He’s trying to bankrupt the opposition parties.
Bull. The use of ‘literally’ as an intensifier has been established for centuries, by respected writers. Besides, one need not attempt to kill an organization’s leaders to be fairly described as trying to destroy the organization itself.
He hasn’t overplayed his hand at all, and this hasn’t blown up in his face at all; I think he has played it exactly as he intended. He has shown the other political parties to be more concerned about their funding than anything else going on, and hopefully, for once, Canadians will remember this.
As for Harper’s concern (or lack thereof) for Western Canada, he had to build a cabinet with more Easterners than Westerners; to do otherwise would truly have been political suicide. He already scares Easterners enough (just look at this thread).
They proposed a measure that will save one-twentieth of one percent of just their own spending increases, but that will cripple opposition parties but not their own, and we’re not supposed to conclude that the latter was the reason for it/
I see. So, just to clarify: Harper playing politics in the face of a crisis = good, the opposition playing politics in the face of a crisis = bad. Thank you, featherlou, it’s always good to get the West’s perspective on politics.
If they pass a motion of non confidence and can prevail upon the Governor-General to hand the reins to a coalition, explain to me what difference it makes what Canadians think.
And why should Canadians remember the Conservatives positively for this?
I voted Conservative, and I’m extremely disappointed in them over this. I’m not any more impressed with the opposition and the idea of Jack Layton as finance mninister sends chills up my spine; I find it amazing any NDP member can say with a straight face that Layton cares about Canadians keeping their jobs when he planned to have so many of them laid off by closing down the oil sands (indeed, the resulting job losses would doubtlessly have been greater than if we lost every single job at GM, Ford and Chrysler.) But Harper’s move here is cynical, unfair, risks costing Canadians far, far more than the money that would be saved, puts the government in an unstable position at exactly the moment we didn’t need it, and he made absolutely no mention of this whatsoever during the election campaign we just had. If he was planning on cancelling federal election funding he should have fucking said so before October 14. Please do not feed me a bullshit line about fiscal prudence; there are a hundred or more line items in the federal budget that called for fiscal prudence more than this one.
I think I speak for a lot of Canadians when I say that I want the Conservatives to fucking GOVERN, not play games designed to win the next election. One goddamned month after the last election is the time for governance, not election ploys. And I think I also speak for a lot of Canadians when I say I’d like the Opposition to shut their pie holes about “Economic stimulus” when their economic packages were dismissed by the electorate, by greater margins, again, just a month ago. If they want to vote nonconfidence over the election funding issue, that’s fair, because it’s a systemic political issue, but over “a lack of economic stimulus” is dishonest, stupid, and would be deserving of a new election and a crushing defeat in the subsequent vote.
The Globe and Mail: Tories reverse decision on political subsidies
CBC: Conservatives scrap plan to cut party subsidies
Toronto Star: Tories reverse decision to end public subsidies
Looks like the Tories blinked on that part at least.
Liberal/NDP coalition: an assault on democracy.
Reform/PC coalition: a lesson in hypocrisy.
Full agreement from me.
While I do understand that politicians are supposed to play politics, and do what they can to discredit or weaken the opposing political parties, I personally find Harper’s latest chicken game to be beyond the pale. However much he may wish to make the Conservatives the new natural governing party of Canada, I wish he could figure out how to make that happen without completely financially wiping out his opposition and making himself look so bad. Where featherlou hopes that Canadians will remember (to the discredit of the NDP, Libs and Bloc) that it took a threat to the opposition parties’ pocketbooks to get them to grow some backbone, I don’t see it as being to their discredit at all - if you seriously threaten someone’s survival you should expect pretty serious aggressive self-protective responses fairly quickly. More power to the opposition parties for finally finding that backbone - maybe they can keep doing it and force Harper to have to take them and the constituents that they represent more seriously, as should be happening in a minority parliament.
Um. So, what specifically are the rules involved in order to form a coalition government? If the NDP and Liberals were to approach the GG with such a proposal, is it a fait a complis? Or can she say “fuck you” we just had an election. How does this work?
What I find delightfully entertaining is that we had three years of governance over this country by a minority government that pretty much did as it pleased while the opposition backed down over and over again, in spite of some very loud whining and complaining about how terrible each successive bill was. It’s not until they have their own teeny, tiny piece of the federal pie threatened that they’re suddenly ready to topple the government. From my perspective, Harper has exposed his opponents as self-serving to a fault, with little or no interest in the actual good of the nation. To me, that strengthens his position as leader and weakens the credibility of the opposition. Backing down from that policy may very well have been part of the eventual strategy – a calculated risk and a bit of brinkmanship that will eventually be forgotten by the masses as just a bunch more posturing by both sides – but it forced the opposition parties to tip their respective hands, which makes it a strong tactical move on the part of the Conservatives. Call it cynical or unfair, but I say why not try to sneak such a move through, particularly when it creates the appearance of an attempt at fiscal responsibility by the ruling party, forced out of the equation by the money-grubbing opposition, and more particularly when it involves such a tiny piece of the total federal budget dollars. I think the optics of this move from the perspective of the unwashed, stupid masses, will work in favour of the Conservatives and against the Grits and NDP. Harper will eventually come out looking like the guy trying to cut costs in the government and the opposition will wind up looking like a bunch of greedy little bastards. YMMV.
Actually, it’s the other way around: it’s precisely because we just had an election that she’d be obliged to accept a proposal of a coalition government.
When the ministry loses the confidence of the House, it can a) resign, b) ask for Parliament to be dissolved and seek a mandate from the electorate. But since Parliament has only recently been elected, it has the customary right to sit for longer than this before being dissolved, and another government has the right to try to seek its confidence.
This has all happened before in Canada, by the way, in 1925, in what was known as the King-Byng Affair. Liberal leader Mackenzie King was governing with a coalition government, but he lost the support of the junior coalition member, the Progressives. He asked for a dissolution of Parliament, but the Governor-General, Lord Byng, refused, saying that another party (Arthur Meighen’s Conservatives) had the right to try to form a government. Byng declared that for the Governor General to dissolve Parliament while there was another possible government ready to seek the confidence of the House would be excessive meddling of the Crown in the affairs of Parliament.
I had wondered if Harper was really ignorant of the role that a coalition government could legitimately play in Canadian government or if he was simply being more than usually cynical in his approach. This quotation from a 2004 letter to which he was a signatory makes it pretty clear:
We was willing to work the the NDP and the Bloc then to prevent an election. Tell me again why this is different…especially since the Throne Speech is the only business that has come before the House.
Procedural stuff should be fascinating over the next week or so. How I wish that Stanley Knowles and Eugene Forsey were here to work together to ensure that the will of the House is done.
Matt, thanks for the explanation of all the mysterious veiled allusions to “King/Byng” that have cropped up recently. I consider myself a halfway decent student of Canadiana, but that one had me puzzled.
Actually, this sort of situation is one of the instances that makes the office of Governor General slightly more than the figurehead it is often portrayed as. Suppose, as a hypothetical future, that the Tories push this, lose a vote of confidence, and Harper asks her for a dissolution. If the Grits and NDP (and perhaps a few loose M.P.'s without strong party affiliation) are agreed on a potential coalition, she is not only free but obliged to deny him the dissolution, it being in the best interests of the country not to have a second election within three months and the (heretofore) opposition parties being entitled to attempt to create a potential stable coalition government. Take it six months or a year down the road, or with questions as to how stable the coalition might be, and she is obliged to exercise her free judgment as to what best serves the country: another election or an attempt to make the Lib/NDP coalition work. Placing that power in someone with political experience but pledged to remain above the partisan fray is why parliamentary government systems like Canada’s work.
As matt_mcl has pointed out, the only remotely similar situation called for the Opposition to be handed the reins of government. Matt is leaving a few details out, though;
-
The Governor-General’s decision was wildly unpopular at the time and in fact resulted in the new government falling shortly thereafter and King winning a majority government. It’s unlikely this poposed new coalition will be any more popular.
-
Then, unlike now, there was a single large opposition party read to form a government, not a coalition with numbers inferior to the existing government dependent upon the support of a separatist bloc, and
-
It didn’t work for long, anyway.
Technically, Her Excellency could take either route. Realistically, it will depend upon what deal the Opposition cuts and how it appears they can form a government. If the Liberals and NDP sign a contract with specific details on how their coalition will work - like the Liberal and NDP parties did in 1985 in the Ontario legislature - she’ll need to seriously consider it. If they can get the Bloc officialy on board - which I don’t think they can, but let’s explore the possibility - then of course they MUST be allowed to form a government. If they can’t strike a deal, she’ll call an election, since in effect there’ll be no realistic alternative government; the Liberals can’t run the country with 79 seats, not for more than a couple of months.
My guess is that if the Liberals and NDP present a coherent plan, she’ll have to give them a shot, and they’ll govern incompetently for six months, hurt the country, and it’ll be election time. (My parents, both NDP voters, are horrified that their votes might be turned into de facto Bloc Quebecois votes; I don’t think any path forward is going to please Canadians from this point on.)
I think one of the reasons Harper pushed the vote ahead a week is that he expects the Liberals and NDP to screw it up if they’re given enough time to start stabbing each other in the back. He was foolish to get into this position but he might be clever enough to weasel out of it.
Um, not quite, in some respects at least. The resulting government was a coalition of the Progressives and the Conservatives. The unpopularity of the government could be attributed to the political skill of King. He was able to turn the issue from some pretty evident corruption in his government to the arcana of constitutional government. Reading comments on other forums, I’m afraid that even a politician of Harper’s skills might be able to do the same given Canadians apparent inability to distinguish parliamentary government from American government.
The biggest difference between this case and the case of King/Byng is that King’s government had survived for 8 months, giving him a much more legitimate claim to dissolution than there is for the current House. Six weeks, with no substantive motions, does not demonstrate that the House as a whole has demonstrated that the present Government is in command.
Frankly, I hope that the House will not agree to any of the supply motions that may come forth in the next week, regardless of their value. To do so will help to validate Harper’s claim to a dissolution – which he will then blame on the opposition.
I think most Canadians know the difference, it’s just that people do not, and don’t have to, equate what is legal with what is right. Lots of people accept that it’s legal for the Opposition for form a government; they just don’t think they should.
I don’t think there is any chance whatsoever the Opposition will bring the government down WITHOUT having a signed deal in place to form a government. If they fail to strike a deal there will be no non-confidence motion. IF they do, there will, and they’ll form a really comical goverrnment.
$30 million. That’s a rounding error on the budget.
The Conservatives have also backed off the (equally stupid and pointless) plan to legislate away public service strikes.
I don’t know if they’re so brilliant I can’t understand them, or so stupid I can’t understand them. I can understand why they put off a stimulus package. I can’t understand anything else they proposed or why they started this confrontation. It’s baffling to me, and I don’t mean in a partisan way - I just don’t get their strategy.