All right, I suppose in reality rational politics have been dead for quite some time. So long, in fact, that the term has frankly become an oxymoron, becoming a punch line in much the same fashion as “efficient bureaucracy ” or “non-self-serving-politician”. And at one point, I certainly would have enjoyed laugh at the whole thing, but no more. The path we’re headed down is frightening. When I say “we” I very much mean all of us: Canadians. Certainly politics south of the 49th is ten fold more terrifying, but then again, their politics have been structured that way almost from the get go. Certainly, it has become significantly worse, but when you’re dealing with terrifying moving slowly to fuc- … I digress.

One thing I’ve always enjoyed about Canadian politics is how utterly boring it is. Day-to-day politics shouldn’t be interesting. It should be dull, dull, dull. The idea of going about the business of administering social programs, funding and the general running of the country should make normal people fall asleep. Of course we should be interested and keenly aware, but it should not be exciting.

The comparison I’ve often heard is that American elections are just so interesting and Canadian elections are mind-numbingly dull. But that’s a good thing. This is undeniably compounded by the fact that Americans love – crave even – an election every two years, and even the Presidential election starts two years ahead of time. Granted, I suppose we’re doing no better these days.

Here in Canada, an election is about issues, whereas an American election is about who took their flag-pin off or who can see Russia from their deck, or who is more patriotic, or who is a “socialist” or “secret Muslim”. That’s all fine and good, but what about discussing who is going to get the country out of unnecessary wars, or even, what wars are necessary. Or how about plans to reduce an out of control national debt.

Did you hear? Apparently Obama had dinner with a guy who in his youth blew up a statue. Gasp! He even attended a church who’s pastor once said “God damn America!”.

I don’t even know what church, if any, Harper attends. And I don’t care.

But none of this is the point. The death of rational politics isn’t caused by sensationalized media, but instead within the systems themselves. Sort of.

Politics began its slow death with the invention of the political party. Again, this happened much quicker south of the border than here, but for entirely different reasons.

In Canada we modelled and tweaked the British Parliamentary system to meet our own needs. The very basics of which provide that we as a people do not directly elect a Prime Minister, nor do we elect a party into government. Instead, we vote for our very own, regional representatives to provide our community a voice on the national stage.

Here’s where things start to go downhill.

Our system assumes if a majority of regions elects more representatives from one party, the overall public would like to see that party in power, and naturally if that party put its faith in their own leader, so too should we.

Now, I’m not suggesting this is a bad system, nor do I necessarily want to directly elect a Prime Minister.

What I am suggesting is that the general public has no idea this is the case. It’s widely assumed that a vote for, say, the Conservative party (regardless the individual’s name on the ballot) is a vote for Mr Harper.

This is so much a fallacy, that, even constitutionally, the party in government doesn’t even need more seats than any other single party. Hell, the government doesn’t even need to be formed by a single party. They need only have the confidence of the House. No more, no less. So back about a year ago, when Canadian politics briefly captivated the public and there was the threat of a coalition government, the Conservatives were miles out of line when they tried to convince the public this was an unconstitutional attempt at a power grab.

It may very well have been a “power grab”, but that’s utterly beside the point. It was an entirely constitutional play, and if we go back to that assumption wherein the government should be formed by the party with more seats, a coalition would have more seats and thus “must” form the government.

Here’s my issue with political parties: When it comes down to it, the whole thing is about power. And how do you come to power if you’re agreeing with the party in power. A party must oppose the others. But that’s not how government works. A government is supposed to be advancing the political will of the people. Surely this leads to some overlap, some compromise, some commonality somewhere.

This division serves only to fragment and destroy national unity. We see it everywhere. So called Conservatives yelling at and calling so called Liberals names, “leftists” yelling at “right-wingers”. The whole thing is absurd, and definitely not productive.

I’m not saying we all need to get along – far from it – in a country as massive and different from region to region as this, there is bound to be disagreement, sometimes big ones. Nor do we need to all align on a centrist platform. We can have a country of conservatives, of liberals (note the use of small ‘c’ and ‘l’), we can vote for different parties, but the idea that we must buy into only one ideology and platform is foolish.

I know it’s a pipe dream, but I would like to see political parties done away with. In all likelihood we would all suddenly take interest in our local representatives, after all, they’re not carrying a party banner. We’d have to, and hold on here, listen to their ideas. Gasp. Our local issues would get pushed on a national stage, as opposed to taking a back seat to the leaders ideologies (I’m looking at you Jason Kenney). Natural and dynamic coalitions would take place in the house, shifting as political issues shift.

But what about the Prime Minister? I would like to see the PM elected much the same way we elect a Speaker of the House. That is, elected MPs could submit themselves as candidates for the position and members of the house would vote.

Perhaps then the PM would have some accountability to the commons and not stuff the Senate with ridiculous former CTV anchors.

Warning: Intense partisanship below

Some time ago, I wrote about the signs (still visible) all over the U of T campus which featured an unflattering picture of MP Olivia Chow (NDP, Trinity-Spadina) and a short message that said something like “Shame on you for supporting a government that cut AIDS funding!” These and other, similiar campaigns, were undertaken by Liberals all over the country in the week following Parliament’s return in which the NDP offered to support the government if it made changes to the EI system. The NDP had “sold out”, Liberals claimed, by voting once with a government that it had itself supported on [something like] 80 votes of confidence. My colleague Gabe De Roche even wrote a piece in The Varsity claiming that: “This blatant selling-out of deeply held policy beliefs of the party and its core supporters is not just offensive to political observers. It affects the state of this nation.” These, and many other hysterical tantrums by Liberals can easily be found with the click of a mouse.

Today, however, Michael Ignatieff seemed to soften his tone:

“What I said was we lost confidence in the government. I didn’t say we’re going to move more motions of non confidence. We did that, we stood up, we took a position of principle…What I’ve said consistently for a month is in those cases where the government brings forth legislation we can support or approve or amend, we’ll do so. My strategy is not to make parliamentary government impossible.”

Funny, the “making Parliament work” rhetoric wasn’t sufficient when the NDP supported the government (once…with concessions!). Liberals charged that the NDP weren’t ready for a campaign because they would be “savaged” and were desperately trying to avoid it “to the detriment of Canada”. Why, then, does the above quotation from Michael Ignatieff read like Jack Layton, circa two weeks ago?

SOMEWHERE BETWEEN EARTH AND THE MOON (S&A) Canadians were shocked to learn today that Cirque de Soleil founder Guy Laliberté wasn’t the only “tourist clown” on board that Russian Soyuz capsule that recently linked up with the International Space Station. He was joined by Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. The two donned red clown noses and performed for viewers around the world via satellite.

Laliberté in Soyuz capsule. More than his nose is Red.

Family and friends of Mister Laliberté on the ground chanted “Guy! Guy!” and sang Rocket Man when the ship reached orbit. There were no friends of Mister Duceppe on hand but political foes were heard to sing a chorus of The Great Gig In The Sky appropriately enough from the Dark Side of the Moon album.

“In da House of Commune I have a national audience dat laughs at me, la. But up here I’m as famous as Leonardo de Caprio, I’m da king of da world”, said the separatist leader.

Mr. Duceppe shows his dark side.

Critics worried that Duceppe was scouting out the moon from his lofty space station perch in an attempt to determine if Quebec could move there when it separates from the rest of Canada. However, Leonid Iama Smartypants, project manager of the Russian space agency, on whose ship the two Quebecois are travelling, had a different take: “There is already great concern that Laliberté is jeopardizing the mission because he cannot speak good Russian, now we find he has smuggled on board another who speaks even less good Russian” he said while absent-mindedly pounding his shoe on his desk. “This is a recipe for disaster. How will they get by on the moon when the two founding nations speak Russian and French?” Furthermore said Mister Smartypants, “It would cost $38,000,000 per person to get the entire province to the moon, and they don’t even have their own rockets. 7 million people times $38 million equals a lot of maple syrup!”

“Quebec’s only interested in the moon’s water,” said NDP leader Jack Layton. “It’s James Bay all over again except this time without the Cree. Today James Bay, tomorrow the moon.”

Asked for their comments on the high-flying separatist leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff refused to deal with the Quebec issue, consistent with their actions to date.

Pardonnez-moi comrade?

This just in (sort of): The Bloc Quebecois will support the Harper Government in Friday’s crucial vote. Does this mean there won’t be an election? Of course not. In fact, this little manuever may be the catalyst which forces Canada’s stalemated Parliament into a fall campaign. Compliments to Mr Duceppe on his cunning strategy, which I believe is two-fold:

First, it embarrases the Harper Government profoundly having referred to the Bloc with such derision since last December’s constitutional crisis. Suddenly, its very survival is being assisted by the “evil separatists”.

Next, it forces the Conservatives to either crank down their anti-Bloc rhetoric, making them look weak and giving the other parties a stick to beat them with OR have to adopt a more hawkish stance and further alienate Quebec in the process.

I won’t, for now, comment in detail about the supposed NDP support for Mr Harper’s EI plan except to say that I have written to every caucus member with my view that the government cannot possibly be propped up unless EI benefits are extended to include short-term workers (around 400,000) as well as long-term ones (around 60, 000).  In any case I still believe, as a matter of principle, the NDP should oppose the government. (Anyone interested further can read my column in The Varsity which comes out next Monday.)

In all liklihood, there will still be an election. But expect more manuevering as parties jockey for position ahead of the inevitable non-confidence vote. Today’s developments hand the advantage to the Opposition.

Political irony -While running TV ads accusing the Liberals of plotting a coalition with the NDP and Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives hypocrtically joined forces with those two parties to avoid defeat in Parliament. “I’ve taken my responsibility, which is I’ve said I can’t support this government any longer. It’s up to the other parties to decide what they’re going to do – Liberal Leader Michael Ignatief

Commons passes confidence motion CBC.ca -  The House of Commons has passed a crucial ways-and-means motion that has temporarily saved Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minority government from potentially facing an election campaign.

“This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper  had once said too… but now Sleeping with the leftist, socialist , separatist Bloc for Harper  now is better than fighting them.. The past results of Harper’s own  attacks on the Bloc show that Harper’s this supposed battle to keep the country together resulted that  in Quebec that the Bloc gained more support while all other parties remained or lost ground. The same Conservative Stephen Harper who has in the past criticized now the Liberals and NDP for associating with the Bloc Québécois has now to thank them, the Bloc Québécois,  for rescuing him from a defeat in the House of Parliament  this week now.

The Conservatives, who hold 143 of the Commons’ 308 seats, need only one of the other three parties to vote with the government to avoid being toppled in a confidence vote. The Liberals have 77 seats, the NDP, 36, and the Bloc Québécois, 48. Forget  all of the spins, the values, principles openly proclaimed now, for every one of the federal politicians is merely figfhting to keep their pay and perks coming, or to get more?

The word “socialist” was, is too often misconstrued by the Tories and  for them takes on a new negative meaning… a meaning equivalent to being a communist.. But irrationally and hypocritical the Conservatives, Tories seem Cleary not to mind themselves now providing social welfare to big business still, such as the Banks, the Corporations, telecommunication firms, and automotive makers….. 

Après Mai 68, quand le Général de Gaulle eu maté la France en révolte sans violence – en lui laissant jeter sa gourme puis s’assoupir après le plaisir – il réfléchit, comme toujours, au lendemain… et au surlendemain. Cette aptitude à lire l’avenir, comme si le manuscrit lui en avait été remis la veille, lui a permis de sauver la France à maintes reprises. Il faudrait des volumes pour en discuter, mais le départ de Francois Legault me rappelle un de ces gambits gagnants du Général.

De Gaulle, après Mai “68, a limogé son Premier Ministre Pompidou alors que tout – loyauté, compétence, relations – suggérait qu’il lui renouvelât sa confiance. Pourquoi l’a-t-il fait ? Beaucoup ont dit à l’époque qu’il le jetait en pâture aux fauves, pour que les résultats dérisoires de cette spectaculaire insubordination à laquelle ils s’étaient livrés ne leur crée pas de rancœur. Mais ce n’était pas ça. Il mettait simplement sont atout-maitre « en réserve de la République ».

Il l’a dit exactement en ces mots d’ailleurs… mais ils ne l’ont pas cru. Ce n’est que quand Pompidou a succédé à de Gaulle à la Présidence de la République qu’ils ont compris que le Général avait mis sagement son dauphin à l’abri des luttes fratricides et des coups fourrés, durant cette période ou il fallait raccommoder pour faire du neuf sans que le tissu social ne se déchire. C’est une tunique bien proprette que l’Auvergnat a finalement endossée ..

François Legault m’apparaît aujourd’hui une tête au-dessus de tous les autres dans l’arène politique provinciale : il n’y a personne pour lui barrer la route. Pourtant, il se retire… et, dans la conjoncture actuelle, je crois qu’il a raison.

Le problème n’est pas Jean Charest ni le Parti Libéral. Charest est là et sa popularité a même augmenté, mais je n’y vois que le soutien par défaut de ceux qui refusent l’alternative péquiste. Le Parti Libéral ennuie et il sera battu dès qu’il y aura une autre option crédible.

Ce n’est pas non plus sa position minoritaire au sein du PQ qui est l’obstacle à la montée de Legault. Madame Marois suscite si peu d’enthousiasme, surtout après l’échec cinglant dans Rivière-du-loup, qu’un putsch dans la tradition péquiste pourrait la déloger rapidement. Duceppe ? Il y a bien longtemps qu’on le voit. Il n’a plus cette nouveauté « Jument verte » qui, dans un monde d’Internet, fait élire en triomphe des Obamas, parce que c’est leur ascension même qui séduit.

Si quelqu’un barrait la route à Legault au sein du PQ, il pourrait sans doute écarter cet obstacle. Mais il n’a pas intérêt à le faire, car le problème, c’est qu’il n’y a simplement plus d’avenir pour le Parti Québécois. L’idée de l’indépendance est minoritaire et le restera pour l’avenir prévisible. Le PQ perdra d’autant plus sûrement les élections qu’il mettra de l’avant son option indépendantiste… et se désintégrera d’autant plus vite qu’il la mettra sous le boisseau.

Le problème, pour François Legault, c’est qu’il n’y a pas de structure partisane sur laquelle il pourrait s’appuyer pour accéder au pouvoir. Plus rien de passionnant à l’ADQ, rien de crédible à QS ni chez les Verts.

De la France à la mort de De Gaulle, Pompidou avait dit qu’elle était « veuve ». On ne peut même pas dire des Québécois qu’ils sont orphelins, car ceux qui pourraient leur servir de pères spirituels ne sont pas morts… ils sont à la retraite. Les Québécois sont, en politique, comme ces enfants des rues de Mumbai/Bombay dans ce film qu’on vient d’« oscariser ».

Dans ce contexte, il est probable que le PQ se scindera bientôt entre une gauche – qui rejoindra QS et pourra parler d’autant plus aisément d’indépendance qu’elle ne sera pas une option réaliste de gouvernance – et une droite qui absorbera l’ADQ, substituera la notion de souveraineté/autonomie à celle d’indépendance et, libérée de ce boulet, redeviendra le parti de l’alternance.

Il est bon que Francois Legault ne vive pas ces déchirements. Le temps passant, il ne peut que grandir en stature, comme Pompidou. Comme Robert Bourrassa durant ses années d’exil/pèlerinage. Il devient « en réserve » de quoi que ce soit qui se créera au Québec pour faire face à la crise et, surtout, pour proposer un projet de société motivant et RASSEMBLEUR qui nous sortira de l’insignifiance.

Pierre JC Allard

Update: Posted on National Post – Full Comment , June 19, 2oo9

In January I argued about the need for the major federalist parties in Ottawa to work together.  I believed they should grab control of the agenda and marginalize the fringe elements that have held disproportional influence within the House of Commons for far to long. The various compromises between the major federalist parties and the fringe groups over the last couple decades has eroded the effectiveness of governance and weakened the unity of the nation.  Of course, this is the destabilizing influence the Bloc Quebecois yearns for, to strengthen their case against the federal arrangement.

This unbalanced, destabilizing power arrangement came to a head with the formal creation of the Dion coalition.  The sting of the coalition of “socialists and separatists” is still raw and chaffing for many Canadians.  The thought of the Dion lead cabal slaloming their way through the recession truly is frightening.

It was within this “coalition if necessary” context that we stumbled into the spring session.  The abandonment of the Dion coalition – by the approval of the budget- returned balance and responsibility to our House.  Michael Ignatieff wisely chose stable and cooperative government with their strong federalist opponent, over a short term power grab that certainly would have damaged Canadian Unity.

Since that time we have seen the balance of power, the struggle for control, being played out between the Liberals and Conservatives.  The hard-line approach by the NDP and Bloc, an approach that had effectively neutered Stephane Dion, has turned on these parties who now find themselves on the outside looking in.  The cooperation between Conservatives and Liberals has left these dividers on the fringe.

The ongoing shenanigans of the last few months have caused many to loose faith in our democratic institutions, or at least groan more than normal at the silly season angst.  The antics surrounding the Dhalla witch-hunt, calls for ministerial resignations, the Raitt tape, report cards, probation, Mulroney, election showdown, etc., have caused even the most seasoned pundits and political junkies to pull out their hair (if they had any left).

The spring sitting of Parliament has been disappointing in many ways, to say the least, with few meaningful advancements on important issues outside of the economy and fiscal management.   Although boring and relatively uneventful, that is what Canada ultimately needed this House to accomplish.  The other major positive that should be taken away, in my mind, is the return to a responsible balance of power.  The future of the country, the major decisions and reforms, and the compromises being sought have been between the major players.  It is Harper and Ignatieff who are making parliament work, fighting for solutions.

The most recent example is the isolation of the marginal party leaders in the negotiations over improving EI, allowing us to avoid a summer election.  Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are now shut out, grasping for relevance, reflexively blurting out their disapproval and disenfranchisement with the real decision makers.  Like the bratty spoiled child that faces real discipline for the first time; these leaders are now in permanent sulk mode in protest at the realization of their own marginalization.

For all the failings we will put upon the spring parliamentary session, the destruction of the Dion coalition and the Conservative Liberal cooperation was a victory for Canadians.   It allowed responsible, if uninspiring governance of our country in a time of national need.  As morbidly fascinating as the Dion coalition would have been to watch, ridicule, and mock- we should be thankful for having a rather pedestrian spring session, where cooler heads prevailed.

I swear by all that is unholy, Omar Khadr has better public relations people than the President. This kid is in the news every single day, ten times a day. All we hear about is Omar. When is Omar coming back? What is happening to Omar? Why isn’t Omar here right now?

You’d think he was a celebrity, and the Leafs were waiting to sign him as their first-line centre.

You know what? Fine. If the left have such an affinity for this son-of-a-terrorist anchor-baby child-soldier, bring him back. What’s the worst that could happen?

Nice to know where the priorities of the official opposition are. Aside from complaining that the 2009 stimulus budget hasn’t created miracles or walked on water yet, the coalition has reunited to bitch and whine about Omar not getting back to Canada fast enough:

It’s nice to know that a kid who wanted to kill westerners indiscriminately could unify Canadians so well. With the adulation of this young man by the media and leftwing opposition [288 to 17 for google articles about boy wonder terrorist to article about amendment to Section 13 of HRC], no doubt Mr.Khadr will have an adoring crowd meeting him at Pearson International on the inevitable day that he is repatriated without federal charge. On that day I wonder… will Mr.Ignatieff take a photo opportunity to shake hands with the person he is currently using as a political wedge against the government?

Update: Published on the National Post -Full Comment February 5, 2009

The President of France  had some harsh statements in regards to separatists this week.  He has moved beyond the typical indifference towards the myopic, sectarian, divisive agenda of the Bloc Quebecois and embraced Canadian unity.  The French apparently see great benefit in co-operation and unity when confronting the challenges of today and tomorrow (The EU for example).  It benefits the sovereign nation of France to work with a united Canada.  

Other countries obviously don’t dictate the unity agenda in Canada, and France is no exception.   However,  Sarkosy’s statement indicates the lack of credibility the separatist agenda currently holds internationally.  Any international credibility they may have held has dried up.

Last week the Bloc moved separatism up to the front burner.  Not unpredictable, given the recent denunciation of the Dion coalition.  This move has highlighted the parties slide to irrelevance, by revealing the lack of support for their primary agenda.  I suppose the Bloc hoped that outrage over the failed Dion coalition would renew calls for Quebec independence.  That just hasn’t been the case.   If anything the whole episode has highlighted the strength of Canadian federalism.

Many Quebec voters have viewed the Bloc as simply a regional party for some time.  I believe these voters will move to a federalist option should more effective representation present itself.  Renewed calls for separation from Bloc leadership will isolate soft votes and drive them elsewhere.  This is where the federalist parties can make gains.  

Now that the major federalist parties have a hold on the balance of power within the Parliament, the effectiveness of Bloc has been greatly diminished (at least temporarily).  As the Bloc lose influence, the highly acute swing voters of Quebec will turn to a party that can provide them more effective representation.

Micheal Ignatieff currently has the greatest opportunity to benefit from this.  Momentum in the province is currently on Ignatieff’s side.  He is well liked in the province and Harper has been effectively battered.  A top rebuilding priority should focus on Quebec, to benefit from the current likability advantage he holds.  He faces large challenges, but currently has the most to gain.  

It is also to early to rule out Harper in this fight for Bloc votes.  He has a long way to go to rebuild credibility in many areas, but the other parties may aid him in that process.  The Bloc will shift attacks to the greatest immediate threat.  They will likely focus on Michael Ignatieff, to the benefit of the conservatives in many ridings of the province.  The conservatives can focus some of their vast resources to establishing a viable option in their competitive regions.  The major focus for the conservatives may have shifted towards southern Ontario, but there still are potential gains to be made in Quebec over the next year.  

The wild card in this renewed fight for Quebec votes is the NDP.  Some see the NDP as being in the best position to benefit from the current situation and the potential Bloc decline.  I don’t share their optimism.  Rather than being viewed as a fresh federalist alternative, they will more likely be viewed as another fringe element with little more influence than the waning Bloc.  The cagey swing voters of Quebec will not trade one fringe vote for another; they are more likely to turn to the strongest federalist option.

It is never a good idea to count Gilles Duceppe out.  He has been the most effective leader in the House of Commons for years.  This is partly due to his skill, and partly because of the narrow agenda and primary principles he adheres to.  But the renewed calls for separatism show how desperate his party is to remain relevant.  Without support for separatism, the Bloc becomes a regional party with limited effectiveness. The federalist parties should seize on this opportunity for electoral gain, and to forward the unity agenda.  The road to future majority governments may depend on it.

Élections fédérales: Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe ou Jack Layton?

(Agence Science-Presse) – Harper, Dion, Duceppe, Layton? Vous êtes indécis? En réalité, vous savez pour qui vous allez voter… avant même que vous ne le sachiez vous-même!

Selon le psychologue de l’Université Western Ontario Bertram Gawronski et deux collègues italiens, les électeurs ont déjà, inconsciemment, pris des décisions, qu’un sondage habile pourrait révéler.

C’est l’exercice auquel ces chercheurs se sont livrés en Italie, et dont les résultats sont parus récemment dans la revue Science. La vitesse à laquelle les « cobayes » répondent à des questions liées à un enjeu local, serait révélatrice de la décision qu’ils ont déjà pris, et par conséquent du choix qu’ils risquent de faire, si des élections sont proches.

Il est trop tard pour adapter ce type de test aux sondages qui seront menés tout au long de la campagne électorale, mais la prochaine fois, qui sait, peut-être que même les indécis n’auront plus de secrets!

PUBLICITÉ

Graffiti Hip Hop de la scène de Montréal

Opération Graffiti. Toute l’histoire de la création du Café-Graffiti. La relation avec les jeunes. Ce qu’ils ont vécu dans le projet. Ce qu’ils ont fait vivre aux intervenants. Toutes les anecdotes d’un projet qui fait encore parler de lui. Une façon intéressante et originale de soutenir le Café-Graffiti dans sa mission d’aide et de soutien aux jeunes. 19,95$.

Disponible Par téléphone: (514) 256-9000, en région: 1-877-256-9009
Par Internet: www.refletdesociete.com
Par la poste: Reflet de Société 4233 Ste-Catherine Est Montréal, Qc. H1V 1X4

Update: This comment was also published on National Post – Full Comment On January 19, 2009.

In 1864 the governance of the Province of Canada was largely at an impasse.  The province had suffered through six governments in six years trying to get effective government.   Regional and special interests within the legislative assembly of the time would not allow progress due to the great distrust between parties. The agenda and reforms had become virtually paralyzed.  

The Liberal-Conservative leader Sir John A. Macdonald formed a coalition with the Grits and Parti Bleu.  This coalition provided an arrangement that allowed for the progress of a legislative agenda.  Macdonald’s government achieved progress on reforms which lead to Canadian Confederation in 1867.  This particular Grand Coalition is known historically as the Great Coalition.  

Many of the challenges facing the modern day parliament are similar to those of Macdonald’s time.  There are the political divisions between the four parties. The Bloc create a regional and provincial unbalance, exerting far more influence on the government agenda than any one province reasonably should.  The two major parties see divisions between urban and rural representation.  We have seen dysfunction, multiple elections, consecutive minorities and major divisions preventing a majority mandate for any particular party.  The ability to provide effective governance has been brought in to question.  These obstacles are impediments to our nations progress and could harm our long term unity.

The stakes now are obviously very high in terms of the deteriorating economy.  Economic uncertainty makes it imperative that a productive level of co-operation is achieved .  The difficulty is the current compromise arrangement must now include the unbalanced  NDP and Bloc influence.  Not to mention all the additional special interest groups on the fringes.  It is irresponsible of our major party leaders to allow so much control over the federal agenda to be in the hands of special interests and outlying groups.  

As difficult as a Conservative-Liberal arrangement would seem politically, I believe most Tories would prefer a compromise with Ignatieff liberalism, over Laytonesque socialism or Duceppe’s separatism.  The public reaction to the proposed December coalition indicated that most Canadians would prefer a Conservative-Liberal coalition over Dion’s accord agreement.  It would be a co-operative parliament people could get behind.  

Ignatieff is still open to a coalition (for obvious strategic reasons), and from his language may be open to a coalition with the conservatives.  A far better, and more tenable solution than combining with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois.  He wants no part of that coalition in terms of governance.  However, his language does show his openness to the possibility of coalitions in general.

“The possibility of coalition must remain on the table because it gives Canadians the possibility of stable government,”

Policy also has shown a dramatic shift of the Liberal party under Ignatieff.  He has intimated at tax cuts as part of the fiscal stimulus package.  He has also taken a strong Pro-Israel stance on Gaza.  These two examples show that Ignatieff is intent on returning his party to the center, even center right.  There was a danger that alienating the left within his party would cause to much fragmentation.  Ignatieff appears to have done the math, and is willing to shed the far left of his party in the hopes of gaining the moderate majority center.  This shift really moves his party far closer to the conservatives than any other party within the house.

Harper could similarly be open to a coalition, just not with the Bloc Quebecois. 

As pointed out by others, he has explored the idea of coalitions in the past, in one form or another.  Of course, it would be a difficult political decision for the Prime Minister.  However, by joining forces with a leader of a similar mindset, Harper could potentially ensure conservative majority governance for a specified period of time.  He would only require some level of Ignatieff branded liberalism as compromise.  As we have recently seen with the budget preparation, that level of compromise and more, is being made already.  

Harper left the door open during his televised address in December,

” It is a time for Canada’s government to focus on the economy and specific measures for the upcoming budget.”

“This is a pivotal moment in our history. We Canadians are inheritors of a great legacy and it is our duty to strengthen and protect it for the generations still to come. Tonight I pledge to you that Canada’s government will use every legal means at our disposal to protect our democracy, to protect our economy and to protect Canada.”

This potential Conservative-Liberal arrangement would have a level of legitimacy that the December Dion version did not.  The Conservatives would remain the main executive in government and Harper would remain as PM, respecting the conventions of our constitution.  The will of the electorate is respected and the Governor General doesn’t have to face a possible constitutional crisis.

The upcoming budget vote provides a solid opportunity for this coalition to form.  The budget will almost certainly pass with Liberal support, opening one door and closing another.  This sets up the chance for a co-operative and productive coalition to govern.  It could meet Ignatieff’s demands of stable government and Harper could be satisfied that our democratic conventions and national unity are being protected and strengthened.

The Great coalition resulted in Canadian Confederation. It allowed the major parties of the day to overcome the impasse and a meaningful agenda moved forward.  Such a coalition ends the undo influence held by the fringe elements within governance.  Specifically, it would limit the influence the Bloc has on the agenda of Canada.

 The Great Coalition of 1864 was able to achieve unity and forge through to Confederation, the possibility of a unifying grand coalition today could be the next great step in national unity.

For the good of Canada, for our long term unity, for the ability to effectively govern in a time of instability, a Conservative-Liberal Coalition arrangement should be seriously considered.  This arrangement would have the potential of being the next Great Coalition.

La saison des divertissements a commencé avec ce cafouillage des élections de novembre qui n’ont pas donné a Harper la majorité qui lui permettrait de remanier l’équilibre social canadien et de résoudre la crise en en faisant le poids aux travailleurs, rentiers et autres péquenots.  Il fallait vite reprendre ces élections et obtenir cette  majorité, mais comment ?

Quelle muleta agiter devant le taureau PLC de Dion, tellement vache que l’on ne sait plus comment l’exciter ? Le bal des menus plaisirs a d’abord présenté un scherzo, un badinage de Harper sur le thème de la suppression de la contribution de l’État au financement de partis politiques. Son grand aria: « Dites, ça vous plairait que je vous les coupe ? » a eu un succès bœuf.

La grosse bête s’est finalement ressaisie – on a dû lui chuchoter à l’oreille – et a même trouvé un stratagème – une  Coalition – qui lui aurait permis d’encorner son tortionnaire. L’instinct de comédien étant cependant plus fort en elle que celui de bagarreur, elle ne l’a pas fait; elle s’est juste empressée d’en parler, permettant au matador Albertain de faire une véronique et d’éviter la charge.  C’est là qu’on s’est tristement amusé.

Le plus tristement amusant  a été la nuée de mozos et peones de l’écurie Gesca, se précipitant dans l’arène pout distraire l’animal et animer le public.  Si jamais le jupon d’une presse à ses ordres a dépassé de la robe de l’Establishment, c’est bien cette  fois-ci où, pendant deux jours, tous les chroniqueurs  et journalistes de Cyberpresse ont été appelé à la rescousse pour venir dire du mal de la Coalition.

Chacun l’a fait en fonction de son talent, parois avec humour, parfois en apportant un argumentaire, mais ils ont tous payé leur tribut. Ceux qui n’ont pas de talents on fait ce qu’ils ont pu. Le texte de Lysianne Gagnon sort du rang.

 http://www.cyberpresse.ca/opinions/chroniqueurs/lysiane-gagnon/200812/01/01-806248-un-putsch-rien-de-moins.php

Ca vaut le détour.  Vous y apprendrez que l’addition est une fiction mathématique, que l’on peut ne pas être dans un coalition, mais en faire intégralement partie et que l’approche économique d’un gouvernement ne peut pas créer des situation assez graves pour justifier un putsch. Tant pis si vous crevez de faim ! On vous rappelera que Layton a été rejeté par 82 % des électeurs et ne peut donc pas être ministre, sans vous dire pourquoi Harper pourrait être chef du gouvernement, alors qu’il a été lui aussi rejeté par une vaste majorité (63%) des memes électeurs

 Comme il n’y a pas de mal don’t quelque bien ne sorte, Dame Gagnon nous apprend cependant qu’un “deputé conservateur”  a infiltré une conférence téléphonique du caucus néo-démocrate… Et vlan pour l’éthique et la simple courtoisie. On se sent fier d’être Canadien.

Le mythe de la liberté rédactionnelle dans les médias propriétés de milliardaires ne s’en remettra jamais. On sait désormais que, si les circonstances l’exigent, tous les journalistes de Gesca monteront aux barricades pour défendre la vision du monde de Paul Desmarais.   Ce qui force a se poser la question du bien fondé d’une politique qui permet la concentration des medias entre les mains de quelques individus, dont les intérêts ne sont pas toujours ceux du monde ordinaire. A revoir.

Les médias peuvent être des fauteurs de désordre sérieux, car pendant que Cyberpresse déblatère contre la Coalition, les médias anglophones eux s’en donnent a cœur joie contre les « Trois Québécois » ( Dion-Layton-Duceppe) .. et contre tout ce qui est Québec en général. On est dans le stercoraire, mais on rigole.

 Une meilleure blague encore a été la mise en veilleuse du parlement, alors qu’une majorité des parlementaires  avaient déjà annoncé que la gouvernement avait perdu leur confiance.  « Tactique de république de bananes » disent unanimement les médias américains.  On s’amuse bien…  Quelle serait la situation si une majorité de députés se réunissaient où que ce soit -  un Jeu de Paume, de préférence, mais n’importe quel aréna ferait l’affaire -  persistaient et signaient,  demandant respectueusement a Sa Majesté de dissoudre ce parlement ? 

 Évidemment, ce n’était pas le but initial cherché, mais le souffleur ayant bousillé les répliques, la réponse de Sa majesté aujourd’hui serait édifiante.  Si elle accédait a cette demande, elle établirait que la décision d’interrompre les travaux parlementaires à la demande de Harper était injustifiée. Si elle la rejetait, elle mettrait fin  à la fiction d’une monarchie constitutionnelle. Des années de plaisir…

Pendant ce temps Harper prépare sa future  campagne électorale –  qui se fera sur le dos des Québécois – et il a encore eu le temps de faire imploser la Coalition en semant la zizanie.  Ainsi, le candidat libéral à la chefferie Manley, dont Harper  s’était assuré la complaisance en lui confiant  un « important mandat », vient de lui retourner l’ascenseur en condamnant la démarche de Dion de l’intérieur même du parti Libéral, ce qui devrait mettre fin a la Coalition et garantir la victoire de Harper….

Grand  Capital 1, Peuple 0.   La fête continue. Marrez vous bien, et essuyez la cuvette.

Pierre JC Allard 

Ok, so I didn’t give it my best shot photoshopping these guys, but hey, i’m living in my van in mexico and circumstances, while good, aren’t as comfy as usual.  so this is what you get.  there’s only five….i’ve forgotten one major combo but am too tired to tell….suggestions?

they’re all avuncular,  why a couple even look like Colonel Sherman Potter from M.A.S.H. 

who do you like best?

So the Governor General granted the PM’s request to prorogue parliament.  Some question her decision, but I don’t think she really had a choice.  It was either grant his wish, or deny it, overrule the elected leader, and potentially cause a public outrage and throw the country into a new crisis over the legitamacy of the Queen as our head of state.

Now, as it is, we have no government in action during the worst economic crisis this country has seen in decades, certainly in my lifetime.  How did we get here? That would be thanks for Mr. Harper and his gigantic blunder of trying to cut the parties off at the knees financially, presented as a budget cut.  His decision to cut the public subsidy of the political parties amounted to at best a 30 million dollar savings per annum…hardly a major chunk of change.  He eventually pulled that out of his budget, but it was too late, and the other parties, pushed into a corner, fighting for their very survival, formed a coalition and banded together against this bully.

The problem with this coalition however, was two fold.  First, it depended on people accepting Stephen Dion as the interm PM, a man soundly rejected by the public at large in an election a mere two months ago.  Second, it depended on the Bloc Quebecois agreeing to support the new government.  Harper, threatened by his very survival, chose to be very un-Prime Ministerial, and put the entire country’s future on the line by wrapping himself in the flag and attacking the coalition as the ’separatist coalition’.  This line of attack only fanned the flames of nation dis-unity, especially in the West (i.e., Alberta) and Quebec.  I suppose anger is better than apathy, but anger by Canadians directed at other Canadians is not good for anyone, and certainly not good for the future of this nation.  Harper’s scorched earth policy towards the Bloc is a slap in the face of Quebecers, because Quebecers don’t think of the Bloc as a separatist party, but simply a party that represents their interests at the federal level, so why it plays well in English Canada to attack the Bloc, in Quebec it was perceived as a direct attack on Quebecers.  That will have unforeseen consequences for any federalist party in Quebec for years to come, and may have undone a decade of hard work by all who care for a united Canada.

So now what? Well, in reality nothing much will probably happen over the next 7 weeks.  Most likely, the coalition will collapse, because the liberals have no stomach for Dion and want him out as soon as possible.  The caucus is broken and will not hold long enough for this government to get back on Jan. 26, 2009.  If the Liberals were smart, they’d find some way of selecting their leader much sooner than May 2009, because by then, there may not be much of a party to lead.  But, given their total lack of leadership at all levels, their lack of organization, and inablity to properly communicate, I highly doubt they’ll be comptent enough to pull that off.

Polls show Harper is now way ahead of Liberals, 44% to 24%.  This debacle has been bad for Harper, but worse for the Liberals.  The biggest losers of all though, are the citizens.  We now have no government during a terrible time where we need real leadership on the economic file.  This Parliament will be broken even if the government is not defeated upon their return, and will not be in any position to do much of anything for the remainder of its reign.  And the re-opening of that Pandora’s box known as national unity will have repercussions for years to come.

Thank you to Misters Harper, Dion, Layton and Duceppe for pissing on my country.

-K

Bec, Commentator over at “Blue Like You” gave readers a hint that Charles Adler has Part Two up on his blog about the
Three Stooges of Coupscam — here is a sample below:

Three Stooges of Coupscam (Chapter Two)
by Charles Adler
Dec 4/08

It’s hard for many of us to believe that the fate of Canada, one of the world’s great democracies, is now in the hands of a person who has never been elected to anything. But I have confidence that the Governor General will continue to respect the views of the Prime Minister and continue to maintain Canada’s tradition of having meaningful elections where the Canadian voters and votes are respected and where a change of government happens when the people vote for that change. I expect the Governor General to continue to take her prime counsel from the Prime Minister as opposed to the growing gaggle of opportunists, unionists, and academics who want to conquer the National treasury and bankrupt it.

It’s hard for us to believe that people in this country will surrender everything we own to TENURED university professors. You can read that as some of the only people in Canada with job security guaranteed.

Blogger Hat Tip to Conservatism.ca for confirming my fears, not yet expressed here, that the rest of the world is noting our dilemma and making up cartoons and comments. Source of cartoon

In Terence Corcoran’s editorial today entitled:”Why The PM Must Persist” I found a kindred spirit to get me out of my funk. After watching the Layton and Duceppe show after our Prime Minister spoke, I wandered around trying to find the words and quell my anger. It was nice to browse around and find Terence Corcoran and I repeat some of it here for you. Please read his full article here.

Into the grand fable of their attempt to take control of Ottawa, the opposition coalition and its backers have woven an imaginary tale of Tory economic negligence. They were at it again yesterday in the House of Commons and last night in Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s address to the nation, repeating claims that the Harper government’s economic plan leaves Canada’s economy sailing rudderless into an economic hurricane.

There is no substance to the Dion coalition’s alleged reasons for existence, no basis for its false claims of looming economic peril and job losses due to Conservative policy. Nor is there much truth in the media’s caricature of Stephen Harper as an arrogant strategic dolt whose monumental economic and political blunder has plunged his government, the country and the economy into a crisis.

The whole production is a page from the work of the greatest academic authority on the subject, Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt, author of the 2005 best-seller, On Bullshit. Liars, says Prof. Frankfurt, need to know the truth. Bullshitters, interested solely in advancing their own agenda, have no use for the truth. They just make things up to win over their audience.

Precisely Terence!

Jack Layton slags our Prime Minister at every turn. Nothing we do is good enough for him. He plays up again and again how they had to step in and take over. Canada needs them. Mr. Harper has lost the confidence of the House of Commons, he said. People are losing jobs every minute and he does nothing about it, says he. If you listen to Mr. Layton he is pure as the driven snow. He asks for meetings and gives his ideas and no one takes them. It is the same tune Mr. Duceppe sings but in a lower meter and Quebec oriented. I heard Mr. Duceppe call our Prime Minister a liar at least twice today.

Both of these men are upset that we are not throwing out money in every which way but loose to any Canadian industry or family anywhere…no target…just throw.

Chuck Strahl said:

Apparently they’re prepared to take the ‘ready, shoot, aim” approach to spending, and agree to some blank cheques without even knowing what will actually help specific industries, without knowing what Barak Obama has planned, and without working in concert with the other G-20 countries. It is a recipe for a fiscal disaster.

IT WAS ONLY AN ECONOMIC UPDATE —–it was NOT A BUDGET —I scream to the TV screen–but Layton and Duceppe do not find it convenient to listen. They prefer to repeat how they have made suggestions and the government did not listen so now they have to act and thus the coalition.

We all know the truth though, don’t we. The idea of a coalition found a home in Crafty Jack’s mind and, opportunist and super salesman that he is, he whispered his plans to Duceppe. Somewhere along the line Dion got in on it. The election ink results were not even dry when they started planning and plotting and waiting.

None of these men have shown any integrity for Canadians to embrace their plan. They show no verbal leadership nor a willingness to work things out. They want what they want and they want it now, regardless as to whether it is the right thing to do or not. They are though very good at Course 101 entitled “How to slag those in power and get what you want”.

How do you like being duped Canada? Have you seen their ambitions showing yet?

They talk the talk and do not walk the walk. Seize the opportunity and control it. That is their motto.

I want to know what this coalition has against helping seniors?

I want to ask them why they didn’t notice all of the cash and incentives being put out to banks and money lenders so they can give Canadians what they need.

I would like to know why they could not see the vision presented to them about taxes, spending, infrastructure, deficits, economic forecasting and even about the government economizing.

That was the test, to see if the opposition could see the vision in pulling back on their entitlements. Well no they could not.

I would like to know how you can throw money at something with no target or no information at hand and expect it to bear fruit. The coalition does not have an answer to this.

I would like to know why they do not feel proud that we are the envy of the world and will not feel the pain as strongly as all others will.

Their verbal speak shows me that they say what their salesman sides want to say but the cards they carry are very close to their chests and are never to be revealed.

Have you caught them out yet Canada? Have you watched enough of their throwing their weight around and hijacking Canada to dance to their drummer?

I am glad to see that I am not the only one who sees them for what they are.

Rally For Canada is this coming Saturday, and in my city I will be in front of the legislature building at 2pm to support Canada Strong and Free. I expect I will be talking it up with those who gather. I hope they pass on their commitment to others, so they can pass it on, and so on and so on.

Wait for the budget and see for yourself the commitment it will make to Canadians. It is born out of gathering information, talking to premiers, leaders of the world, business people and members of parliament. I say MP’s in case there are some who actually give input. The bloc says they already have. Let’s hope it has content that the government can use.

Let the “cooling off period begin”.