kimmy

That's not exactly what I was hoping to get across... First, on Quebec "pandering"... us two had a discussion on this a while back. What I tried to express on that issue is the idea that what Quebec wants, and what Alberta wants, are not actually different or incompatible at all. It's just 2 things: respect, and the feeling of being "maitres chez nous" as the long-standing Quebec slogan puts it. The aspirations of both provinces are more compatible with Harper's decentralized view of confederation than with the traditional Liberal view of strong central government with big national everything. I think autonomy and respect for provincial jurisdiction are ideas that people basically get. When Gilles Duceppe says "we don't want a national daycare plan, we have our own daycare plan that we're very proud of," this is what he's expressing. It's the reason why the phrase "opt out" started entering the Liberal lexicon after Chretien went the way of the dodo. The other issue, "respect", is harder to pin down. Like wtf does that even mean? I am sure that if you ask any MP in Ottawa whether they respect any particular province, of course they will answer yes. So what is this? Just some touchy feely whiny crap? I will try to elaborate. I think in the sphere of human relationships, one of the most destructive forces is the feeling that one is less important than another. Whether it's the belief that your parents love your sibling more than they love you, or that your boyfriend still loves his ex more than he loves you, or that your co-worker is critical and you are expendable, or that your skin color or gender have deprived you of an opportunity that was available to someone else... probably much of the conflict in the world can be traced to someone's belief that they have been unfairly given lower status than others. The Mulroney gang awarded the F18 maintenance contract to a Montreal firm even though a Winnipeg firm entered a superior bid. What message did that send? "Sorry, Quebec's interests come first." Sorry, Manitoba, but you're less important. When the Chretien gang said that auto manufacturers would have carte-blanche exemption from Kyoto targets, what message did that send? That's just a couple of examples, I think the point is straightforward. When politicians make it clear that some provinces have higher status in their eyes than others, it can't help but create resentment in the rest. That resentment, building up for years over a variety of issues, is what ultimately finished both the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives in Western Canada. How can the Liberals change that perception? beats me. A leader who understands the extent to which the western provinces depend on resources and transportation would be a great start. I don't think Dion's Green Shit platform helped, when it provided no credible explanation of how the economic damage from his anti-energy policies would be remedied in the west. I don't think the new coalition, which will have almost no representatives between Kenora and Vancouver, is going to help either. -k

You know, Dobbins, you do amaze me sometimes. This is the first solution to this situation I've heard that I actually find appealing. There is a considerable chunk of the Liberal Party, the Ignatieff portion of it in all likelyhood, that probably feels a lot closer to the CPC than it does to the fruitopian coalition. I do wonder if the Liberal leadership contenders could back out of the coalition, taking enough supporters with them to scuttle the plan. They could have Dion, Layton, and Duceppe wear the blame for the coalition scheme, arriving at an agreement with the Conservatives that would undoubtedly be more acceptable to most Canadians, and look like heroes in the process. If only. -k

Ontario just did, 2 months ago. Can you define "charismatic"? To Albertans, a "charismatic" Quebec leader might be one that's not openly hostile. The bar is not set particularly high... Trudeau was allegedly charismatic (though, I am not old enough to know first-hand.) However I don't think that needs any discussion. Some might consider Chretien charismatic, but he was also outright hostile to Alberta. I don't think there needs to be any discussion of why Albertans just didn't go for Chretien either. Paul Martin was not particularly charismatic, but could have certainly been accepted by Albertans. He said all the right things... before Sponsorship broke big, there was optimism that he would be the guy who could change everything for Liberals in the west. (remember talk of "Paulberta"?) Paul Martin said when he became PM that "No matter what else I do as prime minister, if (western) alienation is the same as it is at the end of my term as it is now, I will not believe I have succeeded." But ultimately, Alberta was furious with what Sponsorship represented, and Paul was an ineffective Prime Minister, and when push came to shove, Paul Martin was standing on that platform applauding while Buzz Hargrove denounced Harper for being from "out there". I don't think anybody except Mrs Dion considers Stephane Dion to be charismatic. I also don't think anybody anticipated that enough Centers For Wind-Powered Scooter Innovation would be springing up in Alberta to offset the economic damage that would have resulted from Dion's anti-energy policies. I don't think you can chalk up Alberta's dislike for the Dion experience to "bias" so much as "self preservation instinct." I also don't think the word "bias" really fits when nobody else voted for the guy either. I think my dad is kind of an everyman type, so maybe I read more into his views than I ought to. But for my dad, it was not Trudeau or Chretien that finished it, but Mulroney. There was a decades old feeling that the province had never been respected or represented in Ottawa, of which Trudeau was really just the most recent and flagrant representation. Trudeau might have screwed us, but he was never "our guy" to start with. People like my dad thought Mulroney was "our guy", and as I hear it there were parties when he was elected. And he delivered, at least for a while. But with the F18 maintenance contract, and then with the Meech Lake Accord, he showed what his real priority was, and that feeling of betrayal was what resulted in the devastation of 1993. So many people now firmly convinced that the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives would both sell us out if it was politically expedient with respect to winning votes in Central Canada. So many people were completely finished the old line parties and Preston Manning suddenly seemed like a hero. A lot of what Preston Manning said about representation and grassroots democracy and fiscal responsibility resonated with Albertans, but ultimately I believe that the biggest appeal was that this was not a Central Canada operation just cruising through to drop off some brochures and pick up some backbenchers. Preston Manning was not some crook from "out there" to scam us with some easily-broken promises, he was our guy, coming from "out here" to go tell the rest of the country what we want for once. Preston Manning and his original platform have gone by the wayside over the years, but the essential feeling that this was *our* voice, one we could always trust, remains. I am not sure if people from "out there" understand this aspect of it. I think maybe people "out there" think that Albertans have supported Reform/Alliance/CPC because they love guns, hate frogs, love Jeeezus, hate fags, love pickup trucks, hate swarthy people, etc. No. That stuff might resonate with some portion of rural voters, but the landslide victories in Edmonton and Calgary every election don't come from that stuff, it comes from the fundamental feeling that this *is* our party, that we've finally found a representative in Ottawa that isn't going to sell us out if it's handy to win votes in Quebec. What would it take for Albertans to choose the Liberals over the Conservatives? I think two things. First off, a Liberal leader and platform that Albertans considered credible and not hostile. Secondly, it would require Albertans to decide that the CPC is no different from the old PCs or the Liberals. -k

huh? She's publicly lobbying for a patronage appointment before Dion's even in the big chair. What's so integritudinous about that? And again, what does she bring to the table that actually helps the coalition anyway? She wants Dion to appoint her to the senate? Why would he? What's in it for him, other than some egg on the face? The public hates patronage appointments, regardless of who is doing the appointing. The coalition would be wise to stay well away from any senate appointments if they can at all help it. In May's case, I don't think she brings anything that the coalition can't live without. -k

Edmonton Strathcona? The NDP has come close to ousting Rahim Jaffer a number of times, prevented only by vote-splitting with the Liberals. Finally, the perfect situation presented itself: a Liberal leader that nobody wanted to vote for. With vote-splitting substantially curtailed thanks to Dion's stellar campaign, the NDP finally sealed the deal. Edmonton Strathcona is the home of one of the country's largest universities. It's also the home of Edmonton's party district, and much of Edmonton's arts community as well. Winston Churchill's famous comment on youth and socialism explains a lot about why Edmonton Strathcona elected an NDP MP. Don't be deceived into thinking that it's an especially educated area because the university is there. The students tend to leave Edmonton Strathcona once they get their degrees because by and large there's not a lot of jobs there for grownups outside the medical and academic fields, and because housing is damnedly expensive in the riding. -k

You guys will have to document that for me, then. My recollection is that the Conservatives could hardly wait to get to the polls, being of the belief that fury over Adscam would lead to defeat for the Liberals. -k

I'm not sure how promising senate seats for a few BQ members will help Harper get out of this jam. Not unless they're crossing the aisle to get senate seats. Even then, he needs 10, yes? That's an awful lot of new senators. -k

I believe what he's saying is basically "if this is legal, then the law sucks". I think everybody at this point recognizes that this is legal, but many people still feel it's a coup in spirit, if not by the letter of the law. -k

This thread has been hilarious from start to finish. -k {and I really really hope that we're near the finish...}

... ... ... I think all of this is right on the mark. Dion and Layton have given Duceppe more than his supporters could have dreamed of. If you're an candidate for any of the federalist parties in Quebec, how do you argue the case against the BQ after *this*? -k

As much as it would please me on so many levels, I won't actually believe it until she's ensconced in her new non-leather cushy-chair. -k

He didn't say he didn't believe it was legal. He said he doesn't believe in a system where this is legal. And I have to tell you I'm pretty much there myself. -k

Elizabeth May likes what Dion's cooking? There's a shocker! And for the price of a measly senate seat, she'd be willing to throw the support of her 0 MPs behind the new coalition? Good value. I hope Dion jumps on this hot offer before she changes her mind. -k

Big Fat Ralph might have been a good choice. Everybody knows he's not going to lead the party, so that's not an issue. As a former finance minister, his presence in the big chair might give some credibility to the claim that "it's about saving the economy!!!" rather than a power-grab by a guy who never accepted the election results. It would also detract from the perception that Dion's fanciful agenda of carbon taxes and wind-powered scooters is going to be forced on Canadians. And it might help appease westerners who are loading their shotguns and buying large quantities of canned food as we speak. -k

Harper negotiated with the BQ in 2004 to try to force an election when the government of the day had clearly lost the trust and respect of most Canadians. He never negotiated with the BQ to form a government. Of all the arguments being put forth by the coalition boosters, this is the one that's most nonsensical. Trying to equate Harper's negotiations with the BQ in 2004 to the agreement Dion and Layton have reached with the BQ this week is simply ridiculous. -k

No problem with Harper being moved out of 24 Sussex. But if Dion moves so much as a toothbrush into the Prime Ministers' residence, there'll be hell to pay. -k

I agree with most of your post, but I believe the Liberal Party is free to appoint whoever they wish as their interim leader. After the 2006 election, PMPM stepped down and had an interim successor in place within a day or two, did he not? -k

So... even though the opposition has shown that they can force the government to compromise as a minority government ought to, it's still not going to work, because Stephen Harper is not a nice guy? Aside from instantaneously putting western alienation back on the front burner, this action also makes the BQ a permanent feature of Canadian politics. This will be the most regionally divided government in Canadian history, and after the Chretien years that's saying a lot. Of course, regional division worked out extremely well for the Liberals when they had the largest region in their pocket; that was the Chretien blueprint. But that's not a luxury the Liberals have anymore, and I can't think that returning to that model will work out as well for future Liberal leaders as it did for Da Little Guy. For the same reason that Jean Chretien called the 2000 election? Interesting thought. Hypothetically, do you think that if this were done, the coalition would agree to back down? Personally, I doubt it. Perhaps Harper pushed them to it, but I don't think it's actually about Harper. -k

He backed off on every item the opposition parties found contentious, didn't he? Isn't that how a minority parliament is supposed to work? Two questions for you, Dobbins: Do you agree that this coalition will have extremely negative implications for national unity? And, if so, do you preventing Harper from winning the next election is worth that price? -k

This sums up my feelings about the "we're saving the economy" talk. This action will not do anything to save the economy, but it will have devastating long-term effect on national unity. -k

Although we obviously have different feelings about the whole coalition concept, what you've written here expresses my feelings quite well. Canadians made their feelings for Mr Dion very plain just a couple of months ago. That he will now be Prime Minister in spite of an unmistakably clear message from Canadians sits extremely poorly with me. As you point out, his post-election comments suggest denial. I honestly don't think he has actually accepted the election results. I hope, at the very least, that he has enough sense to be humble, to avoid talking as if this was some kind of vindication of him, to avoid referring to himself as the Prime Minister. Like, if he starts talking about wanting to move into 24 Sussex for the next 6 months, I hope one of his advisers has the sense to unplug his microphone. As for why the NDP and BQ and the remainder of the LPC allowed him to be the leader, my guess is that they feel about the same about Dion: they know he's a loser. They know he's damaged goods, they know he's got absolutely no authority, no chance of hanging onto this job past the leadership convention. Basically, everybody knows that he's finished in 6 months regardless. 6 months as a lame duck, then back to snorkeling with Rick Mercer. Basically, I doubt they would have let somebody *good* have the job, out of fear that he might be able to hang onto it. I think that's all it comes down to. I also suspect the NDP and BQ believe that Dion being interim PM will do harm to the LPC. I think they probably believe that Canadians who resent this move will resent the Liberals for it. (Ignatieff said as much, yes?) Why? They have committed to making this charade last for at least 18 months before an election, correct? So the plan is to have a PM that Canadians never chose, for at least a year past the leadership convention. Does 6 extra months make it any worse? -k

What're they going to do? Buy the wood themselves? During the election Jack came through here telling everybody how he was going to fix forestry by undoing the "softwood sell-out" or whatever the hell he calls it. And each town he went to, the mayors told him the same thing: it's not the softwood agreement that's killing the industry, it's lack of demand. -k

I think that national unity and regionalism will be back with a vengeance. Aside from the role of the BQ in Canada's new government, this is also pretty much a Toronto-Montreal government. The NDP has a few rural ridings scattered across the country. The Liberals have some ridings in the Maritimes. Both parties have a handful of seats in Vancouver. But overall this new coalition will be regionalized even more than Chretien's all-Ontario governments were. -k

Just leaf through your Kimmy catalogue, decide which Kimmy merchandise you'd like to spend your points on, and let me know. -k

"A poisoned chalice" indeed. Sorry, Dobbins... my condolences. In my opinion, this is a sheer act of hubris from a guy whose ego just could not bear gong down in history as Canada's equivalent of Walter Mondale. He never accepted the election result, as evidenced by his commentary after the election. Obviously he still doesn't accept the election result. -k