Is It Time? Five Arguments For An Election NOW.
Harper reasserted his brand this week, musing with his usual playground truculence that he might be forced to force an election because of his undertainty about “whether or not this Parliament can function productively” – this, of course, in the week that saw his goons deliberately ensuring that it couldn’t. I think its time for the Liberals to call his bluff and bring this long-simmering pot to a boil. Let’s have an election.
Why?
1) Nothing is going to change the Tories’ polling numbers significantly until an election campaign. Under the micromanagement of their current control-freak, it seems unlikely that any major financial scandals will explode. What we will see is an ongoing trickle of the same mini-scandals – procedural wrongdoing, occasional eruptions of the racism and homophobia latent in the Reform wing of the party, maybe the odd (and welcome) amusement of sexual misconduct. But anyone repulsed by that kind of venial political sin has already left the fold – more of the same will just inure us to it.
2) Nothing is going to change the Liberals’ polling numbers significantly until an election campaign. Their biggest liability is Dion, branded by the Cons as weak, ineffectual, and slightly ridiculous. The current role of the Libs as the opposition makes it hard to shake that image: as the Opposition, they’re no longer actors, but reactors, perpetually responding to Conservative initiatives. They won’t gain or lose any support in their current role until Dion is tested in a new setting. And to be brutally honest, they simply won’t be able to ditch the guy until he loses one. For better or worse, they need to put him to the test.
3) We now have a much clearer understanding of what the Cons really do stand for. Their contempt for Aboriginal people, their attack on environmental policy, their commitment to an ongoing war in Afghanistan, their loathing of cultural programs and products, their kowtowing to industry and indifference toward consumers, their surprising contempt for the mechanisms of government – these aren’t matters for speculation anymore. They’re the real legacy of this government, now part of the record. When this minority was elected, cautious voters simply didn’t know what they were getting – what this strange fusion of classic conservatives, prairie populists, Christian fundamentalists, Red Tories and wistful Republican-wannabes was actually going to mean. Now we do: we’ve seen which threads of the party have come to dominate policy and decision making, and which have quietly faded to the back benches. You may like that, or you may not: but at least now we know exactly what kind of pig is in that poke.
4) We know where they want to take us. When they weren’t simply Liberal bashing in the last election campaign, the Conservative mantra was “We’re Not As Scary As We Look”. And as noted in Point 3, many of us took them at their word; and their minority status has actually kept them within reasonable bounds, despite the periodic, staged eruption of low-key, Friday-afternoon low visibility programicide. But they’ve been chafing at the bit to get on with it. Given a majority and four years, does anyone still believe that Canada will still have ANY arts or cultural programs? ANY meaningful environmental protection? A Wheat Board? As Conservative Minister of Agriculture summarized the threat clearly: “When we come back with a majority, then all bets are off.”
5) We’re running out of time. It takes years to create a federal policy infrastructure and the programming to implement: it takes one simple slash-and-burn to undo all that work. The NRCan research programs that were cancelled without evaluation by the Conservatives cannot simply be resumed – they’re gone. The current attack on cultural and arts programs doesn’t simply delay or slow production – much of it simply dies. And since federal support is an important line item when it comes to funding training, apprenticeships, mentorships, and entry into the cultural industries, the impact of these quiet cuts are going to be felt for a very long time. Real, long-term damage is being done here.
The channels for popular discussion of day-to-day politics and governance in this country and this era promote heated debate on the issue-du-jour, but almost no examination of longer term trends or historical records. That only happens during an election campaign, and even then to a limited degree (to what extent was our last national electoral debate about the viability of anyone’s policy vision, as opposed to catcalling on Liberal malfeasance?). But still – in this current impasse, the Liberals are limited to reacting day by day to what Harper does, a role that reinforces Dion’s image of ineffectual passivity.
Only an election campaign can change the dynamic of the discussion. Only an election campaign will provide the opportunity to take a long, hard look at the REAL record of Conservative “achievements”, to campare what they said they would do and what they’ve actually done to our country.
The NDP have nothing to lose. Nor do the Liberals – either Dion manages to surprise the country with an effective campaign, or he loses and the Libs can get on with finding a leader who can lead. Jim-Bobby’s beloved Earth Mother Lizzie needs the platform badly at this point. And I suspect that this time out the unholy alliance of Bloc and Conservatives will look even more opportunistic than it has before.
So let’s do it. We’re now under no illusions about who the Conservatives are and where they want to go. There won’t be any surprises. It’s time to let Canada decide.
(Long time Stageleft Fans will note that I’m sneaking this post in while Stage is off on holiday, to avoid the inevitable counter-grumbling about the irrelevance of the entire electoral system. It ain’t easy sharing the Bunker with an anarchist, I tell ya.)
(1) and (2) are good reasons to not have an election. Wehave had several years of opinion status quo. We know where the Conservatives stand; we also know where the Liberals and NDP stand. If more people wanted that for which the Liberals and NDP stand, there would be movement in opinion polls.
(3) “Their contempt for Aboriginal people, their attack on environmental policy, their commitment to an ongoing war in Afghanistan, their loathing of cultural programs and products, their kowtowing to industry and indifference toward consumers, their surprising contempt for the mechanisms of government – these aren’t matters for speculation anymore.” All of which (except for their willingness to buy art at public expense, and different choices as to which ongoing wars they commit) apply to the Liberals, as measured by their track record in office rather than empty promises and assurances.
(4)/(5) And we know where the others would like to take us. It’s one thing to debate the necessity of programs for the needy, but if one of your main themes is to whine on behalf of people who want market demand for their preferred occupation (eg. artistic and cultural goods and services) to be propped up, you’re clutching a thin reed.
Good work on the trees. Pity about missing the forest.
In the current political configuration (Liberals in opposition with a leader branded weak, Conservatives with thin minority), the Liberals are stuck in reactive, criticize-the-incumbent on an issue by issue basis. A national election campaign may break that dynamic, putting the entire Conservative record of the last two years on display for debate. They won the first election in the absence of any actual history or track record by campaigning against a former prime minister – I’d like to see how well they do when compelled to run on the basis of their actual…errr…achievements.
What forest is it you think you’ve discovered that merits special treatment? Every opposition government is reactive. The “current political configuration” doesn’t justify heading to the polls sooner merely because of what it is, particularly if it happens to be the “political configuration” the public wants. Chretien also campaigned against a former prime minister, and then spent several years as a camp follower of opinion polls while benefiting from weak and reactive opposition. I already know Liberals want to resume control as soon as possible and get back on the publicly-funded gravy trains; don’t bother with the weak attempts at high-minded camouflage.
Your endorsement of the status quo is a welcome confirmation of my argument. Appreciated, dude.
How about a post with numbered points outlining what the liberals will campaign on?
You can start with 1) The Green Tax Shift, then go on to number 2. Um, what’s number 2? Oh right, all the social programs that the CO2 reduction tax will pay for. Ok, number 3? anyone? anyone? hello? is this thing on?
The real reason you want an election forced is to get rid of Dion as your leader when the liberals loose (at the Canadian taxpayer’s expense, and the expense of all Canadians as you suspending government operations for another election).
Your words:
“And to be brutally honest, they simply won’t be able to ditch the guy until he loses one. ”
“a role that reinforces Dion’s image of ineffectual passivity”
“either Dion manages to surprise the country with an effective campaign, or he loses and the Libs can get on with finding a leader who can lead”
How about the Liberal party elect another leader and try again on YOUR dime, not mine?
Vonrock, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am a Liberal party member or supporter. I am neither. I oppose most of the policies and philosophy of the Conservatives in their current incarnation: I view the Liberals as opportunists without a coherent political philosophy of any kind.
Well then Balb, we are in a similar boat. Let me rephrase that last sentence of mine.
How about the Liberal party elect another leader and try again on their own dime, not mine.
[...] to let Americans have all of the electoral fun. Canada is in desperate need for an election, and Stageleft blog makes the [...]
“How about the Liberal party elect another leader and try again on their own dime, not mine.”
Well, from my perspective, the answer to that is my point number five: several long-term policy and program initiatives that I care about and that I value are being damaged beyond repair, without public debate or assessment of their efficacy (and in some cases, DESPITE a positive evaluation). My personal goal in calling for an election isn’t to benefit the Liberal party, although I tried to point out in my post why it might, in some ways, be to their strategic advantage: it’s to prevent further erosion.
>Your endorsement of the status quo is a welcome confirmation of my argument. Appreciated, dude.
>I oppose most of the policies and philosophy of the Conservatives in their current incarnation: I view the Liberals as opportunists without a coherent political philosophy of any kind.
Your view of the Liberals and prospects for actual change is a welcome confirmation of my argument. Appreciated, dude. Your “argument” is a selfish complaint that the 35% of Canadians who voted Conservative and continue to support Conservatives in the polls should never have a turn in control and should be turned out at the earliest opportunity. Plural governments don’t work very well when you pay lip service to the marketplace of ideas and then tack on the caveat, “except for you, with whom I disagree”. That includes tearing stuff down as well as building it up.
>several long-term policy and program initiatives that I care about and that I value
Do those on your own dime, then. Pay for your own cultural preferences. If you don’t want a tug-of-war over public spending on aesthetics, don’t implement them with public money.
Naw, you missed the point again, lrC. Reflect more carefully on the original post: usually you’re better at actual discussion than this. Having a rough week?
In terms of “my” cultural preferences – I anticipate that a fair chunk of the 35% you cite will change their minds when invited over the course of a campaign to reflect on the actual record of the Conservatives, as opposed to the “he says, then she says” kind of sparring that characterizes discussion now. I personally am looking forward to compiling a terrific list of Conservative gaffes, lies, flip flops and failures – in a relatively short time they’ve piled up quite an impressive record.
I certainly understand and sympathize with your reluctance to see the Conservatives exposed to that kind of critical scrutiny, and I think you’re quite right to want to see it delayed – in that awareness, you show more savvy than Harper.
But if it helps, try and see it like this: I’m simply agreeing with your Beloved Leader. He too is irked by the current climate of uncertainty, and he and I both agree that clarity of mandate is required.
What are the long-term policy and program initiatives that you care about that are being sacked?
There are quite a few; when I wrote that, I was thinking of several environmental monitoring programs delivered by either NRCan or Environment Canada, cancelled without evaluation, and the recent round of cuts to Arts Funding. There have been similar cuts at HRSDC and Service Canada, INAC, and Health Canada.
I haven’t missed the point. You set out to state 5 reasons to have an election now, based on the unsurprising finding that the governing party with a mere minority and the party with the largest opposition share are each dissatisfied by not having control of Parliament. By your reasoning, we should have elections:
1) Because the polling numbers of a party are essentially unmoving.
2) Because the polling numbers of a party are essentially unmoving.
3) Because you disagree with the policies of the governing party.
4) Because you disagree with the policies of the governing party.
5) Because you disagree with the policies of the governing party.
I’m sure many people would like to hold continuous elections until they “win” and then stop holding elections for a while, but those are pathetically piss-poor reasons. Contra your interpretation of the polling numbers as a reason to “go”, the polling numbers may just mean Canadians want the minority government to continue right where it is.
That’s wonderful. Your response is similar to one of those Life Magazine photos from the sixties showing us how the world looks to a bee, or a cat, or a fish. You’ve provided a marvelous example of how an ideologue can reduce a complex idea to something they can grasp. Wrong, of course, but simple enough to fit into a worldview of Sentinel-esque simplicity – a worldview that equates support for the arts with “whining on behalf of people who want market demand for their preferred occupation to be propped up”. What an odd little universe you inhabit.
The recipients of public grants don’t care whether they continue to receive the grants? Not according to reports in the news. What an odd little universe _you_ inhabit.
And now you’re hearing voices.
Better get that checked.
Just what we need, another electoral drama played on the national stage and payed for by you and me so that people can once again delude themselves into believing that that their vote actually makes some sort of difference.
Ah but doesn’t their partisan glee warm the cockles of your heart as they rush to the polls waving brightly coloured banners and spouting party rhetoric at the top of their little lungs……. extorting all who will listen (and even those who don’t give a rats) to elect their guy; that individual who will represent their party in the House as s/he works so desperately to maintain the sham that they are actually representing the constituent?
The selection of the candidate that will be whipped by the party – what greater Canadian patriotic duty can there possibly be I ask — by gads man, I can hardly wait !!
Joseph Sobran once wrote in an essay, “Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.”
—————
PS: I had a good time in my ‘wee tent by the river. Complete and total disconnect, no cell phone, no TV, and no Internet… it has relaxed me tremendously, a more mellow anarchist you’re unlikely to find
Just heard Duffy on CFRA saying that Canadians who are so inclined will likely get their chance to choose the individual who will be whipped on their behalf on October 27th.
According to Duffy PMS is gonna hold a meeting with the leaders of the Opposition parties in the near future to “try and work out a legislative agenda” but that’s just a ruse to label them non-co-operative louts and call an election.
On the face of it that sounds plausible, except that we’ve seen the Liberals quite staunchly not opposing the CPoC since day 1 so they might once again throw a wrench into the gears and not play ball by either not showing up for votes or scratching their collective arses when they are called, and giving Harper his way.
….. who knows.