Firstly, and this needs to be clear, the Members of Parliament, in the final analysis, are voted individually to seat in the Commons. They are constitutionally "free" to band together in any manner they so choose. That means that the maneuver they are considering is constitutionally legitimate.
It is also the case that PM Harper is within his rights to ask the Governor General to request dissolution of parliament and a new election. Conventionally the GG has not (save once) refused such a request although technically she could and instead call upon Dion, or any other Member of the House, to form a new government.
In keeping with parliamentary tradition the GG should, if requested, dissolve parliament and call a new election. My main reasoning for this is that in the recent election Canadians soundly rejected the Liberals, and in particular Dion. None of the parties who are party to this coalition agreement even came close to the Conservatives in popular votes or in accumulated seats in the House of Commons. People either voted for Lib, Cons, NDP, Green or (in Quebec) the Bloc... they did not vote for the bloc and according to Norman Spector the individual parties, during the campaign, expressly said they would not work in a coalition.
The Conservatives under Harper, and in a minority situation have arguably governed very well. None of the despicable scandals that continually attended the Liberal goverments under both Chretien and Martin. Frankly I do not think that the Liberals have been in the political wilderness anywhere near long enough to atone for their unprecedented arrogance and their vast array of political sins and misdeeds while they were in office.
About the issues that supposedly precipitated this crisis:
My first major point is this... and it deserves some critical thought and evaluation on the part of the Canadian citizenry... The main issue that seems to have led to this is that Harper & his Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, announced that they were going kick the squeeling, snorting pigs of the political parties from the public trough. There would no longer be public financing for the political parties. This was done, at least in part, to set an example for the public. The politicians would tighten their belt first before they asked the civil service and the public to do the same. And... the Conservative party stood to lose the most given the current formula because they have the most votes and the money is doled out on a $1.95 per vote won basis! Now... admittedly, there is a political poison pill involved here too. BUT... in my view it is a very legitimate one. It is that the other political parties would loose more, by way of percentage, of their over all political party funding than would the Conservative Party. Why would this be? Because more average individual Canadians give more money in donations to the Conservative party than they do to the other parties. Let that sink in for a minute! HELLO!!! That means that more Canadians support the Conservative Party... democracy with your pocket book! But alas... this unfortunate detail upsets the other parties enough to band together and upset the results of the recent election. - It reminds me of the Talk Radio issue in the US. Conservative talk radio has a huge market in the US (and elsewhere I might add) and the Liberal talk radio does not and thus can not stay afloat because they do not have a significant listener base... imagine that! If there was a market for their "ideas" then they they would capture a significant listener base and there would be counterparts to Rush and Sean and Glenn and Michael, etc. , all over the place. But there are not... none of any significance. So what do the liberals want to do... they want the government to declare it "unfair" (the "fairness doctrine" - don't make me laugh... ) and shut down talk radio because they can not compete. this is the same thought pattern that we are seeing at play here presently. - The other parties want to wallow in the public trough and get through taxes that which the majority of us will not give them of our own free will and choice.
The other issue they are wailing about is the fact that Flaherty did not include a "stimulus package" in his recent economic update. that is because WE DO NOT NEED An ECONOMIC STIMULUS at this point. Largely because of the Conservative governments of Mulroney and Harper and yes I would also give some credit to Martin when he was Finance Minister, we have entered this world financial crisis in amazingly positive shape. Our financial system and our banks are in very solid shape. In the Economic Update Harper and Flaherty have charted a very prudent course. They have not been reckless and they want to avoid a structural deficit situation and yet they have not closed the door on a stimulus package if one becomes required. The coalition group on the other hand is already proceeding full steam ahead on on a reckless course of announcing their plan of Billions of OUR DOLLARS for a stimulus package. Well think about it! Those billions have to come from somewhere... service cuts, higher taxes, huge deficits (which are simply taxes that are due tomorrow!) or printing more money thus causing the value of the existing money in circulation... and in our pockets, to be severely reduced. Which option do you like?!
I favor the prudent course of the Harper Conservative government. I know it is not exciting and "sexy" like the rip offs and scandals that the Liberals are used to, but it is stable and if there is one thing that is vital in both government and in the economy right now, it is stability!
One more thing... This maneuver is a certain affront to the WEST! the Premier of Alberta, and others of his counterparts, should be on the phone to the players of those three parties and perhaps to the GG's office and stating, emphatically, that if they pull this off... We are out of here... Period!
6 comments:
Mike, just a thought...if they force an election, it might be the best thing for everyone involved. My reasoning is that the last thing that Canadians want is another election and if we go to the polls again, I think they will make it a clear Conservative majority. Canadians have done very well with Harper at the helm of a minority government and it has run smoothly. That could have continued quite well, but the other parties are likely afraid of that. Canadians are fed up with the political games that have gone on.
I think if an election is forced it will backfire on the other parties...very badly...which in my books, is not a bad thing.
Re: “... the maneuver they are considering is constitutionally legitimate.”
Members of this coalition expressed allegiance to Elizabeth the Second.
Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states:
“Oath of Allegiance
I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.
Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”.
The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.
I appreciate your informed opinions Mike, it helps me gain perspective.
The money given to parties was on a per-vote basis, not seat. This helps to eliminate the vote-wasting inherent in a Plurality system.
As for political donations, compare the Greens and Conservatives. Specifically, their voter base. Conservatives tend to be older and wealtheir than those who support the Greens. However, both are citizens of this country. Shound not everyone have someone to represent them, even if they personally lack the money to fund the ideas?
Thanks JamesP and Judi for your corrections.
As to your comment James about the "fairness" of the financial picture given the difference in age of conservatives vs. green supporters. This is not just about age... it is about ideas and philosophy. there are plenty of examples where those who garner the support of a young constituency can amass the critical funds necessary to campaign. Look at Ron Paul and Pres. Elect Obama for instance. Also given the availability of the internet there are inexpensive ways to get one's message out to the public. If the ideas catch on... or the personality catches on then the money will flow. I do not agree with the proposition that our tax dollars should be spent in that fashion. In my view political parties should be self funded by its members.
Post a Comment