Harper’s cheque bounced, so now I’m offering my services to the other guys. The coalition opposition is in quite the sticky mess. Now, it has to decide whether it will vote down the government on the budget or break up and resume the regular schedule.
So, how should the parties navigate these particularly dangerous waters? My advice works from a self-interest model. I expect the parties would prefer the option that results in maximum benefit to them.
Liberals –
It started when Liberal Toronto MP Jim Karygiannis faced the media and predicted the coalition wouldn’t survive till parliament resumed. He said many Liberals wanted to work with the Torys on creating a focused budget.
At first, senior Liberals were quick to denounce these rogue comments. Ignatieff was amongst the first to say these comments were inappropriate and didn’t reflect the attitude of the party proper. However, these views are taking shape and are becoming the predominate attitude as Liberals jump the already sunken Dion ship.
Finally, the final death blow to the coalition and to Dion, respected Liberal John Manley wrote “The First Liberal Step: Replace Dion” in the Globe and Mail yesterday. He wrote “… the first step for my party is to replace Stéphane Dion as leader with someone whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal Party, rather than leading the coalition with the NDP.” See the story here.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Dion is making himself more and more a liability to the Liberal party. It’s time to get rid of him for good. If that means appointing an interim leader, then so be it. The Liberals simply cannot afford to have Dion at the helm for one more month.
CBC’s Don Newman goes further and says that it was a mistake to allow Dion to continue to lead after he resigned. His most recent article uncharitably reviews Dion’s motivations for forming a coalition. He says Dion “saw the funding changes as an opportunity to escape the ignominy of being only the second Liberal leader to never be prime minister.” Newman would have had the Liberal party select an interim leader right at the moment Dion resigned.
Picking a new leader would give the Liberals a unique position in the house. The Liberals would have the only leader not intimately involved with this whole mess. The new Liberal leader could just refocus on, as Manley said, rebuilding the Liberal party. The Liberals might have a real shot at the next election. Harper’s had to burn a lot of bridges to stay in power. A well oiled Liberal machine might be able to properly capitalize on that.
The problems, however, don’t just rest with Dion. It is time to develop a team and a strategy capable of competing with the Conservative communication machine. It’s high time to fire who ever was responsible for that awful video tape response to Harper’s address and come up with a much, much better approach. That video was grossly inadequate. The presentation was sloppy, the message was fuddled (not just because of a language barrier), and the timing was off. The Conservatives are going to continue to win so long as they dominate the marketing game.
NDP
The Liberals are going to do all the work for them. I think Jack knows the coalition is going to, and has to, come apart. If Jack can blame the coalition’s failures on the Liberals he’s in a great position. He can say that the NDP was willing to deliver, but the Liberal’s were just not up to the task. Due to the sloppy, disorganized state of their party, the Liberals had to pull out.
Layton can save a lot of face, and make a move to gain some valuable market share away from the Liberals. The NDP has always been ready to take on the Conservatives; the Liberals have always been the ones keeping the Conservatives in power. Vote NDP and give them more power to really challenge the Conservatives.
Bloc
Duceppe’s the only winner in all of this. All he has to do it properly capitalize on the division Harper’s reinforced.
The health of the coalition will depend on Dion’s stomach for a battle against his party. I’d bet we’re going to see it all come apart before the budget. The language will change from “we’re going to take down the government” to “we’re going to demand real change from the government.” The Liberals are going to do everything they can to replace Dion faster. The NDP is going to blame the Conservatives and the Liberals for the failures of our system to work properly. The Bloc is going to work like mad to add fuel to the now burning separatist fires across Quebec. This dynamic will set our political stage for the next 2-3 years.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
"Expert" reporting there, CBC.
I had to force myself to stay away from the blog over the last few days. It was so hard, especially with all the news, political speeches and punditry. But, after the poetic procrastination you see from the post below, I decided it was time to be a law student again.
But, the first exam is now out of the way. So what’s been building up over the last few days?
I’ve noted there have been quite a few news articles that consult “experts” to give some background information and opinions. But, rather than just providing useful context, these opinions become the focus of many articles. Articles that overuse these opinions or fail to provide a more complete picture are just sloppy.
One CBC article focused on two expert opinions who commented after Harper’s prorogation announcement. The first was a constitutional expert. I didn’t recognize the name, but I’m sure this is my failing. I have no doubt CBC found someone who at least authored an academic piece or who teaches a class somewhere.
This expert said the GG had set a “dangerous precedent” that would require all future GG’s to grant prorogation to any Prime Minister facing a confidence motion. With respect, I think this opinion overlooks the relationship between "precedent" and "perogative powers."
Although the GG might be bound, by constitutional convention, to grant some requests (like granting Royal Assent to Parliament Bills), they are not bound to follow precedent on discretionary matters. The next GG might be Joe I-Hate-Prime-Ministers and refuse to grant any request. A GG that fails to follow clear precedent might face criticism on that point, but why would they care? Historical trends just factor into the decision making process.
Even if GG’s were bound to follow precedent, this case is so uncertain and extraordinary that it doesn’t really provide much in how it should be followed in the future. GG’s do not provide reasons for their decisions. So we have no idea what factors the GG used to make her decision. Maybe she heavily weighed the fact that Harper had considerable support from the Canadian people. Perhaps it was the fact that Harper was willing to put it all on the line in a budget update very soon. We’ll never know. The point is, this doesn’t set any kind of precedent for the next time because there are no reasons.
Judges are bound by precedent. However, binding precedent (the common law) is carefully set out in clear, guiding reasons. Without reasons, future judges have nothing to go off of and have to start from scratch. In other words, no reasons means no precedent.
Even if there is a precedent, and there isn’t, I’m not sure I understand why it’s particularly dangerous. For starters, the word “dangerous” lacks precision and is loaded with prejudicial assumptions. Second, if future GG’s feel bound to grant a Prime Minister a prorogation for the month ½ it will take her/him to table a Budget; and to avoid a confidence vote in the mean-time; and if the prorogation will run over the Christmas break anyway; and when s/he has considerable support from Canadians; and when that Prime Minister can produce some extra pressing background issues (unity issues); and when that Prime minister will face a confidence issue the minute Parliament resumes, etc. then I don’t see the “danger.”
The same CBC article quoted a political science “expert” who said he had grave concerns Harper was pushing the country towards “violence.” The idea wasn’t really developed further than that. That’s a pretty bold opinion to offer without anything to really back it up. How do we get from a legal, albeit contentious, debate to armed violence? Just because something is monumental, contentious and unprecedented doesn’t mean we’re heading for the next FLQ crisis.
Expert opinions have severe limitations and, unchecked, can cause confusion and damage. It’s not surprising that since the “constitutional expert’s” opinion I’ve seen poster after poster use the term “dangerous precedent” to describe the recent GG’s decision.
In trials, courts have very specific rules about how experts can share their opinions because of the vast potential for prejudice, confusion and over-reliance. For starters, experts have to be properly qualified. Second, their opinions can only be used for very specific purposes. Last, expert opinion has to fit within a very restrictive legal framework aimed to counter-balance any prejudicial effect expert opinions might have.
I’m not saying news articles should be as strict in how they utilize expert opinions. However, the article’s failure to tightly and precisely employ “expert” opinion, the poor balance and the under-developed extreme opinion, are all factors that indicate incredibly bad reporting.
In an earlier blog post I mentioned how annoying it was to read the average forum user’s post. But, this is much more annoying. If reading the forums make me grit my teeth, reading those same forum posts in articles that call the author of those posts “experts” sends me to the dentist.
But, the first exam is now out of the way. So what’s been building up over the last few days?
I’ve noted there have been quite a few news articles that consult “experts” to give some background information and opinions. But, rather than just providing useful context, these opinions become the focus of many articles. Articles that overuse these opinions or fail to provide a more complete picture are just sloppy.
One CBC article focused on two expert opinions who commented after Harper’s prorogation announcement. The first was a constitutional expert. I didn’t recognize the name, but I’m sure this is my failing. I have no doubt CBC found someone who at least authored an academic piece or who teaches a class somewhere.
This expert said the GG had set a “dangerous precedent” that would require all future GG’s to grant prorogation to any Prime Minister facing a confidence motion. With respect, I think this opinion overlooks the relationship between "precedent" and "perogative powers."
Although the GG might be bound, by constitutional convention, to grant some requests (like granting Royal Assent to Parliament Bills), they are not bound to follow precedent on discretionary matters. The next GG might be Joe I-Hate-Prime-Ministers and refuse to grant any request. A GG that fails to follow clear precedent might face criticism on that point, but why would they care? Historical trends just factor into the decision making process.
Even if GG’s were bound to follow precedent, this case is so uncertain and extraordinary that it doesn’t really provide much in how it should be followed in the future. GG’s do not provide reasons for their decisions. So we have no idea what factors the GG used to make her decision. Maybe she heavily weighed the fact that Harper had considerable support from the Canadian people. Perhaps it was the fact that Harper was willing to put it all on the line in a budget update very soon. We’ll never know. The point is, this doesn’t set any kind of precedent for the next time because there are no reasons.
Judges are bound by precedent. However, binding precedent (the common law) is carefully set out in clear, guiding reasons. Without reasons, future judges have nothing to go off of and have to start from scratch. In other words, no reasons means no precedent.
Even if there is a precedent, and there isn’t, I’m not sure I understand why it’s particularly dangerous. For starters, the word “dangerous” lacks precision and is loaded with prejudicial assumptions. Second, if future GG’s feel bound to grant a Prime Minister a prorogation for the month ½ it will take her/him to table a Budget; and to avoid a confidence vote in the mean-time; and if the prorogation will run over the Christmas break anyway; and when s/he has considerable support from Canadians; and when that Prime Minister can produce some extra pressing background issues (unity issues); and when that Prime minister will face a confidence issue the minute Parliament resumes, etc. then I don’t see the “danger.”
The same CBC article quoted a political science “expert” who said he had grave concerns Harper was pushing the country towards “violence.” The idea wasn’t really developed further than that. That’s a pretty bold opinion to offer without anything to really back it up. How do we get from a legal, albeit contentious, debate to armed violence? Just because something is monumental, contentious and unprecedented doesn’t mean we’re heading for the next FLQ crisis.
Expert opinions have severe limitations and, unchecked, can cause confusion and damage. It’s not surprising that since the “constitutional expert’s” opinion I’ve seen poster after poster use the term “dangerous precedent” to describe the recent GG’s decision.
In trials, courts have very specific rules about how experts can share their opinions because of the vast potential for prejudice, confusion and over-reliance. For starters, experts have to be properly qualified. Second, their opinions can only be used for very specific purposes. Last, expert opinion has to fit within a very restrictive legal framework aimed to counter-balance any prejudicial effect expert opinions might have.
I’m not saying news articles should be as strict in how they utilize expert opinions. However, the article’s failure to tightly and precisely employ “expert” opinion, the poor balance and the under-developed extreme opinion, are all factors that indicate incredibly bad reporting.
In an earlier blog post I mentioned how annoying it was to read the average forum user’s post. But, this is much more annoying. If reading the forums make me grit my teeth, reading those same forum posts in articles that call the author of those posts “experts” sends me to the dentist.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
An Unenviable Position
On high steel horse, a monarch flies home;
Head of country, our state, must set orderly tone.
For while Mother’s away her children cause strife.
Beware those who’ve snapped, they carry a knife.
Ancient authority to exercise, atrophied muscles must flex,
No rubber stamp is at hand; this game’s much too complex.
Puzzle pieces are broken, all bent and all mangled;
Even Spider admits, the strands have all tangled.
Old, forgotten, dusty halls -
Where prerogative powers evolve-
A discretion misplaced
‘Ere meant to be erased.
A ceremony of splendor, her appointment did promise,
Traveling tours of the globe, but ministers are amiss.
Pageantry postponed; the want of an answer,
Parliament’s dilemma to solve with the grace of a dancer.
All eyes to the Governor! She approaches the stand;
The public to face, the politicians, their demand.
The figure of authority, sets the pace with a glance.
But what others can’t see is that shit stains her pants!
Head of country, our state, must set orderly tone.
For while Mother’s away her children cause strife.
Beware those who’ve snapped, they carry a knife.
Ancient authority to exercise, atrophied muscles must flex,
No rubber stamp is at hand; this game’s much too complex.
Puzzle pieces are broken, all bent and all mangled;
Even Spider admits, the strands have all tangled.
Old, forgotten, dusty halls -
Where prerogative powers evolve-
A discretion misplaced
‘Ere meant to be erased.
A ceremony of splendor, her appointment did promise,
Traveling tours of the globe, but ministers are amiss.
Pageantry postponed; the want of an answer,
Parliament’s dilemma to solve with the grace of a dancer.
All eyes to the Governor! She approaches the stand;
The public to face, the politicians, their demand.
The figure of authority, sets the pace with a glance.
But what others can’t see is that shit stains her pants!
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Who needs "Risk" when you have Canadian Politics?
Not that I think Harper deserves to stay, but what does a guy in his position do right about now?
Let me lay out a few assumptions. I’m writing from the Conservative’s best interest point of view. I’m assuming Harper would want to stay in power and that Harper would want to govern for a long as possible before the next election.
So, what’s the guy’s best shot?
First thing Harper should do is to ask the GG to prorogue Parliament until the budget announcement. The power to prorogue is another one of those prerogative powers the GG has. It would mean a postponement of Parliament; a suspension. Harper’s argument will be that he deserves a shot at laying out his government proposal to take care of the economy before he’s shot down. That argument is likely to work. From the GG’s point of view, accepting the coalition government probably sits with her about as well as it sits with me. She’ll want to do everything she can to not have to make that decision.
This wouldn’t be very popular, for Harper, and the other parties would be screaming hypocrisy. Harper blames them for being anti-democratic and then he goes and exercises a top-down power like this. But, it would be much better than the alternative and there’s not much more damage the other parties can do at this point anyway.
The point would be to make the budget the next confidence issue. Harper doesn’t want to go down on an opposition motion. Going down on an opposition motion gives all the control to the other parties. If you get to choose the confidence issue, then you can set the terms.
Then Harper, and his team, has to suck it up and come forward with a left wing budget. It has to include a healthy stimulus package and a healthy respect for a deficit. The language has to be all about working with Parliament to take care of the economy. Harper can prove that he is willing to make bridges to work with Parliament.
That will accomplish two things.
First, it will stall. Stalling will cool the tension around the House. It will also make it more likely the GG would choose an election over the coalition government. I highly believe the GG would prefer an election. The only reason to not go to an election is because it’s been such short a time since the last one.
Second, it would put the opposition in a double bind. Defeating the government over a left wing budget would be difficult to explain to constituents. The optics are extremely bad. If they managed to get a coalition government, would they turn around and institute the same budget they had defeated? If not, how could they change it? Also they could be facing an election anyway. By then, it’ll have been that much longer since the last election. Harper will be able to strengthen his bid for an election and ask Michaelle Jean to send him to the electorate to get a mandate for his budget from them. This would be a very difficult election to fight for oppositions parties. The election issue would be the left wing budget. How could left wing parties fight a left wing budget?
If, however, they supported the budget, they would lose a lot of credibility. The coalition proposal would lose enough steam to bury it forever and many supporters would feel let down and betrayed. All of that momentum, work and hoopla would have accomplished very little.
With the immediate threat of the coalition government gone for good, Harper could move back towards his power politics game (perhaps a little more subdued) and slowly scale back his lurch to the left wing. All the left wing promises made in the budget could be adjusted and trimmed to better fit the Conservative ethos. Harper would face criticism over the methods he employed to stay in power, but not as much as the opposition would face for failing to follow through.
Anyway, Harper’s bound to meet with the GG as soon as he can. After that meeting, we should get a pretty strong indication of what Harper’s last hand will look like.
Ok Stephan, There you go! You can fire your advisors and make the cheque payable to "Jonathan Griffith." Cheers!
Let me lay out a few assumptions. I’m writing from the Conservative’s best interest point of view. I’m assuming Harper would want to stay in power and that Harper would want to govern for a long as possible before the next election.
So, what’s the guy’s best shot?
First thing Harper should do is to ask the GG to prorogue Parliament until the budget announcement. The power to prorogue is another one of those prerogative powers the GG has. It would mean a postponement of Parliament; a suspension. Harper’s argument will be that he deserves a shot at laying out his government proposal to take care of the economy before he’s shot down. That argument is likely to work. From the GG’s point of view, accepting the coalition government probably sits with her about as well as it sits with me. She’ll want to do everything she can to not have to make that decision.
This wouldn’t be very popular, for Harper, and the other parties would be screaming hypocrisy. Harper blames them for being anti-democratic and then he goes and exercises a top-down power like this. But, it would be much better than the alternative and there’s not much more damage the other parties can do at this point anyway.
The point would be to make the budget the next confidence issue. Harper doesn’t want to go down on an opposition motion. Going down on an opposition motion gives all the control to the other parties. If you get to choose the confidence issue, then you can set the terms.
Then Harper, and his team, has to suck it up and come forward with a left wing budget. It has to include a healthy stimulus package and a healthy respect for a deficit. The language has to be all about working with Parliament to take care of the economy. Harper can prove that he is willing to make bridges to work with Parliament.
That will accomplish two things.
First, it will stall. Stalling will cool the tension around the House. It will also make it more likely the GG would choose an election over the coalition government. I highly believe the GG would prefer an election. The only reason to not go to an election is because it’s been such short a time since the last one.
Second, it would put the opposition in a double bind. Defeating the government over a left wing budget would be difficult to explain to constituents. The optics are extremely bad. If they managed to get a coalition government, would they turn around and institute the same budget they had defeated? If not, how could they change it? Also they could be facing an election anyway. By then, it’ll have been that much longer since the last election. Harper will be able to strengthen his bid for an election and ask Michaelle Jean to send him to the electorate to get a mandate for his budget from them. This would be a very difficult election to fight for oppositions parties. The election issue would be the left wing budget. How could left wing parties fight a left wing budget?
If, however, they supported the budget, they would lose a lot of credibility. The coalition proposal would lose enough steam to bury it forever and many supporters would feel let down and betrayed. All of that momentum, work and hoopla would have accomplished very little.
With the immediate threat of the coalition government gone for good, Harper could move back towards his power politics game (perhaps a little more subdued) and slowly scale back his lurch to the left wing. All the left wing promises made in the budget could be adjusted and trimmed to better fit the Conservative ethos. Harper would face criticism over the methods he employed to stay in power, but not as much as the opposition would face for failing to follow through.
Anyway, Harper’s bound to meet with the GG as soon as he can. After that meeting, we should get a pretty strong indication of what Harper’s last hand will look like.
Ok Stephan, There you go! You can fire your advisors and make the cheque payable to "Jonathan Griffith." Cheers!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sure, you can coalesce a government, but can you finish my Human Rights paper?
I just finished a long and painful paper. I’m tried of writing and I want to go to bed. So what keeps me up at night?
All signs indicate we’re heading for our very first federal coalition government. Before you Canadian history wiz-kids jump all over me, I would distinguish current affairs from the 1917 Unionist coalition. In that case, Liberals left the liberal party to join the conservatives in the Union party. That wasn’t quite a coalition government.
No, in this case, the three opposition parties have drafted an agreement where all three opposition parties are moving to replace Harper’s Conservatives while maintaining their distinct political identities. Although there is plenty of precedent for this in Europe, Canada has never seen the likes of this kind of agreement before.
My reaction? Extremely mixed. The political scientist in me is practically salivating at the intrigue and excitement. There are so many layers.
For starters, we will see a real shift in tone from the liberal leadership campaign. Now, each candidate is running to be the next Prime Minister. The language will shift from “rebuilding the party” to “focusing the government.” I’m not so sure this shift will be positive for the liberals. They are in desperate need to rebuild and reshape the entire party. Then again, inheriting a government might be the “umph” needed to drive the party forward.
The relationship between the NDP and the Liberals will be fun to keep tabs on. Each party will struggle to maintain its own unique identity. There will be calls to actually unite the left to form one super party. I suspect such calls will go unheeded. Jack Layton will use this opportunity to show Canadians his government is capable of leading the country. Both parties will have to cooperate while keeping an eye out for private interests. The Liberals, for example, will struggle to separate themselves from the NDP enough to prove they are ready to govern on their own.
The place for the Bloc Quebecois is puzzling. The Bloc has registered support for the Liberal/NDP government but declined to become part of the coalition. It will be interesting to see how the Governor General reacts to this. The Liberal/NDP government will comprise of just 114 seats. The Conservatives, on the other hand will remain the largest party at 143 seats.
You can bet that when Stephan Harper makes his pitch for an election, to the Governor General, he will be arguing that no party (or coalition) other than the largest coalition should have the right to govern.
I suspect the GG will let the coalition government take a shot at governing primarily because it has been just 2 months since the last election. If the timing had been any different, however, Harper’s arguments would be hard to overlook.
Finally, I’ll be watching for Conservative backlash against the leader that pushed the party over the edge with his power politics. I would expect the Conservatives to rally against the left wing parties in the house and support Harper for the time being. However, there will be noise, amongst the party faithful, as to how much longer Harper has at the helm.
So the mixed part? The Canadian citizen in me is very disappointed. I, along with my other fellow Canadian voters, sent these politicians to the House to see us through tough economic times. Whether you voted Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Bloc or Green, your vote helped make up the playing field that resulted from the 2008 election. That playing field included a Conservative minority government, with a Liberal, NDP and Bloc opposition. Canadians spoke and instructed the politicians to work together to get the job done.
It was easy to predict that Harper would continue to play at his sharp political game. He had been granted a mandate to do so and it worked well, for him, in the past. However, his more recent power play so obviously overshot his authority that I wonder if he was ever willing to cooperate to being with. He has been so concerned with entrenching Conservative institutions he forgot there were strict limitations to his power.
No party can claim the moral high ground on this issue. Viewing media photographs of the Layton, Dion and Duceppe agreement left me with an unsettling feeling. I saw three wealthy, white, old men plotting the course of my country without a legitimate, democratic mandate from the Canadian people. When Dion presented himself for consideration for Canada’s top job, the Canadian electorate very clearly said “No, not you.” Failing to fairly win the hearts of Canadians in the election, opposition parties are going to seize power.
This should concern you whether you voted Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Bloc. Your vote, something that struggles to find voice anyway, meant even less today. It doesn’t matter how you participated in the democratic process, three white, wealthy, old men decided they knew better.
Shame on you, Harper, for failing to foster respect and trust in the government institution. Shame on you, Layton, Dion and Duceppe, for using my ballot as toilet paper.
In these next few formative and important days (days that will likely lead up to Canada’s first coalition government) the political scientist in me will be obsessively listening for more news. The voting Canadian citizen, on the other hand, can hardly stand to watch.
All signs indicate we’re heading for our very first federal coalition government. Before you Canadian history wiz-kids jump all over me, I would distinguish current affairs from the 1917 Unionist coalition. In that case, Liberals left the liberal party to join the conservatives in the Union party. That wasn’t quite a coalition government.
No, in this case, the three opposition parties have drafted an agreement where all three opposition parties are moving to replace Harper’s Conservatives while maintaining their distinct political identities. Although there is plenty of precedent for this in Europe, Canada has never seen the likes of this kind of agreement before.
My reaction? Extremely mixed. The political scientist in me is practically salivating at the intrigue and excitement. There are so many layers.
For starters, we will see a real shift in tone from the liberal leadership campaign. Now, each candidate is running to be the next Prime Minister. The language will shift from “rebuilding the party” to “focusing the government.” I’m not so sure this shift will be positive for the liberals. They are in desperate need to rebuild and reshape the entire party. Then again, inheriting a government might be the “umph” needed to drive the party forward.
The relationship between the NDP and the Liberals will be fun to keep tabs on. Each party will struggle to maintain its own unique identity. There will be calls to actually unite the left to form one super party. I suspect such calls will go unheeded. Jack Layton will use this opportunity to show Canadians his government is capable of leading the country. Both parties will have to cooperate while keeping an eye out for private interests. The Liberals, for example, will struggle to separate themselves from the NDP enough to prove they are ready to govern on their own.
The place for the Bloc Quebecois is puzzling. The Bloc has registered support for the Liberal/NDP government but declined to become part of the coalition. It will be interesting to see how the Governor General reacts to this. The Liberal/NDP government will comprise of just 114 seats. The Conservatives, on the other hand will remain the largest party at 143 seats.
You can bet that when Stephan Harper makes his pitch for an election, to the Governor General, he will be arguing that no party (or coalition) other than the largest coalition should have the right to govern.
I suspect the GG will let the coalition government take a shot at governing primarily because it has been just 2 months since the last election. If the timing had been any different, however, Harper’s arguments would be hard to overlook.
Finally, I’ll be watching for Conservative backlash against the leader that pushed the party over the edge with his power politics. I would expect the Conservatives to rally against the left wing parties in the house and support Harper for the time being. However, there will be noise, amongst the party faithful, as to how much longer Harper has at the helm.
So the mixed part? The Canadian citizen in me is very disappointed. I, along with my other fellow Canadian voters, sent these politicians to the House to see us through tough economic times. Whether you voted Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Bloc or Green, your vote helped make up the playing field that resulted from the 2008 election. That playing field included a Conservative minority government, with a Liberal, NDP and Bloc opposition. Canadians spoke and instructed the politicians to work together to get the job done.
It was easy to predict that Harper would continue to play at his sharp political game. He had been granted a mandate to do so and it worked well, for him, in the past. However, his more recent power play so obviously overshot his authority that I wonder if he was ever willing to cooperate to being with. He has been so concerned with entrenching Conservative institutions he forgot there were strict limitations to his power.
No party can claim the moral high ground on this issue. Viewing media photographs of the Layton, Dion and Duceppe agreement left me with an unsettling feeling. I saw three wealthy, white, old men plotting the course of my country without a legitimate, democratic mandate from the Canadian people. When Dion presented himself for consideration for Canada’s top job, the Canadian electorate very clearly said “No, not you.” Failing to fairly win the hearts of Canadians in the election, opposition parties are going to seize power.
This should concern you whether you voted Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Bloc. Your vote, something that struggles to find voice anyway, meant even less today. It doesn’t matter how you participated in the democratic process, three white, wealthy, old men decided they knew better.
Shame on you, Harper, for failing to foster respect and trust in the government institution. Shame on you, Layton, Dion and Duceppe, for using my ballot as toilet paper.
In these next few formative and important days (days that will likely lead up to Canada’s first coalition government) the political scientist in me will be obsessively listening for more news. The voting Canadian citizen, on the other hand, can hardly stand to watch.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Voila! C'est moi.
Time to disclose where I stand on some of the issues.
For the most part, you’d probably be able to figure this out from reading some of my posts. But, I like to get it out in the open for people to see (people close to me accuse me of being an exhibitionist at heart).
Generally, I like to be critical of everything. I don’t like to fully identify with one political party/ideology. When people ask me what I am, I like to say that I adopt the great Canadian position, the center. Some issues I tend to waffle on, some I lean right and some I lean left. The party that best represents me is a pragmatic, larger tent, institutional-based party. Both the Tories and the Grits have been appalling and attractive to me depending on the issue and timing.
Political membership? I haven’t been a very faithful follower of any party to date. I have been a card carrying member of a political party, but I haven’t been overly involved. I expect, one day, I’ll shake off my reluctance to wade into the public sphere. For now, I enjoy my armchair. I’m too busy with other things.
I’ve always been suspicious and critical of staunch supporters of any political party. Blind faith in one party or another just doesn’t sit right with me. All parties have dirty laundry. If something stinks, I like to be able to crinkle my nose. I’ve declared my support one way or another only to later groan in embarrassment at what my chosen supportee has come up with too many times.
My political feelings are constantly shifting. I don’t bounce around or wildly oscillate. I’m more like a fast moving glacier. This would be a product of parties always changing and my own personal growth and reflections. I don’t want a party to tell me how I should grow, I want to grow the direction I think best.
So, the specifics. Lately, I’ve found myself drifting slightly towards the left. I have, historically, been more right on economic issues, more left on social issues and I have always borrowed positions from various points on the spectrum. Judicially, I find myself becoming more socially conscious and left. Issues respecting sexuality find me far left. I think family and the community are the cornerstones of society. But, I think the definition of family and community could use some work to catch up with the times.
I respect spirituality, but I’m not religious. I believe in equality, but I drift towards equality of opportunity more than equality of result. I think “hard working, ordinary Canadian families” are important, but I think the rich have rights too (I’m far from rich). I can be remarkably cynical, but always willing to work towards positive change and growth.
I hope this all becomes redundant, anyway. I want to write enough that people can get this sense from my writing. But, in the meantime, at least you have an idea of who what you’re working with.
For the most part, you’d probably be able to figure this out from reading some of my posts. But, I like to get it out in the open for people to see (people close to me accuse me of being an exhibitionist at heart).
Generally, I like to be critical of everything. I don’t like to fully identify with one political party/ideology. When people ask me what I am, I like to say that I adopt the great Canadian position, the center. Some issues I tend to waffle on, some I lean right and some I lean left. The party that best represents me is a pragmatic, larger tent, institutional-based party. Both the Tories and the Grits have been appalling and attractive to me depending on the issue and timing.
Political membership? I haven’t been a very faithful follower of any party to date. I have been a card carrying member of a political party, but I haven’t been overly involved. I expect, one day, I’ll shake off my reluctance to wade into the public sphere. For now, I enjoy my armchair. I’m too busy with other things.
I’ve always been suspicious and critical of staunch supporters of any political party. Blind faith in one party or another just doesn’t sit right with me. All parties have dirty laundry. If something stinks, I like to be able to crinkle my nose. I’ve declared my support one way or another only to later groan in embarrassment at what my chosen supportee has come up with too many times.
My political feelings are constantly shifting. I don’t bounce around or wildly oscillate. I’m more like a fast moving glacier. This would be a product of parties always changing and my own personal growth and reflections. I don’t want a party to tell me how I should grow, I want to grow the direction I think best.
So, the specifics. Lately, I’ve found myself drifting slightly towards the left. I have, historically, been more right on economic issues, more left on social issues and I have always borrowed positions from various points on the spectrum. Judicially, I find myself becoming more socially conscious and left. Issues respecting sexuality find me far left. I think family and the community are the cornerstones of society. But, I think the definition of family and community could use some work to catch up with the times.
I respect spirituality, but I’m not religious. I believe in equality, but I drift towards equality of opportunity more than equality of result. I think “hard working, ordinary Canadian families” are important, but I think the rich have rights too (I’m far from rich). I can be remarkably cynical, but always willing to work towards positive change and growth.
I hope this all becomes redundant, anyway. I want to write enough that people can get this sense from my writing. But, in the meantime, at least you have an idea of who what you’re working with.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Treason?
People's response to the news never ceases to amaze me.
I’m not talking about folks who don’t care. But, I don’t necessarily mean folks who are extremely involved. I guess you have to at least pay some attention to the news and have some opinions on politics to qualify.
In the last couple of days, Canadian politics has been intriguing. Opposition parties have threatened a take over. They say it’s because the Conservatives have improperly addressed the financial situation. Officially, it’s over the Finance Minister’s budget update (a confidence issue).
Here, rather than me rewrite all the details, take a look at this:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/fed-govt.html
This news item talks about the most recent developments and gives some background about what the “budget update” included.
Although opposition parties say they’re outraged because of the “lack of recognition of the seriousness of Canada’s economic situation,” they’re really angry because of the move to damage opposition party financial backing.
For example, this move would bankrupt the Liberal party. The Liberals are already greatly trailing in financial support and are going through other tremendous pressures. The implications of the budget update could be disastrous.
But, for now, I’m going to stay away from my behind the scene speculating (something I greatly enjoy). Back to the original thesis.
I can never help myself. I always find myself reading the first several pages of comments attached to news articles. I never respond. I hate forums and trolls always destroy it for everyone.
However, I’m always surprised to note just how ignorant the average poster is. Whether right or left leaning, the average poster seems to have the analytical tools of a tree. (I dunno why I said “tree.” I was trying to think of something more clever, but I’m running out of free time before I need to get back to work and so I just need to move on). People’s analyses are always so shallow. I suppose I shouldn’t expect in depth reviews. But take this post for example:
“Harper must not only step down but I firmly believe the RCMP needs to review his traitorous comments today.”
Seriously? Tried for treason? And step down as what?
Obviously the extreme hyperbole (to the extent of just being inaccurate) pisses me off. But what pisses me off most is that there is lots of room for real criticism. But people just keep missing the point.
Anyway I need to end this here, for now. But people who hang on to poorly thought out positions really piss me off.
I’m not talking about folks who don’t care. But, I don’t necessarily mean folks who are extremely involved. I guess you have to at least pay some attention to the news and have some opinions on politics to qualify.
In the last couple of days, Canadian politics has been intriguing. Opposition parties have threatened a take over. They say it’s because the Conservatives have improperly addressed the financial situation. Officially, it’s over the Finance Minister’s budget update (a confidence issue).
Here, rather than me rewrite all the details, take a look at this:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/fed-govt.html
This news item talks about the most recent developments and gives some background about what the “budget update” included.
Although opposition parties say they’re outraged because of the “lack of recognition of the seriousness of Canada’s economic situation,” they’re really angry because of the move to damage opposition party financial backing.
For example, this move would bankrupt the Liberal party. The Liberals are already greatly trailing in financial support and are going through other tremendous pressures. The implications of the budget update could be disastrous.
But, for now, I’m going to stay away from my behind the scene speculating (something I greatly enjoy). Back to the original thesis.
I can never help myself. I always find myself reading the first several pages of comments attached to news articles. I never respond. I hate forums and trolls always destroy it for everyone.
However, I’m always surprised to note just how ignorant the average poster is. Whether right or left leaning, the average poster seems to have the analytical tools of a tree. (I dunno why I said “tree.” I was trying to think of something more clever, but I’m running out of free time before I need to get back to work and so I just need to move on). People’s analyses are always so shallow. I suppose I shouldn’t expect in depth reviews. But take this post for example:
“Harper must not only step down but I firmly believe the RCMP needs to review his traitorous comments today.”
Seriously? Tried for treason? And step down as what?
Obviously the extreme hyperbole (to the extent of just being inaccurate) pisses me off. But what pisses me off most is that there is lots of room for real criticism. But people just keep missing the point.
Anyway I need to end this here, for now. But people who hang on to poorly thought out positions really piss me off.
About me
Hey there!
Some friends call me "Griff." I have no real intention to stay secret or anonymous. I'm currently in my last year of a LL. B degree program at U New Brunswick. My first degree is a BA in Political Science from U of Calgary. I was born and raised in Calgary, AB. I plan to article in Calgary next year. I muse over the possibility of moving to Vancouver sometime in the not too distant future.
I've decided it's high time to get on this “blog” stuff. I'm hoping this blog will help me with my writing, give shape to my ideas and help me communicate with friends and family. Topics will range from Canadian politics, literature, Canadian law, and misc. If I can think of anything else to say about myself, I'll blog it.
Some friends call me "Griff." I have no real intention to stay secret or anonymous. I'm currently in my last year of a LL. B degree program at U New Brunswick. My first degree is a BA in Political Science from U of Calgary. I was born and raised in Calgary, AB. I plan to article in Calgary next year. I muse over the possibility of moving to Vancouver sometime in the not too distant future.
I've decided it's high time to get on this “blog” stuff. I'm hoping this blog will help me with my writing, give shape to my ideas and help me communicate with friends and family. Topics will range from Canadian politics, literature, Canadian law, and misc. If I can think of anything else to say about myself, I'll blog it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
