Chris Selley: Get ready for the status quo
Gunnair @ Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:03 pm
$1:
All signs point to the status quo on May 2. Eight seat-projection analyses published over the past week average out to 148 seats for the Conservatives (up 5), 78 for the Liberals (up 1), 46 for the Bloc Québécois (down 3) and 36 for the New Democrats (down 1). None of the projections awards the Conservatives a majority. Ho and, if you will, hum.
The Conservatives will have you believe that, in this scenario, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe would immediately retire to a gilded room somewhere and propose villainy at each other. “I think if we win a minority, all the signals are clear the other three parties are going to get together in some form,” Stephen Harper said for the umpteenth time in Thunder Bay, Ont., on Tuesday. “I don’t want Canadians to wake up and find they ended up with something very different than what they thought they were voting for.”
It is, of course, possible. But while these projections will be fairly universally disappointing, fans of coalition governance have particular cause for disappointment. In the outcome mentioned above, the NDP and Liberals combined would have exactly the same number of seats as they did when they signed the coalition agreement in 2008 — and the Conservatives would have more. Since then, Mr. Ignatieff has ruled out any “formal arrangement” with the Bloc. In short, they wouldn’t have a particularly compelling case to put to Governor-General David Johnston unless Mr. Ignatieff went back on his word vis-à-vis the Bloc, and if he did that he’d have a thoroughly rotten case to put to the Canadian people — especially if Mr. Harper was denied the confidence of the House in a transparent power-grab.
Coalition doomsday theorists insist that because the Conservatives have vowed to table exactly the same budget as they did in March (give or take $700-million for Quebec’s HST compensation package), and because the Liberals say they’ll vote against it, another Conservative minority cannot possibly stand. What’s fascinating about this theory is that it assumes Mr. Ignatieff is telling the naked truth about his budgetary intentions and would never go back on his word — which, if true, would mean he couldn’t form a coalition because he swore he wouldn’t. But such cognitive dissonance is no match for the partisan or conspiracist mind.
Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells put it best: “For any given situation, Canadian politics will tend toward the least exciting possible outcome.” It held true during the last parliamentary dispute — Parliament was prorogued, the coalition collapsed — and is probably going to happen in May. In the event of a minority outcome, Mr. Harper will win the confidence of the House of Commons and govern with a minority.
Perhaps sensing this outcome, the media narrative has shifted this week toward more promising sources of excitement: Mr. Harper’s and Mr. Ignatieff’s political futures.
The latter is especially intriguing. Some observers take it as read that if Mr. Ignatieff doesn’t at least strengthen the party’s position, he’ll jump or be pushed. That’s complete madness, if it’s true.
Back in 2006, having been driven from office by a combination of specific malfeasance and general disdain, there was a vague notion that the Liberals should perhaps confront the facts of their demise and recast themselves as a party of principles rather than of unapologetically mushy, centrist brokerage. This was quickly abandoned. “We must get back to power as soon as possible,” Stéphane Dion said at the party convention in 2006.
The longer the Liberals are out of power, the more they seem to be convinced that power is still theirs, just temporarily inaccessible — a briefcase stashed in a bus station locker for which they’ve mislaid the key. For three elections now, they’ve put the same basic people in the back rooms and defrosted the same basic tactics. And when it doesn’t work, some of them demand a new face at the top immediately — or a new old face. Bob Rae, call your office.
Meanwhile, they’re inviting Jean Chrétien out on the campaign trail, presumably thinking he’ll remind Canadians of good, stable times in the 1990s. A party that had re-examined itself after 2006 might also view him as a reminder of Adscam — as might a great many former Liberal voters who swung right in 2004 and 2006.
And when the Liberals do look to the future, what do they see? Well, a shocking number of them see Justin Trudeau — history’s son. Mr. Trudeau absorbs so much abuse that I almost feel compelled to defend him. He’s by no means a terrible politician, or an idiot. But if his name was Justin Tremblay, we’d never have heard of him. If we do re-attain the status quo on May 2, it’ll be far from the only one the Liberals have to worry about.
National Post
.
The Conservatives will have you believe that, in this scenario, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe would immediately retire to a gilded room somewhere and propose villainy at each other. “I think if we win a minority, all the signals are clear the other three parties are going to get together in some form,” Stephen Harper said for the umpteenth time in Thunder Bay, Ont., on Tuesday. “I don’t want Canadians to wake up and find they ended up with something very different than what they thought they were voting for.”
It is, of course, possible. But while these projections will be fairly universally disappointing, fans of coalition governance have particular cause for disappointment. In the outcome mentioned above, the NDP and Liberals combined would have exactly the same number of seats as they did when they signed the coalition agreement in 2008 — and the Conservatives would have more. Since then, Mr. Ignatieff has ruled out any “formal arrangement” with the Bloc. In short, they wouldn’t have a particularly compelling case to put to Governor-General David Johnston unless Mr. Ignatieff went back on his word vis-à-vis the Bloc, and if he did that he’d have a thoroughly rotten case to put to the Canadian people — especially if Mr. Harper was denied the confidence of the House in a transparent power-grab.
Coalition doomsday theorists insist that because the Conservatives have vowed to table exactly the same budget as they did in March (give or take $700-million for Quebec’s HST compensation package), and because the Liberals say they’ll vote against it, another Conservative minority cannot possibly stand. What’s fascinating about this theory is that it assumes Mr. Ignatieff is telling the naked truth about his budgetary intentions and would never go back on his word — which, if true, would mean he couldn’t form a coalition because he swore he wouldn’t. But such cognitive dissonance is no match for the partisan or conspiracist mind.
Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells put it best: “For any given situation, Canadian politics will tend toward the least exciting possible outcome.” It held true during the last parliamentary dispute — Parliament was prorogued, the coalition collapsed — and is probably going to happen in May. In the event of a minority outcome, Mr. Harper will win the confidence of the House of Commons and govern with a minority.
Perhaps sensing this outcome, the media narrative has shifted this week toward more promising sources of excitement: Mr. Harper’s and Mr. Ignatieff’s political futures.
The latter is especially intriguing. Some observers take it as read that if Mr. Ignatieff doesn’t at least strengthen the party’s position, he’ll jump or be pushed. That’s complete madness, if it’s true.
Back in 2006, having been driven from office by a combination of specific malfeasance and general disdain, there was a vague notion that the Liberals should perhaps confront the facts of their demise and recast themselves as a party of principles rather than of unapologetically mushy, centrist brokerage. This was quickly abandoned. “We must get back to power as soon as possible,” Stéphane Dion said at the party convention in 2006.
The longer the Liberals are out of power, the more they seem to be convinced that power is still theirs, just temporarily inaccessible — a briefcase stashed in a bus station locker for which they’ve mislaid the key. For three elections now, they’ve put the same basic people in the back rooms and defrosted the same basic tactics. And when it doesn’t work, some of them demand a new face at the top immediately — or a new old face. Bob Rae, call your office.
Meanwhile, they’re inviting Jean Chrétien out on the campaign trail, presumably thinking he’ll remind Canadians of good, stable times in the 1990s. A party that had re-examined itself after 2006 might also view him as a reminder of Adscam — as might a great many former Liberal voters who swung right in 2004 and 2006.
And when the Liberals do look to the future, what do they see? Well, a shocking number of them see Justin Trudeau — history’s son. Mr. Trudeau absorbs so much abuse that I almost feel compelled to defend him. He’s by no means a terrible politician, or an idiot. But if his name was Justin Tremblay, we’d never have heard of him. If we do re-attain the status quo on May 2, it’ll be far from the only one the Liberals have to worry about.
National Post
.
Bruce_the_vii @ Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:24 pm
It certainly an interesting situation, somewhat of a complete screw up - but Canadians are not moved by it. They just aren't.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:12 am
One thing I've noticed about this whole contempt of Parliament nonsense. The only ones that care are Iggy, Jack and Gilles. (Hmm there's an interesting nursery rhyme there somewhere) It doesn't seem to have resonated with the general public because we perceive it as "business as usual" on Parliament Hill.
We've pretty much figured out after 20 years of Mulroney and Chretien that our venerable leaders will do pretty much what they want with little consequence other than the Opposition pissing and moaning about it, despite being guilty of the same and/or similar practices.
The election call is just an unbalanced flail against a moving opponent and I have little doubt whatsoever that it won't be long after the election that Iggy will be leaving Canada once again, thusly living up to his "just visiting" label.
Then, is desperation for one last lick at the brass ring, Bob Rae will accept the leadership of the LPC, getting traction in BC possibly but making it moot by Ontarians remembering him not too fondly.
Who knows, by then Justin Trudeau might give it a shot.
Yeah, Justin Trudeau in 2020 
Public_Domain @ Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:28 am
It feels like the last two elections and likely this one have had the same static numbers...
So boring.
And the best thing? Totally doesn't matter either way, really...
Let's go minority for stagnant government process lets go!
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:37 am
All the complaining about spending and Iggy basically throws a $300M temper tantrum that will change bupkiss except who will be the leader of the LPC.
Public_Domain @ Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:47 am
I wonder what it'll take to 'spice up' the politics in this country.
I think I predict a low voter turnout.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:51 am
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
I wonder what it'll take to 'spice up' the politics in this country.
Kim Campbell in a bikini.
smorgdonkey @ Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:21 pm
National Post National Post:
$1:
Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells put it best: “For any given situation, Canadian politics will tend toward the least exciting possible outcome.” It held true during the last parliamentary dispute — Parliament was prorogued, the coalition collapsed — and is probably going to happen in May. In the event of a minority outcome, Mr. Harper will win the confidence of the House of Commons and govern with a minority.
The amusing thing is that "MacLean's columnist Paul Wells put it best" is completely untrue because it suggests that 'the coalition collapsed' due to the prorogation of parliament but the 'threat of coalition' actually disintegrated because the economic stimulus came forth. Remember...according to Stephen and his buddies, "there is no recession" and then "we are now in recession". The entire idea and threat of a possible coalition was because Harper was denying the fact that there was a recession and saying that the government need not act upon it (since it didn't exist).
The difference is that Iggy threatened a coalition to persuade action and achieved it whereas Harper suggested coalition in order to acquire power.
As for the contempt of parliament issue...I care about it. It is just Steve wanting to do things Steve's way but he is supposed to realize that the people elected are the government - NOT JUST HIM. He is supposed to work with the elected people. He won't and he has said it in the last couple of days too. He has also said he isn't willing to debate 'right to choose' and that whole 'sick the RCMP on someone that you just want to fire instead of just firing her' thing is unreal.
What it comes down to is this: If you are voting Conservative then you just aren't paying attention...or you are a hotshot in a corporation.
Thanos @ Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:09 pm
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
All the complaining about spending and Iggy basically throws a $300M temper tantrum that will change bupkiss except who will be the leader of the LPC.
Fairly large bill for Canadians to have to pay just so Ignatz can get fired on May 3 and start making his travel arrangements to go back to Harvard.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:17 pm
Yep. What's the fuck's he care? Didn't cost him a dime.