Oooh... lots of drama going down in Canadian politics

[DroppinScience]

There's a good chance the Liberals/New Democratic Party/Bloc Quebecois may form a coalition government and oust our lame-ass Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. There's a lot of parliament jargon that some Americans won't understand, but this shit is getting interesting. (y)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html

[saz]

they'll be nothing more satisfying than seeing ol' pukeface no longer prime minister. he is going to be super pissed if his worst nightmare comes true and his government is toppled. it's his party's as well as his own arrogant ass fault, for not providing any economic assistance, agenda or leadership in a troubled economic climate while attempting to bankrupt all of the other federal parties.

[QueenAdrock]

I have no idea what that means, but yay to maybe getting rid of Harper!

[Schmeltz]

The opposition smells blood, that's for sure, and for good reason. It's honestly been puzzling to see the Conservatives transform from the high-handed and confident plurality party of this summer into what looks more like the beleagured Libs under Martin's hamfisted guidance of a few years back. The clumsy backpedalling on the campaign finance and public strike issues alone is a far cry from Harper's typically authoritarian determination, leaving out the spineless response (or lack thereof) to the financial crisis. It's a poor excuse for leadership to try to ram this kind of self-serving legislation through the House as a substitute for a more substantial salvage plan, and an even more grotesque miscalculation to actually expect the opposition parties to back it.

With that said, how well are Canadians going to react to an unelected government composed of the faltering Libs under the universally unappealing Dion (with six months still to go before another unelected PM is returned), a regionalist and traditionally separatist special-interest party, and a left-wing lobbyist party that has never held power? Any stimulus package or other economic rescue initiative is bound to be subject to immense strain from the Bloc, who I imagine would seek to remedy Quebec's recent equalization payment losses. And on the foreign policy front there's Layton's consistent demand for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, which I have always considered ill-thought-out and reactionary and which hardly gels with the Liberal position.

I for one do not feel that this coalition will be workable for very long, should it eventually form the government (which seems increasingly likely from what I can see). But you never know, we could all be surprised. A quick and effective initial stimulus measure, followed by a well-administered and egalitarian program to steer the country through the worst of this global meltdown would be a key ingredient to ensuring its success. If they can hammer out such a deal things could be aight.

Either way I'm in Australia now so I'm pretty well unaffected. Hopefully I can still get a stimulus cheque if it comes to that. (y)

[saz]

a left-wing lobbyist party that has never held power?

this same left-wing "lobbyist" party that "has never held power" is the reason why we have universal healthcare and many other social program policies which were stolen and adopted by liberal goverments. and who knows what could happen once we have a proportional electoral system in place, considering that the ndp and greens always get royally screwed under the grossly outdated first-past-the-post system. plus of course that the ndp has been elected to form many provincial governments, with the fifteen year long romanow-calvert government and doer government balancing budgets and governing effectively. i'm just bringing all of this up because i have quarelled with my friend's father who has used that same "never held power" line when arguing against the role of third and fourth parties. i don't perceive you're in the same boat as him but without other parties, which do play a huge role, we'd be screwed and in the same mess as the states.


Layton's consistent demand for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, which I have always considered ill-thought-out and reactionary

six years later, 18 billion dollars spent and nearly one hundred soldiers killed, with the majority of canadians opposed to the mission, it's pretty fair to say that a change in the mission is very practical and the right thing to do. focusing on rebuilding and peace keeping - as opposed to outright combat, which traditionally over the last fifty years or so has not been what canadian foreign policy has involved - is a trademark of canadian foreign policy and also a source of national pride.

[Schmeltz]

Dogg, I'm from Saskatchewan. I spent my life living under the NDP governments of Romanow and Calvert, and voting for them when I came of age. I loathe Brad Wall as much as anyone else you're likely to talk to and I'm a diehard Crown Corporation (and community-owned football) supporter. So don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm anti-NDP. But the point stands - for all its progressivist bent the NDP has never held power, it's never even come close, and to see the party head summarily elevated to a high-level Cabinet post without even the benefit of an election might rub some people the wrong way, in turn affecting the workability of the coalition. That's all.

As for Afghanistan - peace must be made before it can be kept, and that means combat operations. Rebuilding and reconstruction cannot take place in the context of an aggressive and resurgent Taliban itching to bring the country back under its totalitarian fundamentalist control. You can build all the schools you want, but when students and teachers still have acid sprayed on them by drive-by Taliban assassins, what good are you really doing? It is irrealistic to imagine that this is a situation for peacekeeping. One day it might be - if the combat mission can be seen through, which means having the fortitude to support it even when it doesn't go as smoothly as we might like. I might also hasten to point out that for the fifty years or so prior to the end of the Second World War Canadian soldiers distinguished themselves in direct combat just as fierce and dire as anything being asked of the troops in Afghanistan now, so it's not as though peacekeeping is our sorely neglected military's only point of pride.

[saz]

the point? what point? the right-wing talking point that the ndp hasn't held power at the federal level? so what. neither did harper or the reform/canadian alliance prior to 2006. tommy douglas, the ccf and the ndp have had an overwhelming impact and influence on government policy of both the liberal and progressive conservative parties (before the merger/reform take over). if it weren't for the ccf/ndp, we wouldn't have our universal healthcare system, or all of the other social policy initiatives that william lyon mackenzie king, louie st. laurent and trudeau stole from them, and then enacted.

we've been in afghanistan for over six years now. we've spent 18 billion dollars. nearly 100 canadian soldiers have been killed. we've more than done our fair share.

[Schmeltz]

No, the point that the NDP can be as progressive and enlightened as it likes, it can field Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama for seats in Parliament, and there are Canadians who still won't appreciate Jack Layton serving as Deputy PM, or NDP ministers holding Cabinet seats, without the benefit of an election. I'm not sure how far I disagree with them. That's the point.

And 18 billion dollars over seven years is peanuts. Our country can easily afford to spend a couple of billion a year on this cause, it has not caused us any financial hardship or stopped the government from running budget surpluses for the entirety of that timeframe. And I surely don't mean to denigrate or belittle the sacrifices of Canadian troops or their families, but 97 dead soldiers in seven years is not exactly a horrifically taxing casualty rate. Twelve times that number died on every day of Vimy Ridge, on average, and it didn't stop Canadians from seeing the war through because we'd "done our fair share." Nor should the people of Afghanistan be abandoned anew to the mercies of the Taliban for the sake of simple isolationist pacifism. Our commitment to Afghanistan is not causing Canada any undue hardship, and we owe it to ourselves, to say nothing of the people our soldiers are protecting, to see it through.

[saz]

but dude, who cares if there are canadians who still won't appreciate layton serving as deputy pm. only 36% of canadians voted conservative in the last federal election, with the other four parties sharing the overwhelming percentage of the majority vote. plus, the greens, ndp, liberals and bloc are all centre-to-left parties who share many of the same progressive policies. i never have and never will appreciate any reform/canadian alliance mp for that matter, and the majority of canadian voters who voted liberal, ndp, bloc and green likely feel the same way.

it's not peanuts. we could've used that money to fund a national daycare program. or fight child poverty. or invest in our weakening manfucturing sector. or shore up border security. or crack down on guns and gangs. or invest in solar and wind energy technology.

it's not our war. i agree with assisting our allies when they've been attacked, but bush felt the need to go and start another illegal war with a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 911, bin laden, nor did they have wmds. we've been picking up the slack for them long enough now, along with the other nato countries who have troops serving over there. it was america's resonsibility, and bush screwed it up. we wouldn't be abandoning anyone. that's a pretty weak and desperate counterpoint.

are you serious? 98 dead soldiers is a horrific casualty rate. it's unacceptable. as for the era of vimy ridge? we are no longer that canada. our role on the national stage has greatly changed since then. that's part of the reason why we're loved and admired around the world, because we're not active warmongers. the sooner we get out of afghanistan the better.

[ToucanSpam]

As an NDPer, I'm in the minority when I say I don't like this idea. I certainly have no love for Stephen Harper as our Prime Minister, but the idea of someone not elected rising to power is unsettling. I don't think that if this happens all hell will break loose or anything, but it feels wrong. Something about this coalition government feels very wrong.


And Dion fucking sucks. I remain completely resolute in my opinion of the man.

[Schmeltz]

The point isn't that the coalition deserves to form the government because they're more progressive than the Conservatives, the point is the unease that accompanies the notion of a government being formed without an election, as ToucanSpam brought up. It's not illegal and I'm not saying it's undemocratic, but there is something about policy and legislation being crafted by electoral underperformers that doesn't sit comfortably with me. Time will tell, I suppose, whether this proposed coalition is able to function effectively, which is no guarantee.

As for Afghanistan - in a country as wealthy as Canada two and a half billion dollars a year is peanuts, actually. There is plenty of money to fund all of the items you mentioned and then some - the government has been running surpluses consistently for years now, even with war spending factored in, and no programs or departments have suffered due to having their funding diverted for the war effort. And actually 97 soldiers KIA over seven years is an astonishingly successful casualty rate. That's just barely over one a month. It's ridiculous to call such an effective performance unacceptable, it could hardly be any better, quite frankly.

And finally, the issues involved in this war are much bigger than the ineptitude of the Bush administration, which by the way would not be punished in any way by the withdrawal of Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan, as you bizarrely seem to think. This war is not about picking up the slack for the Americans, it is about stemming the spread of virulent and regressive fanaticism that threatens to engulf not just the people of Afghanistan (who we would indeed be abandoning, to a nightmare of poverty and oppression) but wide sectors of the Islamic world. It is about the promotion of democracy, human rights, and quality of life. And it is the Canadian devotion to these values that inspires the admiration of others, not our refusal to safeguard them when they are threatened. You're right when you say that Canada's role in the world has changed since Vimy Ridge, but you're completely wrong when you assert that the only place for Canada is on the sidelines. We have not just the opportunity but the responsibility to stand up for good, and to fight for it when necessary. That's not "warmongering," it's justice.

[Bob]

as an american i don't know much about coalitions, obviously, but does this mean that you guys have a two-party system now too? the conservatives and the other guys?

[DroppinScience]

Well, any hopes for a coalition government have been dashed with Harper deciding to "prorogue" Parliament (that means suspend or shut down) today before they could vote for the no-confidence motion on Dec. 8th. Parliament will return to session on Jan. 26th, so Harper's PM job is safe at least until January. (n)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/harper-jean.html

Such an asshole move and a dangerous precedent has now been set.

[DroppinScience]

As for Afghanistan - in a country as wealthy as Canada two and a half billion dollars a year is peanuts, actually. There is plenty of money to fund all of the items you mentioned and then some - the government has been running surpluses consistently for years now, even with war spending factored in, and no programs or departments have suffered due to having their funding diverted for the war effort. And actually 97 soldiers KIA over seven years is an astonishingly successful casualty rate. That's just barely over one a month. It's ridiculous to call such an effective performance unacceptable, it could hardly be any better, quite frankly.

I too don't think that the Canadian casualty rate of 97 soldiers over 7 years (though a disproportionate number of that 97 has happened over the last two or so years) is very high, no disrespect to the families of said soldiers. But I think the landscape has changed dramatically today from our days in Vimy Ridge or WWII (where you'd get 97 or much more killed in a DAY). Before Afghanistan, we have not had any combat casualties since the Korean War (though something like 1000s of Canadian peacekeepers have died in various places all over the world in the last 50-60 years) so we're MUCH more sensitive to war dead, even if it's relatively small. Our threshold is much lower today. Plus, I do think a large number of Canadians feel that we have no business being in Afghanistan because they feel it's America's fight more than ours (hell, many of those don't even think the U.S. has any business in Afghanistan, too). So there's a lot of complex emotions that go along with hearing of 97 war dead, even if Americans would look at us and go: "Dude, the U.S. has 4000+ dead in Iraq ALONE."

[Bob]

Well, any hopes for a coalition government have been dashed with Harper deciding to "prorogue" Parliament (that means suspend or shut down) today before they could vote for the no-confidence motion on Dec. 8th. Parliament will return to session on Jan. 26th, so Harper's PM job is safe at least until January. (n)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/harper-jean.html

Such an asshole move and a dangerous precedent has now been set.

democracy! i guess it's faster than a filibuster at least.

[Schmeltz]

as an american i don't know much about coalitions, obviously, but does this mean that you guys have a two-party system now too? the conservatives and the other guys?

No, the other parties aren't amalgamating or uniting in a formal sense. They're just (theoretically) agreeing to put differences aside and vote and act in unison in order to supplant the ruling party. Anyway as Droppin brought up it's a moot point for the time being. Harper's bought himself some time, during which the coalition might very well start to crack (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081204/national/parliament_crisis_opposition), but equally he's left the country without an acting government in the middle of a financial crisis, which is hardly the type of leadership he himself has constantly said we need right now. He certainly won't be making himself any friends among the many Canadians who already consider him arrogant and out of touch with their circumstances. He'd better come up with something pretty grandiose for the next budget/Throne Speech or he'll be in a lot of hot water come January 26th.


Plus, I do think a large number of Canadians feel that we have no business being in Afghanistan because they feel it's America's fight more than ours (hell, many of those don't even think the U.S. has any business in Afghanistan, too).


I think you're right, I've had this same conversation with many of my friends before and certainly public support for the war isn't exactly massive. But I also think that this attitude is superficial and insubstantial. The events of September 11th 2001 showed just how extreme the consequences of blowback can be, proceeding as they did directly from the state in which Afghanistan was abandoned in the 1990s, and if this historical misstep is repeated then we will of necessity be doomed to experience such consequences anew. The fact is that the strategy advocated by sazi and many other people with whom I've had this discussion - namely, completely withdrawing from Afghanistan and leaving it in the hands of fanatic extremist warlords, has been tried before, and it doesn't work. The world cannot afford to allow these insane fundamentalists to set up narco-states that fund the spread of their violence and oppression. And that means we all have to chip in and help stop them. There's nothing wrong with being sensitive toward dead soldiers and their families, and to wish that they didn't have to go through such agonies, but this is why we have a military - to keep peace where it can be made, and to make it where its lack affects us and our allies.

[HEIRESS]

If the coalition gov't gets into power they owe my boss about 250 bucks in wages because I did fuck all today except prowl political blogs and check cbc.ca for updated user comments every 10 minutes.

Ill give Layton this:
"[Confidence in the government] isn't going to be restored by seven weeks of propaganda"

[saz]

i see what you're saying now about the unease that accompanies the notion of a governmnet being formed without an election. although i do think that over time people would grow to appreciate and approve of the coalition, but certainly the current discussion and real possibility of the coalition becoming a reality unfortunately does not sit well with the majority of canadians. the majority may not like harper, but they'd rather wait and see if harper can provide an economic stimulus plan and actually work with the opposition, as minority governments are supposed to.

again, it isn't peanuts. in toronto we have a serious problem with gangs and gun violence. organized crime is also becoming unsettlingly strong and powerful in british columbia as well. all of the money we're wasting on combat missions in afghanistan could be put to much better use by addressing problems on our homefront. sorry, but the money just isn't there. you do realize that the conservative federal government is soon going to be running deficits now for many years to come, due not only to the current economic downturn, but also and primarily due to their irresponsible spending, which includes afghanistan. and no way, there is nothing ridiculous about 100 dead canadian soldiers. i could never find that acceptable.

and no, i did not imply that the bush administration would be punished in any way by the withdrawal of canadian soldiers from afghanistan. it was you who implied this previously, that "Nor should the people of Afghanistan be abandoned anew to the mercies of the Taliban for the sake of simple isolationist pacifism". i have been arguing that the role of canadian soldiers in afghanistan should be rebuilding and reconstruction, and not active combat. the united states was attacked on 911. their enemy, al qaeda fighters and taliban insurgents, are really a rag-tag bunch who their powerful and immense military should be handling. (but as far as the great extent of afghanistan goes, the soviet union had its own taste of a vietnam war, when they eventually had to withdrawl from afghanistan as their occcupation really grew into a quagmire). we've been there now, in a combat role, for over six years now. and the us only has about approximately 48,250 troops (including the national guard) or so in afghanistan. we've more than done our fair share. 56% (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html) of canadians disaprove of the mission. and no, i'm not arguing for a withdrawl. i'm arguing that we need to change our mission. it's time for us to concentrate on rebuilding and reconstruction and let uncle sam fight its own battle now. if canadian forces ditched their combat role and instead focussed on rebuilding, that would not immediately result in "leaving it in the hands of fanatic extremist warlords". this is what obama has been talking about, a surge of us military forces in afghanistan. you may not think that this war is not about picking up the slack for the americans, but that's been the reality over the last six years. even a fraction of all of the resources that were used for the illegal invasion of iraq would have been more than adequate for their response or original mission in afghanistan.

but even if obama commits to a surge of us forces in afghanistan, and restores a great deal of order to the country, can the united states or anyone else eventually prevail for that matter, especially when you consider once more that the soviets withdrew themselves?