![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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? - 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'.)
- 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.
- 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.
- Harper is now writing another, better Budget speech to present at the end of January, hoping it won't get him ousted.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 02:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 02:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:03 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:11 pm (UTC)In the same sense that Barack Obama is in fact a 70-foot-tall radioactive Japanese lizard, which is to say not at all.
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.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:12 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:15 pm (UTC)You're welcome.
That is some crazytimes.
Shaking things up a little. Maybe.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:21 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:24 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:25 pm (UTC)Or precipitous acts of anything, really. It took us 40 years to decide on a design for the new flag and over a century to select words for our national anthem.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:31 pm (UTC)Hmm. Point. I'm trying to think of an exception, but... Hmm. No. Nothing comes to mind. Do you think we might be hockey-playing Ents in disguise?
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:31 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:39 pm (UTC)Strictly speaking, no. The national anthem we use was originally in (Quebecois) French, and the (utterly pompous) French lyrics have not changed since the anthem was originally composed. It's the English lyrics that have been changed several times, before finally settling down in 1980.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:50 pm (UTC)The National Anthem...
Date: 2008-12-05 03:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 03:53 pm (UTC)That might well have been his reasoning. But isn't it also true then that they hadn't much to lose - and were pushed into the corner? Desperation too can precipitate action.
"What if they form a Three Party Coalition and take my toys away" probably never occured to him.
Which explains why his reaction reflected fear rather than strategy.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 04:04 pm (UTC)Re: The National Anthem...
Date: 2008-12-05 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 04:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 04:13 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 04:15 pm (UTC)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. :-(
no subject
Date: 2008-12-05 04:24 pm (UTC)