Modeling Journey

When the formal coalition agreement was signed between the Liberal and NDP parties a while back, Harper reacted swiftly, spreading disinformation by claiming that the coalition government was illegitimate and a constitutional coup. The successful framing by the Tories of the issue even spooked rookie Michael Ignatieff and his advisor, who then unilaterally cancelled the agreement between the two parties and agreed to support Harper's minority government instead of forming the replacement government.

Since then Harper's constitutional mythmaking (the Harper constitutional elephant) has almost become accepted by the chattering classes, and by Liberal bloggers and Liberals, as fact, even though it is legally incorrect.

As a coalition government might well replace Harper come November, let's set the record straight on what is legal about coalitions.

And let's turn to the Professor Russell's article some time ago in the National Post for a quick summary of the issues:

"These precedents and many, many others illustrate the basic point that in parliamentary democracies we elect parliaments not prime ministers, and that the Governor General (or the presidential head of state in a republican parliamentary system) must be advised by ministers who are supported by a majority in the elected house of parliament. .. The no-confidence vote is to take place next Monday. If the government loses that vote, the rules of parliamentary democracy give Harper two options. He can tender his government's resignation to the Governor General and clear the way for Madame Jean to ask Stéphane Dion to form a Liberal-NDP coalition government. Or he can ask the Governor General to dissolve the 40th Parliament so that we can elect the 41st Parliament.

The first option – resignation – would be entirely constitutional. It involves no "usurpation" of power but is an honourable way out of the present impasse.
If Harper were to take the second option, the Governor General would have to consider carefully whether to grant his request for a dissolution. Her primary concern must be to protect parliamentary democracy. A steady diet of elections – four in four years – is not healthy for parliamentary democracy.

If there is an alternative government available that has a reasonable prospect of being supported for a period of time by a majority in the House of Commons, she would have reason to decline Harper's request. Harper would then have to resign, and the Governor General would commission Dion to form a government.

If this happens, again there would be no "usurpation" of power but a proper application of the rules and principles of parliamentary democracy. It has been very disturbing to hear over the last few days, from people who should know better, wild unparliamentary theories about our system of government. Elections are not simple popularity contests in which the leader whose party garners the most votes gets all the power.

I am greatly concerned that there is so little public knowledge of the constitutional rules that govern our parliamentary system of government. These rules are not formally written down in a legal text or taught in our schools."

So all Liberal bloggers and party members who still believe the misstatements of the Tories, lissen up: coalitions are legal, constitutional, honourable and an essential part of our parliamentary traditions.

Don't buy into Harper's myth making.

Seems these two have been getting some feedback from Canadians that it is time to replace the dysfunctional, do-nothing, foot-dragging, ideologically-unsuited-for-a-recession, excessively partisan, incompetent and untrustworthy minority Conservative government with a new one come September:

"Both Layton and Duceppe admitted there's little public appetite for an election, but they say people are telling them it's time to get rid of Stephen Harper's government."

This makes the most likely course of events in some 40 days or so the following: Parliament reconvenes. The Liberals table a no-confidence motion in the government (because of inaction on EI, words but little action on the stimulus plan, a massive deficit without any realistic plan for its reduction, general incompetence and mismanagement of the country's affairs, and the lack of trust the Harper government is engendering through its steadfast refusal to try to make Parliament work with a minority government).

The Tories vote against the motion, but Duceppe and Layton and the Liberals vote for it.

The government is defeated. The Governor General obeys established constitutional convention and turns to the party with the next highest seats (the Liberals) to form the government and win a vote of confidence.

Ignatieff does so.

The Bloc and the NDP reflect on what they have been hearing from voters during this summer of our discontent, and they put their heads together, and make the following statement:

"Because the House has no confidence in the Conservatives and has voted against them governing, and because the Liberal Party has not gained a majority of the seats in the House, because the country needs a period with political stability and more progressive policies, and because Michael Ignatieff is on record as having broken his written commitment to a coalition accord and governance agreement, therefore the Bloc and NDP parties will vote for the minority Liberal government, provided that:

1. We will be putting this government on probation, and will hold them responsible for any future failure to plan and act as a government which considers the best interests of ordinary Canadians, given the severity of the current recession. The new Liberal government will be required to take positive steps to ensure that Parliament functions properly despite their minority position, and to report to Parliament once every quarter on steps it has taken and plans to take to combat the recession's negative impact on ordinary Canadians.

2. Should the new Liberal government not agree prior to this vote of confidence to this procedure, then neither Bloc nor the NDP will vote their confidence in the Liberal government.

3. And should the Liberal government not provide the quarterly reports, or act during each quarter in a manner which appropriately considers the interests of ordinary Canadians in the recession, then the Bloc and NDP will abstain from supporting the new Liberal government in any future confidence motion.

4. And Bloc and NDP MPs will be watching the Liberal Government like hawks to see that it provides suitable progressive governance to Canadians."

The choice will then lie with Ignatieff whether he agrees to the terms of probation, and is prepared to report back each quarter on the implementation of progressive governance.

Should Ignatieff not publicly agree to these conditions, the Bloc and NDP would not vote for the Liberal government, nor would they vote against it.

Their abstention would leave it up to Harper's Conservatives to decide whether to vote against the minority Liberal government December or January at the time of the first confidence vote.

If Harper votes Ignatieff down, the Governor General will most likely call a new election, and both Harper and Ignatieff will have to explain to Canadians why they have once again plunged the country into a costly election.

And if Ignatieff does not honour the conditions of probation laid down for him by Duceppe and Layton, then these two parties will abstain from future confidence votes, leaving it up to Harper to decide whether to pull the plug on Ignatieff.

The outleak is bleak, right now, says Zogby:

"President Barack Obama's job approval rating has sunk to a record low of just 45%, the latest Zogby Interactive poll shows. Fifty-one percent of likely voters now say they disapprove of the President's job performance."

But Obama still scores well with Democrats, although he is losing the independent vote:

"While this latest poll shows Democrats continue to overwhelmingly approve of Obama's job performance (84%), just 6% of Republicans say the same. Most independents (59%) now disapprove of the job the President is doing."

None of this is surprising, given the major changes which this president is trying to make in a very short space of time.

And none of these results should cause Democrats undue concern. After all, what Obama is seeking to do is change the very contours of American politics, by tackling tasks of a scale which only three other presidents have dared to deal with (Lincoln, fighting to keep the Union alive; Roosevelt, pushing through the New Deal despite strenuous and misguided opposition; and LBJ, putting into law civil rights bills which even Jack Kennedy would not have been able to enact).

Revolutionary presidents like these four men will be opposed, and the size of the changes they force upon their societies will cause concern.

But when the dust settles, in a year or so, watch his ratings rise again, just in time for his bid for re-election.

The so-called Blue Panel of Liberals and Tories working on EI has had limited success in actually coming to grips with the issues. The Tory members have been using the sessions and the media to paint the Liberal position on when EI should start and how long it should last as being out of touch with reality, very expensive, and not a good thing. The Liberals have asked for an independent analysis of the costs of the Liberal proposal, but the Tory members of the panel are once again dismissing this:

"But Mr. Savage has also written a letter to Mr. Page requesting an assessment of Conservative calculations that peg the cost of the Liberal proposal to create uniform national standards for EI qualification at up to $4-billion.
“They torqued it up beyond belief,” Mr. Savage said of the Conservative figure. He has asked that Mr. Page's analysis be completed by the end of August and that it be made public.

Mr. Page responded to Mr. Savage's request by asking the Human Resources Department for the data, analysis and assumptions that were used to calculate the cost of the Liberal plan.

Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative member of the working group, dismissed the move to bring in Mr. Page, saying, “We already have a costing.” The Liberals, he said, “are shopping around for a different number that suits them.”

He called the Liberal plan both “expensive and irresponsible.”"

Surprise, surprise!

Don't expect the Tories to accede to the demand for their working notes in a hurry.

Harper agreed to the bi-party panel (which excluded any Bloc or NDP MPs, despite these two parties representing a significant portion of the total votes cast during the past election) only because he thought this would gain him time, prevent Ignatieff sinking his government, and enable Harper to frame the issues in such a way that Ignatieff would be forced to give way yet again.

In other words, having played Ignatieff as a patsy for so long, Harper seems to believe he should stick with a game plan which has worked well in the past, and play Ignatieff as a patsy yet once more.

Witness therefore the reluctance of the Tories to date on the panel.

But here comes the twist.

Wait for Harper to call for a one on one meeting with Ignatieff, and then table some move that takes the Tory position closer to that of the Liberals, hoping that this will enable Ignatieff to announce that pressure from the Liberals has once again forced the reluctant Harper government to agree to a policy change more in favour of ordinary Canadians (while not bankrupting the feds).

And then wait for the Liberals to use this example of successful working together of Parliament as a further reason for not tabling a vote of no-confidence in the government at the end of September.

How pieces of silver will Harper dangle before Ignatieff in order to get him to buy into his cosmetic changes to EI?

And who will then be able to fight for ordinary Canadians who will continue to lose their jobs at an alarming rate?

While Liberals lag in both categories, according to the latest EKOS poll.

The Tories have 35.5% of the 45-64 age group (Liberals 31.1%), and a sizeable majority of those over 65 (44.2% to the Liberals' 28.9%).

Harper's party also enjoys a sizeable majority of male support (36.3%) over Ignatieff's Liberals (29.9%), while both parties are essentially even amongst females. The Tory appeal to men is even more pronounced in Ontario (42.9% to 34.0%).

This poll shows that the traditional Liberal edge amongst women, which dissipated recently, is still missing, which is bad news for our party with an election probable in November after a no-confidence motion is passed in early October.

Clearly, any Liberal policy needs to address the concerns of retired folk (especially in BC), and women (across the country).

Harper's Tories are having a change of heart:

"The Conservatives are breaking their own taboo by starting to call on Canadians to award them a majority government in the next election.

The tactic will be part of an appeal for stability in a recession if the opposition defeats the government in the Commons early this fall, a year after the last election.

The Conservatives expect to contrast their call for a majority with two other potential scenarios they hope will prove less appealing: a Liberal minority and a Liberal-NDP coalition."

What's driving this change of heart?

Simply this: Harper's worst nightmare.

The polls show that the Tory and Liberal parties are both stuck in the low 30's of public choice should an election be held today.

And neither party has a surefire way of gaining a majority.

So where does this leave Harper? If he wins another minority he has to win a vote of confidence.

And it is probable that the he will not be able to get that vote. The Liberals might well vote against him, simply because his election campaign will be another Harper minimalist one, with a handful of sound bytes and little substance. And Ignatieff will realize that he should not voluntarily morph himself into a Dion-clone by yet again propping up a policy-challenged, incompetent, mismanaging, and bankrupt Tory government.

And that would mean the end of Harper's minority government, and the end of Harper.

And the Governor General, obeying the weight of established constitutional precedent, turning to the next in line party (the Liberals) to attempt to form a government which will have the confidence of the House.

And that vote will succeed, because the NDP and Bloc will support a minority Liberal government, provided that government agrees to follow core policies acceptable to those two parties for the foreseeable future. This could be done as a de facto support, without any formal agreements entered into between the parties, or in a more formal way.

No matter what way it goes, Harper knows that the writing is on the wall for him. So he is now laying the groundwork for the only realistic campaign tactics open to him: to demonize the Liberals by talking about a coalition supported by the godless separatists and socialists, and asking all right-thinking and moral Canadians to grant him a majority.

A roll of the dice, just like his famous predecessor did.

So we can start getting used to the idea of speaking about 'former prime minister Harper' says this that and the other.

Because that's what is going to happen.

Welcome to Stephen Harper's worst nightmare.

Instead of reluctantly facing up the fact of global warming, this is the kind of bold, sharp-edged, and innovative policy which I would expect my Canadian government to be offering:

"Germany launched a campaign Wednesday to put 1 million electric cars on the road by 2020, making battery research a priority as it tries to position the country as a market leader.

The program, which draws on euro500 million ($705 million) set aside in an economic stimulus package earlier this year but leaves many financing details up to the next government, drew criticism for being too vague.

"It is our aim to make Germany into the market leader for electric mobility," Economy Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said after the Cabinet approved the plan.
He said the 1 million target by 2020 "is an ambitious aim, but one that we believe can be realized." Germany had more than 41 million cars on the road at the beginning of this year — only 1,452 of them electric cars."

Lead from the front, Canada; establish our country on the cutting edge of climate technology, and create high paying manufacturing and service jobs right here in our provinces.

Instead of wringing your hands, MPs, let's see some imagination.

Let's make sure that over the next fifty years, Canada establishes itself as an industrial leader.

We can do it.
But can our representatives in Parliament?