You Can Just Feel That Desperation Mounting

Michael Byers really, really wants that coalition

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party's polling numbers steadily climbing and the Tories even making inroads into Toronto, some of Canada's left-wing ideologues seem to be reaching for the panic button.

For Michael Byers, that panic button is a coalition government.

Writing in an op/ed in the Toronto Star, Byers insists that a Liberal-NDP electoral coalition could put Canada's "centre-left majority in political control". He starts off by insisting that Michael Ignatieff's current difficulties are not his own fault:

"Negative ads have prejudiced voters against Michael Ignatieff, and brought Stephen Harper within reach of a majority government. The Conservatives now lead the Liberals by about 10 percentage points.

The situation seems unlikely to improve. The Prime Minister's divisive partisan tactics have diminished the public's respect for politicians in general. In just four years, he has changed the tone of media coverage and public discourse, shifting the mood of the nation toward cynicism and selfishness.

Liberal infighting has not helped, while the NDP has missed two opportunities – on climate change and macroeconomic policy – to capture the national imagination with bold ideas."

Of course, in Byers' mind, things like the Sponsorship Scandal -- a product of the Liberal party's arrogant belief that they are the only party worthy to govern Canada -- haven't affected Canadians' respect for politicians one little bit.

Indeed, everything is Stephen Harper's fault.

And it's on this particular note that Byers falls back to what has become his signature argument: Stephen Harper must be defeated, no matter what:

"There is only one surefire way to prevent a Harper majority. The Liberals and NDP should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign."

In order to do this, Byers insists that the Liberals and NDP should embrace a proposal Preston Manning, as leader of the Reform Party, tried and failed to pitch to the Progressive Conservative party: an electoral coalition:

"In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one.

Both parties would win more seats, with the Liberals potentially forming a majority government."

But the notion that Michael Byers thinks that left-of-centre Canadians would want the Liberal party to win a majority government during a time of economic recession demonstrates that he has a very, very short memory indeed.

When the Jean Chretien Liberals came to power in 1993, many left-of-centre Canadians believed their time had arrived. They believed the Liberals would decline to ratify NAFTA, and that Lloyd Axworthy's social services review would revamp Canada's social programs.

What actually happened was entirely different.

Then-Finance Minister Paul Martin slashed federal funding to health care and education, and downloaded federal deficit to the provinces by cutting transfer payments.

This is Byers at the height of his naivete, and in the depths of his lack of imagination, and it clearly shows.

Byers has even accounted for the Bloc Quebecois in his calculations:

"Based solely on the results from October 2008, the agreement would, in itself, deliver 30 to 40 additional seats to the Liberals and another five to 10 seats to the NDP.

The Bloc Québécois would not be part of the deal but could be expected to win around 40 seats in total."

But while what Byers is proposing is very clearly an electoral coalition, he refuses to simply admit it.

Moreover, Byers clearly has no idea how such an arrangement could actually be made to work:

"Importantly, what is proposed is not a coalition, but a one-time ceasefire between two opposition parties whose combined vote share last time was significantly higher (44.4 per cent versus 37.6 per cent) than the Conservatives.

No effort would be made to coordinate platforms, though the absence of debilitating head-to-head races between Liberals and New Democrats would direct both parties' attention onto the Conservatives.

Nor would the agreement extend to post-election power sharing. If the Liberals were in a position to form a minority government, they would be free to seek support from any of the other parties – including the Conservatives."

Byers seems to have made the assumption that every NDP voter would shift their votes to the Liberals in the absence of an NDP candidate and that every Liberal voter would shift their votes to the NDP in the absence of a Liberal candidate.

Yet the experience of the post-merger Conservative party should be illustrative for Byers. The Conservative party has never attained the total vote total of the PC and Canadian Alliance Parties.

With literally no idea what they're voting for, Byers has no business assuming that Canadians will flock en masse to whatever party an electoral coalition agreement believes they should.

Byers seems to think that voting against Stephen Harper is enough to ensure a landslide vote for the Liberals and NDP under such an agreement. But Byers is so blinded by his disdain for Harper that he thinks the promise that Canadians would never have to consider the possibility of a Conservative government would be enough to ensure its success:

"The only post-election condition in the agreement should be an unqualified public commitment to holding a national referendum on proportional representation within the first year.

The commitment would include the provision of sufficient public funding to ensure in-depth discussion and widespread knowledge of the arguments both for and against the proposed change.

Proportional representation would produce a much fairer allocation of seats than our current first-past-the-post system and boost voter turnout and political engagement by making every vote count.

Many New Democrats might wish to make the immediate introduction of proportional representation a condition of the ceasefire agreement, since a referendum might not produce the desired result."

So Michael Byers, at a time when Harper's poll numbers continue to climb, and that the public outrage that Byers insists should be fulminating over ever single one of Harper's acts fails to coalesce, thinks that the idea of permanently preventing any Conservative from governing the country will be enough to ensure he and his fellow left-wing ideologues success.

It is the height of desperation and naivete. Byers is so distressed by the notion that Canadians may turn away from his ideology that he would demand a permanent ideological lock on the power of the nation.

At least he understands that proprotional representation itself could prove to be a deal-breaker for his glorious coalition:

"However, such an approach would enable the Prime Minister to make proportional representation the principal issue in the campaign, instead of his record and the alternative policies offered by the other parties.

A ceasefire agreement would likely be opposed by some insiders, in both parties, who benefit from the existing system. It would certainly inconvenience some candidates who have already been nominated, and would have to stand down. Most, however, would probably accept that larger, more important interests are in play."

It would also likely be opposed by individuals in the NDP -- the party Byers belongs to, by the way -- who don't think the NDP should simply roll over and hand government -- and especially not a majority government -- to the Liberal party.

Byers even sees a role for the Green Party in the coalition:

"The ceasefire agreement, once struck, could be expanded to include the Green party, which has always sought proportional representation and would benefit substantially from it.

The Greens obtained nearly 1 million votes (6.8 per cent) but no parliamentary representation in the last election. They finished second in five races, though the party's only realistic chance of winning a seat in the next election is in the B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, where Elizabeth May is running and the Liberal finished second to the Conservative last time.

An arrangement could be made to rectify this lack of representation by giving all five second-place Greens a clear run in the next election, with May having that opportunity in her new riding – in return for the Green party withdrawing its candidates from every other race."

And once again, Byers is assuming that right-leaning Liberals won't simply vote for the Conservatives long before they ever vote Green.

The obtuse naivete is absolutely astounding.

"The chances of the Liberals forming government appear to have slipped away. The future of the country is in the balance. Whether we like it or not, the parties of the progressive centre have reached a decision point.

Will we let an outdated electoral system deliver a majority Conservative government on the basis of the preferences of less than 40 per cent of voters – and less than 25 per cent of those Canadians who are eligible to vote?

Or will we seize the moment, pull together, and put the country back on course?"

For Michael Byers, naturally, putting the country "back on course" means steering it on a left-wing ideological course and then smashing the navigating wheel.

Moreover, he's absolutely desperate to do it before more and more Canadians turn away from that course.

It's the ultimate act of desperation, naivete, and political selfishness. Sadly, that's become absolutely characteristic of Byers.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Dr Roy Eappen - "Desperate Times"

Gerry Nicholls - "Democracy is About Ideas, Not Just Tactics"

Kyle Selms - "Liberals and NDP Tag Team - A Reboot of Politics and Government"

Emily Dee - "A Great Idea to Fight Neo-Conservatism and Restore Democracy in Canada"

Stephane Dion Not Ready for the Big Game

Liberal leader promises a "new ball game" in 2008

After a hard-luck year as Liberal leader and leader of the opposition, Stephane Dion announced today that he expects his party's fortunes are about to change.

"2008 will be another ball game," Dion announced. "You cannot keep alive forever a government who wants to die."

More specifically, Dion is looking toward spring 2008 as the date on which he wants to topple the Conservative government and try to fulfil what he thinks is the Liberal party's destiny -- his previously promised return to power.

"I think each week I feel that [the public mood is] warmer about the idea that maybe we should revisit the kind of choice we have made in 2006. And we'll see if it's still the case in February or in March or in April," he said.

Despite some public assertions to the contrary, Dion seems to feel a bit of political good mojo has dropped into his lap with the ongoing (and opposition preciptated) Mulroney-Schreiber circus, and he believes this is going to make all the difference in 2008.

Unfortunately, however, Dion has yet to realize that he -- and his party -- have made their own luck, most of it bad, to this date. His recent remarks regarding the 2006 election stand as proof enough.

"In the last election, Jack Layton asked Canadians to lend him their votes," said Dion. "And what did they get? Stephen Harper. Many Canadians will demand their vote back -- with interest."

Of course, there are a few logical fallacies in this statement. First off, when casting their vote in favour of the NDP, most of these voters knew full well the NDP wasn't going to form the government. They were, in effect, choosing the NDP to hold a balance of power in a minority parliament.

Most of all, however, this statement is merely more proof that Stephane Dion isn't ready to be Prime Minister. Blaming Jack Layton and the NDP for the ascension of the country's sitting government has been a popular refuge for many Liberals, and there's a reason for this: it's much more convenient than blaming themselves.

It was Liberal corruption that eventually forced the 2005/06 election, and Liberal corruption that turned Canadians away from voting Liberal. Only persistent Liberal fear mongering prevented more Canadians from casting their vote in favour of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

With virtually all of the forecast ideological evils that the Liberals predicted failing to materialize themselves in any way, shape or form, fear is one tactic the Liberals won't be able to play to so easily.

Beyond this, Canadians have consistently stated their preference of Harper to Dion as Prime Minister. In the most recent leadership preference survey, SES-Sun Media found that 37% of Canadians think Harper is the best leader of a Canadian political party. Only 13% would prefer to see Stephane Dion as a Prime Minister. Jack Layton (whom, to reiterate, Dion blames for Harper becoming PM) polled at 17%.

Of course, blaming the NDP has become customary for the Liberal party when facing defeat. Jamie Heath, however, wisely notes that these individuals choose to overlook cases in which the Liberals were defeated wherein the NDP was not a factor. Their defeats in 1984 and 1958 are two prime examples.

The idea that the Liberals could lose on their own is hardly unthinkable. Dion would do better as party leader to take his lumps, and learn from them. Both he and his party have demonstrated a lack of ability to do so.

Dion also unwittingly showcased his failures as a potential statesman.

"At the next election, there will be this narrow, selfish Conservative idea of Canada, with Stephen Harper's hidden agenda toward the U.S. Republican ideology," Dion announced.

Perhaps this is another reason why Dion is so eager to have an election in 2008. Should the next federal election come at any point after November of 2008, the Liberals won't be able to envoke the spectre of George Bush to scare up extra votes at the ballot box. But even more so than this, Dion, while sitting in opposition, is lobbing criticisms at a governing party in a foreign country, all in the name of partisan gain.

This, along with his insistence that Karlheinz Schreiber being allowed to remain in Canada so he may continue to spread innuendo is more important than extraditing him to a foreign country wherein he is sought for actual crimes, and along with his party's use of international forums as a platform from which to denounce the Harper government, can be considered a rather serious strike against him in terms of statesmanship.

It's also plainly unwise. What, for example, would transpire should the Republicans somehow win the 2008 presidential election? Dion would certainly find it difficult to have to cooperate with a Republican president after having bandied that party's name about in the name of partisan gain.

And one certainly realizes that Stephane Dion absolutely cannot allow the Harper government to be seen interacting amicably with a Democratic US government.

In another glaring example of Dion's failings, one considers the list of Dion's accomplishments, to date, as Liberal leader, as provided by the Liberal party website.

Among these "accomplishments", are listed:

"-Leading the debate on Canada’s economic agenda and putting forward a plan for moving our economy forward by making our country more competitive and putting more money in the pockets of Canadians.

-Committing to improving social policy by fighting poverty, strengthening our justice system, protecting Canada’s Charter, encouraging women in politics, protecting official languages, supporting Aboriginal Peoples, and promoting the cultural community.

-Pledging to work together with the international community to combat climate change and support the environment by putting forward comprehensive strategies such as the Carbon Budget Plan to regulate industrial greenhouse-gas pollution, the Clean Energy Plan to make Canada the global leader in renewable energy, and protecting Canada’s stronghold on our precious water resources.

-Strengthening Canada’s commitment to a multilateral foreign policy and outlining a clear plan for Canada’s mission in Afghanistan."

Which, of course, to anyone who's actually paid attention over the last year, reads, frankly, like a complete crock.

First off, Dion offered strikingly little "economic leadership" aside from pledging himself to vote against the Conservative party budget months before he knew what it would contain, then criticized the 2007 economic update for cutting taxes (which puts more money in the pockets of Canadians).

Secondly, Dion pledged to fight child poverty -- despite the fact that his party has repeatedly pledged to do so over the past 30 years, and never acted. He denounced changes to criminal justice laws that would put more criminals behind bars. His party helped shelf legislation that would force Aboriginal bands to respect the Charter rights of their members.

Third, Dion pledged to do something that his party consistently failed to do while in government. He previously wailed "this is unfair" when taken to task for that during the Liberal party leadership debates.

Last but not least, he promised to bring Canadian troops home from Afghanistan in 2009 -- an act that would actually redpudiate Canada's commitment to internationalism, not strengthen it.

Even with all of this glaringly obvious to the majority of Canadians, Dion is looking ahead to an election in 2008.

"Will an election come in 2008? Maybe. So be ready at any time," he instructed Liberal party faithful.

"At the next election, there will be this narrow, selfish Conservative idea of Canada, with Stephen Harper's hidden agenda toward the U.S. Republican ideology," he, as previously noted, added, "And there will be our generous, sincere vision of a richer, greener, fairer Canada of the 21st century. There will be a collision between these two conceptions of our country."

For a man who accuses his chief opponent of being an ideologue, Dion spends a good deal of time verbally relishing a clash of ideologies.

Beyond this, however, Dion has consistently shown himself to be a man who prefers to divide Canadians rather than unite them. His tireless search for a critical wedge issue to drive conservative- and liberal-minded Canadians apart may be what has come to define him more than anything.

Dion must think this will prove to be a strenth. But he clearly isn't thinking about what affect this will have on his own objectives.

Dion is overlooking an important detail: he doesn't have enough seats to force an election without support from the Bloc Quebecois. Even then, however, the NDP could, along with the Conservatives, stave off a non-confidence vote. And if, as Dion insists, they won't be a factor in a Spring 2008 election, it certainly won't be in their interest to help engineer one.

Dion can't even rally his fellow opposition leaders properly. At a time when in order to accomplish his goals he needs to unite the opposition leaders in the name of defeating the Conservatives, he's instead making comments that will only divide them.

New ball game or not, Stephane Dion is not ready to play. He wasn't ready in 2006, he wasn't ready in 2007, and 2008 will likely not be any different.

Stephane Dion will certainly only continue to make his own luck -- and one can nearly rest assured it will be bad.