No Predictions, But - Mercy! - Ain't It Fun?

[ed_rex]

On Thursday, Canada's (brand-new) government presented an economic update to the House — not quite a Budget, but something close to it, or such it is in normal times — it is with no little amount of schadenfreude that I watch Stephen Harper's ill-timed revelation of his true colours quite possibly put paid to his political career.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention or who aren't Canadian, in a nutshell, Thursday's document bore the mark of a bully and a thug and little else. Though in the midst of a what seems to be universally regarded as the gravest crisis to confront Capitalism since 1929, the Conservatives saw an opportunity — not to prime the economic pump, nor to rally Canadians 'round their government in dangerous times, but to practice some (very) petty political one-up-manship.

• Taking away the right to strike from public servants? Check.


• Removing public funding to political parties based on the number of votes received ($1.95 per vote)? Check.


• A promise to sell off (unspecified) government assets in order to "balance" the budget and no matter that this would mean selling at or near the bottom of the market? Er, check again.


• Specific plans for dealing with the oncoming storm? Er, no exactly. Not as such. Well. No.

And so, within days, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have let the Governor General know that, should the current government fall, there is another waiting in the wings — with Stephane Dion as Prime Minister, no less!

Political drama doesn't get much better than this, not outside of Italy, anyway.

You all know (or else you haven't been paying attention; shame on you!) that I loathe the Harper Tories. I believe they are neo-con ideologues of the worst stripe, who despise the very idea of government beyond funding the army, jails and the police, and so I won't pretend to be anything but giddy at the prospect of seeing them defeated, but ...

But the Liberals and NDP are playing a dangerous game. While the truth is the Conservatives' neo-con base is small and divided, split as it is between an unholy (and senseless) alliance between social and economic "conservatives", and that the general support behind the Liberals, NDP and Bloc can be (loosely) qualified as (small-L) "liberal", the fact remains that the Bloc are separatists and the destruction of this country is always at the base of its raison d'etre.

As Churchill famously said something to the effect that he would deal with the Devil himself in order to defeat Hitler, when questioned on making an alliance with Stalin, so might the Liberals and NDP justify sharing a bed-spread with Gilles Duceppes, and i support them for doing so.

But I hope the hell they're going to be careful.

If this coalition actually takes power, I see two likely outcomes.

The first would see a reasonably competent (or better!) government preside over the next couple of years, sooner or later brought down by a Bloc Québecois that sees it's political raison d'etre slipping away because of that competence. If the BQ is smart (and lucky), they'll have some kind of symbolic issue to take to the polls on their tedious quest for a "flag sur le hood du Cadillac".

The second would see Liberal infighting destroying the government within months, leading to god only knows what sort of electoral outcome.

But whatever happens, we can take much comfort in the knowledge that Stephen Harper will be walking from the fray, a historical footnote and little more.

Comments

[sck5000.livejournal.com]

I find it baffling that in principle anyone would prefer an unelected government to an elected one. But that is a typically leftist character trait -- you believe your own moral currency is somehow secretly more valuable than anyone else's. If the same thing happened with a more right-wing trio muscling undemocratically past an elected left-wing government in say, Tibet, you would be outraged in principle. It must be an easy life to have such conveniently elastic morality.

[sooguy.livejournal.com]

Who's unelected.

Parliamentary democracy dictates a party with most seats attempts to form a government.

Last time I checked everyone sitting in parliament were elected.

What I find undemocratic is party that tries to limit people's rights in the name of the economy when its clear its for political advantage.

[sck5000.livejournal.com]

I don't see how it's to Harper's political advantage. He ran for re-election as a person with an economics degree on an economics platform in a country that has still not officially slid into a recession, a country that the IMF recently said has one of the soundest economies in the world and which was ranked number 1 as the soundest banking system.

He ran against 4 other people with no economics degrees, 3 of which at the time did not consider the economy even important enough to make it their central platform, yet who just two months later are using the economic paramountcy as a reason to believe he has lost touch, and this despite having pledged immediately after Harper's election to work with his government. They did say they would try to bring down the government if the $1.95/vote provision was included, and then when the conservatives scrapped that provision specifically, they're still trying to bring it down.

Given those circumstances, there is no reason to distrust Harper's plan, only a reason to suspect his adversaries of either divisiveness or ignorance.

If your assessment of hypocrisy is limited only to those who you disfavour ideologically, how can you ever truly trust yourself? What is your personal benchmark to ever know if you've slipped into biased fanaticism?

[sooguy.livejournal.com]

Okay I am not sure where you came away with any notion that I was supporting this with any sort of "biased fanaticism" based on my original reply to Geoff, but if that's your view so be it.

I have plenty of reason to distrust Harper's economic plan especially when he's dithering while Rome burns. Now just because I say that, don't read into it that the opposite is true and that I for a moment think any of the opposition have the answers. If you take a moment to read any of my above replies, I never once for the moment start cheerleading for the oppositions plans.

I merely commented on the state of Harper's blunder and the oppositions reactions. There's a difference.

BTW, last time I checked Jim Flaherty was the Finance Minister and ultimately responsible for the budget and economic update and to the best of my knowledge does not have an economics degree. That's not to say he's not qualified at what he does, but to point out the flaw in your argument. If you are going to argue the opposition can't manage the economy because they were not schooled in it then maybe the same should be said of Mr. Flaherty?

[sck5000.livejournal.com]

Geoffrey's journal is the only place I ever argue.

I'm confident in my assumptions about your fanaticism because a) you said you were going to post a rant about this subject, and b) because you consistently ignore questions of a philosophic nature directed at how you maintain a benchmark against your own judgments, which in my opinion is a necessary thing to do to maintain impartiality.

For example, I volunteered one of my own without being asked. I said that if the NDP had an elected minority, I would still not support a move to oust them in this manner by conservatives, because to me the principle of electoral self-determination of a populace trumps my own personal ideology. I have asked you the same question in several forms but you do not appear to ever test your own benchmarks, you have no moral watermark to ever know if you're fanatic.

What is an example of a scenario of principle where you would support a Harper government over your own ideological preference? Is there one?

If the Harper government had a majority and one lone left-wing gunman holed up in the Parliament building wanted to destroy it, would you support Harper in principle then?

If Harper had a majority but a non-violent means was used to bring it down without any formal election, would you support the democratic principle above your own ideology then?

Where is your personal line drawn when a principle of freedom for all outweighs your own ideological conviction?

Wherever you draw that line is a confident measure of a person's ideological fanaticism and a level of trust an outside observer is now able to place in the soundness of that person's judgment, yet despite being the type of question that should be easy for anyone to answer since you should pose these questions to yourself rigorously as a point of human existence, you never answer any of them.

[steelcaver.livejournal.com]

Your ranting is all very inspired...

... but at the end of the day, all 77 Liberal MPs were elected, all 37 New Democrat MPs were elected, and combined took about 44% of the popular vote to Harper's 38%.

"I find it baffling that in principle anyone would prefer an unelected government to an elected one."

I find it baffling that anyone is operating under the illusion that none of these MPs were elected.