The fajrdrako summary of recent Canadian political events...

[fajrdrako]

nina_ds asked me what was going on in Canada and I answered her, then decided to repost it here in case anyone else is curious. After all, it's not every day something happens in Canadian politics that is actually interesting. Sit-up-and-take-notice interesting.

Here's my quick-simple version of events, and remember that (a) I ignore political news as much as I possibly can, so I'm hardly an expert on any of it, and (b) I am not unbiased. It is, after all, the unfolding history of my country that's going on here. Commentary and correction from my more politcally-astute friends is welcome.

1. We had a federal election in October, possibly the most boring election ever held anywhere. The Conservatives ended up with enough seats in Parliament to from the Government, with their leader, Steven Harper, as Prime Minister. Again.
   
   
2. Steven Harper announced the new Budget last week. It was so stupid and useless that it was about to trigger a non-confidence motion in Parliament. Significant details: it didn't address the Recession, which is on everyone's mind, and Harper tried to cut funding to political parties.
   
   
3. Here's where the tricky and unusual bit comes. Usually a vote of non-confidence means a new election. But we just had a big, expensive (and did I mention boring?) election in October. So instead of that, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party decided to join together in what they called the Coalition. There are more Conservative seats in Parliament than either NDP or Liberal, but put the Liberals and the NDP together and they have a party with enough seats to hold power. The Bloc Quebecois (which is most of the remainder of Parliament) agreed to support this amalgamation.
   
   This move would topple Harper as PM and make Liberal Leader Stephane Dion the new Prime Minister.
   
   With me so far?
   
   
4. On Wednesday, the evening before this was going to happen, Harper appeared on television to beg the people of Canada to keep him as PM because, well, anything else was unCanadian. (He used the word 'illegal' and hinted at the word 'treasonous'.)
   
   
5. The next morning, Harper went to Governor-General Michaelle Jean and asked her to suspend Parliament - because if Parliament can't sit, they can't form the Coalition government and can't boot him out of power.
   
   
6. The Governor-General agreed to this and Parliament is prorogued, which is the technical word for the suspension. Parliament can now not sit until the end of January. Till then, we technically have a government in power, the Conservatives, but nobody can do anything.
   
   
7. Harper is now writing another, better Budget speech to present at the end of January, hoping it won't get him ousted.

Comments

[catslash.livejournal.com]

Oh, wow. Thanks for this; I was wondering what was going on, but didn't know where to find a quick summary. That is some crazytimes.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this

You're welcome.

That is some crazytimes.

Shaking things up a little. Maybe.

[teenygozer.livejournal.com]

Isn't the Governor-General basically the British crown's representative in Canada? Heh... how cool would it be if you guys threw some tea in a harbor and started carrying signs that said, "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny"?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Isn't the Governor-General basically the British crown's representative in Canada?

In the same sense that Barack Obama is in fact a 70-foot-tall radioactive Japanese lizard, which is to say not at all.

how cool would it be if you guys threw some tea in a harbor and started carrying signs that said, "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny"?

It would be enormously stupid, at least if aimed at Britain. We don't pay taxes to Britain.

Unlike our cousins to the south, we're moderately good about not stripping the vote from people (although at one time you could lose the vote for the more egregious affronts against polite society, like being a unrepentant native or flagrant Mennonitism). In fact, the courts decided that the criminally insane cannot be legally barred from voting, which raises some interesting logistical issues with polling stations. This decision came down shortly before the Conservatives made significant gains in the House.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

In the same sense that Barack Obama is in fact a 70-foot-tall radioactive Japanese lizard

LOL. Been watching too many Godzilla movies lately?

In fact, the courts decided that the criminally insane cannot be legally barred from voting, which raises some interesting logistical issues with polling stations. This decision came down shortly before the Conservatives made significant gains in the House.

Well said.

[teenygozer.livejournal.com]

I had asked someone else on my flist what role the Governer-General played in government and that was her (apparently too-short) answer. There were no lizards involved of any size, and even less radioactivity, in her quickie description of the workings of that particular job.

And, dude, I was just joking about the tea and signs! I'm sorry if you found it insulting, I did not mean it so. And, no, I also did not aim the joke at Britain, but at the people in the government who are using what seems like a shoddy political maneuver to circumvent the will of the people.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Isn't the Governor-General basically the British crown's representative in Canada?

It's the Queen of Canada she represents, as I understand it. The fact that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of England is the same person is a sort of historical artifact or accident.

how cool would it be if you guys threw some tea in a harbor

We're more likely to drink it, instead. Canadians aren't into precipitous acts of defiance.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

put the Liberal and NDP together and they have a party with a majority.

No they don't, which is part of the problem. The Liberals have 77 seats and the NDP have 37, which together is still 29 seats fewer than the 143 CPC seats. This is why the Bloc had to sign off on the deal, because the Coalition needs their 49 seats to outvote the Conservatives.

I suspect if the Lib + NDP total was 144 or higher, the GG might have signed off on the coalition government, especially if "or higher" exceeded 155 seats. In fact, I wonder if in the case where Lib+NDP = 155+ we might not have seen a Lib+NDP government right off the bat.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

No they don't, which is part of the problem.

Woops, I mis-spoke. Thanks for the correction. (Is my rephrasing accurate?) I knew the numbers but not the arithmetic.

I wonder if in the case where Lib+NDP = 155+ we might not have seen a Lib+NDP government right off the bat.

I wondered that too. And I wish.

[maaseru.livejournal.com]

Good summary. My only comment would be re #1, The Conservatives really only had 38% of the votes, giving them only a minority government. 62% of the rest of us split votes between the other parties, and that's why Harper is so vulnerable. Too bad he's so arrogant that he didn't even care what the reaction would be to his nasty, picayune attack on the irritants in his life. If he'd brought even one good economic measure out in that juvenile package of nonsense, none of this would have happened.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Conservatives really only had 38% of the votes, giving them only a minority government

Good point. I rephrased a little, hoping to clarify.

If he'd brought even one good economic measure out in that juvenile package of nonsense, none of this would have happened.

I wish he had! Any hint that the Government had any idea of what to do, and that they were going to do it, would have been most welcome. One good idea. As it is, the government looks stupid as well as helpless.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Well, the Liberals have won majorities with not much more than that 38% and nobody complained about that (Aside from the PCs, the NDP and the Bloc and who cares what they think? They're not Liberals). Just because the CPC happen to be baby-eating reactionary monsters who no doubt are plotting the destruction of everything good and decent in the world should not mean that they can't exploit the same foibles of the Canadian system as the Natural Ruling Party.

Harper probably figured that with Dion on his way out, the Liberals are very weak (and broke), that cooperation between the NDP and Liberals was very unlikely and also pointless because they have fewer seats together than Harper does and that that the three opposition parties could not cooperate long enough to foil him given that they cannot affort to fight another election right now. "What if they form a Three Party Coalition and take my toys away" probably never occured to him.

[gillo]

That's roughly what I thought was happening. A major constitutional crisis, IOW, but one relying on inaction by the majority. I have to say that I do not approve of the actions of the G-G, but I can see she's in a tricky position. Harper appears to be a dickhead.

I'm assuming "Conservative" means somewhere to the right of Barack Obama, or at least in his vicinity? But adhering to Thatcherite monetarist values. Not fun, and this is not a moment to do nothing. Good luck with that.

[duncanmac.livejournal.com]

In this case, the "Conservative" party has been swallowed by the Reform party, which is a group specifically adhering to neo-con or U.S. Republican Party values. An "Americanizing" slap in the face of Canadian politics is my take on it.

Unlike many people here, I used to vote for the Old Tory party. While it is run by neo-cons, I would not touch it with the proverbial barge pole. :-(

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

have to say that I do not approve of the actions of the G-G, but I can see she's in a tricky position.

Yes. I wondered why she chose as she did; my conclusion is that she judged it was the option most geared towards potential long-term stability for Canada. It isn't the choice I'd have made.

Harper appears to be a dickhead.

Well, I think so.

I'm assuming "Conservative" means somewhere to the right of Barack Obama, or at least in his vicinity?

I don't know Obama's policies well enough to judge. Usually "right" in Canadian political language means "moderate left" in American political language, but the current Conservatives are born out of the former Reform party, which was appallingly right-wing by any standard. In other words, our 'right' is shifting further to the right. While I shift ever further leftwards.

But adhering to Thatcherite monetarist values.

Yeah. I roll my eyes.

Not fun, and this is not a moment to do nothing. Good luck with that.

Thanks. I think we'll need it.

[duncanmac.livejournal.com]

... Harper tried to cut funding to all the other political parties.

Actually, no. The original proposal, as specified, was to cut taxpayer funding to all political parties, including the Conservatives themselves. The intent of the proposal was considerably more even-handed than one may think. I should note that such a proposal has the considerable drawback of partly "Americanizing" the Canadian political landscape (if you aren't rich or have a lot of supporters, you usually aren't allowed to be on the ballot in most of the US). [However, we Canucks do not have the restrictive "sore loser" laws enacted in most U.S. states that seem so clearly un-democratic.]

If such a proposal had been raised during the election campaign, especially after the first stock market crash in late September, I would have been decidedly more sympathetic. The sheer crassness of the proposal now is in its timing; Reform/Tories have paid off their debts, but the Liberals and the NDP are rather badly mired in debt since the last election in mid-October. [Why can't the NDP, in particular, be more fiscally responsible? They have the backing of large organizations, such as several trade unions.] As I have said elsewhere (http://duncanmac.livejournal.com/8556.html), trusting a government handout of any kind can leave you up the proverbial creek without any means of propulsion when said government decides to cut funding for whatever reason it chooses.

I am also offended at the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc for their sheer crassness. Again, not a peep about such a "coalition" was raised during the election; it took a threat to cut taxpayer funding to them that caused them to unite now.

An apt comment I have seen elsewhere is that the politicians on Parliament Hill are behaving "like five-year-olds in the grip of a tantrum." Unfortunately, many Canadians are not aware of all the details, leading to results like this poll (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/parliament-poll.html).

The upshot of it is that nothing will be done about the economic mess till Parliament returns on Jan. 26. Good shot, Mr. Harper. :-(

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

One of my problems with democracy in general is the weight of power that falls to the wealthy simply because they have the economic resources to attain and retain power. It creates an oligarchy by default. I disapprove.

I have no problem with the issues being raised after the election; priorities changed. The world changed. The parties needed a reason to form a coalition.

I think the politicians are being less tantrumish than usual. They're actually raising issues.

[msp-hacker.livejournal.com]

Wow. I knew that Stephen Harper was a bit of a dick, but deciding to shut down Canadian national government until the end of January while the news is getting a little bit more bleaker every day? Fail. Complete and utter fail.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Fail. Complete and utter fail.

I'd say.

And all in order to keep power in his own hands - never mind the good of the country.

[cynthia1960.livejournal.com]

This American notes that this situation reminds her of when Newt Gingrich (who is probably a good buddy of Harper's) helped instigate a shutdown of our federal government. Good luck to you all.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Ahh, politicians. They don't even respect their own procedures. And the same thing - like dance steps - happens over and over.

No wonder we have mixed results.

[rustydog.livejournal.com]

put the Liberals and the NDP together and they have a party with enough seats to hold power. The Bloc Quebecois (which is most of the remainder of Parliament) agreed to support this amalgamation.

This move would topple Harper as PM

I want to make sure I understand this - I know that you vote for members of parliament, and those members are each part of a party, and the biggest one of those gets to put up the Prime Minister and they basically get to rule the government? (I realize I'm not using technically accurate language here.) But, without an election, the parties in parliament can re-organize themselves and change the government, including the prime minister?

And parliament can be suspended! Tricksy. Not that things like that don't happen here, but I'm just as surprised when they do. Until a few years ago I had no idea it was legal or possible to *shut down* the federal government or a state government for a budget protest.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

you vote for members of parliament, and those members are each part of a party, and the biggest one of those gets to put up the Prime Minister and they basically get to rule the government?

I'd say they form the government, but yes, that's about it.

without an election, the parties in parliament can re-organize themselves and change the government, including the prime minister?

Yes. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party in power. The leader is elected by the members of the party.

I suppose the question is: can parties reorganize themselves while in power? Theoretically. Members have changed party while it office - it isn't even uncommon - though it tends to tarnish the reputation of those who do so. Right now the NDP and Liberals are saying 'yes, we can reorganize as necessary'. The Conservatives are saying 'not on your fat patootie'.

And parliament can be suspended! Tricksy.

Yeah. Harper's playing on quicksand, I'd say. Will he get away with it? We'll see.

Well may they say 'God Save the Queen...'

[17catherines.livejournal.com]

So... is your Governor General allowed to sack the Prime Minister if she wants to? Not that I would normally advocate such a move of course, but still...?

Sorry, all this makes me feel very Aussie, especially since I just saw 'Keating! The Musical' this week, featuring the ghost of Gough Whitlam.

Catherine

Re: Well may they say 'God Save the Queen...'

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

is your Governor General allowed to sack the Prime Minister if she wants to?

Yes, though we generally call it "calling an election".

all this makes me feel very Aussie

You mean, because it's different there? Or because it's the same - ? Ah. I just looked up the Gough Whitlam: "only Australian Prime Minister to have been dismissed by the Governor-General, using reserve powers."

Oh yes, it has a familiar ring.