Separatists make strange bedfellows. They take all your money, show you no respect, and when they threaten to leave they almost always mean it. In fact, the only thing worse than going to bed with a separatist is waking up with a separatist on one side of you and a socialist on the other; and that’s exactly what Stephane Dion did this week.
You can’t blame Jack Layton – after all, he always knew that the only way to beat a united Conservative government would be to team up with the Liberals in some way. And, you can’t blame Gilles Duceppe – signing onto this coalition means getting his party back to where it was during the Chrétien years. Further, really; in 1993 the Bloc was the official opposition and now they are about to form part of the government. He will be pulling as many strings as he wants whenever he wants. In fact, don’t be surprised when you wake up one day and read a quote in the paper from Gilles Duceppe, Minister of Canadian Heritage. And even that fiction is not nearly as strange as the reality that we seem to be facing.
Prime Minister Stephane Dion? Somehow, the guy who’s not leader enough to lead his own party is apparently leader enough to the lead the whole country. It seems the more prudent idea would be for the Liberal party to choose a real leader before signing onto an 18-month coalition that would include three completely ideologically opposed visions for the country. Or, rather I should say two because, while we know that the Bloc Quebecois is the party of separatists and the New Democratic Party is the party of socialists, no one has yet been able to effectively communicate what exactly the Liberal Party is the party of.
But they don’t really need an ideology because the ideology of the Liberal Party can simply be entitlement. They deserve to be in control and it doesn’t matter with whom they make a deal to get there. Unfortunately for all of us, the problem with getting into power is that it makes you want to stay in power. So, what happens when the PQ or the NDP factions want more money: will Prime Minister Dion risk losing the reigns of power before a new party leader is named? Hardly. The one good thing for the Liberals about selling out is that they don’t really have a voter base anymore to lose.
Dion justifies his coalition by arguing that the current Prime Minister tried to orchestrate a coalition with the NDP while Paul Martin was in power; that coalition never happened. In any event, at that time, then-opposition leader Stephen Harper wanted to govern the country. Stephane Dion, however, doesn’t plan to stay around long enough to actually govern. He’s already said that he will hand the keys to whatever office he holds on May 2 to the winner of the Liberal leadership race. In other words, Dion simply likes the idea of having “the Right Honourable†in front of his name for life. Honourable, indeed.
If it must be a New-Liberal-Bloc coalition, better that it would have happened before we spent $350 million on an election not two months ago. Odds are now that we’ll all be paying $350 million more in another two months, if the three stooges at the top of the bill can keep their coalition even that long. Ironically, the reason for the coalition, according to those involved, is that they don’t think that the Conservatives are doing a good enough job managing the country’s money.
The pact is foolish even if it does survive beyond winter because it depends upon the new Liberal leader holding Dion’s signature on the pact as though it were his own. No doubt, at the first chance he gets, Rae, Ignatieff, or LeBlanc will call an election with the intention to carve his own place in history, and we will be right back to where we started: with a minority Conservative government.
Not sure about LeBlanc (is he an MP or not?), but since the coalition are claiming all the members of the cosigning parties signed the pact, presumably Msrs. Rae’s and Ignatieff’s signatures ARE on the document.
This blog is a lot more interesting without all the partisan nonsense…
Well Josh, Dany is not really non-partisan.
Not only is he a heavily involved Conservative, he’s a very blue Conservative (along the right fringe).
But he does speak for a significant portion of the 25% of Canadians that voted for the Conservatives in the last election, I’ll give him that.
One alternative he overlooks is that we actually get a better voter turnout in the next election, thereby guaranteeing a Conservative loss. Tory victory is not a certainty.
“Not only is he a heavily involved Conservative, he’s a very blue Conservative (along the right fringe).â€
You realize your feed is listed on Progressive Bloggers? I don’t come to this site to read material that could be picked right off the CPC website.
Jenn:
See our disclaimer in the top right: “Law Is Cool is an open forum for ideas, intended to stimulate discussion.”
Probably more writers on this website than not lean to the left. But together we encompass a wide range of beliefs and political persuasions.
Quite simply, we’re a cross-section of Canadian law students. :)
Plus, despite his beliefs, I happen to like Dany. He throws a great party.
Jenn,
Really, I sympathize with your sentiment. I’ve told Dany there’s probably nobody else alive that is the complete opposite than me on every single political stance.
I never expected him to write on political issues. At the same time we really have tried to broaden our base of writers.
And like Lawrence I happen to get along quite tolerably with Dany, having spent our first year in law school in the same small group, as long as we don’t talk politics. I’m surprised he started, and no, I won’t respond.
I suspect most of his future content will still be business and financially related. We do want more of that type of content, and people like him do a good job of creating it. In the meantime, the centrist/lefties will continue to create the social/rights content that you’ve enjoyed thus far.
I agree with Lawrence: it’s a good thing that our site has many different voices and that Dany throws good parties.
Also, LeBlanc is an MP and will be in cabinet.
I have problems with this on so many levels.
First, the $350M+ spent on the last election was Harper’s fault alone. He couldn’t bully the opposition into doing what he wanted (let’s see, cooperation, compromise and diplomacy is essential for a minority parliament). Finally, he couldn’t even goad them into calling the lection, so he made up some song and dance about “disfunctional” and called it himself.
Then, he assumed he was safe after the election even though he hadn’t a majority. So he poked the opposition in the eye, kicked them in the goolies, and for good measure tried to steal their lunch money. “Vote against rights for women and unions, oh, and I’m taking away your funds. Ha, ha, nothing you can do.” Big mistake.
He blew the last election by railing against support for the arts when the rench-Canadians think that the (supported) arts are what define their identity – thus writing off a quarter of the country.
Now – he’s going to answer the opposition claim “you’ve done nothing to address the economic problems” by waiting another 2 months to address the economic problems. Then he’ll probably claim “its been too long since the last election for a coalition to take over”.
Sort of like these shyster lawyers who ask for remand after remand and then complain it’s taken too long to get to trial, their client should go free because their right to speedy trial was denied.
the short answer is “this is the way parliament works. You should have thought before you acted.”
MD2K: This is completely off topic but your comment about “shyster lawyers” is based on ignorance. Put simply, defence counsel delays and adjournments are not factored in when considering an application under section 11(b) of the Charter (right to a speedy trial). See R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771.
One can refer to all of the law books one wishes, however, anyone who’s had to deal with lawyers on a regular basis can tell you that the word “Shyster” is probably a compliment compared to what most people think of the majority of lawyers.
Standing on your soapbox as defenders of truth and justice, would sound a lot more convincing if you weren’t going to charge people between $300 to $1000 an hour for your services.
Most lawyers I know don’t care about the truth of what they present in court. It’s all about the biggest paycheque possible at the end of the day.
Sad but true……though I’m sure you’ll deny it. Give it a few years….it will happen to you eventually. Count on it. It always does.
Law is Cool: We don’t need to deny it, we see the problems endemic to the legal profession already.
It’s why some of us participate in sites like this, to help illustrate the lighter side of law, the one that cares and gives back to its community.
Hopefully it will be an inspiration not only to others, but a reminder to ourselves.
Dany: Catchy title.Good insight. The positive thing I see coming out of this exercise is that voters will pick a side next time, squeezing the NDP out and giving us a stable majority. As a UWO Politics student I guess I missed the class on peroguing. Thanks for the article. Don Innes
Dany: I also missed my spelling lessons; “proroguing”. Happy Holidays and all the best in 2009. Don