Lately I've been noticing these Tory attack ads that go after Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. There are some things they say that hit the mark. It still doesn't sit well with me that this man could live pretty much my entire life in the United States, have referred to it as "my country", and then presume to parachute back here after decades, scoop the Grit leadership, and presume to run the country. Fair enough.
But the foul against him is the complaint he was ready to form a coalition with other parties (namely, the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois). It's disturbing because it assumes -- or worse, actually speaks to -- a profound ignorance on the part of average Canadians of our own system of government. Coalition governments are typical in parliamentary democracies; in other less staid and boring than our own, they're often the norm.
The crux of the matter is the suggestion that Ignatieff was ready to form a coalition with the Bloc, a party whose platform technically includes seeking the eventual separation of Quebec from Canada by peaceful, democratic means. This is especially galling given that the Bloc flowered directly from the deal with the devil the Tories made in the 1980s to get Mulroney elected twice. They wrangled these people into the Progressive Conservatives by issuing a flurry of constitutional cheques their right-wing asses couldn't cash, and when those formerly soft separatist in particular and Quebeckers in general realized it, the blowback was fearsome. Anyone over 10 in 1995 remembers what I'm talking about.
And so this morning, the sweetest tidbit of all. Facing a non-confidence vote in the Commons that would have defeated their government and forced an election (yet another), the Tories have had their bacon pulled from the fire by...? Guess who. You guessed right! The Bloc Quebecois, who have agreed to support the government in the upcoming confidence vote.
I'm counting the seconds until those "Ignatieff wanted to form a coalition with the Bloc" ads evaporate from the airwaves. How about you?
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, December 04, 2008
"THIS HOUSE TO LET" or "Democracy Takes a Holiday"
Well, looks like the Governor-General came back to Ottawa, saw her shadow, and predicted six more weeks of Harper. So merry Christmas, Tories... the bills come due at the end of January.
Parliament shut down till Jan. 26
PM obtains Governor-General's consent to prorogue in face of bid to topple his minority government; opposition complains he's 'throwing the locks on' and 'running away'
STEVEN CHASE and BILL CURRY
Globe and Mail Update
December 4, 2008 at 1:36 PM EST
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has obtained Governor-General Michaëlle Jean's consent to temporarily shut down Parliament, a move that allows him to avoid a confidence vote next week that he was expected to lose.
It's a blow for the Liberal-NDP coalition, backed by the separatist Bloc Québécois, that was seeking to replace the minority Conservative government.
The development buys time for Mr. Harper to assemble an economic package that he hopes will discourage the multiparty alliance from taking him down at that time.
Emerging from Rideau Hall after more than two hours, Mr. Harper said Parliament will return on Jan. 26 and the first order of business will be the 2009 budget.
He grudgingly acknowledged he has to make peace with the opposition parties. "Obviously we have to do some trust-building here on both sides."
The Prime Minister said he will spend December and January hammering out the budget. "My work over the next few weeks will be focused almost exclusively on preparing the federal budget."
He added that he hoped the other parties would work with him. "Canadians expect us to get on with this."
Mr. Harper suggested that not all opposition MPs were happy with the coalition that sought to replace him. "I think there are many people in the opposition that were not entirely comfortable with a different path."
The Prime Minister also took time to admonish the Liberals and New Democrats for considering an alliance with the Bloc. In reference to the separatist party, he said: "My Canada includes Quebec, their Quebec does not include Canada."
Standing in the foyer of the House of Commons after Mr. Harper's announcement, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said: "We must realize the enormity of what has happened here today. For the first time in the history of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada is running away from the Parliament of Canada."
All three opposition leaders said they still intend to bring down the government. Mr. Dion said only a "monumental change" on Mr. Harper's part would alter that.
NDP Leader Jack Layton said the coalition will not be abandoning its accord over the next seven weeks while the Commons is shuttered.
"I cannot have confidence in a Prime Minister who would throw the locks on the door of this place, knowing that he's about to lose a vote in the House of Commons," Mr. Layton said. "That's denying about as fundamental a right as one has in a democracy."
Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe reacted similarly. "We don't believe him and we don't have confidence in him."
The Prime Minister's bid to buy time, however, may work in his favour, with cracks in the coalition already emerging.
Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis wasted no time in calling Mr. Dion to be replaced before the House returns in January. "Who are we kidding? I think it's over," he said, heading into a closed door caucus meeting.
"To become Prime Minister at all costs? Where do we take the Liberal brand? ... The brand got hit. The brand is good. The CEO of the company screwed up."
The Scarborough MP emerged from caucus saying the party supports remaining in the coalition, but Mr. Dion must be replaced. "The party still wants the coalition to keep together. My constituents want Mr. Dion to go."
He said it's time to move the party's leadership race up - a conventon is slated for May - or find some way of making sure it has "a leader who can lead us" if there is an election in February or March.
Mr. Dion's botched video address was a clincher, he said: "We bombed."
Mr. Harper, who was forced to cancel an afternoon appearance in Woodstock, Ont., arrived in a motorcade after traveling literally across the street from his official residence, 24 Sussex Drive.
About 50 demonstrators greeted him as his black vehicle entered the gates of Rideau Hall, most of them cheering on the Prime Minister.
The vast majority appeared to be Tory staffers or Conservative Party members. They were chanting slogans such as "No secret deal!", a reference to the coalition-support agreement by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois that would oust Mr. Harper and install Mr. Dion in his place.
Demonstrator William McBeath, a staffer for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, said he was rallying in front of Rideau Hall because he believes Mr. Harper has a right to continue governing. He noted the Tory Leader was only elected seven weeks ago.
"The fact now ... a coalition rejected by the voters could take power by allying themselves with the separatists is terribly offensive and I wanted to come out and do something about it."
William Beddoe, an actor, was among the minority of demonstrators rallying in favour of the coalition. He said the Prime Minister in a minority Parliament must demonstrate a willingness to find common ground with rival party leaders.
"I think it's time for Mr. Harper to step aside. I think the Conservatives would do well to find another leader who could engage with the other parties in Parliament and work cooperatively."
Mr. Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton had hoped to meet Ms. Jean later today to make their case for refusing the Tory bid to prorogue Parliament.
Last night, an unapologetic Prime Minister used a rare televised address to justify his bid to have Ms. Jean temporarily shut down Parliament, railing against separatists whom he says have no legitimate right to backstop a Liberal-NDP coalition.
Mr. Harper's harsh attack risks angering Quebec voters, many of whom have voted for the Bloc Québécois in the past and may resent the suggestion that BQ support is illegitimate.
In the five-minute speech where he referred to "separatists" on four different occasions, Mr. Harper vowed he would use all tools at his disposal to prevent the Conservatives' replacement. He did not, however, use the word "separatist" in the French version of his speech, preferring the less-inflammatory term, "souverainistes."
"At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada," Mr. Harper said. "And the opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen."
Mr. Harper referred only peripherally to his government's role in contributing to the parliamentary crisis that currently engulfs the nation, saying the government has made some changes after criticism raised by the opposition in the wake of last week's fall economic update. He did not, however, apologize for portions of the update that would have eliminated millions in subsidies from political parties and removed the right to strike for civil servants. The government has since pulled both of those items off the table.
"The opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent and without your vote," the Prime Minister said. "This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists."
Political experts have argued, however, that Mr. Harper's attack on the Bloc Québécois may well offend a good number of Quebeckers, many of whom vote BQ.
In his response to the speech, Mr. Dion — who would become prime minister if the government is defeated — did not budge from his party's position that the Conservatives must go, adding that he wrote to Ms. Jean today asking her to refuse Mr. Harper's request to prorogue. He also defended the coalition, saying it will foster collaboration rather than "blind partisan feuding."
He also underlined the fact that he will only be in the prime minister's chair for the short time he is slated to remain Liberal leader. The party will elect a new leader this spring.
Mr. Harper is stepping up efforts to improve his image as a man of action on the economy in tough times, trying to beat back the Liberal-NDP coalition's central accusation that he's taken a stand-pat approach as a recession looms.
Yesterday he announced another round of meetings with premiers and territorial leaders on the economy — Jan. 16 in Ottawa — as well as a federal and provincial finance ministers meeting for Dec. 16 and 17 in Saskatoon.
The Tories maintained their vigorous attack on the coalition's decision to seek formal backing from the Bloc Québécois for its survival in the House. One MP went so far as to accuse the Liberals of treason.
"They've actually written a deal giving the separatists a veto over every decision of the Canadian government," Bob Dechert said. "That is as close to treason and sedition as I can imagine."
However, this line of attack was somewhat blunted by the disclosure of efforts by members of Stockwell Day's Canadian Alliance in 2000 to ink a deal with the Bloc to form a minority coalition. Mr. Day denied knowledge of the proposal, which was made by Gerry Chipeur, a well-known lawyer with Conservative links.
Commenting on documents first released on globeandmail.com, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said he was asked to participate at the time in a scheme to propel Mr. Day to power in the event of a minority government.
"This proves that they are now being hypocritical. They pretend that they are outraged, when a good number of them have tried the same thing," Mr. Duceppe told reporters.
Indeed, the Liberals themselves were ready to pounce on the Conservatives in the spring of 2005 after Mr. Harper's party voted unsuccessfully with the Bloc Québécois to try to bring down the Liberals then led by Paul Martin. The Liberals found in focus group testing at the time that BQ participation in government to be abhorrent.
"Most people would actually believe that the Bloc shouldn't be allowed to have seats in Parliament," said David Herle, a former top aide to Mr. Martin.
In his response to the speech, Mr. Layton castigated Mr. Harper for refusing to offer any more details on a stimulus package and said it's time for him to step aside.
"He seems to be more interested in his job than protecting your job," Mr. Layton said.
He appealed to Ms. Jean to take note of the multiparty coalition's readiness to defeat the Tories and take power.
Mr. Duceppe, speaking last night, defended the alliance he signed with the Liberals and the NDP, saying it will reap many benefits for Quebec and urged Mr. Harper to give up avoiding a confidence vote that will surely defeat his government.
"I ask Mr. Harper to let the House of Commons vote, and let us finish off his government. And then, we will be able to focus all our energies against the economic crisis that has fallen upon us."
In Quebec, Premier Jean Charest said after hearing Mr. Harper's televised address that Quebec doesn't need anti-sovereigntist rhetoric from the federal government while it copes with the global economic crisis.
"We must respect the choice that was made democratically by all citizens and all Quebecers," Mr. Charest said as he left a rally in Ste-Marie. "And there are, economically, things to settle. We should focus on that. It is the No. 1 priority. Quebec does not need political instability and rhetoric that divides people."
B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell said he was happy to hear a "calmer" tone from the federal political leaders last night, but insisted it is in the best interests of Canadians to let Stephen Harper's government bring in a budget next month.
"There are some serious problems we need to deal with," he told reporters in Victoria. "It is not helpful for us to see this kind of instability in the economic world we live in."
But even if the fall of the government can be avoided, the relationship between the two sides in Parliament appears to have been deeply poisoned.
In the Commons yesterday, Liberal MP Ken Dryden said the Prime Minister broke faith with Parliament in the economic update.
"How do we repair the irreparable?" Mr. Dryden asked. "To the Prime Minister to help him with his answer: Sorry, it is over; we cannot trust him any more. We need a new prime minister."
Meanwhile, the Liberals continued to insist publicly yesterday that they will remain together in support of the coalition although some admitted a few of their MPs are feeling heat from some of their constituents. Still, they believe it would be dangerous to retreat now.
"I don't believe a word the Prime Minister says any more," said Toronto Liberal MP Bob Rae.
Some Liberals, like Senator David Smith, a veteran adviser and election campaign strategist for three Liberal leaders, publicly indicated there is a slim possibility they would back off if Mr. Harper changes course.
Parliament shut down till Jan. 26
PM obtains Governor-General's consent to prorogue in face of bid to topple his minority government; opposition complains he's 'throwing the locks on' and 'running away'
STEVEN CHASE and BILL CURRY
Globe and Mail Update
December 4, 2008 at 1:36 PM EST
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has obtained Governor-General Michaëlle Jean's consent to temporarily shut down Parliament, a move that allows him to avoid a confidence vote next week that he was expected to lose.
It's a blow for the Liberal-NDP coalition, backed by the separatist Bloc Québécois, that was seeking to replace the minority Conservative government.
The development buys time for Mr. Harper to assemble an economic package that he hopes will discourage the multiparty alliance from taking him down at that time.
Emerging from Rideau Hall after more than two hours, Mr. Harper said Parliament will return on Jan. 26 and the first order of business will be the 2009 budget.
He grudgingly acknowledged he has to make peace with the opposition parties. "Obviously we have to do some trust-building here on both sides."
The Prime Minister said he will spend December and January hammering out the budget. "My work over the next few weeks will be focused almost exclusively on preparing the federal budget."
He added that he hoped the other parties would work with him. "Canadians expect us to get on with this."
Mr. Harper suggested that not all opposition MPs were happy with the coalition that sought to replace him. "I think there are many people in the opposition that were not entirely comfortable with a different path."
The Prime Minister also took time to admonish the Liberals and New Democrats for considering an alliance with the Bloc. In reference to the separatist party, he said: "My Canada includes Quebec, their Quebec does not include Canada."
Standing in the foyer of the House of Commons after Mr. Harper's announcement, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said: "We must realize the enormity of what has happened here today. For the first time in the history of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada is running away from the Parliament of Canada."
All three opposition leaders said they still intend to bring down the government. Mr. Dion said only a "monumental change" on Mr. Harper's part would alter that.
NDP Leader Jack Layton said the coalition will not be abandoning its accord over the next seven weeks while the Commons is shuttered.
"I cannot have confidence in a Prime Minister who would throw the locks on the door of this place, knowing that he's about to lose a vote in the House of Commons," Mr. Layton said. "That's denying about as fundamental a right as one has in a democracy."
Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe reacted similarly. "We don't believe him and we don't have confidence in him."
The Prime Minister's bid to buy time, however, may work in his favour, with cracks in the coalition already emerging.
Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis wasted no time in calling Mr. Dion to be replaced before the House returns in January. "Who are we kidding? I think it's over," he said, heading into a closed door caucus meeting.
"To become Prime Minister at all costs? Where do we take the Liberal brand? ... The brand got hit. The brand is good. The CEO of the company screwed up."
The Scarborough MP emerged from caucus saying the party supports remaining in the coalition, but Mr. Dion must be replaced. "The party still wants the coalition to keep together. My constituents want Mr. Dion to go."
He said it's time to move the party's leadership race up - a conventon is slated for May - or find some way of making sure it has "a leader who can lead us" if there is an election in February or March.
Mr. Dion's botched video address was a clincher, he said: "We bombed."
Mr. Harper, who was forced to cancel an afternoon appearance in Woodstock, Ont., arrived in a motorcade after traveling literally across the street from his official residence, 24 Sussex Drive.
About 50 demonstrators greeted him as his black vehicle entered the gates of Rideau Hall, most of them cheering on the Prime Minister.
The vast majority appeared to be Tory staffers or Conservative Party members. They were chanting slogans such as "No secret deal!", a reference to the coalition-support agreement by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois that would oust Mr. Harper and install Mr. Dion in his place.
Demonstrator William McBeath, a staffer for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, said he was rallying in front of Rideau Hall because he believes Mr. Harper has a right to continue governing. He noted the Tory Leader was only elected seven weeks ago.
"The fact now ... a coalition rejected by the voters could take power by allying themselves with the separatists is terribly offensive and I wanted to come out and do something about it."
William Beddoe, an actor, was among the minority of demonstrators rallying in favour of the coalition. He said the Prime Minister in a minority Parliament must demonstrate a willingness to find common ground with rival party leaders.
"I think it's time for Mr. Harper to step aside. I think the Conservatives would do well to find another leader who could engage with the other parties in Parliament and work cooperatively."
Mr. Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton had hoped to meet Ms. Jean later today to make their case for refusing the Tory bid to prorogue Parliament.
Last night, an unapologetic Prime Minister used a rare televised address to justify his bid to have Ms. Jean temporarily shut down Parliament, railing against separatists whom he says have no legitimate right to backstop a Liberal-NDP coalition.
Mr. Harper's harsh attack risks angering Quebec voters, many of whom have voted for the Bloc Québécois in the past and may resent the suggestion that BQ support is illegitimate.
In the five-minute speech where he referred to "separatists" on four different occasions, Mr. Harper vowed he would use all tools at his disposal to prevent the Conservatives' replacement. He did not, however, use the word "separatist" in the French version of his speech, preferring the less-inflammatory term, "souverainistes."
"At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada," Mr. Harper said. "And the opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen."
Mr. Harper referred only peripherally to his government's role in contributing to the parliamentary crisis that currently engulfs the nation, saying the government has made some changes after criticism raised by the opposition in the wake of last week's fall economic update. He did not, however, apologize for portions of the update that would have eliminated millions in subsidies from political parties and removed the right to strike for civil servants. The government has since pulled both of those items off the table.
"The opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent and without your vote," the Prime Minister said. "This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists."
Political experts have argued, however, that Mr. Harper's attack on the Bloc Québécois may well offend a good number of Quebeckers, many of whom vote BQ.
In his response to the speech, Mr. Dion — who would become prime minister if the government is defeated — did not budge from his party's position that the Conservatives must go, adding that he wrote to Ms. Jean today asking her to refuse Mr. Harper's request to prorogue. He also defended the coalition, saying it will foster collaboration rather than "blind partisan feuding."
He also underlined the fact that he will only be in the prime minister's chair for the short time he is slated to remain Liberal leader. The party will elect a new leader this spring.
Mr. Harper is stepping up efforts to improve his image as a man of action on the economy in tough times, trying to beat back the Liberal-NDP coalition's central accusation that he's taken a stand-pat approach as a recession looms.
Yesterday he announced another round of meetings with premiers and territorial leaders on the economy — Jan. 16 in Ottawa — as well as a federal and provincial finance ministers meeting for Dec. 16 and 17 in Saskatoon.
The Tories maintained their vigorous attack on the coalition's decision to seek formal backing from the Bloc Québécois for its survival in the House. One MP went so far as to accuse the Liberals of treason.
"They've actually written a deal giving the separatists a veto over every decision of the Canadian government," Bob Dechert said. "That is as close to treason and sedition as I can imagine."
However, this line of attack was somewhat blunted by the disclosure of efforts by members of Stockwell Day's Canadian Alliance in 2000 to ink a deal with the Bloc to form a minority coalition. Mr. Day denied knowledge of the proposal, which was made by Gerry Chipeur, a well-known lawyer with Conservative links.
Commenting on documents first released on globeandmail.com, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said he was asked to participate at the time in a scheme to propel Mr. Day to power in the event of a minority government.
"This proves that they are now being hypocritical. They pretend that they are outraged, when a good number of them have tried the same thing," Mr. Duceppe told reporters.
Indeed, the Liberals themselves were ready to pounce on the Conservatives in the spring of 2005 after Mr. Harper's party voted unsuccessfully with the Bloc Québécois to try to bring down the Liberals then led by Paul Martin. The Liberals found in focus group testing at the time that BQ participation in government to be abhorrent.
"Most people would actually believe that the Bloc shouldn't be allowed to have seats in Parliament," said David Herle, a former top aide to Mr. Martin.
In his response to the speech, Mr. Layton castigated Mr. Harper for refusing to offer any more details on a stimulus package and said it's time for him to step aside.
"He seems to be more interested in his job than protecting your job," Mr. Layton said.
He appealed to Ms. Jean to take note of the multiparty coalition's readiness to defeat the Tories and take power.
Mr. Duceppe, speaking last night, defended the alliance he signed with the Liberals and the NDP, saying it will reap many benefits for Quebec and urged Mr. Harper to give up avoiding a confidence vote that will surely defeat his government.
"I ask Mr. Harper to let the House of Commons vote, and let us finish off his government. And then, we will be able to focus all our energies against the economic crisis that has fallen upon us."
In Quebec, Premier Jean Charest said after hearing Mr. Harper's televised address that Quebec doesn't need anti-sovereigntist rhetoric from the federal government while it copes with the global economic crisis.
"We must respect the choice that was made democratically by all citizens and all Quebecers," Mr. Charest said as he left a rally in Ste-Marie. "And there are, economically, things to settle. We should focus on that. It is the No. 1 priority. Quebec does not need political instability and rhetoric that divides people."
B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell said he was happy to hear a "calmer" tone from the federal political leaders last night, but insisted it is in the best interests of Canadians to let Stephen Harper's government bring in a budget next month.
"There are some serious problems we need to deal with," he told reporters in Victoria. "It is not helpful for us to see this kind of instability in the economic world we live in."
But even if the fall of the government can be avoided, the relationship between the two sides in Parliament appears to have been deeply poisoned.
In the Commons yesterday, Liberal MP Ken Dryden said the Prime Minister broke faith with Parliament in the economic update.
"How do we repair the irreparable?" Mr. Dryden asked. "To the Prime Minister to help him with his answer: Sorry, it is over; we cannot trust him any more. We need a new prime minister."
Meanwhile, the Liberals continued to insist publicly yesterday that they will remain together in support of the coalition although some admitted a few of their MPs are feeling heat from some of their constituents. Still, they believe it would be dangerous to retreat now.
"I don't believe a word the Prime Minister says any more," said Toronto Liberal MP Bob Rae.
Some Liberals, like Senator David Smith, a veteran adviser and election campaign strategist for three Liberal leaders, publicly indicated there is a slim possibility they would back off if Mr. Harper changes course.
Crazy Canucks
I summed up my feelings on the current political events and last night's speeches in an email in response to a friend this morning...
-------------------------------------------------------
I know it's overt cynicism but a pox on all of them.
It's in the best Mercutionan vein, but remember, he died right after he said that. :)
I was, myself, a bit put-off when the proposed coalition became formal on Monday. But there's a good reason for it. Several, really, even without taking into account my personal dislike for the Tories. To condemn MPs for wanting power makes about as much sense as condemning firemen for being wicked, because they only live for fires. In this case, it makes even less sense, because we have one fire company that's sitting on its ass while something important burns down, and a bunch of others are saying, "for God's sake, then, give us the hose!" That's what they're there for. That's their job. That's why we send them to Ottawa. I too enjoy lending my voice to the Choir Cynical — but this is important. This is about what happens to this country in the next couple of years, and may have ramifications for a generation.
I don't dispute it's ugly. But then, that's the point. It should never have gotten to this in the first place. The government has allowed — even forced — things to move in this direction, and I sincerely question Harper's judgment as a result. Someone else — even another Tory — needs to be in that seat now. That's established.
However, to amass a coalition, we are faced with a chimera worthy of Douglas Adam's comic imagination.
That's the nature of coalition governments. We've been spared that realization thanks to the "blessings" of a first-past-the-post electoral system that gives the representatives of roughly 40% of the people on average 100% of the power. In most parliamentary democracies, what we're facing now is not a "constitutional crisis" that has everyone plastering the papers with their dire predictions of doom and woe... it's par for the course every couple of years. We sit back and pat ourselves on the back for our stable, five-year-long benign dictatorships. Well, the only blessing is that they HAVE been so benign. Someone said to me that she hoped this would be the chance for Parliament to put in some sort of proportional representation system, and I'm ready to agree. I'm tired of the arrogance both the Tories and the Grits show when they've had a couple of back-to-back majorities, and I'd like to see a House of Commons where they always always always have to work together to get things done. The last couple of years weren't so bad, till Harper lost his mind last week. Who can ever trust him again?
It'll be interesting to see what happens today. Apparently, Ed Schreyer himself has advised the current GG not to allow the PM to prorogue Parliament, because there's no emergency that would warrant it, and the only reason he's doing it is to avoid submitting to the will of Parliament, which could have negative ramifications for the future if it sets a precedent. I strongly agree with him. I've asked myself would I be feeling this way if the Tories were doing this to the Grits... as they would have liked to have done just a few years ago. In all honesty, I know I'd be pretty sore about it, but I wouldn't be arguing it was damaging to democracy, or illegal, or extraordinary. I know it's none of those things in our system — only rare, in Canada. And to be honest, if it keeps future minority governments in line, if it sinks in for the next Harper, so much the better.
I watched the three speeches last night, and I honestly tried to be objective (you know, I didn't shout rebuttals at the TV like the old man I've been since I was 17). I noticed that Harper made his pitch to the West. He came close to lying about the nature of what was going on — he certainly put an "oh, shit, this is a coup!" spin on things in the first half of his speech. Then he threw a handful of pennies into the crowd about the economy — too little, too late — and then went out on a note SURE to piss off Quebec. Blah blah blah separatists, blah blah blah separatism, blah horns, pitchforks, and fire in Chibougamau, with naked moonlight dances and blood... And I thought, ohh, boy, are you cutting off votre nez to spite your face, Prime Minister. Apparently he used "separatists" in English and softened it to "sovereigntists" in French... but if he thinks Quebec's not going to hear about that this morning, and won't take offense at the idea he's bad-mouthing them to les anglais behind their backs, well, then he's just made another stupid mistake. If he HAD to lie about the Bloc being party to the coalition, instead of agreeing to support it on confidence motions only, he might at least have had the good sense to settle on "sovereigntists" in both languages. Or maybe he's decided to cut Quebec loose and appeal strictly to Cowboy Hat Land from now on.
I'm biased, I know, but I thought Dion made a sensible, unemotional plea for what has to be done. He kept hitting those two notes that resonate right now... jobs, jobs, economy, jobs, economy, economy, jobs... the reasons for action (that, yes, and Harper trying to drown the other parties in the bag of the next election). I thought it was REALLY smart of him to emphasize, a couple of times, that he's on his way out — but that he'll do his best while he's here.
Of the three, I thought Layton was the least polished and slick, and the most sincere. Short of sprinkling his speech with a few "shits" and "fucks", language doesn't get much plainer. The PM screwed up, refused to move on the economy, and used his first mini-budget to attack his opponents. Plain and simple. I have to hand it to him; of all three, I found him the most persuasive, and in his plainness, the most eloquent. He didn't speak TO me, he spoke FOR me.
-------------------------------------------------------
I know it's overt cynicism but a pox on all of them.
It's in the best Mercutionan vein, but remember, he died right after he said that. :)
I was, myself, a bit put-off when the proposed coalition became formal on Monday. But there's a good reason for it. Several, really, even without taking into account my personal dislike for the Tories. To condemn MPs for wanting power makes about as much sense as condemning firemen for being wicked, because they only live for fires. In this case, it makes even less sense, because we have one fire company that's sitting on its ass while something important burns down, and a bunch of others are saying, "for God's sake, then, give us the hose!" That's what they're there for. That's their job. That's why we send them to Ottawa. I too enjoy lending my voice to the Choir Cynical — but this is important. This is about what happens to this country in the next couple of years, and may have ramifications for a generation.
I don't dispute it's ugly. But then, that's the point. It should never have gotten to this in the first place. The government has allowed — even forced — things to move in this direction, and I sincerely question Harper's judgment as a result. Someone else — even another Tory — needs to be in that seat now. That's established.
However, to amass a coalition, we are faced with a chimera worthy of Douglas Adam's comic imagination.
That's the nature of coalition governments. We've been spared that realization thanks to the "blessings" of a first-past-the-post electoral system that gives the representatives of roughly 40% of the people on average 100% of the power. In most parliamentary democracies, what we're facing now is not a "constitutional crisis" that has everyone plastering the papers with their dire predictions of doom and woe... it's par for the course every couple of years. We sit back and pat ourselves on the back for our stable, five-year-long benign dictatorships. Well, the only blessing is that they HAVE been so benign. Someone said to me that she hoped this would be the chance for Parliament to put in some sort of proportional representation system, and I'm ready to agree. I'm tired of the arrogance both the Tories and the Grits show when they've had a couple of back-to-back majorities, and I'd like to see a House of Commons where they always always always have to work together to get things done. The last couple of years weren't so bad, till Harper lost his mind last week. Who can ever trust him again?
It'll be interesting to see what happens today. Apparently, Ed Schreyer himself has advised the current GG not to allow the PM to prorogue Parliament, because there's no emergency that would warrant it, and the only reason he's doing it is to avoid submitting to the will of Parliament, which could have negative ramifications for the future if it sets a precedent. I strongly agree with him. I've asked myself would I be feeling this way if the Tories were doing this to the Grits... as they would have liked to have done just a few years ago. In all honesty, I know I'd be pretty sore about it, but I wouldn't be arguing it was damaging to democracy, or illegal, or extraordinary. I know it's none of those things in our system — only rare, in Canada. And to be honest, if it keeps future minority governments in line, if it sinks in for the next Harper, so much the better.
I watched the three speeches last night, and I honestly tried to be objective (you know, I didn't shout rebuttals at the TV like the old man I've been since I was 17). I noticed that Harper made his pitch to the West. He came close to lying about the nature of what was going on — he certainly put an "oh, shit, this is a coup!" spin on things in the first half of his speech. Then he threw a handful of pennies into the crowd about the economy — too little, too late — and then went out on a note SURE to piss off Quebec. Blah blah blah separatists, blah blah blah separatism, blah horns, pitchforks, and fire in Chibougamau, with naked moonlight dances and blood... And I thought, ohh, boy, are you cutting off votre nez to spite your face, Prime Minister. Apparently he used "separatists" in English and softened it to "sovereigntists" in French... but if he thinks Quebec's not going to hear about that this morning, and won't take offense at the idea he's bad-mouthing them to les anglais behind their backs, well, then he's just made another stupid mistake. If he HAD to lie about the Bloc being party to the coalition, instead of agreeing to support it on confidence motions only, he might at least have had the good sense to settle on "sovereigntists" in both languages. Or maybe he's decided to cut Quebec loose and appeal strictly to Cowboy Hat Land from now on.
I'm biased, I know, but I thought Dion made a sensible, unemotional plea for what has to be done. He kept hitting those two notes that resonate right now... jobs, jobs, economy, jobs, economy, economy, jobs... the reasons for action (that, yes, and Harper trying to drown the other parties in the bag of the next election). I thought it was REALLY smart of him to emphasize, a couple of times, that he's on his way out — but that he'll do his best while he's here.
Of the three, I thought Layton was the least polished and slick, and the most sincere. Short of sprinkling his speech with a few "shits" and "fucks", language doesn't get much plainer. The PM screwed up, refused to move on the economy, and used his first mini-budget to attack his opponents. Plain and simple. I have to hand it to him; of all three, I found him the most persuasive, and in his plainness, the most eloquent. He didn't speak TO me, he spoke FOR me.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Friday, November 16, 2007
Canada's statesman
I have a lot of respect for Joe Clark. More, I think, as time goes by. I just read an article by him in the opinion pages of The Globe and Mail, and while I was reading it, I realized, this man is now the premier statesman of this country, if he hasn't been for a long time already.
I want to be careful what I say about him because some of it is going to sound like faint praise or backhanded compliments, and I really don't intend them that way at all. So my preamble must be to point out that this is man who faced a lot of adversity in his career, but nothing stopped him. Whatever rocks came his way, he just kept hiking on.
I first became acutely politically aware in the 1979 election when Clark was the Progressive Conservatives' freshly-minted new leader. He was facing Pierre Trudeau, who had been prime minister since 1968, and the NDP's Ed Broadbent (another man I think is cut from the same durable cloth as Clark, by the way). What I remember from the time, long before I was old enough to vote, was how wearied everyone was of Trudeau. That was partly his own fault; the man didn't suffer fools lightly, and he seemed to find them everywhere; but also, we were in a bad way economically and he was bearing the brunt. People turned to Clark and the Tories... but not in the numbers he needed. Joe Clark became, at 39 (my age now), the youngest prime minister in Canadian history. But he led a minority government, and he had an unfortunately frank, honest character that didn't serve him well in that role. In other times, in other places, he might have had a long run... and I personally think Canada would have done just fine if he had... but nine months into his government his loose coalition collapsed and his budget was voted down. He was bound by honour and tradition to resign the government to the Governor-General and call an election, which he lost. Trudeau was back in office for his own final term, telling the cameras, "Well, welcome to the 1980s."
That Clark stayed on after that isn't too surprising. He'd been PM; he'd stumbled, but he was still new, young, and remained a viable alternative. Unfortunately, some Tories didn't see it that way, and out of corporate Quebec came Brian Mulroney. Rich, successful, quasi-American, he was everything the business interests in Canada wanted in 24 Sussex Drive. Clark decided he needed a firm mandate, and he called a leadership review in, I believe, 1982. I don't recall now exactly how that was brought about, but I do remember two things about it: he did get a majority, but it wasn't as large as he'd wanted. And so, he voluntarily submitted to a leadership convention for 1983, in which he would face the other contenders... principally, Brian Mulroney.
It was a big mistake. There are a couple of ways you can take it. On one hand, it seems a little arrogant. The party endorses you, but you say, "not good enough", and put their backs to the wall to prove they love you? That might work in the short term, but I think it's a prescription for them to start looking around. Another way of looking at it is as hopelessly idealistic, even naïve; the whole "if you love something, set it free" ethos. I choose to be charitable and see it that way. But I think ultimately, the vibe was, well, if Joe isn't confident in the party even after most of us declared our confidence in him, maybe we do need to offer the crown to someone else. And that's just what they did in May, 1983. Brian Mulroney replaced Joe Clark as Tory leader.
I was cheering for Joe, and disappointed in the result. But, I was a Tory supporter at the time (for what it was worth; I was still too young to vote), and the party said that Brian was our guy. I warmed to Mulroney for a while. The fact that Clark stood by him helped a lot, I think. Not just for me, but for Canadians everywhere. Okay, maybe Clark wasn't our archetype of 'prime ministerial' after the flamboyant bon-vivant Trudeau, but we still knew he was a rock-solid decent guy, and his endorsement meant something.
A lot of people... most people, I think... would have quit at that point; headed off to green corporate or academic pastures, licked their wounds, bided their time (think John Turner). But Clark didn't. He had a job to do, and if it wasn't to be prime minister or leader of the Conservatives, it was to participate in government. And thankfully, he did.
In 1984, the Tories finally got their majority, and it was a huge one. Their first in decades, actually. It didn't take long for the bloom to come off the rose for me; by 1985, I had my first stirrings of real dislike for Mulroney. His cabinet was largely unlikable. Mulroney himself was a loud, arrogant show-off; a real stuffed shirt. He was, in and of himself, the embodiment of everything we feared becoming in drawing too close to the Americans. Mike Wilson was sycophantic and came across kind of weaselly. John Crosbie was a clownish blowhard and a perennial embarrassment to anyone who championed the Conservatives. But in the midst of it all, there was Joe Clark, a team player, doing his job and handling it well. To put it hockey terms, Clark's curse was that he was reasonably good in any position. You put him on that spot on the ice, and he could do it. In a weird way, he was too useful to be the prime minister. During an age of Cold War tensions, "Star Wars" SDI nonsense, and the fight against apartheid, he shone as Minister of External Affairs, giving Canada a good and decent face in foreign capitals and international forums. He was the one guy in the Mulroney government that pretty much anybody could, and pretty much everybody did, like. And he worked all those years under a man who would eventually become the least popular prime minister since such measures started being taken.
When the Mulroney lid finally blew off and the Tories self-destructed... exploded, over and over and over for ten years into more and more fragments... Clark was eventually called upon to perform the thankless task of being a caretaker leader while the broken, bloody, bleeding parts all crawled back together to finally recongeal; midwife at this gory rebirth. What reward was he ever going to get out of that except the knowledge that he answered the call? And I give him credit here, too. He didn't just do a job nobody else would, he did a job nobody else could. And he did it until, as expected, some new young Turk appeared to give him the golden handshake.
When I was younger, I used to feel sorry for Joe Clark. But I'm older now and I don't anymore. Now I just feel admiration and a measure of gratitude. This is a guy who sees what has to be done, and does it. He doesn't show up mugging for the camera and gathering glory; hammer, nails, workboots. Whatever it is, he'll be there, and he'll pitch in, and he'll give it all he's got. To me, he's come to epitomize something truly Canadian; humble, honest, tenacious guts. Like Jimmy Carter in the US, underrated and unappreciated in his lifetime while lesser men garnered far more (and less deserved) praise. It's not about him, it's about the people. The country. The world. Of Joe Clark, I can say this: whatever the job is, he's the guy you want in your corner.
I want to be careful what I say about him because some of it is going to sound like faint praise or backhanded compliments, and I really don't intend them that way at all. So my preamble must be to point out that this is man who faced a lot of adversity in his career, but nothing stopped him. Whatever rocks came his way, he just kept hiking on.
I first became acutely politically aware in the 1979 election when Clark was the Progressive Conservatives' freshly-minted new leader. He was facing Pierre Trudeau, who had been prime minister since 1968, and the NDP's Ed Broadbent (another man I think is cut from the same durable cloth as Clark, by the way). What I remember from the time, long before I was old enough to vote, was how wearied everyone was of Trudeau. That was partly his own fault; the man didn't suffer fools lightly, and he seemed to find them everywhere; but also, we were in a bad way economically and he was bearing the brunt. People turned to Clark and the Tories... but not in the numbers he needed. Joe Clark became, at 39 (my age now), the youngest prime minister in Canadian history. But he led a minority government, and he had an unfortunately frank, honest character that didn't serve him well in that role. In other times, in other places, he might have had a long run... and I personally think Canada would have done just fine if he had... but nine months into his government his loose coalition collapsed and his budget was voted down. He was bound by honour and tradition to resign the government to the Governor-General and call an election, which he lost. Trudeau was back in office for his own final term, telling the cameras, "Well, welcome to the 1980s."
That Clark stayed on after that isn't too surprising. He'd been PM; he'd stumbled, but he was still new, young, and remained a viable alternative. Unfortunately, some Tories didn't see it that way, and out of corporate Quebec came Brian Mulroney. Rich, successful, quasi-American, he was everything the business interests in Canada wanted in 24 Sussex Drive. Clark decided he needed a firm mandate, and he called a leadership review in, I believe, 1982. I don't recall now exactly how that was brought about, but I do remember two things about it: he did get a majority, but it wasn't as large as he'd wanted. And so, he voluntarily submitted to a leadership convention for 1983, in which he would face the other contenders... principally, Brian Mulroney.
It was a big mistake. There are a couple of ways you can take it. On one hand, it seems a little arrogant. The party endorses you, but you say, "not good enough", and put their backs to the wall to prove they love you? That might work in the short term, but I think it's a prescription for them to start looking around. Another way of looking at it is as hopelessly idealistic, even naïve; the whole "if you love something, set it free" ethos. I choose to be charitable and see it that way. But I think ultimately, the vibe was, well, if Joe isn't confident in the party even after most of us declared our confidence in him, maybe we do need to offer the crown to someone else. And that's just what they did in May, 1983. Brian Mulroney replaced Joe Clark as Tory leader.
I was cheering for Joe, and disappointed in the result. But, I was a Tory supporter at the time (for what it was worth; I was still too young to vote), and the party said that Brian was our guy. I warmed to Mulroney for a while. The fact that Clark stood by him helped a lot, I think. Not just for me, but for Canadians everywhere. Okay, maybe Clark wasn't our archetype of 'prime ministerial' after the flamboyant bon-vivant Trudeau, but we still knew he was a rock-solid decent guy, and his endorsement meant something.
A lot of people... most people, I think... would have quit at that point; headed off to green corporate or academic pastures, licked their wounds, bided their time (think John Turner). But Clark didn't. He had a job to do, and if it wasn't to be prime minister or leader of the Conservatives, it was to participate in government. And thankfully, he did.
In 1984, the Tories finally got their majority, and it was a huge one. Their first in decades, actually. It didn't take long for the bloom to come off the rose for me; by 1985, I had my first stirrings of real dislike for Mulroney. His cabinet was largely unlikable. Mulroney himself was a loud, arrogant show-off; a real stuffed shirt. He was, in and of himself, the embodiment of everything we feared becoming in drawing too close to the Americans. Mike Wilson was sycophantic and came across kind of weaselly. John Crosbie was a clownish blowhard and a perennial embarrassment to anyone who championed the Conservatives. But in the midst of it all, there was Joe Clark, a team player, doing his job and handling it well. To put it hockey terms, Clark's curse was that he was reasonably good in any position. You put him on that spot on the ice, and he could do it. In a weird way, he was too useful to be the prime minister. During an age of Cold War tensions, "Star Wars" SDI nonsense, and the fight against apartheid, he shone as Minister of External Affairs, giving Canada a good and decent face in foreign capitals and international forums. He was the one guy in the Mulroney government that pretty much anybody could, and pretty much everybody did, like. And he worked all those years under a man who would eventually become the least popular prime minister since such measures started being taken.
When the Mulroney lid finally blew off and the Tories self-destructed... exploded, over and over and over for ten years into more and more fragments... Clark was eventually called upon to perform the thankless task of being a caretaker leader while the broken, bloody, bleeding parts all crawled back together to finally recongeal; midwife at this gory rebirth. What reward was he ever going to get out of that except the knowledge that he answered the call? And I give him credit here, too. He didn't just do a job nobody else would, he did a job nobody else could. And he did it until, as expected, some new young Turk appeared to give him the golden handshake.
When I was younger, I used to feel sorry for Joe Clark. But I'm older now and I don't anymore. Now I just feel admiration and a measure of gratitude. This is a guy who sees what has to be done, and does it. He doesn't show up mugging for the camera and gathering glory; hammer, nails, workboots. Whatever it is, he'll be there, and he'll pitch in, and he'll give it all he's got. To me, he's come to epitomize something truly Canadian; humble, honest, tenacious guts. Like Jimmy Carter in the US, underrated and unappreciated in his lifetime while lesser men garnered far more (and less deserved) praise. It's not about him, it's about the people. The country. The world. Of Joe Clark, I can say this: whatever the job is, he's the guy you want in your corner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)