Did anyone else see the Rachel Maddow Show last night? She actually did a brief segment on the Canadian constitutional crise. You know Canada must be having severe problems if it gets any coverage media coverage south of the border. 
I wonder if another issue is that the people actually support Harper’s tentative budget plan more than they support this notion that there has to be some giant ‘stimulus’ package? Canadians greatly value fiscal conservatism, and the fact that Canada has been the most fiscally responsible government in the G8 is a big part of the reason why we’re poised to ride out this downturn better than any other country. So why change gears and start throwing money all over the place?
People are smart enough to know that when politicians get through figuring out where their stimulus should be spent, it will have a lot more to do with buying votes than it will with ensuring that the economy remains strong.
Also, I think there’s also a worry that this coalition would implement the ‘green shift’ and bring in new carbon taxes right in the middle of a recession, which would be a scary stupid thing to do. Obama’s backing away from his tax increase plans as fast as he can (as he should), but our opposition leaders don’t seem to have gotten the message that you don’t raise taxes in the middle of a severe downturn, and you don’t claim to offer a big ‘stimulus’ plan and at the same time introduce new taxes. It’s a surefire recipe for a budgetary disaster and an economy that is hurt rather than helped.
I think the only people sold on that are those who were sold on it before, which can’t be an overwhelming majority of Canadians given the number who voted for the NDP, Greens, and Bloc, and to some extent Liberals.
My wife and I are two of the very few people in our family who voted Conservative; most of the rest of our family and friends voted Liberal or NDP. Every single one of them is horrified by the “Coalition,” and in every case it’s for just two reasons:
- That they inked an alliance they claimed they never would, thereby making their election campaigns look like 5-week lies, and
- They signed an alliance with the Bloc Quebecois.
Sure, it’s just anecdotal evidence, but I’m in southern Ontario, which is Liberal Heaven. And it’s supported by the objective evidence. Look at the polls. The Conservatives have an enormous lead in a theoretical election but people are simultaneously pissed off at Harper. His image is way, way down. I don’t think that would be true if people were supporting his economic approach. I think it’s true because people despise The Coalition.
Mind you, I’m sure a lot of people ARE pretty skeptical about the need for a stimulsu package. I think a lot of people are looking south of the border and thinking, “What has a trillion bucks gotten them? Nothing that I can see.” But most voters aren’t really on top of that stuff and perceive federal budgetary issues only as far as it affects them personally and immediately. Going by the polls, what has happened here is that outside Quebec, a lot of people think the Coalition is a monstrosity.
I don’t see a constitutional crisis here. Or a serious problem Events have transpired completely as required by the constitution. Either the government falls which has happened before, every 10 years on average since Diefenbaker, and an election is called by the GG or more rarely an opposition leader is allowed by the GG to try governing.
Simple.
But it is exciting.
I really don’t think that this is about the “issues” at all. A month or so ago Canadians were told that Harper won the election, and now they’re being told that Dion could become PM without an election, and they don’t understand how that could happen so it must be undemocratic.
To paraphrase a Conservative strategist from before the last election: Elections aren’t about issues, they’re about whoever the voters would rather have a beer with.
Most Canadians vote Liberal or Conservative. There have been wide swings among these voters in support of one or the other. Its the quality of the leader they choose, and issues are secondary. Almost every time, when one or the other party loses an election there are cries for a change in leadership to get back in power.
Ah yes, the old “Anyone who opposes the coalition is stupid and doesn’t understand our government” argument. That will win the Coalition a lot of support. Keep that one up, please.
Where ARE all these ignoramuses? I don’t seem to ever run into them.
Who said I was trying to drum up support? Every time I’ve succumbed to the delusions that political arguments matter a damn the Canadian electorate has kicked me upside the head until I regained my senses.
Look, Stephen Harper just fucking suspended Parliament because evidently dealing with a democratically elected legislature was too much of a burden for him and his polling numbers went up. Up!
I submit that there is nothing the Liberals could have done that would have made Canadians happy.
Actually, I will testify to having met exactly such people. One of them (who I’ve known IRL for years) posted, elsewhere, a comment that said ‘How can the people who LOST the election just TAKE OVER? What happened to democracy?’
I explained the parliamentary system, and he came back later with “well, okay, I’ve taken some time to learn about the system, and now I understand that this is legal. But I still don’t like the coalition’s motivation…”
So they’re definitely out there. How numerous, I can’t say. Harper’s comments that the coalition wants to ‘overturn’ the election results seem partly aimed at this demographic, IMO, and to sound deliberately reminiscent of ‘overthrow’. He’s done his very best to call it undemocratic, and many Canadians seem inclined to agree. This might be out of the same sort of thing as why we expect a ruling party who chooses a new leader to run an election in short order so he’s not an ‘unelected PM’ – it seems illegitimate unless it was chosen by the voters in that form. Or it could be that, after decades of having two dominant parties take turns in power, with a third party to chirp on the side, that they’re not used to the idea of parliament re-aligning itself between elections the way it can in a multi-party system. In, say, the Netherlands, the coalition lines can be redrawn if political events lead to instability in the ruling coalition; sometimes that leaves the same guy in the PMO, sometimes not. But we’re not used to that in Canada.
Almost every time I’ve spoken to someone about this over the last week, I’ve had to say “Look, there are two issues. One: Are coalition governments, in principle, legitimate? And two, do I like this particular coalition?”
I’m not doubting Harper is putting a thick spin on this. It’s in his self-interest to do so, and he’s a politician, so that’s no surprise.
But calling it “undemocratic” does not mean you’re ignorant of the system. People are perfectly entitled to say “this is undemocratic” if they feel someone’s gaming the system. “Undemocratic” has nuances and meanings that go beyond “in violation of the Constitution Act.” We already have supporters of the coalition - including none other than Bob Rae, who presumably knows how our system works - calling the proroguation of Parliament undemocratic. But it’s part of our Constitution, too, so has Rae recently forgotten how our system of government works? A frequent criticism of Stephen Harper is that his handling of the PMO is undemocratic in that he’s very controlling and closed to observation. Surely the critics don’t think he’s actually breaking the Constitution?
I mean, maybe I’m lucky - and I don’t doubt there are nitwits out there, though they don’t tend to vote much anyway - but every person to whom I’ve spoken, and that’s two dozen or so, understood that what was happening was letter-of-the-law legal (some to a deeper extent than others.) Every one thought it was horseshit all the same.
And of course, we’ve had folks employ the “you’re stupid” argument right here on the SDMB. It’s becoming frustrating and maybe deserves a Pit thread, but there seems to be an unwillingness to argue the issue straight up. It’s gone in two distinct stages:
ME AND OTHERS: This coalition thing is awful. It’s…
COALITION DEFENDERS: It’s perfectly legal!
M&O: Yes, yes, but…
CD: You’re stupid. You’re infected by the Americans. Listen to my condescending explanation of the Westminster system.
M&O: No, I get that. I know it’s legal. But I don’t think it’s right to change governments over this, and they camaigned on false pretenses, and I certainly don’t like the government being in bed with the BQ…
CD: You hate Quebecers!
There’s been precious little defence of the coalition on grounds other than “It’s legal.”
Then you’ve ignored my many posts on the subject: it was the best of a bad set of choices. Seriously, no critic of the coalition has answered this question. What on earth would they have the Liberals do?
You’re right, and I think we’re in general agreement on the rest of it. I just wanted to point out that there are, indeed, ignoramuses, since they have been part of my experience with this issue.
Don’t worry, I understand that there are plenty of non-ignorant reasons to be pissed off with the coalition. In fact, I usually end my defence of it with the legitimacy, in principle, of coalitions, because frankly I’m not given over to great love for either side in this ongoing trainwreck. It’s like one big firestorm of crazy garbage from every direction.
Exactly what they did… at first. They were absolutely right to threaten non-confidence over the party funding issue. It was perfectly understandable that they’d have to defend themselves. And that’s what started this whole thing, so let’s not pretend it was “economic stimulus.”
But once Harper backed off, the Liberals (and NDP and Bloc) had won. It was, or could have been, a huge political coup. They’d made Harper look petty, which is good, and stupid, which is much better. They’d scared the Tories and would have left them afraid to try any more poison pills at least under the present Liberal leadership. The Tories were poking Dion and the Grits with a stick; all they had to do was bite once, and they did, and it worked. If they wanted to shoot the budget down they could still do that at the proper time, and would have looked good doing it.
But then they made a deal with the Devil and the Doofus. Now where are they? Instead of gaining support from the populace, their support has cratered; every poll shows Liberal support at all-time lows and Conservative support absurdly high, even with Harper’s personal popularity down. They’ve disgusted a good percentage of the populace that now thinks they’re sellouts. When they fought back against the funding bill and just threatened non confidence they looked great. Then they made a deal with the Bloc and the polls will tell you how people think about that.
They took what could have been a reasonably significant political win and are now on the precipice of a party schism or being forced to take over what would likely be the most unpopular government in the country’s history. The caucus infighting is making the news. If they’d stopped when they were ahead it would have been one step along the way to a solid electoral victory at some point in the future. Now they’ve sold out to people who want to blow the country apart and convinced many of their own voters to jump ship.
Threatening a no confidence vote without a plan to deal with the aftermath of it would be begging for the Conservatives to call that bluff. And negotiating with the NDP only to pull the rug out from under them when the Conservatives caved would have poisoned the well for any future co-operation between the two. Playing both sides of the street is a good way to get run over by a truck.