Notes on a crisis: The End

by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, December 4, 2008 8:44pm - 290 Comments

It’s over: the day, the decision, the crisis, the coalition, and Stephane Dion’s leadership. After the abortive putsch — constitutional as it may have been — the field is strewn with bodies, and the bloodletting has just begun.

After a day of skulking in the corridors of Parliament, I can tell you that the Grits no longer have the stomach for this fight. You could see it in the their body language, hear it in their voices. Their comments to reporters were all variations on a plea to the government to “help us in off this limb we have put ourselves out on.” I’m paraphrasing, of course: they were actually itemizing the things the government had to do to keep them from defeating it in when Parliament returns in January. But a day or two ago, there was nothing it could do. The die was cast. The train had left the station. There was no turning back.

Apparently, they didn’t quite think this thing through — to say the least. In particular, they did not take into account the possibility of prorogation. That’s to their credit, perhaps: it’s a bloody awful business, certainly undemocratic and arguably unconstitutional (though the Governor General’s decision has presumably settled that), and perhaps it didn’t occur to them that Harper could be so unscrupulous. That they failed to foresee that is as huge a tactical error as Harper’s failure to foresee the emergence of the coalition itself.

With Parliament prorogued, the coalition is dead. The only way they were going to make this thing stick, even temporarily, was by way of a speedy assumption of power, the glue that mends all breaks. But having lunged and missed, they will be very much on their back feet. I repeat: The coalition is over. I’ll be surprised if it lasts the week.

But don’t take my word for it. Two polls out today show that the coalition has backfired on its two main participants — hugely. Ekos has the Tories ahead by twenty points, 44-24, while Ipsos Reid puts the margin at an astounding 46-23. This is after the Tories had supposedly disgraced themselves by the “provocation” of cutting the political parties off the public teat, and by failing to provide adequate “stimulus.”

Ipsos numbers show, further, that 60% of the public opposes the coalition, 62% are “angry” with it for trying to take power, while 68% support the Governor General’s decision. The Grits can read the numbers as well as I can. There is no way they will return to this well.

Indeed, the caucus, after a three hour meeting this afternoon, seems to have other priorities in mind — namely forcing Dion from the leadership ASAP, rather than wait until the May convention. That’s easier said than done, and is tangled up in the race to succeed him. For it only makes sense, if he is to be replaced quickly, to replace him with a permanent leader, and if the decision were made today it would almost certainly be Michael Ignatieff, and as Bob Rae can’t abide that, he will be doing everything in his power to see to it that Dion stays in place.

But assume that Ignatieff — notably skeptical about the coalition — does take over. Is it to be imagined that he would wish to submit himself, should he become Prime Minister, to the dictates of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe? Not that there’s much danger of that. The coming collapse of the coalition will mean the Governor General would have no choice, should the opposition defeat the government over its budget in January, but to call fresh elections. And these disastrous polling numbers, if they stand up, make it highy unlikely that the opposition will do any such thing.

So the Tories have won this round, but by the ugliest of means. Was the Governor General right to be their enablers? I’m not sure she had any choice. There’s only one real test of confidence in our system, and that’s a vote of the Commons. The last such confidence vote, on the Throne Speech, was less than a week ago. So while it was common sense to assume that Harper was proroguing just to avoid losing the next one, it would take a nervy GG to disregard the advice of her First Minister without absolute cut-and-dried proof that had he had lost the House’s confidence.

Still, while there appear to be few if any formal conditions attached to the prorogation, she may well have attached some informal conditions — after all, what else did they talk about in the course of their two-and-a-half hour tete a tete? The sovereign has the right, as per Bagehot, “to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn.” She may well have warned him what would happen if he didn’t bring in a budget — and face a confidence test — at the first opportunity.

Harper should never have put the GG in this position. It would have been better from a number of perspectives for Harper to have faced the music in the Commons. But it’s at least better than demanding the GG call an election, as Harper might have tired. And, while the end does not justify the means, it would take a hard heart indeed not to cheer the death of the coalition.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

    Stewicde reminds me of one of those Red Tories who still think the Progressive Conservatives are coming back. Either that or he’s Sinclair Stevens’ grandson.

  • Mark

    Ding Dion the hitch is dead! Hooray!

    The hitch that locked all opposition parties in tandem to sole unprincipled destination of defeating the leftist Tories has come out of it’s bearings. Of course, the pin holding it all in place was the huge ambition of political power marketed in the political shell game of majority opinion.

    That’s right, I said leftist Tories. For those individuals like me who are unapologetically and politically right wing, Harper as a leader represents liberal-lite. We don’t like what he has compromised. When the opposition ciriticizes him as the most right-wing politician this country has ever known- I laugh.

    Although it needs to be admitted that if bipartisan or even non-partisan politics is the goal, then Stephen Harper is the only leader in parliament who seems to be accomplishing this. No commentator I’ve read in the last week on this political crises has remembered that within the last 10 years, Harper came from the Reform party under Manning’s leadership, then the half merger with PC’s constituting the Alliance party, and finally the third merger swallowing up the last remnants of the PC’s now known as the Conservative Party. For old ‘die-hard’ political right-winger’s left behind in the smoke, Harper, and those travelling with him (ie, Stockwell Day), have become so entrenched in a centrist party they have given up too much on the ideological hand, yet, on the other are keeping a growing amount of Canadians satisfied with pragmatic politics. Canadians should realize that comparatively speaking, the Conservative party merger is here to stay and has lasted centuries longer than this pseudo-coalition because of Stephen Harper’s leadership. Realizing again that if another election were called this past week, Harper just might have bordered on winning a majority. And this party itself pulls together by representing the most ethnic and gender diversity the Commons has ever seen.

    Anyone on the pro-coalition side who does not like the GG’s call to prorogue, should remember she did exactly as Dion asked in his feeble address to his cronies on Dec 3. Leading the coalition he asked the GG to “reject any of Harper’s plea to suspend parliament, until he demonstrates he has the the confidence of the house.” Although it was plain that the coalition was formed days before because they lost confidence of the house and were already committed to bringing down the government no matter what. Begs the question when Harper was going to be given the chance to demonstrate this confidence between the address the evening of Dec 3 and the meeting with the GG the next morning? Perhaps GG thought the prorogue would allow the recently elected Conservatives the chance to substantiate the voter’s minority choice so the budget can be delivered and voted on as a matter of confidence then.

    Now we hear rumours the coalition is not only dead, but that many in each of the parties didn’t support it in the first place. Inner-Liberal leadership turmoil, factions and divisions, back-biting, slander are rampant. The coalition can’t deliver a tape to the nation on time, they don’t even know what they’re asking the GG for, and this is the coalition that is to work collaboratively, collectively with consensus putting partisan politics aside. Again, the BQ’s part in all this is to only support the Liberal-NDP coalition on matters of confidence, yet forming the coalition is a democratic given since they have the majority of votes now? Sorry Stephan Trion, but when will you make up your mind between these lies? You nearly led Canada down the path of democricide.

    The world economy has been over-correcting itself faster than Michael Phelps. It is hypocritical on the part of Harper’s opponents to accuse during the election campaign that he will base all his decisions on what America and follow their line. Now only two weeks of post-election parliament, these opposition parties accuse him of not giving up billions to stimulate the economy, they way they witnessed in D.C.

    Scotty wrote a new statesman is needed to navigate these new waters. I couldn’t agree less. This failed attempt at a coalition has made many more Canadians aware again that there are indeed checks and balances in our Canadian political system and the need to abandon the MMPR system. MMPR will not be the answer we briefly thought it would. Nor is reducing the Canadian political climate as mere regionalism. Perhaps those voters who wrongly conclude “if only Canadian’s could agree on more issues than they disagree, we could be a long-prosperous and peaceful nation” and delivered that message to our political leaders need to answer for this mess. We continue to see that canadians’ will never agree on ideological and party lines. Why to we continue to aim to bridge them? In times of peace we are left to amuse and to be merry. When each colour blends into the same brown we dumb down until we have nothing left to think about and we fall sleep. The system is can only be solved with continued long and hard, nail and tooth battles, on the issues (not name-calling, or ad-hominen arguments) that are of supreme importance. It is only with the intensified and heated crises like the one we witnessed this past week, that wakes us up and educates us to what we really believe. In times like these we don’t need mixed parties, mixed ideas, nor compromised issues. We need One voice.

  • MDK

    The end of round one brings the inevitable search for who was to blame for this mess in the first place. You may as well try and nail jelly to the wall. However, blaming only Mr. Harper is akin to blaming Hitler for the fire bombing of Dresden.

  • Michael Green

    Who fault is it? First, Harper. Arrogant, bully, power by fear. Second, Dion. Weak. But most of all, it’s us. The first question the press or pollsters should ask of the people they interview is “did you vote in the last election”. If they did not vote…they have no right to an opinion now. Our complacent ignorance of current events and Parliamentary Democracy will be our undoing.

  • Francien Verhoeven

    >>>>>”The notion that Harper’s attempt to do the latter [doing away with party subsidies]was some eggregious error, is frankly a fiction perpetrated by the leftwing media in this country – as we are now seeing in every single poll.”<<<<<<<<

    The Liberal party has been in trouble. Not for weeks, not for months but for years. They know it, we know it and the media knows this.

    I think Harper had been testing the waters couragously when he introduced the party subsidy cuts: it is now abundantly clear that some media outlets would rather let the Liberal party linger longer within their illness (a great detriment to the well being of this country) by letting them hide from reality.

    Some media outlets have taken on the position that party fundraising, and good grass roots volunteer donations is a baaaaad thing.

    Within adscam, the Liberal party had tried to take the top-down approach once more: you can’t win Quebec from the bottom up, therefore their votes had to be bought top-down: old politics, Liberal style.

    Meanwhile, change was occurring within other parties, namely the Conservative party, and good grass-roots bottom-up support was happening.

    It is not Harper’s problem that the Liberal party is a very weak party at the moment. The Liberal party needs to heal itself. The Liberal party is practically bankrupt. That is not Harper’s problem. For some of the media to stand behind the weakened Liberal party by coming down hard on Harper’s subsidy cuts proposals, shows how difficult it is to demand some real change within this country. It is Harper who wants change, not the Liberal party.

    And it is Harper who points to this Liberal weakness time and time again. And still the Liberals will not get the hint. And still, some in the media will not get the hint. They Liberals have been so protected by some media outlets within this country, that they actually believe they can be saved by being held in perpetual denial of internal problems.

  • Mark

    The opposition parties conveyed the notion of Harper having some hidden agenda, which is yet to rear it’s head from Harper’s side of parliament. From the opposition side, and their talks of forming a coalition even before the last election all the while denying it, now proves theirs is the only hidden agenda in parliament.

    Also, this idea that Harper’s leadership style is a bullying one has originated from the opposition parties as well.

    Might as well believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy because our parents told us this to keep us dreaming against the harsher realties of the world.

    The real harsh reality is that Harper and the Tories are not right-wing, nor socially conservative and near centre-left to centre-moderate at best.

  • Kevin

    Back again (again)

    re “stimulus talk is BS” – my point is that the government can do little short term to solve the major problems
    1. Automotive – I spent 4 years in the industry as an executive. The decisions in the US will determine what happens in Canada for the Big 3 (not so big anymore)…what products they will build and where. It is foolish to support anyting in Canada because this is unanswered. Time for a correction in this market and Chapter 11 is the best way to do it…the end result will be an eventual healty industry rather than keeping companies on life support. In three years the net drop in employment will be about another 10%-15% from where it is now…but in between it is going to be a lot higher.
    2. Resource based industries – we do not controle the world price on anything…oil is dropping like a stone…stimulate what? create jobs how?

    So my point is that in the key areas that will have the biggest downturn there is nothing short term that can be done. Forestry? Do what? Mining? We can pump money into infrastructure projects but the gains over and above those currently employed will be mimimal in the big picture.

    But what we can do is to support the industries where we are winners and build on this strength….but you are still looking at 2-3 years out.

    I am an investor and I am betting on RIM, Bombardier, Potash, Manulife, CN & CP, Toyota, GE, etc…go with the winners and forget companies that are on death’s door.

    All our leaders need to be replaced so that we can have all parties in a frame of mind where they can sit down and work together. Trust and mutual respect is dead and nothing of consequence can happen untill there is confidence in Parliment.

    Our banks are in great shape…I am not a Conservative but I agree with the “wait and see” approach and save the money if we need it rather than piss it away just to make people think something is being done.

  • Francien Verhoeven

    Mark,

    very nice write up. With the unique word of “democricide” you hit the nail on the head.

  • Francien Verhoeven

    Kevin,

    >>>Our banks are in great shape…I am not a Conservative but I agree with the “wait and see” approach and save the money if we need it rather than piss it away just to make people think something is being done.<<<<

    and you state all of this after you have proclaimed this: “All our leaders need to be replaced ”

    That doesn’t make sense. The only leader who proposed exactly what you believe is the correct course of action must be dumped? That is absurd.

  • stewacide

    If there was real integrity in our politics Harper and the Conservatives would be making the ‘wait-and-see / most stimulus doesn’t work’ argument (which I think is the factually correct argument). Instead he’ll come out with a nominally big spending budget, and hope that he can delay the stimulus measures therein until the economy is over the hump and then quietly kill them.

    What I’m particularly fearful of is structural changes, like making UI more available, since they’re much harder to renege on then one-off stimulus projects.

  • HP

    Kevin F Dec. 6th.

    Please explain to me why Ont. voted for the most pathetic leader the Lib’s have had in years? Wearing your heart on your sleeve’s is admirable but suggests Canada ends @ Kenora.

  • Larry Y.

    How typical of Canadian politics. Our economy is headed into a U.S. like meltdown and our politicians are going off on an extended Christmas vacation thanks to our Governor General. Michaëlle Jean should be sent home to the Queen for further training. She should never have dissolved parliament at Harper’s request as it was clear that Harper did not have the necessary majority to do this.

  • Dale Mullen

    I’m not a political scientist and I definitely don’t pretend to have all the answers to the current economic situation. However, there are a number of things which seem to be an absolute necessity if we are to improve our lot. As an aspiring politician once said, “If you are in a hole one of the first things you have to do is stop digging!”. We are still digging into a deeper hole…
    * Why such a push to bail out the big car companies, the forestry, the fishing industry, or any other group for that matter. If we choose tax-payer-funded bailouts for failures, we are in effect, saying that these particular ‘gimme’ groups are somehow better or more worthy than other working Canadians. I would guess that there are at least as many, if not more, private or non-unionized workers who are having every bit as difficult a time as boisterous business groups and abusive unions. Private workers are simply going out each day doing the very best they can by themselves to support their families.
    * At least three of our Federal political parties are huge supporters of unions and other massive socialist groups. How can these parties possibly represent the private citizen when they openly clamor for greater and greater tax-payer subsidized perks far beyond reason or what is available to other workers?
    * How can we possibly lend any credibility to a group (e.g. the Coalition hooligans) who include among their members, a bunch dedicated to the destruction of Canada? (What possible reason could Canadians have for directing money to the Bloc under any circumstances? What are we thinking? Are we thinking?)
    *Have we not leaned anything from the past? If my reading of history is in any way accurate, I understand that we’ve never been able to ‘buy our way’ out of a recession or the coming depression? Therefore, why are we wasting precious resources on such an obvious misdirection?
    * We have a spending (wasting money) problem. Many are quick to shrug their shoulders and simply pass on the cost of our horrific mistakes to our children and let them deal with the fallout from our squandering ways. Is this really the legacy we want to pass on?
    It’s obvious I don’t have the cure for this mess but I do have some ideas for beginning in the right direction. Things won’t get better by wasting more of ‘our’ money. Therefore, if we REALLY want the situation to improve, we have to send a strong message to our leaders that we want them to curtail spending and to stop wasting our money. Stop spending it on unreasonable perks for themselves; stop giving it away (to any noisy and/or special interest group), stop hamstringing our successful people and businesses with outrageous taxes, useless paper work, and other built in obstacles to their advancement and finally, chase those millions of freeloaders away from the public trough.
    We must learn to separate our ‘wants’ from our ‘needs’. Only when our needs (those items which are or may be potentially beneficial to EVERY Canadian) have been satisfied (e.g. health care, education, infrastructure, etc,) should we then consider doling out any money for the frivolous and special interests.
    Until then, let’s focus our resources and attention on what we need and then proceed accordingly.

  • Mark

    Have any liberals attended college, or high school for that matter?

    It was in high school that I learned to back up statements. To verify claims. Not to merely give an opinion of something but to substantiate it. Hence research, citations, and every other known essay writing technique. Postman said it, “Any fool can have an opinion; but to know what one needs to know to have an opinion is wisdom”, and my math teacher always said, “show your work!” (BTW, I find modern journalism very shoddy at this too – how many times during 11 o’clock do we hear them lead off with “Anonymous or undisclosed sources…”)

    So I kindly challenge any of the liberals out there reading this comment to do the country the common courtesy we would otherwise find in the more mature halls of the high schools in the land. Instead of heralding your opinion that “Harper is a bully” -show your work! Instead lambasting the Cons for some perceived undemocratic measure (in your mind) in successfully requesting of the GG to prorogue, give a why and refrain from further blasts- after all winter’s already here. Please provide the country some exposition justifying why we should believe Harper is everything his opponents believes he is, and how you know this to be true. Thank you.

    Sociologist Os Guinness wrote the following which you may wish to ponder:

    “If we cannot paint well, we destroy the canons of painting and pass ourselves as painters. If we cannot or will not read, we dismiss linear thinking as irrelevant and dispense with reading. In area after area, if we are not inclined to submit to the rigors of discipline, we destroy the standards and pass ourselves off as acceptable.”

  • Effie

    Michael Ignatieff said he wanted to reach out to the west. Western Canada has heard that BS from every newly elected Liberal leader going back to Trudeau. When they find out westerners won’t be taken for granted they’re quite willing to throw them under the bus. Michal Ignatieff will be no different. The liberals only acknowledge the west when they want votes at election time. Certainly the 3 stooges never gave western Canada a thought when they planned their little scheme. Ignatieff won’t be the savior the liberals think he’ll be.

From Macleans