(no subject)
Jan. 24th, 2006 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
felis_ultharusWell, my Canadian friends have the story by now -- we have a Conservative minority government. Final numbers are Conservative 124, Liberal 103, Bloc 51, NDP 29, Independant 1.
Of course, if we had proportional representation, that would Conservative 111, Liberal 93, Bloc 32, NDP 54, Greens 14 and we could have had a Liberal/NDP/Green majority coalition.
The Good News
First, the NDP did marvellously. My party picked up 11 new seats, more than a 50% increase, meaning we did better, relatively speaking, than anyone else.
Bloc support is eroding. As scary as it is to see deep francophone territory going Conservative, it does mean that separatism is no longer the only issue in Quebec. The Bloc went from 49% to 42% of the popular vote in Quebec. There are so many critical things that have been left on the backburner because of separatism, this is good news.
Must be the Boisclair effect -- people see the coke-snorting right-wing asshole, imagine him leading a free Quebec, and federalism starts to look more interesting.
Now the really good news: a minority government was the best we could've hoped for. In fact, it may even be better for us than than a Harper loss.
Harper is now paralyzed. He can't "get things done" because he any direction will be disatrous. He can't pass most laws because the Bloc and NDP are farther to the left, and the Liberals despise him. He needs Bloc and NDP support, and that means leaping one major jump to the left.
Harper's enough of a pragmatist he could do it -- but then he'd alienate his base of social conservatives. And how will he handle the Quebec question, now that he has francophones in his party? That's what broke Mulroney's West/Quebec coalition in the 1990s.
Anything he does at this point will either reveal him as a social conservative, or alienate the party base. He's stuck. Meanwhile, his socially conservative candidates have a hard time keeping their mouths shut. Within a few months, they'll start spouting their verbal diarrhea to the press.
Harper is mostly contained. And, contained, he can now safely detonate.
Or almost safely contained, except for one critical issue:
The Bad News
Harper may not be able to get the Liberals to co-operate on budgets and other whipped votes, but there's one thing the Liberals always allow free votes on: queer equality.
Even though the Conservatives do not have a minority government, the unfortunate Liberal and Bloc tendency not to consider our equality an important issue means that we could still lose the same-sex marriage vote. In fact, Matt's been running the numbers, and a majority of members of the House of Commons -- even in a best-case scenario -- would vote against same-sex marriage.
That's right -- homophobic Liberals and Blocquistes, added to homophobic Conservatives, form a majority voting block, now. Best Case Scenario is that 157 will vote against, while 150 will vote in favour.
Harper can't kill same-sex marriage without using the Notwithstanding Clause. But if he turns it into an issue of "activist judges," this fundamentalist sociopath may be able to claim the moral high ground.
Of course, if we had proportional representation, that would Conservative 111, Liberal 93, Bloc 32, NDP 54, Greens 14 and we could have had a Liberal/NDP/Green majority coalition.
The Good News
First, the NDP did marvellously. My party picked up 11 new seats, more than a 50% increase, meaning we did better, relatively speaking, than anyone else.
Bloc support is eroding. As scary as it is to see deep francophone territory going Conservative, it does mean that separatism is no longer the only issue in Quebec. The Bloc went from 49% to 42% of the popular vote in Quebec. There are so many critical things that have been left on the backburner because of separatism, this is good news.
Must be the Boisclair effect -- people see the coke-snorting right-wing asshole, imagine him leading a free Quebec, and federalism starts to look more interesting.
Now the really good news: a minority government was the best we could've hoped for. In fact, it may even be better for us than than a Harper loss.
Harper is now paralyzed. He can't "get things done" because he any direction will be disatrous. He can't pass most laws because the Bloc and NDP are farther to the left, and the Liberals despise him. He needs Bloc and NDP support, and that means leaping one major jump to the left.
Harper's enough of a pragmatist he could do it -- but then he'd alienate his base of social conservatives. And how will he handle the Quebec question, now that he has francophones in his party? That's what broke Mulroney's West/Quebec coalition in the 1990s.
Anything he does at this point will either reveal him as a social conservative, or alienate the party base. He's stuck. Meanwhile, his socially conservative candidates have a hard time keeping their mouths shut. Within a few months, they'll start spouting their verbal diarrhea to the press.
Harper is mostly contained. And, contained, he can now safely detonate.
Or almost safely contained, except for one critical issue:
The Bad News
Harper may not be able to get the Liberals to co-operate on budgets and other whipped votes, but there's one thing the Liberals always allow free votes on: queer equality.
Even though the Conservatives do not have a minority government, the unfortunate Liberal and Bloc tendency not to consider our equality an important issue means that we could still lose the same-sex marriage vote. In fact, Matt's been running the numbers, and a majority of members of the House of Commons -- even in a best-case scenario -- would vote against same-sex marriage.
That's right -- homophobic Liberals and Blocquistes, added to homophobic Conservatives, form a majority voting block, now. Best Case Scenario is that 157 will vote against, while 150 will vote in favour.
Harper can't kill same-sex marriage without using the Notwithstanding Clause. But if he turns it into an issue of "activist judges," this fundamentalist sociopath may be able to claim the moral high ground.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-24 12:13 pm (UTC)1) Free vote is brought to the floor: BIRT bill C-38 be repealed. Does not use Notwithstanding Clause.
2) Bill may or may not pass. Current house standings are, best-case scenario, 150 pro-SSM, 158 anti-SSM; some anti-SSM people may choose to vote against a repeal bill because they think the issue oughtn't to be re-opened or because they agree that it would have to use the Notwithstanding Clause. There's also the question of the Senate. But, let's assume:
3) Bill passes. Turmoil erupts.
4) Provinces -- or at the very least BC, Ontario, Quebec, and some other lefty ones -- promptly ignore bill on the grounds that their SSM ruling overrides present legislation. Queers continue to marry.
5) Egale and some other people pull a charter challenge on the repeal bill, under s.15+Egan. Then it's up to the Supreme Court who in all probability will rule in favour of SSM, upholding the 9 lower court rulings.
6) Harper either a) drops the issue, arguing he did all he could, or b) attempts to use the NWC, at which point everyone freaks out and steps on his head, including fairly goodsized chunks of his own caucus (they aren't all rabid religious fanatics, just most of them) and most of the anti-SSM Liberals.
Summary: Harper tries it, uproar ensues, many people yell at each other, SSM ultimately comes through undamaged mainly due to apathy.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-24 12:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-24 05:06 pm (UTC)Such a leader, in this context, may want to increase rather than decrease colourblindness. Many of these people take their cues from market analysts, and ideas of "economy of scale" being popular right now, the Liberals may feel that they're best off offering the same product with slicker packaging :/
The real question is, "Will the next Liberal leader be a Laurier/Pearson/Trudeau? Or a King/Chrétien/Martin?"
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-25 11:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-24 05:02 pm (UTC)1)Bring the bill to the ouse of Commons
2)Having counted, as we did, and found the number of homophobes is higher than the sane MPs, he'll huff and puff about it being a free vote, and grab the moral high ground -- his usual tactic -- declaring that anyone who whips the vote is undemocratic.
3)Appealing to bigotry (not a rational force and one that cannot be analysed in the usual terms of political self-interest) he'll convince people to "vote with their conscience."
4)If he can get it passed, the courts will say "No way."
5)Then Harper starts talking about "activist judges". He'll wrap himself in the flag and declare it a battle for democracy. In other words, grabbing the moral high ground again. In this way, he'll try to make use of the "nothwithstanding clause" politically correct.
Harper's got a talent for this kind of obfuscation. It's the reason we're calling him Prime Minister, after all.