Issues vs. wankery
Time for election babbling! I'll try to endeavour to distinguish between fact and personal opinion. This particular entry is going to be largely fact, apart from wherever I may indicate otherwise.
So, election was called. Huzzah, etc. First day (Saturday), straight out of the gate, everyone's first issue is whether there's going to be a big bad coalition government formed out of all this. Now, I understand that stirring up this sort of fear is a good campaign tactic for the Conservatives, but there are DOZENS of other issues that people might want to know something about before deciding whom to cast their vote for, but apparently this is the top one. So let's clear things up before we get out of control here.
Coalition governments are constitutional, legal, and valid in the Westminster system. Britain has one right now. Germany and Israel (non-Westminster Parliamentary systems) have them right now as well! There is nothing sneaky or underhanded about them. In fact, because they rely on a degree of consensus, one might consider them to be "more fair" than the alternatives.
For some reason, Canadians have a hard time wrapping their head around the concept that the "losers" of an election might form a government. This really bothers them. I understand why that is; having said that, there are no "losers" to an election. If you can command a majority of the House, either with your own party, or with a collection of parties, then you get to form the government. It's as simple as that.
If there is one left-wing party and twelve right-wing parties (or vice versa), there is no reason why the twelve parties can't ally together if they can find sufficient common ground. There's nothing to be gained by forming a monolith. Sadly, first-past-the-post voting tends to favour monolithic parties. I'm not a fan of proportional representation for a variety of reasons, but we really need to come up with something that encourages consensus and shades of grey, and not this "I'm right, you're wrong, let's fight about it" business.
Coalitions are especially "scary" in Canada right now because the Bloc Québecois, ostensibly a separatist party, has enough support that they would be required in any sort of coalition, either formally or otherwise. Making deals with the devil (understandbly) frighten a lot of people.
Harper signed a memo of understanding in 2004 that he was willing to form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc Québecois to unseat the then-ruling Liberal government. Why was he for them then and not now? What's changed?
So anyways, Harper got up there on election day one and pounded the Coalition=bogeyman theme. By one count, he used the word 21 times at a campaign stop in Brampton.
For his part, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff came out and stated that, for him, coalitions were off the table. Sad that it came to this, but it's seemed necessary, because if he didn't say this, he'd never get to talking about the issues.
Speaking of which, when can we start talking about the issues, please? (And this is where opinion might slip in a bit.) We could be talking about:
Well, we still have 36 days, so let's hope we switch topics soon.
So, election was called. Huzzah, etc. First day (Saturday), straight out of the gate, everyone's first issue is whether there's going to be a big bad coalition government formed out of all this. Now, I understand that stirring up this sort of fear is a good campaign tactic for the Conservatives, but there are DOZENS of other issues that people might want to know something about before deciding whom to cast their vote for, but apparently this is the top one. So let's clear things up before we get out of control here.
Coalition governments are constitutional, legal, and valid in the Westminster system. Britain has one right now. Germany and Israel (non-Westminster Parliamentary systems) have them right now as well! There is nothing sneaky or underhanded about them. In fact, because they rely on a degree of consensus, one might consider them to be "more fair" than the alternatives.
For some reason, Canadians have a hard time wrapping their head around the concept that the "losers" of an election might form a government. This really bothers them. I understand why that is; having said that, there are no "losers" to an election. If you can command a majority of the House, either with your own party, or with a collection of parties, then you get to form the government. It's as simple as that.
If there is one left-wing party and twelve right-wing parties (or vice versa), there is no reason why the twelve parties can't ally together if they can find sufficient common ground. There's nothing to be gained by forming a monolith. Sadly, first-past-the-post voting tends to favour monolithic parties. I'm not a fan of proportional representation for a variety of reasons, but we really need to come up with something that encourages consensus and shades of grey, and not this "I'm right, you're wrong, let's fight about it" business.
Coalitions are especially "scary" in Canada right now because the Bloc Québecois, ostensibly a separatist party, has enough support that they would be required in any sort of coalition, either formally or otherwise. Making deals with the devil (understandbly) frighten a lot of people.
Harper signed a memo of understanding in 2004 that he was willing to form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc Québecois to unseat the then-ruling Liberal government. Why was he for them then and not now? What's changed?
So anyways, Harper got up there on election day one and pounded the Coalition=bogeyman theme. By one count, he used the word 21 times at a campaign stop in Brampton.
For his part, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff came out and stated that, for him, coalitions were off the table. Sad that it came to this, but it's seemed necessary, because if he didn't say this, he'd never get to talking about the issues.
Speaking of which, when can we start talking about the issues, please? (And this is where opinion might slip in a bit.) We could be talking about:
- Conservative government's decision to purchase F-35s, their reluctance to release the actual cost figures of these planned purchases to parliament, and the resulting finding of contempt of Parliament.
- Health Care
- Funding for cities/transit
- The economy/jobs/debt reduction.
Well, we still have 36 days, so let's hope we switch topics soon.