We can not have another election so soon after the last one, which was called prematurely to begin with and resulted in very little change.

Harper can not continue to govern without the confidence of the House, and has no prospects of winning it back.

Dion can not become Prime Minister of an unstable minority coalition after being thrashed in the election and being scheduled to resign in five months.  As much as I’ve enjoyed defending the democratic legitimacy of the proposed coalition, I think it’s becoming pretty clear that it will be a short-lived misadventure that is being savaged by the media and will therefore be rejected by the public. The coalition government will likely accomplish almost nothing during its short term except greatly strengthening the two parties that aren’t members.

Where does that leave us?  With one way out.The only realistically viable government given the current configuration of Parliament is a Conservative minority, led by someone other than Harper.

He won’t go willingly.  He was elected President, after all, and would never admit defeat at the hands of the top three people on his Enemies List.It is the responsibility of MPs from all parties to find a way to establish a stable government out of the results of the recent election.  That includes the Conservative caucus.

Their leader has failed the party, the Parliament, and the country.  His absurdly partisan economic update was followed by wiretapping an opposition caucus meeting.  If he takes the drastic (unprecedented?) step of prorogation to avoid a non-confidence vote, it would render him utterly unable to claim any democratic mandate.

Time to get out the old Thatcher hatchet.  Harper needs to be shown the door, and his own caucus is the only one able to do it.  It is their responsibility as the largest party in an unstable Parliament to present a government that can gain the confidence of just a small fraction of the opposition.  We’re all waiting, and don’t see one yet.  Off with its head!

Then, select a conciliatory interim Conservative leader that can approach the other Biggest Loser of the coalition scheme, Ignatieff.  All the new Conservative leader needs to do is convince Ignatieff to tell 11 of his supporters not to show up to take down the government when the opportunity arises.  Offered any reasonable deal to opt out of Dion’s Charge of the Light Brigade, Iggy will take it.

Canada gets a government that understands and accepts its obligation of responsibility to Parliament but appeases the expectations of the public, the Conservatives get to stay in power for a year or two while they select a permanent new leader, and Ignatieff gets his opportunity to rebuild the Liberal party into something credible.

Fire Harper.  A plan we can all get behind!

~Gnomes

In his mental construction of our constitutional framework, Harper was elected the President of Canada on the 14th of October. His opponents had been defeated: the soon-to-be leaderless Liberals greatly reduced in their seat count, the NDP making only modest gains, and the Bloc – as separatists – dismissed out of hand as always. To his binary world view, all that mattered in the end was that he had defeated them.  A land in turmoil cried out for a hero. He was Harper, a mighty warrior economist forged in the heat of the Commons.

So when Harper’s attempts to ram the most extreme and partisan elements of his policy through the new Parliament met with genuine resistance, it is quite natural for him to claim (as he truly believes) that the opposition are overriding the results of the election. They lost. He won.

Except he didn’t.

At least, not in the way he thinks he did. Now, our system certainly has its faults, its lack of proportional representation high among them. But it is not so dysfunctional as to reward the Conservatives, with 38% public support, with a majority of seats in the House. Interpreting an uninspiring vote share and a mere plurality of the seats in the House as a “strengthened mandate” is fine as a bit of election night hubris. But governing on that basis is reckless and irresponsible. The election results may at best be interpreted as a rather modest approval of Harper as Prime Minister, but they did not in any way entitle him to the office. That power and privilege comes from only one source: commanding the support of a majority of the elected representatives of Canadians.

And how hard would that have been? The Liberals are not only broke financially, but they are also fresh out of political capital. They are taking a huge risk by forming government now. Getting them to agree to the government’s plan – any plan – for the next year would have been like convincing a starving man to accept a 12 ounce steak. Unless you go out of your way to poison the dish, it is not a hard sell. But that is, incredibly, what Harper chose to do: to come up with propositions so hostile, so utterly partisan and unacceptable, that the Liberals have been essentially forced into a desperate – and almost certainly damaging – coalition government as the only possible recourse. Bravo.

Harper has failed spectacularly in the relatively easy task of winning the support of any other party: “Socialists, separatists… Liberals!” When faced with the undeniable yet incomprehensible reality that Canadians did not, in reality, give him a majority mandate, Harper chose insult over dialogue and bullying over compromise.

That his main option for survival is to insulate himself from the review of the people’s elected representatives by proroguing Parliament speaks to which side has the superior claim to democratic principles. Continuing to govern based on his gravely mistaken belief that he was given that unqualified mandate would be so egregious as to undeniably require that the opposition took him down at the first opportunity, and go a long way to legitimizing the coalition in the public eye.

Given that he genuinely believes that the majority of MPs representing a majority of Canadians do not have the right to form a government responsible to them, I think prorogation is likely. If and when a coalition does form, Harper must expect that electorate will punish the parties involved. Having rejected the values of compromise, cooperation, and consensus-building, Harper thinks that Canadians will reject them as well. It will be difficult, but not impossible, for the new government to prove him wrong.

~Gnomes

When the Conservatives moved late last week to cut off the per-vote public funding that Chretien brought in as part of his donation cap system, it very quickly pushed the Liberals and NDP to a new level of desperation.

Harper, for his part, seems to have completely lost touch with the idea of his government being responsible to the House, instead governing from some imaginary majority mandate.  To be fair, the Liberals under Dion have been so absurdly agreeable that it was a fairly good bet they would have agreed to almost anything; anything, that is, except for their own demise.

A collaborative coalition that actually works to build majority support, rather than just ramming things through by playing chicken with the Liberals on every vote, seems like a more positive way of doing things.  A Liberal-NDP coalition would represent a significantly greater share of the popular vote than the current government, so it’s hard to buy Harper’s arguments that it constitutes a coup.  Though the hypocrisy of Harper’s response — “That would be undemocratic!  I hereby cancel Monday’s Opposition Day!” — was good for a laugh.

Will it happen?  Now that Harper has dropped the party finance cuts, the main impetus is gone (unless you believe it really was about the lack of a stimulus package), and by moving the schedule back a week, he’s giving them time to cool down.  Though it was born in desperation, the Liberals and NDP may have actually convinced themselves a coalition would work, and the prospect of moving into government next week may have given them a taste of blood that will spur them to move forward.  I hope they do, even though it would be a risky venture.  Our Parliamentary tradition is imperfect, but is at its most democratic when deals like this are made.  If I were betting on it, though, I would put my money on an agreement between the Liberals and Conservatives to build a stimulus plan for the next budget, and the “Harper-Jean Affair” will not be one for the history books.

~Gnomes

Whether it was due to being short-staffed or simply the result of poor organization, the restaurant had a very odd way of dealing with its customers. Once the restaurant was full – or, I should say, 59.1% full – all of our orders were taken. But instead of bringing us each what we ordered, it seems the cooks were only prepared to make one dish that evening. So they picked the dish chosen by the largest number of people, and served that to everyone.

My understanding is that the restaurant is suffering from declining business, each night filling fewer and fewer seats. Some in the community view this as evidence that people lack appreciation by not supporting a local business, and have taken to haranguing others to fulfill their duty by eating there regardless of what is served. I’m more inclined to listen to those who say there is little point in dining out if you don’t get what you order. After all, just about every other restaurant in town has got this figured out by now.

~ Gnomes

So how did this happen?  How did Harper lose his substantial economic credibility so quickly?  It seems to have been through a rather shockingly inept turn on the campaign trail.  The US election is currently dominating our airwaves, so I can’t imagine what would have possessed Harper to echo McCain and Bush’s line about the fundamentals of the economy being strong.  Making that claim, which Obama so successfully used to attack McCain, using those very words, is astonishingly bad strategy.  Suggesting at the leader’s debate that Canada would be substantially insulated from the US economic chaos, while the markets were crashing around him, is baffling.

Now, one could argue, as McCain did, that what he meant by fundamentals was our spirited workforce and robust infrastructure, etc.  But the line, as was made very clear in the debate, is part of a blithely optimistic economic view.  Harper attacked the opposition as banking on economic misfortune for political gain, but seems to have himself been guilty of glossing over the downturn for the same motivation.

All this is not quite enough to shake my faith in our steely Economist-in-Chief, however.  His ostensible incompetence I can only attribute it to mangled, cynical political strategy.  I think Harper has a much more realistic picture of where the economy is heading than he has conveyed, but was gambling that Canada’s markets would be stable a couple of weeks longer so that his party wouldn’t pay the price for the downturn.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it was his main reason for the quick, borderline illegal election call.  Instead, he seems to have gambled and lost, and is now paying a double price for appearing out of touch in the very subject that is his forte.

I’m still confidant that those who view purely economic indicators such as GDP as robust measures of our wellbeing can have faith that Harper is the droid they are looking for.  I wonder what he thinks of all this?  What would a calculating martinet – whose sole focus is the economy – think after suffering such a blow in the polls due to a lack of voter confidence in the economy?  My guess: “DOES NOT COMPUTE”.

~ Gnomes

The rules are simple: each member of Manatee and Gnomes will submit their prediction for the party seat counts by the end of today (Sept 30th) and, come election day, the member with the most correct distributions will be declared the winner. Good luck Guys!

~O’Smiley

2008 Election Predictions

Just when I thought that we had heard the last from Ken Epp before his impending retirement, he delivers a final quote for the ages.  Epp, of course, is maintaining neutrality in the bitter dispute over the nomination of Edmonton-Sherwood Park Conservative candidate Tim Uppal (head on over to Gauntlet.ca for details, but in short, some disgruntled Conservatives have rallied around independent candidate James Ford).  Neutrality, however, doesn’t mean Epp is above sandbagging his successor on the way out.

Epp’s response quoted above clearly betrays his view that Uppal’s candidacy for the nomination was a thing which his faction in the constituency association would have “done something about.”  The regret isn’t phrased as being about the lack of a fair race which Uppal may have won, but of a lost opportunity to stop him – it’s implied that he would have lost a fair contest.  Epp’s sentiment is echoed by the disgruntled breakaway board members.

So we have Conservatives in Edmonton-Sherwood Park complaining about a democratic deficit – about their choice being overridden by a larger bloc of voters.  This sends me into howls of derisive laughter.  Conservative supporters are not, oddly enough, high on my list of the disenfranchised in Edmonton-Sherwood Park.  They actually get represented by a Member of Parliament, a privilege we do not all share.  While they bemoan the ineptitude of their own party’s nomination rules, let’s revisit what they’ve stuck the rest of us with for the past 15 years: an MP that thinks that equal marriage is “endorsing aberrant sexual behaviour,” that pornography creates serial killers, and that loading a bill with anti-choice rhetoric “isn’t about abortion.”  In comparison, being dissatisfied with your party’s sure-to-win candidate is what I would call a high class problem.

It doesn’t take much analysis to spot a rather unsubtle racism underlying some of the discontent with Uppal’s candidacy.  Uppal is an outsider, they say.  Nobody knows him or knew that he was running – other than, presumably, the large number of supporters that won him the nomination, described in the disgraceful Edmonton Sun as a “Sikh power juggernaut“.  Those supporters are being dismissed as illegitimate because they just showed up to vote for the leader and then left – but of course any constituency association in a pocket burrough is going to temporarily swell to grotesque proportions when a long sitting incumbent retires.  Much of the substance of the complaint here is not that the process is flawed, but that the flawed process resulted in the wrong person, or more specifically, a person of the wrong ethnicity, winning.

It is not surprising that news reports often tell of this First-Nation group or that environmental group abandoning these consultations; the frustration of the deck being stacked against them drives them to leave in protest. In January 08 the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group submitted a letter to the Provincial Government requesting lease sales be temporarily halted within the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo until a management framework establishing protected areas be approved. Signatories of the letter included Conoco-Phillips, Suncor, Petro-Canada, Imperial Oil, Husky Energy, Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd, Albian Sands/Shell Canada and the expected NGOs and First-Nations. Members of the working group who did not support the letter were CNR, ENCana, OPTI/Nexen and UTS Energy. This is the complete list of working group members who did not support the moratorium. 4 corporations long. The Alberta Government rejected the requests of the working group and has indicated that framework suggestions submitted after the January letter will be evaluated within 18 months. “While the GOA takes a go-slow approach to environmental management, oil sands lease sales are not delayed.”

The Alberta Water Council, established in 2005 to recommend policy and an implementation plan for responsible wetland development, protection, and reclamation has submitted recommendations to the Minister of Environment. The Council consists of Government, NGO, and industry representatives, much like similar bodies that have either failed to achieve their mandate, or failed to maintain the confidence of their members. When I learned of the Alberta Water Council recommendations this morning in the news, I also heard the caveat. Accompanying the recommendations are two letters of ‘non-consensus’ from bodies representing the energy and mining industry. I immediately wanted to know which of the corporations that had supported the January letter had flip flopped, or whether these letters are a result of the aforementioned dissenting four corporations flexing their muscle. The non-consensus letters request “flexibility and appropriate discussions” and complain of the immense cost of reclamation, especially of peatlands, and that it is unfair to hold current projects to reclamation standards set after the project began.

The arguments put forth in these non-consensus letters are not convincing. The appropriate discussions have been ongoing for nearly a decade, and during this time the Government of Alberta has been nothing but flexible with energy producers. The longer we Albertans wait for a moratorium on new oil sands growth, the greater the risk that we will be stuck with the cleaning bill. And as David Pryce, VP of Western Canada Operations for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reminds us in his letter of non-consensus, “it is impossible to replace peatlands with peatlands” and the “cost for compensating for wetland loss…will be substantial”.

~Manatee

~Manatee

• 37% for the Conservatives
• 26% Liberals, 21% NDP,
• 10% Green, and
• 8% for the Bloc,

or in other words:

• 37% Right,
• 57% Left, and
• 8% Bloc.

Is it just me or does this look like a strange, mirror image, deja-vu of 90′s politics. If I am remembering correctly, it was only a short time ago that the Progressive Conservatives/Reform Parties were suffering from a very same vote sharing situation that faces the Liberals, NDP and Green this time around. And to compound the problem, as I browse through the various party websites and pamphlets, I find, perhaps more so than any previous election that I remember, the campaign platforms of each of Left-winged parties are extremely similar; each placing the environment center stage.

As I’m a little more concerned about the economy than the environment this shot around, and will be voting to the Right, I’m not too worried about the vote sharing of the Left, however, I think my colleagues should be at least a little concerned. It is this sharing of the milkshake, if you will, that will play right into the majority aspirations of the Conservatives.

~O’Smiley