openly and proudly, and still votes. What’s worse is, most of them don’t even understand that the policy didn’t change what was already happening one iota.

I keep waiting for them to die off. Fortunately, the Eye of Layton up in Edmonton suggests it may finally be happening.

No I’m not.. clearly Northern Ontario is voting a whole lot different than Central Ontario. The one thing they have in common is that they’re not electing Liberals.

“It’s really a distraction from the only points worth talking about”

I don’t think it’s worth talking about, quite frankly. The only people who are arguing that the opposition *not* be allowed to do this are hyperpartisan Tories.

Grumpy Voter, the reason it appears to you that there is so much more support for the Liberals/NDP in ‘Central Canada’ (at least when you look at the number of seats won) is PRECISELY because a significant proportion of the country’s population resides there. Thus, in a rep by pop allocation of seats, there are many more seats in urban Central Canada than anywhere else in the country.

Well, you’re arguing that “Non-Toronto” Ontario is monolithic, which isn’t true either.

It’s really a distraction from the only points worth talking about: the legality and the morality of forming a coalition government. On the first issue, there’s no argument. It’s perfectly legal. On the second, it’s disputable depending on your own values, but Harper thought it was perfectly legitimate back in 2004, when he (along with the other leaders of the Opposition), wrote this in a letter to the GG:

“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.”

As a born-and-bred ‘westerner’ I take umbrage with your refusal to accept some basic facts throughout this thread.

The ‘West’ does not overwhelmingly vote Tory; much like, as Mike Moffat keeps trying to point out, ‘Central Canada’ does not overwhelmingly vote Liberal.

In CITIES, e.g., Vancouver, Victoria, Winnipeg, parts of Edmonton, Saskatoon and Regina, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax, the vote for the NDP and Liberals combined typically outstrips that of the Tories (if not in seats won, at least per cent supported). This has long been an empirically verifiable reality in Canadian politics.

In small towns, suburbs and rural areas ACROSS CANADA, the Tories tend to have much more support than the Liberals and NDP. Mike Moffat has provided evidence indicating this reality in most of Ontario (excluding large urban centres like Toronto) and anyone with a mind to troll the statistics can quickly point to similar scenarios throughout the rest of the country.

Without getting too personal about all of this, I consistently find myself vexed and annoyed by ‘westerners’ such as yourself who presume to speak for many ‘westerners’ such as myself (e.g., from urban centres) who never have and never will support conservative parties (whatever their name). The whole project of equating ‘western alienation’ with conservative party (be it Progressive Conservative, Reform, Canadian Alliance or Conservative) supporters’ dissatisfaction with electoral results has already been exposed for the farcical argument it is.

Many of us in the west – and many more of us in major urban centres – vote for parties other than the Conservatives, typically the NDP or the Liberals. You know, much like our urban bretheren throughout the rest of the country.

The phantom, mythic ‘West’ you cling to is no more homogenous in its political orientation than the straw man ‘Central Canada’ those of your ilk like to use as your evidentiary counterweight.

The sooner that kind of argument is given short shrift by those confronted with it, the better off this country of ours will be.

Whoa.. that’s not at all what I was arguing. Rather, I was trying to say that Ontario isn’t a monolithic place and shouldn’t be treated as such.

I wrote:

NOBODY is electing Liberals outside of Toronto

If NOBODY outside of Toronto is voting Liberal, how did those 38 MPs get elected?

Go grab your atlas if you like, but I think you can see that if one doesn’t conveniently leave out the first line of the comment (the quote I was responding too) and the last line of the comment (where it’s explicit that I’m responding to a comment about Toronto) it’s quite clear that my comment had nothing whatsoever to do with seats in the West.