Canada on the Brink of an election

[Segnosaur]

Looks like Canada might be heading to the polls soon.

For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, Canada has 4 main parties in the house of Commons. The Conservatives are the party in power (and they are on the political 'right'), but they only have a minority government. Opposing them are the Liberals (second biggest party, slightly left of center, and the only other one in parliament now who's had power), the NDP (left wing party), and the Bloc Quebecois (a regional Quebec-only party that is relatively left wing, but its primary goal is separation.)

The conservatives have been in power since 2006, and the last election was in 2008. Somehow Harper has managed to maintain power despite being further right than the other parties, and despite lots and lots of insinuations about how "bad" he is from the other parties.

The conservatives have recently brought in a budget, but it looks like the opposition parties are going to vote against it. Since a budget is considered a "confidence" motion, a vote against it will defeat the government. After which, there are 2 possibilities: a general election (Likely scheduled for early May), or the opposition can try to form a coalition (probably unlikely, since the parties don't want the stigma of "collaborating", especially since such a coalition might need to be supported by the separatist Bloc Quebecois).

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+barrelling+toward+election/4488937/story.html

 

[ProBonoShill]

Very nice portrayal of the current situation, Segnosaur.

Unless the NDP changes their mind and supports this budget, we're going to the polls in early May.

 

[Segnosaur]

Very nice portrayal of the current situation, Segnosaur.

Unless the NDP changes their mind and supports this budget, we're going to the polls in early May.

Well, I heard parts of an interview with Jack Layton (NDP leader), and he seemed to be in full campaign mode (with the expected rhetoric about how the Harper government was "undemocratic", disliked parliament, etc.), so I can't see them changing their opinion now. And I'm sure the conservatives are going to claim "we tried to compromise, put some things in the budget the NDP wanted". So, both sides appear to be dug in.

About the only thing that might prevent an election is if some of the Liberals decide to avoid the budget vote, thus allowing the budget to pass. Its a slim possibility, but it might happen for one of 2 reasons:
- No party wants to be seen as the one to force an unnecessary election
- Several opinion polls have placed the Liberals far behind the conservatives, giving the possibility of a conservative majority government

 

[Steve]

Looks like Canada might be heading to the polls soon.

For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, Canada has 4 main parties in the house of Commons. The Conservatives are the party in power (and they are on the political 'right'),

... snip

To clarify for any Americans taking an interest in this thread - the Canadian "right" is slightly to the "left" of your Democrats

 

[Segnosaur]

... snip

To clarify for any Americans taking an interest in this thread - the Canadian "right" is slightly to the "left" of your Democrats

Or, as the Daily show once put it the conservatives are the "Abortion loving gay rights party" (or something along those lines).

Of course, it should be said that there are at least a few conservatives who would probably be more at home in the the Republican party than the Democrats, even though our political spectrum on the whole is slightly to the left of the U.S. (We do have a few "social-conservatives, religious right types in government, but fortunately they don't seem to be controlling the agenda.)

 

[Steve]

Or, as the Daily show once put it the conservatives are the "Abortion loving gay rights party" (or something along those lines).

Of course, it should be said that there are at least a few conservatives who would probably be more at home in the the Republican party than the Democrats, even though our political spectrum on the whole is slightly to the left of the U.S. (We do have a few "social-conservatives, religious right types in government, but fortunately they don't seem to be controlling the agenda.)

Oh I agree with all of this. I was just trying to keep it simple.

 

[Corsair 115]

Somehow Harper has managed to maintain power despite being further right than the other parties, and despite lots and lots of insinuations about how "bad" he is from the other parties.

There's actually some evidence to support the Conservatives' "badness." For a party that campaigned on cleaning up Parliament and bringing honesty and clarity to government, recent events have demonstrated the fallacy of that pledge. (Not that anyone cynical of politics would have believed their pledge to begin with.)

 

[lopeyschools]

This a weird time for Canadian politics, normally we go from majority to majority, but this extended minority system actually forces the government to be more accountable. Personally I'm in favour of minority governments for life, no single party can dictate the laws of Canada!

 

[Segnosaur]

This a weird time for Canadian politics, normally we go from majority to majority, but this extended minority system actually forces the government to be more accountable. Personally I'm in favour of minority governments for life, no single party can dictate the laws of Canada!

Well, there are advantages and disadvantages. While it does force the government to "be more accountable", it also can:
- reduce stability (i.e. the government can be 'thrown out of power' at any time; this isn't necessarily good for the economy)
- Makes it more difficult to implement any sort of 'long term' strategy
- If it is your favorite party that heads the government, it might force them to compromise their principles. For example, if you voted conservative in the last election hoping for 'fiscal restraint', you might have been disappointed when the conservatives started fiscal stimulus spending at the start of the last recession as a way to pass their budget/stay in power
- Elections are expensive, and minority governments do tend to have them more often

 

[Segnosaur]

Some other recent developments in the Canadian political situation:

- It appears that the government isn't going to loose on the budget vote. Instead, the Liberals appear to be planning on bringing in a "non-confidence" vote before the budget which will trigger the election. (The Liberals are basing this non-confidence vote on a charge of 'contempt for parliament' because the conservatives didn't supply information regarding the costs of some planned programs). This will of course muddy up the waters regarding the reason for the election. (The conservatives will try to say "they rejected our budget", the Liberals will try to say "no, we forced you out on the 'contempt' charges)

- Heard an interview with Mike Duffy on the radio yesterday. (Mike Duffy used to be a political reporter with CTV, but is now a conservative senator, so take anything he says with a grain of salt.) According to him, Layton was quite willing to support the budget, but there were people within his party that were against it. Layton is currently dealing with prostate cancer, so he had suggested supporting the budget for now, and if he was feeling better in a few months, then the NDP would help trigger an election; if he was still feeling sick, he'd quietly resign and the next leader would deal with an election. Similarly, the liberals might have supported the budget, but some potential liberal leaders might have had the idea of forcing an election which the Liberals might potentially loose, as a way to force Ignatieff out. Again, all this is from a conservative senator, so skepticism is warranted.

 

[Steve]

snip...

Similarly, the liberals might have supported the budget, but some potential liberal leaders might have had the idea of forcing an election which the Liberals might potentially loose, as a way to force Ignatieff out. Again, all this is from a conservative senator, so skepticism is warranted.

Agreed that skepticism is warranted due to the source, but this makes some sense to me. I think more and more influential Liberals are starting to view Ignatieff as a liability. My personal opinion is that they could conceivably form a minority government with Ignatieff as leader if enough people are turned off by the Conservatives and see him as the "lesser of two evils", but they will never win a majority with him.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

This a weird time for Canadian politics, normally we go from majority to majority, but this extended minority system actually forces the government to be more accountable. Personally I'm in favour of minority governments for life, no single party can dictate the laws of Canada!

Our current electoral system is far too weighted towards regional representation at the expense of proportionality. We need to introduce at least some measuer of proportional representation into our election system, imo. The OP mentions the BQ as one of the main four parties in Canada, but in terms of votes they get, they're about on par with the (fringe) Greens.

 

[Pardalis]

If the Greens get elected I'm moving to the US.

 

[Madalch]

snip...

Agreed that skepticism is warranted due to the source, but this makes some sense to me. I think more and more influential Liberals are starting to view Ignatieff as a liability. My personal opinion is that they could conceivably form a minority government with Ignatieff as leader if enough people are turned off by the Conservatives and see him as the "lesser of two evils", but they will never win a majority with him.

Personally, since there is no current politician whom I'd be happy to see with a majority, I'm fine with lots of minority governments.

Our current electoral system is far too weighted towards regional representation at the expense of proportionality. We need to introduce at least some measuer of proportional representation into our election system, imo. The OP mentions the BQ as one of the main four parties in Canada, but in terms of votes they get, they're about on par with the (fringe) Greens.

The problem with that is that it prevents people who don't live in metropolitan centres from having a voice. If a party with 10% of the vote must be awarded 10% of the seats, how do you select those 30 MPs? I doubt any of them will be from my neck of the woods.

 

[Segnosaur]

Agreed that skepticism is warranted due to the source, but this makes some sense to me. I think more and more influential Liberals are starting to view Ignatieff as a liability. My personal opinion is that they could conceivably form a minority government with Ignatieff as leader if enough people are turned off by the Conservatives and see him as the "lesser of two evils", but they will never win a majority with him.

It is curious about why Ignatieff would be seen as a "liability". From what I've seen of him he seems to be a decent speaker, and since he wasn't part of the Chretien government he wouldn't be tainted by ad-scam. (Not sure how his french is though.) The only drawback I can see is the fact that he lived out of the country for so long, but in a country that is as 'regionalized' as Canada that shouldn't be a big deal.

Maybe its because his last name can be spelled wrong too easily. (I know I keep forgetting the second 'f'.)

Of course, the question is, if Ignatieff gets turfed, then who would take over the Liberals? Could be Bob Rae, but given his past premiership of Ontario he'd probably have as much chance at winning an election as John Merrick at a Mr. Universe competition.

 

[Segnosaur]

Our current electoral system is far too weighted towards regional representation at the expense of proportionality. We need to introduce at least some measuer of proportional representation into our election system, imo.

The problem with that is that it prevents people who don't live in metropolitan centres from having a voice. If a party with 10% of the vote must be awarded 10% of the seats, how do you select those 30 MPs? I doubt any of them will be from my neck of the woods.

Plus, even if the MPs were from your neck of the woods, the party in power would likely still arrange their policies to cater to the largest voter base (i.e. the metropolitan centers). So, they might conceivably pass the "Harvest the organs of country folk to sell on the black market in order to give tax breaks to Toronto" bill.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

The problem with that is that it prevents people who don't live in metropolitan centres from having a voice. If a party with 10% of the vote must be awarded 10% of the seats, how do you select those 30 MPs? I doubt any of them will be from my neck of the woods.

This argument against PR is often made. In my opinion, the question that this begs is why geographical location should be the only way we divide people when deciding whether or not a given system gives certain groups of people 'a voice'. Around 10% of the country supports the Green party. These people reflect a significant ideological current in Canada and yet, because they are dispersed across the country rather than living in the same area, they have zero representation in our current system. Or, look at the differences in political power that geographically concentrated groups of immigrants have in some ridings, compared to the lack of political power that geographically dispersed groups of immigrants have.

Yes, areas that are sparsely populated and disproportionately represented by our current system (think PEI) would lose out in a purely proportional system, and there is something to ensuring representation for people according to geography. But you could get around issue this by having a mixed system i.e. have representation by riding in a senate with a revamped mandate.

 

[Segnosaur]

This argument against PR is often made. In my opinion, the question that this begs is why geographical location should be the only way we divide people when deciding whether or not a given system gives certain groups of people 'a voice'.

Probably because it works well from a pragmatic point of view.

An MP can actually represent a group of constituents constrained to a local area. If we did have MPs representing nationwide interests, the scope of their mandate might be so broad that they couldn't give the proper attention to local problems.

Yes, areas that are sparsely populated and disproportionately represented by our current system (think PEI) would lose out in a purely proportional system, and there is something to ensuring representation for people according to geography. But you could get around issue this by having a mixed system i.e. have representation by riding in a senate with a revamped mandate.

Well, we could revamp the system to be similar to one in the U.S... local MPs in districts with more consistent population sizes (still not perfect but better than it has been) and a senate with identical representation by province. But really, would you really want to reopen constitutional debates for that sort of thing?

For me, the biggest change I think we need is to eliminate the requirement for party solidarity... bring in rules that make every vote a free vote (well, except for perhaps the budget and issues the party campaigned on in the previous election). Granted, some MPs would always vote with the majority of their parties, but there will be some that will be more interested in the quality of the legislation than what the party dictates.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Probably because it works well from a pragmatic point of view.

An MP can actually represent a group of constituents constrained to a local area. If we did have MPs representing nationwide interests, the scope of their mandate might be so broad that they couldn't give the proper attention to local problems.

look at the end of the day, MPs' primary purpose in parliament is to support the party's line; people generally vote their MPs in based on their party affiliation.

Well, we could revamp the system to be similar to one in the U.S... local MPs in districts with more consistent population sizes (still not perfect but better than it has been) and a senate with identical representation by province. But really, would you really want to reopen constitutional debates for that sort of thing?

having proportionally set ridings doesn't address the issue much. You still have a system where if there are more than two parties, you can have a parliamentary majority by a party that is opposed by the majority of the population

For me, the biggest change I think we need is to eliminate the requirement for party solidarity... bring in rules that make every vote a free vote

These rules are at the party level I believe. Also, see above: most people in Canada vote by for whichever person is representing the party they like, not for the individual to represent their riding.

will be some that will be more interested in the quality of the legislation than what the party dictates.

This again relies on the assumption that the principal determinant of whether or not a given policy is good is determined by whether it benefits the strongest voice in a majority of geographical units, rather than whether or not it benefits the majority of Canadians

it's very silly

the origins of our system are feudal landholdings represented in England's house of lords

our system is only roughly compatible with the modern nation state, much less with a democratic polity

 

[Segnosaur]

An MP can actually represent a group of constituents constrained to a local area. If we did have MPs representing nationwide interests, the scope of their mandate might be so broad that they couldn't give the proper attention to local problems.

look at the end of the day, MPs' primary purpose in parliament is to support the party's line; people generally vote their MPs in based on their party affiliation.

I'm not denying that people vote for a particular party rather than MP, or that the MP's "primary" job is to support the party line. But that doesn't mean their other responsibilities (handling local issues, serving as an interface between the federal government and constituents) doesn't also exist.

Well, we could revamp the system to be similar to one in the U.S... local MPs in districts with more consistent population sizes (still not perfect but better than it has been) and a senate with identical representation by province. But really, would you really want to reopen constitutional debates for that sort of thing?

having proportionally set ridings doesn't address the issue much. You still have a system where if there are more than two parties, you can have a parliamentary majority by a party that is opposed by the majority of the population

I never claimed it would solve the problem, only make it better. And yes, you can get a parliamentary majority without getting a majority of the vote, but like I said, proportional systems also have their problems.

For me, the biggest change I think we need is to eliminate the requirement for party solidarity... bring in rules that make every vote a free vote

These rules are at the party level I believe. Also, see above: most people in Canada vote by for whichever person is representing the party they like, not for the individual to represent their riding.

But that's the thing... if we did eliminate party solidarity, it might actually make people pay more attention to the actual MP. And, it might have the secondary benefit of making our politicians more responsive to what the people want. (e.g. even if the green party doesn't get an MP in the house of commons, there may be a few Liberal/NDP MPs willing to support at least some of their policies even if its not part of their platform)

it's very silly

the origins of our system are feudal landholdings represented in England's house of lords

our system is only roughly compatible with the modern nation state, much less with a democratic polity

Not saying that our system is without problems. But at the end of the day:
- Our rights have generally been preserved
- Our economy has been relatively stable, most people have jobs and food to eat
- We have been able to remove particularly unpopular leaders from power
So, while we might complain about some of the finer details of our parliamentary system, its still serving our country well enough.