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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It's a tight argument. I feel like there must be some holes to be poked in it, but I am failing to find them at the moment. Would the rest of the Conservative party support a left-wing budget? If not, would that matter? That would be a pretty far stretch for the party, and it's still a gamble.
It'll be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
good insights here, Griff.
I am no fan of Harper and what he's done to bring us to this point, but the coalition to me is just wrong; the players and their policies. I cannot bring myself to support a group who would align themselves with separatists. If any good comes out of this, the coalition will give Harper the shove he needs to stop trying to rule Parliament and at least appear more bipartisan, at least until an election can be called. More importantly, hopefully we can remember that there is still an economic crisis to deal with, which is the real issue affecting Canadians.
This is an interesting article in the Globe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.weCoalition02/BNStory/Front
Thanks for providing your well thought out ideas and giving a forum for those of us who don't see either of the sides forming as viable options.
I'm just at a loss as to how a government can be imposed upon us.
We already have such a low voter turnout - such apathetic citizens. If they force a coalition government I can't see voters showing up at the next election. What is the point of voting if seven weeks after each election they just stick in whoever they want anyways?
I'm not totally able to articulate this in a way I'm happy with, but I will attempt anyway. Poke holes where holes need to be poked, but recognize that I know I'm not fully getting this.
I'm having a very interesting conversation about the fact that 63% of voters did NOT want the conservatives in power, and it's shifting my views a bit. Looked at from that angle, coalition government could reasonably and logically be seen as representative of what the voters want.
I have the same knee-jerk reaction of "how can they force a government on us", but I'm not sure that's the most logical interpretation of what's happening. It does feel like a slap in the face, but is it?
I would MUCH prefer to see the parties work together, and I do think Harper should totally hire Jon to fix the country, but I can see other points of view as well.
The coalition still *feels* wrong, and icky, and underhanded. And I strongly feel that we need some effective, creative, strong leadership in our government and I don't see how we're going to get that right now. But. I think it's pretty complex.
(And I am totally failing to grasp the complexities, despite my efforts! Argh!)
It does make you take a step back and evaluate that 63% of voters said "no" to conservative....But is a coalition the answer? Is this the way the country works?
74% said no to Liberal.
82% said no to NDP
90% said no to Bloc
Isn't this why we have seats? To show a representative value of the support of parties?
Should Prime Ministers run with no political party ties?
This is awesome!
There are many different ways to interpret election results. The fact of the matter is, people don't actually elect a government. They elect a Parliament. The Parliament makes a government. That government rules on the cornerstone of confidence.
That said, the practical realities of Canadian expectations demands a government reflect their wishes. At the end of *most* days, that means the party who won the most seats forms the government. That's the simplest expression of the election results. Parliament has a duty, I feel, to respect Canadian wishes in forming a government. That's why I get so pissed when Parliament purposes to put Dion in power. No matter how you spin the election results, Canadians graded the Liberals very negatively.
I don't actually have a problem with coalitions, per say. And, if Harper was completely unwilling to work with Parliament, it would only be natural that Parliament would seek to replace him as the Prime Minister.
However, the undertones to this coalition movement reek of a power grab. It fails to reflect the results of the last election and it barely even attempts to cover the ill-conceived motivations.
I agree, and I don't feel that 62 % of Canadians want this because they didn't vote for Canadians. That 62 % is broken three ways among the Liberals, NDP and BQ, none of whom received a mandate to govern. We as a people voted for the Conservative, not enough to give them a majority, but enough to let them form a government. The way this whole thing is being spun in the media is really disgusting.
The parties involved in the coalition are technically in the right to form a coalition, but to say that they represent the majority of Canadians is fabrication since the three parties are so ideologically opposed from one another, their only motive for working together is winning power.
I think the parties working together is a much closer representation of what Canadians want, but after Harper's talk tonight, who knows if that will happen.
I say the GG should turn power back over to the Queen and revert Canada back to a colony until our politicians can learn to work in the interests of the country.
Could the conservatives ask Harper to step down and elect a new leader?
I can't imagine that the conservative portion of parliment is all to happy with Harper right now.
If the GG chooses a coalition wouldn't we want to find a Prime Minister that can act more as a mediator to keep everyone from concentrating on personal gain of power?
What happens when Dion starts to lead the country and him and his new buddies has a disagreement about something? No confidence...?
I feel like I'm out on about 100 different tangents here.
At this point, I can't see how Parliament will function unless a completely new leader is chosen - neither side appears at all willing to work with the other and this is an incredibly bad time to be stuck grinding axes. They act like kids who don't like each other, and that's unacceptable in our country's leadership. Or at least, it should be.
We need cooperation and compromise - not just the words but the actions to match them. I don't see anything to indicate that either side is committed to that. Frustrating! The speeches last night were both very disappointing. Arrogance vs incompetence? I'd rather take neither. (Although, honestly, and although it IRKS ME to no END to say it, I would rather take Harper's arrogance than Dion's incompetence.)
I feel your pain at having to lean more towards Harper. I just can't bring myself to support the coalition, despite every left wing bone in my body (and there are a few.) They are like a brick house built on a straw foundation.
Only the Conservative party can choose to dump Harper, unless he steps down first. I'm sure Jon knows the specifics of how it happens, but until the motion of no-confidence takes place, he is the leader. And he will be until at least the parliament is called back in January and the budget is presented.
The choice between cocky politicians and inept, power-hungry ones is not a good choice.
Post a Comment