The Tories made them do it

by Andrew Coyne on Sunday, November 30, 2008 5:45pm - 226 Comments

The Tories made them do it

Well that didn’t take long. Barely three days after the Finance minister rose to deliver his annual fall update, it is all in the dumpster: the fiscal plan, the curbs to subsidies to political parties, the suspension of public employees’ right to strike, maybe even the government itself.

And the settled wisdom of every single pundit in the country is that it is all the Conservatives’ fault. After all, they provoked the opposition beyond endurance. They made demands of the opposition that they could not possibly accept. How could Harper have been so reckless? What a toxic gambit! What a colossal miscalculation!

Absolutely no one pins even a sliver of blame on the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc. Of course not. Faced with the unreasonable and extreme proposal that they raise funds in the same way as the Conservatives have been doing for years — by asking people for their money, rather than taking it from them — they really had no alternative but to seize power. What on earth were they supposed to do? Revamp their moribund fund-raising organizations? Find a message and a leader capable of motivating large numbers of Canadians to click the “donate” button on their websites? Get off their collective duffs? What were the Tories thinking?

No. No, the sensible, restrained, pragmatic thing to do when threatened with the loss of subsidy is to take down the government. The sober, reasonable, moderate thing to do in this time of economic uncertainty is to provoke a constitutional crisis — to cobble together a coalition without a prime minister or a program, propped up by a separatist party, and demand the governor general call upon it to form a new government, replacing the old one we just elected. It’s been six weeks, after all.

Thank God that Canada has such statesmen in this time of peril, willing to put partisanship aside in pursuit of high office. What a contrast to those hyper-partisan, power-mad Conservatives, with their insane demands that the parties make do on the millions in tax credits and reimbursements they receive outside the subsidy.

But what am I saying? Notwithstanding the hundreds of column-inches attacking the Tories for their intolerable affront to opposition sensibilities, it is important to remember that the opposition’s sudden lurch for power had nothing to do with the impending loss of public funds. No, the reason they are absolutely forced to defeat the government this time, having declined to do so over Afghanistan, or global warming, or budgets 2006, 2007 ot 2008, is on account of the fall update. Nothing bespeaks the fierce urgency of now so much as an annual statistical review.

Again, the commentariat is as of one maddened mind. How could the government be so blind? Can it not see that unemployment has soared to 6.2%? Why, that’s four-tenths of a percentage point above its recent, thirty-year low. And what about Canadians’ fears of losing their home, what with the proportion of mortgages more than 90 days in arrears standing at an all-time record 0.2%? Okay, it’s an all-time record low, but still. When will it realize there’s a Depression on? Or coming? Or quite possible, certainly, in other countries.

While this laissez-faire, do-nothing government contents itself with spending more than any government in the history of Canada — 25% more, after inflation and population growth, than at the start of the decade — and pumping tens of billions of dollars into the banking system, what Canadians demand is “stimulus.” And stimulus, we all know, in a sophisticated, 21st century economy, can be delivered in only one way: by hiring large numbers of unionized men to dig holes in the ground (see “infrastructure.”) Loosening monetary policy doesn’t count. Tax cuts don’t count. It only counts as “stimulus” if the government spends it.

Or rather, it only counts as stimulus if a Liberal government spends it. The Tories have already promised to deliver billions more in “stimulus” in the next budget. But that’s, like, 58 days from now. We can’t possibly wait until then. We cannot wait to see how the economic situation evolves, or what effect the extraordinary series of measures countries around the world have taken to date will have. We cannot wait to see what the Americans will do. By then the polls might have shifted. By then the crisis might have passed. The government must fall now — so that it can fall again in a month’s time.

Because, as absolutely everyone agrees, the Conservatives made them do it. Not that that had anything to do with it.

CODA: To be clear, the opposition is entirely within its rights to defeat the government, and to request the Governor General to call upon them to form a government. And it is entirely within her prerogative to accept their request, rather than to defer to the Prime Minister’s apparent preference for dissolution.

On the other hand, it is also within her prerogative to refuse their request. They have to show, at a minimum, that they can command the confidence of the House, that is to say that the coalition is stable and secure — which at this point is anything but certain. For goodness sake, the Liberals can’t even agree who should lead them, let alone whether and on what terms they can get along with the other parties.

Bookmark and Share
  • Michelle Pilon

    Andrew – thank you for the perspective. I, like many, “blame” Stephen Harper for miscalculating the furor his cutbacks would cause with the “Opposition-s”. But then, my reaction to the cuts of subsidies was obviously terribly naive – I thought to myself “Good, every penny counts”. This so-called coalition is a much bigger “miscalculation”. Surely we all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch – there will be a hefty price to pay for this mess. … Keep up the good work.

  • Eric Finley

    Good grief.

    In 1917 the Conservative party felt that in order to fight WWI honorably, we needed conscription. They didn’t have the votes to form government, so they formed a coalition with a splinter of the Liberals.

    Nobody voted for that coalition, either. Because you cannot, just like you can’t add “one plus blue.” Not because it wasn’t on the ballot; because it’s gibberish. A coalition is what happens when members of Parliament, having been entrusted with making stuff happen, come up with a way to make stuff happen for Canada. Period. A normal minority government is effectively a series of ad hoc coalitions, one for each confidence vote, which is why they’re bloody unstable. Coalitions aren’t!

    Canada gave Harper a mandate to play nice. That’s what a minority government is, in ordinary words. If he didn’t play nice enough to make at least one of the other kids happy, he couldn’t control the sandbox. Harper decided that beating the other kids with a shovel was the way to go about that.

    Thankfully, Mme. Jean has better Constitutional advisers than this Mr. Coyne or his chorus.

    PS: Countries currently being run by coalitions at this very moment include: Germany, Switzerland, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Israel, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. In none of those cases was the coalition “taken to the electorate” because, once again, that’s gibberish.

  • Janis Zemitis

    Thanks for shedding light on what’s really been going on. My family, and a lot of other Canadians we have spoken with in the last week, are truly disgusted with what the Liberal/Bloc/NDP coalition is trying to do. Your commentary has explained a lot of the nuances that non-partisan Canadians have not been aware of. Janis

  • Francien Verhoeven

    Eric Finley,

    “PS: Countries currently being run by coalitions at this very moment include: Germany, Switzerland, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Israel, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. In none of those cases was the coalition “taken to the electorate” because, once again, that’s gibberish.”

    Most of those countries, if not all, have some form of PR style held elections. That is the difference, Eric.

    You should never mix up numbers appearing out of two unrelated systems (PR and first-past-the-post )

    That is the falacy the newly formed coaltion wants you to accept.

  • http://hellobirdy.blogspot.com/ John V

    Good one Andrew.

    Ottawa is a place of madmen and delusional women. Never have I seen so many big fish flitting about this small pond. It’s truly a disgusting display. How detached these politicians are.

    It is now one huge mess and there will be no peace in this parliament. It is now tainted beyond redemption.

    Let us have another election to let the people decide whether they will allow this abomination or give Harper a majority so he can govern sensibly.

    I will live with the outcome.

    If the GG allows this outrage to happen, I will consider no longer paying federal tax and will encourage all small business to withhold their tax installments as well.

    No taxation without ‘elected’ representation.

  • Francien Verhoeven

    “Canada gave Harper a mandate to play nice.”

    I think Harper is playing it very nicely. Never have I seen the flushing-out of intentions as we are witnessing in progress right now.

  • Francien Verhoeven

    Good one, John V:

    on your site, that balloon popping overtop Michaelle’s head absolutely sums it up: it made my day!

    :)

  • lynjay

    I have been reading that ‘the PMO intercepted and illegally taped” that oh-so-interesting conference call between Smiling Jack and his caucus. Come to find out that some inept Dipper wonk sent the confidential link to the wrong MP…. our very own Vancouver Island rep, JOHN DUNCAN instead of the only NDP’er in Alberta, LINDA DUNCAN of Edmonton. Ha.. and these are the guys that want to run the country!

    And speaking of efficiency, anyone else enjoy sitting there waiting for 25 minutes for Dion to finally get his “live tape’ to the networks while the hosts stood there fuming? The Liberators had requested time at 7pm following the PM’s speech and had all afternoon to prepare. When the tardy tape finally appeared, it was unbelievably amateur and slightly out of focus. It just gets better and better.

    Watching QP this afternoon, couldn’t help but think Dion resembled an agitated gerbil in full rant.

  • Cameron

    I read Desmothenes and Boudica and Ti-Guy and Lord Kitchener’s Own and I just scratch my head as to why seemingly intelligent people can be so out of it.

    Why is it not OK to force parties to raise their own money? Why? If the party has popular appeal, it should be able to raise money – one voter at a time just like the CPC does it. Why do they need to receive cash-stuffed envelopes in Quebec diners (Liberals). or $5100 donations from 4-yr olds (Liberals-Volpe). Why do they need Shawinigate or AdScam or Mr. Dithers and his Canada Steamship empire. Why can’t they just EARN something rather than whetting their beaks in the public till.

    The Liberal party is an absolute joke. A bunch of arrogant rich folk from Toronto and Montreal taking a piss on the rest of us. Every last one of them would knife each other in the eye for a taste of leadership. They stand for nothing. They are fence-sitters who can’t implement anything original – just steal ideas from others and take credit (GST anyone).

    The NDP at least stands for something – it’s just that that something is not something that works in the real world. The equitable distribution of wealth is a noble pursuit and ultimately a useless one. It has never ever worked nor will it in a free country. Layton is much more of an Orwellian that people give him credit for.

    The Bloc is a ridiculous notion. They should be cut from the vote subsidy immediately – they do not represent the interests of Canadians. Only in Canada, haven of political correctness would we put up with this crap. Call their bluff already.

    The idea that the sum of these three parts is a workable solution is nonsense. Absolute nonsense. This coalition will never work. The country will disintegrate over a stupid $30M subsidy. What a waste. I don’t know why the Western provinces even bother to show up, they are so abused at the expense of S.Ont and Quebec it’s sickening – lack of proper representation in the house, the senate, and on and on.

  • SG

    That Dion tape was hilarious. They couldn’t have done a better job showing once again why he isn’t capable of leading this country. I guess thats why he was RESOUNDINGLY REJECTED in an election 7 weeks ago. Only in Canada could this be happening.

  • DonnieBoy

    I can’t believe all the socialist ideologies being posted here. Didn’t realize that MacLeans had such a socialist following. Must be some clique in Toronto that needs to support their Liberal henchmen at all costs, especially if it means giving the keys of Canada to the Separatists. Glad I moved to Mexico and only have to read this garbage to appreciate why I left. Go at it boys, it’s your problem now. And like the Liberals and the NDP, you’ll get to live with your wishes (actually death wishes) soon.

  • cantrecant

    How foolish of Harper. Doesn’t he realize there is no other way on earth for an entitled liberal to live in the style to which he has become accustomed than to continue to receive other people’s money? What me, work for a living? What, expect liberals to support liberals with their own money? You must be out of your mind. Self reliance is for schmucks.

    Rarely has such sincere and emotional conviction been seen in Parliament. Rarely has such sincere and emotional conviction been seen even among dogs defending their bones. Would that they would exercise the same energy on real issues. Scoundrels!

  • Gaye Richards

    Brilliant and delicious satire Andrew, thank you. An excellent summary of the facts too. I see from the above comments unfortunately, there are always many non thinking, non ethical new socialist robbers in the making to replace the Dion/Layton/Duceppe generation. Interesting how people with true awareness and empathy for those in society with real difficulties and who have practical commonsense caring solutions that promote dignity, self reliance and personal responsibilty are such a different group than the “socialist” crowd.

  • cMan

    Europe spent $300 billion, China $500 billion, and the US $2 trillion on fiscal stimulus for their economies with no effect. What makes the Liberals think a $30 billion stimulus for Quebec, I mean Canada, would have any effect?

  • Kevin Elliott

    Right from the start of this new parliament, Harper knew that Dion and Layton where plotting a coalition with support from Duceppe. He had intelligence that the coalition was going to topple the Government at the first opportunity and offer up the coalition government to replace the Conservative Government as they knew that another election was not an option for numerous political reasons not withstanding their own financial situation.

    In a way that would make Machiavelli proud, Harper decided to make a stand for power in the house immediately instead of waiting for the coalition to surprise Canada. Harper offered up a poison chalice of policies that would be simply unpalatable to the opposition. The media sees this as a tactical mistake by Harper but it’s far from that. The clues and evidence are everywhere to support this back room story. The public financing of political parties was used as an instrument to draw a line in the sand right from the start of this parliament to determine power for months ahead. So he did this to draw the coalition into the public domain and make a stand on the hill so to speak.

    In Harper’s Machiavellian mind he needed to get command of the house by breaking the coalition and forcing the opposition to work with his Government or he was going to have another dysfunctional house. The opposition parties have an important role to play but all they want to do is play politics with Harper because of a lack of respect for him as a leader of Canada. This is because the personality clash between Harper and Layton/Dion is so stunningly massive that they simply can’t work together. The best thing that could have happened was for Dion to have resigned day 1 and a new liberal leader installed to work with Harper. Dion is the antagonist in this story because he has yet to accept his defeat in the last election. This is a major character flaw of Dion and why he can’t be Prime Minister. Layton is not intelligent enough to even know what’s going on as he spends all his time looking in the mirror and talking to himself. He’s never met a microphone that he hasn’t liked. Layton needs to use his time offering up concrete proposals and he will earn the respect of the house. Dion needs to retire and let a Liberal leader take over that can help lead Canada. Canada’s biggest problem is a lack of a good Liberal leader, it’s not a lack of a good Conservative leader as Harper meets the credentials. Once the Liberals get a good leader again things will improve in a major way.

  • David

    As an US citizen I don’t completely understand the parlimentary system, or Canadian politics. So instead of focusing on the big issues – I’m stuck on a little one:

    The Conservatives proposed eliminating the party subsidy. (As a US citizen: That’s sounds right to me.) This apparently caused the opposition to go nuclear. But, what’s the big deal? If the Conservatives are a minority government couldn’t the opposition simply have voted down that proposal?

    Please explain! Thank you! — David

  • David

    (BTW, I’m not the same “David” that posted earlier)

  • Eric Finley

    Francien – The fact of PR does not change the fact that in a Parliamentary system coalitions are a legitimate and well-understood means of government. Hardly unprecedented. I also notice that in raising that strawman you ignore the reference to the Unity Government (coalition) of 1917 here in Canada, not to mention the much-misunderstood King-Byng affair.

    The fact that FPTP frequently delivers false majorities, and does so so frequently that we assume that a minority government is an unusual affair, merely obscures the truth that most of the time, not a majority of the country votes for any one party, and so they must cooperate.

    David – There are three sides to why this has triggered outrage. The first one has to do with the fact that the subsidy is a generally well regarded tool for reducing the influence of outside money from politics. It’s much like our equivalent of McCain-Feingold, only not so useless. ;) Imagine your GOP coming to the table in early 2007 (with a Democratic Congress & Bush) with a proposal to eliminate McCain-Feingold.

    The second one has to do with the current situation of the parties. The other biggest party, our Liberals, have recently come out of some fairly turbulent times. Not necessarily turbulent times they didn’t earn, but nonetheless a recent historical fact. In addition, the funding and votes of the other parties are diluted by FPTP; the left is split, the right currently is not. In the past it’s been the other way around at times. So they’re sitting there with full cupboards and proposing “Let’s all emargo the grocery store!” The other parties, not having full cupboards at the moment, said “Um – no!” Thus, whether or not you believe that the subsidy is inappropriate (and perhaps that we should indeed be embargoing the grocery store in favour of the farmer’s market), the timing of the move made it extremely partisan and offensive in any event.

    And the third one is that if they simply voted down the proposal, without first making it apparent that they were willing to step up as a coalition, then by our conventions we’d be going straight back into an election. Defeating a bill like that means that the government no longer has the confidence of the house and must resign. Alternately, they could have voted down the proposal and then tried to pitch a coalition then and there, after the fact as it were, which while technically proper would simply be stupid. (Analogy, perhaps, to knowing that you ought to pass an unpopular measure in your House, but don’t have the votes for it, and putting it to the floor anyway so that your own people can lose face with no other effect.) So they did it the reasonable and proper way… instead of bursting out with “Go to hell!” they said, “What!!? Hang on a sec – okay, we propose to add ‘Go to hell!’ to the agenda.”

    If Harper had truly wanted to work within the constraints of being a minority government, then to eliminate the vote subsidy he’d have talked to the other parties and found one who liked his approach well enough to support it. For example, it might have been proposed as a gradual phasing-out with some kind of replacement mechanism to take its place. But he simply proposed cold turkey. It’s like the libertarian line: “No more apporpriations by force, starting… now!” Thus it was obvious to all that he was not trying to run a minority government.

    This wasn’t surprising, as he hasn’t really run his previous minority government like one either. He’s tried to run it like a majority, unilaterally putting things forward and daring anyone to defeat him on them. It’s literally been like a manager whose firm can’t really afford his golden parachute walking into each meeting with a resignation letter in hand, and saying “This is how it’s gonna be.”

    This coalition is simply the other managers saying, “Okay, dude, enough. We accept. G’bye. We’ll take over. Larry, you handle his accounts; Bob, you take over the Ops stuff he was running; Jake, you help with the rest of the workload. Security, please show this gentleman the door.”

    So – the vote subsidy isn’t the issue. The approach is. The vote subsidy was simply the vehicle Harper chose to use, to say “f*ck you all” to the other parties.

    And that’s not even getting into the fact that it was supposedly part of a “stimulus” package which was both miniscule, unfunded (billions in unspecified cuts, etc), and was in fact in belt-tightening package (Hoovernomics) in the current economic climate, not a stimulus at all. Every macroeconomist who’s looked at it has simply winced and tried to look away.

  • Mark Goddard

    In the last election the Conservatives came out with more seats than the NDP or Liberals and Bloc. It is only when you combine the three that they have more seats. However, we are mixing apples with oranges here and calling them either apples or oranges when that is just not true. If any one of the opposition parties had won a majority, would they have still formed a coalition to co-operate and get things done? Never. They are only ganging up now and throwing away their party principals and philosophies that seperate them because they know they can grab power and fortune and fame. No matter what way you look at it, in the last election, the majority of citizens voted AGAINST having Stephan Dion as the prime minister and AGAINST have Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe as prime minister. For Dion to assume the position of prime minister goes against the will of the people. I would bet there are citizens who voted for the Liberals and NDP who are against this coalition too. They are not so quick to throw away their principals and beliefs. The only way to resolve this coup is to have another election. The “coalition” wants to assume power immediately and by-pass another election. Obviously they are afraid to have another election or they would be saying “bring it on” . I say lets have another election and let the people decide. If we do not, Canadians will never know the true will of the people. We will have been cheated. The coalition will be throwing our money around like there is no tomorrow. The carbon tax is just a start.

  • T. Thwim

    David: What Eric said is all correct, but one detail he left out. In our system, any budgetary motions are considered a motion of confidence. In other words, they’re considered so basic to the governance that if they do not pass, it’s seen as the government as a whole doesn’t believe the governing party can do a decent job of it any more, which means the current government falls.

    This is typically followed with an election, but because the other parties have gotten together and said, “We don’t believe the current government can do a good job, but we’ve got this guy (Dion) who we think can”, the Governor General may decide to avoid calling an election and giving a shot to the other guy to run things. This is much more likely to happen if we’ve just had a recent election, as we did.

  • T. Thwim

    Mark: A majority of the citizens also voted against Stpehen Harper as the Prime Minister.
    The only thing you can really say Canadians voted for is that NONE of the parties should govern Canada on their own.

    Stephen Harper attempted to ignore that directive from Canadians, and may eventually pay a price for it, losing government to a couple of parties that have understood that directive.

  • David

    Eric, T., Thanks for the explanations!

    Eric: I wish the GOP HAD proposed to repeal McCain-Feingold in 2007. Bush himself said he thought it was unconstitutional but he very unwisely shirked his responsibilitly to veto it when it was passed, thinking the Supreme Court would do it for him. If McCain-Feingold had been repealed it would have been a victory for freedom of speech. Oh well.

    T.: It is very interesting that a budget motion is a motion of confidence. The mind boggles trying to imagine how that would work down here, where it is routine for the “loyal opposition” to declare the President’s budget bill “dead on arrival”, sometimes before the White House even releases it!

  • Abu Nudnik

    If the 62% solution is rational, why doesn’t the GG go to the losing parties and ask them to form a government every time no majority is reached?

  • Ron Edwards

    Wonderful essay. Brought a smile to my lips in this all too serious time.
    Great work, Andrew Coyne

  • Eric Finley

    Abu – Because our tradition (unlike a lot of countries, where what you describe is the norm… where it’s not a question of /if/ a coalition is asked to form, it’s simply a question of /which/) falls more in the direction of the other way a government can be formed. A minority Parliament is what we usually get in those cases… a situation where the opposition parties are willing to work with the government piecemeal, case-by-case, such that the government compromises enough to get stuff done.

    In general, in Canada, the only way we would expect to see a coalition is in a circumstance like this: the party with the most seats clearly no longer has the confidence of the house, so the Governor General asks them to no longer form government, but it’s so soon after an election (and the possibility of an alternate government is clear) that the coalition is more clearly indicative of the will of the people than a reelection.

From Macleans