Confessions of a Political Junkie
Dec. 8th, 2008 11:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqI'm loving this. The coalition, the proroguing, the slow melt-down of multiple political parties. It's not good for the body-politic, but then deep-fried Mars bars aren't good for my body and I still love the taste. I've got no real point in this wandering look at the current political climate, but I do have some wide-ranging observations.
When I first heard about this (the Liberal-New Democrat coalition) I was against it. Not because I bought all that BS about how they were staging a coup and it was against the will of Canadians. I thought it was a maneuver that traded a short-term gain for long-term ill-will. I thought that it would relegate the Liberal party to the wilderness for another five years.
More on that thought in a moment. First, I'd like to address the talk of a coup. Coups happen when you take over the state using non-standard means. Parking tanks on Parliament Hill and saying "get out or we'll shoot you" is a coup. "losing" enough ballots to falsely swing the vote your way is a coup. This is not a coup.
In the Westminster model, what's going on is not non-standard. It's well understood, albeit rare, for a coalition to take over the government. This is because no political party is really real as far as parliament goes. They're all just a convenient short-hand for "group of MPs who will act together".
You could form a group of MPs by saying that "everyone who's name begins with the letters A-S" is the party. Assuming you've got the majority, you could form the government.
Basically, the fact that there is a group of MPs labeled "Conservative", and that label has the most seats doesn't matter if a larger group comes along. There's no rule that says you have to give the reigns of government to the group with a single label.
But still I hear people talk about how this is all so undemocratic. It's perfectly democratic, you're just pissed that it's working against you. When the local red necks go on about it, that's mildly irritating, but not surprising. It's when people who should know better go on about it that really bugs me. If you're a political columnist or a newspaper editor you should know better. Hell, you should be doing your level best to inform your readership on the facts rather then muckraking.
That's probably too much to ask of Albertans - and that makes me sad.
I'm very much fascinated by the reactions of people to this. Some are passionately for the coalition. Other are passionately against. Mostly it's just partisanship - Conservatives are against the coalition, others are for it. I just wish more people would admit that.
I've always thought that there was a wide streak of follow-the-strong-man in Alberta politics. A sort of STFU attitude to the side that lost, as if the act of losing an election meant an unconditional surrender.
Or at least, that strong-man vibe exists when they win (as the Conservatives do provincially). They certainly complain about not being heard when they're party is the opposition. It's weird that so many people overlook the irony of that.
it's also why proportional representation is such a non-starter here. Give the minority a larger voice? But they lost, that means they have to shut up now.
Being exposed to the local media is a little like living in a cave. You so rarely hear opposite viewpoints that going to other regions of the country is a bit of a shock. So many Albertans think of themselves as "typical Canadians" but then balk when they realize that a majority of Canadians disagree with them on many, if not most, social and financial points. If you were to come up with an average Canadian, it'd probably be a small family that wants basic financial stability from the government. They'd probably agree with a slightly left position for most social issues, not necessarily because they agree with the left's position, but because they're willing to let people live their lives without interference. They prefer to be between the UK and the US in terms of socialism - basically enough socialism to make life easier, but not so much that the state is everywhere. This would be considered the centrist view in Canada.
Note that the typical Albertan would be to the right of the typical Canadian. Maybe not as far to the right as their political choices indicate, but enough that it's obvious they're different. Aside: I suspect there are many Albertans who are firmly centrist and are a little embarrassed by their neighbors. I bet many of them don't vote because they think it's a pointless exercise. That almost describes me to a T. The only difference being that I think it's a pointless exercise but I vote despite that. I don't self-identify with Don Quixote for nothing!
I will occasionally introduce myself when travelling around the country like this: Yes, I'm from Alberta. No, we're not all redneck reactionary homophobes. Mostly this gets a chuckle. Nobody's ever contradicted me by saying "But I didn't think that to begin with".
Back to the Coalition. When I first heard about it on the radio, I had almost zero knowledge about what was going on, only that the three opposition parties where trying to take over. My initial thought was "fuck them - the Conservatives won fair and square". I don't particularly like the CPC, but they did get the most seats.
Then I started to look into it. Turns out the CPC tried to introduce legislation that would have crippled the other parties if it had passed. In a sense they were setting up a false dichotomy: Choice one would be to pass the legislation and shoot yourself in the foot. The other choice being don't pass the legislation and force an election and risk a crushing defeat at the hands of an angry electorate. Of course, the opposition recognized a third option - force the governing party out and form an alternative. Perfectly legal, but normally unstable as hell. It takes a lot to get the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois to work together. Steven Harper trying to poison their funding managed it.
Harper decided to prorogue the government rather then take his medicine. That's OK, the sharks can smell the blood in the water now so it's really just a matter of time. Jack Layton put it best. When interviewed by a reporter who speculated an improved budget with enough ND-friendly favours in it, Jack said "I'm sure we'll incorporate any good idea their budget has into ours after we've defeated them". A majority of MPs are fed up with Harper. They want him gone and I don't blame them.
To soon-to-be-ex-PM Stephen Harper I can only say "You punch people in the nose enough, don't be surprised when they swing back".
Now some speculation about the personalities involved.
Stephen Harper: A bully. The proroguing of Parliament has all the airs of a boy taking his ball out of the game because he doesn't like that the other players are better at it then him. I'm not surprised that he claimed to want to work with the other parties this parliament, then went with the same brinkmanship that he did in the previous parliament. It's in his nature. Even now I wonder if he truly understand why this is happening to him. His ideological blinders are probably too strong. Good riddance.
Stéphane Dion: I'd have liked to see Dion win a majority, but it was not to be. The Liberals needed a charismatic leader rather then a meticulous one. His political career is over. I'm a little shocked, but pleasantly surprised to see him drag Harper down with him. I didn't think he had it in him.
Jack Layton: This is Jack's one great opportunity to rewrite the Canadian electoral system. I'm sure he wants two things out of this coalition - a vote on proportional representation and a chance at being Finance Minister. Aim for the stars Jack, even if I think both outcomes are as likely as hen's teeth.
Gilles Duceppe: Strangely, Duceppe seems to be the only person likely to come out of this whole affair smelling like a rose. He's going to do what's best for Quebec (and there's no question that this coalition is better for Quebec then the Alberta-centric CPC. I've been hearing a lot of anti-francophone rhetoric of late and it's kind of ugly). Conversely, if the coalition falls apart, he can claim that he was only ever at arms length from it and point out that Canadian federalism is flawed, which is pretty good spin for a separatist.
Michaëlle Jean: I'm guessing she had a two-and-a-half hour brow-beating from Harper. In the end she allowed the proroguing. Probably the best thing she could have done. Forcing him to face the music had the potential to send us towards a constitutional crisis. Even if I do believe that her job is to respond to the wishes of Parliament first rather then the PM specifically.
Interesting times. It's been nice to actually talk to people about politics and hear a wide range of opinions. Generally I only do this with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
evilscientist, and even then it tends towards a dutch-rudder conversation rather then a debate.
When I first heard about this (the Liberal-New Democrat coalition) I was against it. Not because I bought all that BS about how they were staging a coup and it was against the will of Canadians. I thought it was a maneuver that traded a short-term gain for long-term ill-will. I thought that it would relegate the Liberal party to the wilderness for another five years.
More on that thought in a moment. First, I'd like to address the talk of a coup. Coups happen when you take over the state using non-standard means. Parking tanks on Parliament Hill and saying "get out or we'll shoot you" is a coup. "losing" enough ballots to falsely swing the vote your way is a coup. This is not a coup.
In the Westminster model, what's going on is not non-standard. It's well understood, albeit rare, for a coalition to take over the government. This is because no political party is really real as far as parliament goes. They're all just a convenient short-hand for "group of MPs who will act together".
You could form a group of MPs by saying that "everyone who's name begins with the letters A-S" is the party. Assuming you've got the majority, you could form the government.
Basically, the fact that there is a group of MPs labeled "Conservative", and that label has the most seats doesn't matter if a larger group comes along. There's no rule that says you have to give the reigns of government to the group with a single label.
But still I hear people talk about how this is all so undemocratic. It's perfectly democratic, you're just pissed that it's working against you. When the local red necks go on about it, that's mildly irritating, but not surprising. It's when people who should know better go on about it that really bugs me. If you're a political columnist or a newspaper editor you should know better. Hell, you should be doing your level best to inform your readership on the facts rather then muckraking.
That's probably too much to ask of Albertans - and that makes me sad.
I'm very much fascinated by the reactions of people to this. Some are passionately for the coalition. Other are passionately against. Mostly it's just partisanship - Conservatives are against the coalition, others are for it. I just wish more people would admit that.
I've always thought that there was a wide streak of follow-the-strong-man in Alberta politics. A sort of STFU attitude to the side that lost, as if the act of losing an election meant an unconditional surrender.
Or at least, that strong-man vibe exists when they win (as the Conservatives do provincially). They certainly complain about not being heard when they're party is the opposition. It's weird that so many people overlook the irony of that.
it's also why proportional representation is such a non-starter here. Give the minority a larger voice? But they lost, that means they have to shut up now.
Being exposed to the local media is a little like living in a cave. You so rarely hear opposite viewpoints that going to other regions of the country is a bit of a shock. So many Albertans think of themselves as "typical Canadians" but then balk when they realize that a majority of Canadians disagree with them on many, if not most, social and financial points. If you were to come up with an average Canadian, it'd probably be a small family that wants basic financial stability from the government. They'd probably agree with a slightly left position for most social issues, not necessarily because they agree with the left's position, but because they're willing to let people live their lives without interference. They prefer to be between the UK and the US in terms of socialism - basically enough socialism to make life easier, but not so much that the state is everywhere. This would be considered the centrist view in Canada.
Note that the typical Albertan would be to the right of the typical Canadian. Maybe not as far to the right as their political choices indicate, but enough that it's obvious they're different. Aside: I suspect there are many Albertans who are firmly centrist and are a little embarrassed by their neighbors. I bet many of them don't vote because they think it's a pointless exercise. That almost describes me to a T. The only difference being that I think it's a pointless exercise but I vote despite that. I don't self-identify with Don Quixote for nothing!
I will occasionally introduce myself when travelling around the country like this: Yes, I'm from Alberta. No, we're not all redneck reactionary homophobes. Mostly this gets a chuckle. Nobody's ever contradicted me by saying "But I didn't think that to begin with".
Back to the Coalition. When I first heard about it on the radio, I had almost zero knowledge about what was going on, only that the three opposition parties where trying to take over. My initial thought was "fuck them - the Conservatives won fair and square". I don't particularly like the CPC, but they did get the most seats.
Then I started to look into it. Turns out the CPC tried to introduce legislation that would have crippled the other parties if it had passed. In a sense they were setting up a false dichotomy: Choice one would be to pass the legislation and shoot yourself in the foot. The other choice being don't pass the legislation and force an election and risk a crushing defeat at the hands of an angry electorate. Of course, the opposition recognized a third option - force the governing party out and form an alternative. Perfectly legal, but normally unstable as hell. It takes a lot to get the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois to work together. Steven Harper trying to poison their funding managed it.
Harper decided to prorogue the government rather then take his medicine. That's OK, the sharks can smell the blood in the water now so it's really just a matter of time. Jack Layton put it best. When interviewed by a reporter who speculated an improved budget with enough ND-friendly favours in it, Jack said "I'm sure we'll incorporate any good idea their budget has into ours after we've defeated them". A majority of MPs are fed up with Harper. They want him gone and I don't blame them.
To soon-to-be-ex-PM Stephen Harper I can only say "You punch people in the nose enough, don't be surprised when they swing back".
Now some speculation about the personalities involved.
Stephen Harper: A bully. The proroguing of Parliament has all the airs of a boy taking his ball out of the game because he doesn't like that the other players are better at it then him. I'm not surprised that he claimed to want to work with the other parties this parliament, then went with the same brinkmanship that he did in the previous parliament. It's in his nature. Even now I wonder if he truly understand why this is happening to him. His ideological blinders are probably too strong. Good riddance.
Stéphane Dion: I'd have liked to see Dion win a majority, but it was not to be. The Liberals needed a charismatic leader rather then a meticulous one. His political career is over. I'm a little shocked, but pleasantly surprised to see him drag Harper down with him. I didn't think he had it in him.
Jack Layton: This is Jack's one great opportunity to rewrite the Canadian electoral system. I'm sure he wants two things out of this coalition - a vote on proportional representation and a chance at being Finance Minister. Aim for the stars Jack, even if I think both outcomes are as likely as hen's teeth.
Gilles Duceppe: Strangely, Duceppe seems to be the only person likely to come out of this whole affair smelling like a rose. He's going to do what's best for Quebec (and there's no question that this coalition is better for Quebec then the Alberta-centric CPC. I've been hearing a lot of anti-francophone rhetoric of late and it's kind of ugly). Conversely, if the coalition falls apart, he can claim that he was only ever at arms length from it and point out that Canadian federalism is flawed, which is pretty good spin for a separatist.
Michaëlle Jean: I'm guessing she had a two-and-a-half hour brow-beating from Harper. In the end she allowed the proroguing. Probably the best thing she could have done. Forcing him to face the music had the potential to send us towards a constitutional crisis. Even if I do believe that her job is to respond to the wishes of Parliament first rather then the PM specifically.
Interesting times. It's been nice to actually talk to people about politics and hear a wide range of opinions. Generally I only do this with
evilscientist, and even then it tends towards a dutch-rudder conversation rather then a debate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 01:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 03:33 am (UTC)Let's hope the hyperlink works this time..
no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 04:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-09 09:14 am (UTC)