Good Bye Mr. Dion
Much has transpired over the weekend that will change the face of Canadian politics.
After the debacle that was the prorogation and then the infamous video put out by Liberal Leader Stephane Dion he has been forced to step down immediately and pave the way for his successor. This is the right move on the part of the Liberal party. Mr. Dion has been a terrible leader and will be remembered for his poor performance. What will stick out in his reign of the party is the past two weeks and the potential coalition with the NDP. He will be remembered as going from Prime Minister in waiting to the disgrace of the party. This is unfortunate as Mr. Dion did have a great career as a politition before he became leader and hopefully will continue after his leadership.
Hello Mr. Ignatieff
This is truly a sad day for the Liberals and for Canadian democracy as a whole. Today Bob Rae, one of two people running for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party dropped out and gave his support to Michael Ignatieff for the leadership of the party. This comes after a day where Mr. Rae expressed his concern with the party caucus deciding who was going to succeed Stephane Dion as the next leader instead of the rank and file membership. Late last night the party executive was discussing the idea of allowing 800 members vote, still far short of the full membership.
I do think it is good that the leadership race is over and that there will be a leader that is not Mr. Dion, I do not think that this is a good thing for democracy. Mr. Ignatieff does not have to go though the rigors of a leadership race and really has not earned the right to lead the party. I am also dissapointed because I liked Bob Rae, I thought that he could have been a good leader, but that is all for not. I am not a member of the Liberal Party but I have been in the past and I was contemplating joining again when there was a chance that I could vote for the leadership. I feel cheated. The candidate that I wanted was forced out by the party executive when they decided that they would only allow a small number of people vote, a small number that would surely elect Mr. Ignatieff. I am interested in how he will be as a leader, and I am excited for the prospect of a leader that can speak both official languages. I wish him luck and I am watching with anticipation.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
To Prorogue or not to Prorogue? That is the Question
As expected yesterday Governor General Michaelle Jean granted Prime Minister Harper a stay of execution for about 7 weeks. What bothered me about the whole thing was that the pundits seemed like they genuinely did not know if the GG was going to prorogue the session of parliament. My question is, how could she not have? Never before has a GG not granted that wish of the Prime Minister, so why would she now? Realistically there was no other option that the PM could have chosen. If he had lost a confidence motion or if the GG had not granted a proroguing of the government then he would have resigned which would have left a serious void in the Conservative party and this could actually be a larger issue than the current crisis.
That brings me to my next point. If the coalition were to go through and take power I think this could be a very big deal to the Conservative party. If Harper loses the confidence of the house he could very well lose the support of his party and would therefore have to step down as leader. Personally I think that this could really help the Liberals. If this happens, the Liberals will already have a new leader who will actually be able to lead and the Conservatives will still be trying to put things together. I have to admit, no one else is speculating on this issue, so I might be the only one with this view.
The Video
I just want to touch briefly on the issue with Stephane Dion's taped message to the country on Wednesday night. This was truly another embarrassment for the beleaguered leader. The video was totally out of focus, and not even centred in the frame. It was just really unprofessional and unbecoming of a leader of a national political party. As well the tape was supposed to be delivered to the National Press Gallery by 630 ET, a half hour before Mr. Harper’s speech in order for the networks to run both videos in succession. Instead the Liberal staffers did not deliver the video until 710 ET and both the French and English addresses were on the same tape. This meant that the networks had to divide the tape up themselves and this forced even more delays. Some networks did not run the tape because it was too late and they were returning to their regular programming.
I do not really understand how someone who is trying to become the leader of our country can be so inept. This does not surprise me, because I am familiar with all of Mr. Dion’s blunders from the election campaign, however, this does disappoint me. Some one needs to pay for these mistakes and I think that should start with Mr. Dion’s Chief of Staff. Who is running this train with out an engine? That person needs to be fired or Mr. Dion himself should just step down once and for all.
Bring in Ralph!
Seeing the situation we are currently in, it was a mistake for Mr. Dion to stay on as the leader. I never fully understood why he was staying and maybe it was because he wanted to be Prime Minister for a day, and he might get that wish. I think I would be much more willing to support the coalition if there was another leader. Ralph Goodale should be the interim leader. He is one of the most experienced and respected MPs on the hill. Most Canadians would be proud to have him as the Leader of the Opposition. It is not too late for Mr. Dion to step down but one thing about Dion is that he does not give up, and seems like this time is no different.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Coalition Undemocratic?
So Prime Minister Harper just gave his address to the nation and now the responses are rolling in from the opposition parties. Conservative keep calling the potential coalition 'undemocratic'. This really bothers me. You may not like the idea of a coalition, you might be a supporter of the government but one thing that the coalition is not is undemocratic.
If the coalition comes to power every member of the potential government will have been elected. This is not a situation where people that are outside of the political process are trying to gain power. This is elected officials forming a government just like the Conservatives did last week with the thrown speech.
While this is unusual for Canada, it is totally normal in countries around the world. Israel is perhaps the most democratic country in the world (in terms of how they elect their officials) and they have never had a majority government. Every government formed in Israel has been a coalition and this has worked for them.
In terms of Canada a minority government should be more democratic and that is the main problem with the Conservatives today. They feel entitled to govern like a majority and this has gotten them into trouble. They should have consulted with the other parties and the other parties should have been more open to working with the government. In Canada it is known that governments need to rule from the centre and the Conservatives have refused to do this.
I am still undecided what is the best for Canada, but I do know that this crisis is Mr. Harper's fault. If the government falls the blame should be laid on his head and no one else's. You might want to blame Mr. Dion or Mr. Layton, but they have not done anything other be a true opposition to the current sitting government. They are completely in their democratic right to try to form a coalition, and if they succeed their government surely will not be 'undemocratic'.
If the coalition comes to power every member of the potential government will have been elected. This is not a situation where people that are outside of the political process are trying to gain power. This is elected officials forming a government just like the Conservatives did last week with the thrown speech.
While this is unusual for Canada, it is totally normal in countries around the world. Israel is perhaps the most democratic country in the world (in terms of how they elect their officials) and they have never had a majority government. Every government formed in Israel has been a coalition and this has worked for them.
In terms of Canada a minority government should be more democratic and that is the main problem with the Conservatives today. They feel entitled to govern like a majority and this has gotten them into trouble. They should have consulted with the other parties and the other parties should have been more open to working with the government. In Canada it is known that governments need to rule from the centre and the Conservatives have refused to do this.
I am still undecided what is the best for Canada, but I do know that this crisis is Mr. Harper's fault. If the government falls the blame should be laid on his head and no one else's. You might want to blame Mr. Dion or Mr. Layton, but they have not done anything other be a true opposition to the current sitting government. They are completely in their democratic right to try to form a coalition, and if they succeed their government surely will not be 'undemocratic'.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Constitutional Crisis?
So here is attempt number two to start the blog again. Hopefully I can keep it up this time.
On with the issues!
Constitutional Crisis?
Currently in Canadian politics we are embarking on a historic week. Through the arrogance and disdain for the political process by the Prime Minister, Canada is looking towards its first formal coalition government since WWI. If the Government were to fall on Monday, there is the possibility that the opposition parties will band together to form the government. If this happens then the Bloc Quebecois will have to prop up the NDP/Liberal Government on every issue.
During and after his victory in the last election, Mr. Harper stated that he was going to work to make parliament more functional. Instead he has tried to bully the other parties into going along with his proposed changes to party funding, and barring the right of government employees to strike. Lets deal with these two issues separately.
Party Funding
Mr. Harper and his Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty proposed in an economic update to eliminate the funding that parties get based on the number of votes that they receive in the previous election. Since the new rules of corporate financing of political parties came into place, parties rely heavily on these government subsidies. A party like the Greens only receive $1.8 million but this accounts for 65% of their annual budget. Without the money that is rightfully theirs, their party could not exist. I keep hearing (and I heard it again by John Baird on the Current this morning) the Conservatives berate the other parties for "not leading by example" and showing Canadians that the politicians are willing to take a financial hit before the public. This is an outrageous idea! How could the opposition parties support something like this? They would be financially crippled if this 'update' were to pass. The Conservatives should have known that the opposition parties would be in an uproar. It has long been established that the Liberal party only has enough money to stay afloat and not go bankrupt, regardless of the economic meltdown currently being experienced by the world. How could they ever responsibly support a motion like that? The Conservatives quickly saw the writing on the wall and scrapped this initiative from the motion, trying to back peddle and not be ousted.
Strike!
In the name of economic stability the Government proposed a ban on government employees from striking. This is truly an incredible part to this motion. Our Western democracy was built on the right to assemble and the right to strike. Without it, we would not have democracy and capitalism. To me this borders of Fascism instead of liberal democracy. If government employees could not strike they would have no collective bargaining capabilities and would be at the mercy of government will. That is a dictatorship to me. The right to strike is a fundamental right in Canada and if that were taken away, it would have devastating effects. I'm proud of the opposition parties for opposing such an abhorrent motion.
What Now?
So where does that leave us? On the surface it would seem that I'm all for the coalition and the toppling of the government, but on the contrary I'm apprehensive to throw my support behind this historic potential future government. While I'm not a Conservative supporter and would love to see Mr. Harper be put out to pasture, I do not think that this is the proper way to achieve that goal.
Stephane Dion is perhaps one of the most incompetent leaders in recent memory. He brought the 'Natural Governing Party' of Canada to its lowest vote share and seat total in the history of the party. He can barely speak English and would be a poor ambassador of Canada on the world stage.
On the other hand is Jack Layton. Mr. Layton, leader of the party that has increased their vote share in the last election, but is still the smallest party in the house. For these two parties to get together does not make any sense to me. I have voted for the NDP in the past and am a supporter of socialist values but to have the NDP in government I think would be a mistake. Irresponsible spending is surely to increase, especially with a stimulus package that the coalition has claimed to already have put together.
This is one area that I actually do agree with the Conservatives. I do not think that Canada needs bailing out right now. Everyone keeps saying that we need a package like the Americans. The truth is, we don't! While the Americans are bailing out their banks so that they don't go bankrupt, ours are stable and still have equity. Why should we just give money to them?
This proposed bailout package will target the auto industry. I understand that many jobs are at stake but why should we bailout the auto sector when they have not even talked to the Canadian government at all yet? The government should not write a blank cheque to the Big Three until they show Canadians what their plan of action is, and how they could ensure that the jobs stay in Canada.
Let Separate?
Now the most alarming issue to me is the fact that the Bloc is implicit in the NDP/Liberal plan to overthrow the government. The only way that the coalition survives is if the separatists support the coalition motions. This essentially gives the Bloc veto power over every motion in the house. the Bloc will become the most powerful party in the house. This is very scary to me. The fact that the NDP and Liberals have brought the Bloc into this melee shows that these parties lack the foresight to actually govern. How can a party that has a mandate to oppose the government and destabilize the nation, be allowed to play kingmaker? Because of this, this seems to me like two power hungry rejects trying to wrestle power away from the government.
Perhaps the most interesting part of all this, is that if there was an NDP/Liberal + Bloc government, it would actually be much more representative of the Canadian electorate than the Conservatives.
So there you have it. I'm totally scared of what's going to happen, but I'm also optimistic that the right thing will happen, I just don't know what that right thing is yet.
On with the issues!
Constitutional Crisis?
Currently in Canadian politics we are embarking on a historic week. Through the arrogance and disdain for the political process by the Prime Minister, Canada is looking towards its first formal coalition government since WWI. If the Government were to fall on Monday, there is the possibility that the opposition parties will band together to form the government. If this happens then the Bloc Quebecois will have to prop up the NDP/Liberal Government on every issue.
During and after his victory in the last election, Mr. Harper stated that he was going to work to make parliament more functional. Instead he has tried to bully the other parties into going along with his proposed changes to party funding, and barring the right of government employees to strike. Lets deal with these two issues separately.
Party Funding
Mr. Harper and his Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty proposed in an economic update to eliminate the funding that parties get based on the number of votes that they receive in the previous election. Since the new rules of corporate financing of political parties came into place, parties rely heavily on these government subsidies. A party like the Greens only receive $1.8 million but this accounts for 65% of their annual budget. Without the money that is rightfully theirs, their party could not exist. I keep hearing (and I heard it again by John Baird on the Current this morning) the Conservatives berate the other parties for "not leading by example" and showing Canadians that the politicians are willing to take a financial hit before the public. This is an outrageous idea! How could the opposition parties support something like this? They would be financially crippled if this 'update' were to pass. The Conservatives should have known that the opposition parties would be in an uproar. It has long been established that the Liberal party only has enough money to stay afloat and not go bankrupt, regardless of the economic meltdown currently being experienced by the world. How could they ever responsibly support a motion like that? The Conservatives quickly saw the writing on the wall and scrapped this initiative from the motion, trying to back peddle and not be ousted.
Strike!
In the name of economic stability the Government proposed a ban on government employees from striking. This is truly an incredible part to this motion. Our Western democracy was built on the right to assemble and the right to strike. Without it, we would not have democracy and capitalism. To me this borders of Fascism instead of liberal democracy. If government employees could not strike they would have no collective bargaining capabilities and would be at the mercy of government will. That is a dictatorship to me. The right to strike is a fundamental right in Canada and if that were taken away, it would have devastating effects. I'm proud of the opposition parties for opposing such an abhorrent motion.
What Now?
So where does that leave us? On the surface it would seem that I'm all for the coalition and the toppling of the government, but on the contrary I'm apprehensive to throw my support behind this historic potential future government. While I'm not a Conservative supporter and would love to see Mr. Harper be put out to pasture, I do not think that this is the proper way to achieve that goal.
Stephane Dion is perhaps one of the most incompetent leaders in recent memory. He brought the 'Natural Governing Party' of Canada to its lowest vote share and seat total in the history of the party. He can barely speak English and would be a poor ambassador of Canada on the world stage.
On the other hand is Jack Layton. Mr. Layton, leader of the party that has increased their vote share in the last election, but is still the smallest party in the house. For these two parties to get together does not make any sense to me. I have voted for the NDP in the past and am a supporter of socialist values but to have the NDP in government I think would be a mistake. Irresponsible spending is surely to increase, especially with a stimulus package that the coalition has claimed to already have put together.
This is one area that I actually do agree with the Conservatives. I do not think that Canada needs bailing out right now. Everyone keeps saying that we need a package like the Americans. The truth is, we don't! While the Americans are bailing out their banks so that they don't go bankrupt, ours are stable and still have equity. Why should we just give money to them?
This proposed bailout package will target the auto industry. I understand that many jobs are at stake but why should we bailout the auto sector when they have not even talked to the Canadian government at all yet? The government should not write a blank cheque to the Big Three until they show Canadians what their plan of action is, and how they could ensure that the jobs stay in Canada.
Let Separate?
Now the most alarming issue to me is the fact that the Bloc is implicit in the NDP/Liberal plan to overthrow the government. The only way that the coalition survives is if the separatists support the coalition motions. This essentially gives the Bloc veto power over every motion in the house. the Bloc will become the most powerful party in the house. This is very scary to me. The fact that the NDP and Liberals have brought the Bloc into this melee shows that these parties lack the foresight to actually govern. How can a party that has a mandate to oppose the government and destabilize the nation, be allowed to play kingmaker? Because of this, this seems to me like two power hungry rejects trying to wrestle power away from the government.
Perhaps the most interesting part of all this, is that if there was an NDP/Liberal + Bloc government, it would actually be much more representative of the Canadian electorate than the Conservatives.
So there you have it. I'm totally scared of what's going to happen, but I'm also optimistic that the right thing will happen, I just don't know what that right thing is yet.
Friday, May 4, 2007
I'm Back!
Hello again to anyone that reads this blog. So I'm back now, and I hope to start this blog up again. I start working on my thesis in a few weeks, so hopefully I'll have things to write about. But for now here is something I've been thinking about for the last few days.
I was in Washington D
C this past week and the first day I was there I saw the Korean War Memorial and the Vietnam Memorial. At the Korean War Memorial there is a wall that has the words, "Freedom is not Free". This quote really bothers me. Freedom is something that should be free. I understand that there are places on this earth where people are not free. But those are not the places that the US go to fight, instead they choose places that are strategic for them. Afghanistan was a war that was motivated by the feeling of revenge, and justifiably so. Iraq on the other hand was a war for so many different things, but not one of them, the 
freedom of Americans. Saddam Hussien never posed a serious threat to American freedom as in evidenced by the fact that there were no weapons of mass distruction. Iran and their nuclear program pose a much larger threat to American freedom than Iraq ever did. The problem with that is that the US cannot go into Iran because the threat is actually too high.If freedom is not free than the Americans should be fighting the countries that are an actual danger to the US. Iran is probably the American's biggest threat. If they are able to have nuclear weapons then the balance of power in the Middle East will shift dramatically. Because the US has entered a war of attrition against terrorism that they cannot seem to even be winning, they are spread far too thin to be able to realistically mount a resonable response to the Iran question. Aside from the potential nuclear consequences, Iran also has the ability to drastically shift the global economy. If Iran was provoked, they could pepper the Strait of Hormuz, which is the main artery for Saudi, Iraqi, Kutwaiti, Bahraini, UAE and Iranian oil, with mines. These countries are all OPEC members and produce the majority of the world's oil and by putting mines in the strait it would stop the flow of oil to the rest of the world. This could throw the world into a severe depression and the US would be almost powerless to stop it.
When fighting for freedom the US needs to look at what the actual threat to their freedom is. I don't think that if the US were to go to war with Iran that American citizens would be any less free. As a Canadian I don't feel that the US is fighting for my freedom, and I'm sure there are many of countries that would feel the same way. If there was to be a war with Iran then the US would really by fighting for the freedom that their position as the most powerful nation provides them. If this is what freedom is, then I don't think that there should be a monument for it. In Washington the quote over looks the Korean War Memorial. To me the quote minimizes the amount of people that died in that war. Americans and many Canadians fought in the first conflict of the cold war. All the people that died were not fighting for the freedom of everyday life, they were fighting for America's position in the world.
Maybe I'm taking the quote too seriously, but as I was in Washington it seemed that nothing engraved in stone was to be taken lightly. For this reason I feel that it is justified to offer this critique.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)