Hypocrisy and Blame: The End of the United Right?

Western Separatists’ Anti-Quebec Stance Threatens to Split the Conservative Party

The Conservative Party is attempting to retain power by claiming the progressive coalition has no mandate. Forcing an election costing 300 million dollars, after trying to cancel $30 million in public financing for political parties, under the guise of saving money, shows that it is Stephen Harper that is engaged in a power grab that looks more like a power gasp.

Harper’s hubris, and his US strategists, who do not understand Canada’s parliamentary system, led to the strategy of bullying that has brought Harper from talk of a majority government in September, to the isolated Official Opposition in December.

The Conservative strategy is now to frame the debate as a “coup d’etat” by a Quebec conspiracy, instead of the will of the majority of Canadian voters. The separatist stance of the Bloc, does not give the minority government of Stephen Harper a mandate to govern. Stephen Harper’s failure to gain the confidence of the majority in Parliament does not bode well for his reign.

Alberta Reform Party bloggers are calling for “the west”–meaning Alberta–to separate. How does Harper claim that the progressive coalition is un-Canadian because it needs the votes of “separatists”, when his own power base is calling for the break-up of the country, because they can not dictate their will on the majority of the Canadian people?

How about this breaking news for hypocrisy? It turns out Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day attempted his own “coup d’etat” with the separatist Bloc in 2000.

Stephen Harper, with his hubris and hypocrisy, has been credited with “uniting the right and the left”. This is ironic given that the attack on Quebec voters will end all hope of a Conservative majority–the purpose for the existence of the united right.

With the hope of a majority gone, what reason will social conservatives, libertarians, and “red tories” have to stick together? (What reason did they ever have?) How will Ontario and Quebec Tories–real Tories–react to the strategy of claiming that the representatives of Quebecers have no right to help govern the country? How will PC’s justify their unity with so many that what to break-up the country? By dumping Stephen Harper, and entering into a divisive leadership contest.

UPDATE: CTV has this piece saying “Harper’s rhetoric on Bloc risks alienating Quebec” but a day later than my post ; )

Advertisements

16 responses to “Hypocrisy and Blame: The End of the United Right?

  1. The past separatist stance of the Bloc?!? That is an incredibly cavalier statement to make as a Canadian when Jacques Parizeau happily states “Quebec sovereignty is once again the order of the day!”. If you are going so far to downplay the motivation of the BQ, is it also not hypocritical to whine about Western separatist sentiment. Catch-22 hey buddha?

    The issue also becomes “How can this coalition act as a representative of national interests with so little support in Western Canada.” A large amount of support in Montreal, Toronto, and Nfld does not equate to a mandate to bully the rest of the nation.

    May has really created a hostile Green Party hasn’t she?

  2. thequantumbuddha

    I think BC will be supportive of the coalition.

  3. Now BC voted for 22 Conservative MPs and only 5 Liberals, 9 New Democrats. Are you saying that Vancouverites will be supportive of the coalition or that BC as a whole will be supportive of the coalition. From family in the interior, I realize that even the provincial government has a hard time representing both Vancouver and the interior.

    I would like to think that BCers do not necessarily align with Quebec separatists. The end result of supporting coalitions is that parties become fragmented to reflect regional interests…I suppose much as the Liberals are the urbanite party.

  4. thequantumbuddha

    In 2000, Conservative had no problem aligning with separatists… lol
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wquebec1203/BNStory/National/home

    In BC, the Conservatives only received 44.4% of votes cast. Can you please look at all the data and not just the data that you think will give you power?

  5. Look, I’ve never visited your blog before, and just happened to stumble upon it. Forgive me, but I’m getting a little tired of seeing and hearing the argument that more people voted AGAINST the Conservatives than FOR them.
    That silly argument is being repeated here:
    “In BC, the Conservatives only received 44.4% of votes cast. Can you please look at all the data and not just the data that you think will give you power?”

    Well, can you look at a few facts?

    Some federal elections
    1963: Liberal minority with 41.52%

    1965: Liberal minority with 40.18%

    *1972: Liberal minority with 38.42%* – 61.58% did not vote Liberal

    1974: Liberal majority with 43.15%

    1980: Liberal majority with 43.15%

    1993: Liberal majority with 41.24%

    *1997: Liberal majority with 38.46%* – 61.54% did not vote Liberal

    2000: Liberal majority with 40.85%

    *2004: Liberal minority with 36.73%* – 63.27% did not vote Liberal

    2006: Conservative minority with 36.27%

    2008: Conservative minority with 37.65%

    I would call your attention in particular to the years with asterisks.
    No one used the specious argument that the party in power had not garnered a MAJORITY because a higher percentage had not voted FOR the Liberal party, did they?

    Maybe your idea of majority is like the one prevailing in Cuba, but here in Canada forming government means whoever garners the most seats.
    Your friends DID NOT, according to the will of the Canadian people in the last election.

    If they are convinced the people are behind them, let them ask THE PEOPLE in a new election.

    Furthermore, should that silly argument then be used to invalidate every election ever held in this country in which the ruling party did not obtain more than 50%?

    Here are a few more facts:

    Ontario election results 2007:

    Liberal 42.23%

    Conservative 31.64%

    NDP 16,76%

    Green 8.03%


    56.43% did NOT vote for the Ontario Liberals. Is there a coalition in the works? Should there be?

    Ontario election results 2003:

    Liberal 46.4%


    Conservative 34.6%

    NDP 14.7%

    Green 2.8%

52.1% did NOT vote for the Ontario Liberals.
    Was there a coalition in the works?
    Should there have been?

    Do you see how ridiculous it can get?

  6. I shouldn’t be sarcastic and I really don’t like arguing with Greens, even though many of you elected May, but this separatist coalition is insane and Greens shouldn’t associate themselves with it.

    Are you really saying that because those **ultra-bright** political minds of Joe Clark and Stockwell Day thought of aligning with the Bloc, it’s OK now?!? You got me, Dion and Layton rank right up there with the great minds of the conservative movement.

  7. thequantumbuddha

    Why are you two posting your opposition to the progressive coalition on this item about the end of the united right?

    Brian said BC (voters) would not support the coalition, so I quoted the figure of how many voted for Conservatives, while Brian quoted how many seats were won as if it was a proportional representation.

    “here in Canada forming government means whoever garners the most seats.
    Your friends DID NOT, according to the will of the Canadian people in the last election.
” WAKE UP! Neither did the Conservatives!!! So they need the support of another party. Except the other MP’s were elected on a different set of principles that they must hold to.

  8. “WAKE UP! Neither did the Conservatives!!! So they need the support of another party.”

    You completely miss the point.
    What I argued against was the asinine comment oft repeated by opponents of the Conservative government, and even repeated by Jack Layton in his address to Canadians yesterday evening, that after all, over 62% of the population did not vote for Mr. Harper.

    Stop and consider this, if you did not bother to take a look at the %s I provided.
    In 1997, Jean Chretien’s Liberals got a majority with only 38.46% of the vote.
    Last October, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives got a minority with 37.65% of the vote.
    That’s a slim difference of only 0.81% between those two results. The legitimacy of the first result was never questioned on the basis that 61.54% did not vote Liberal, yet the legitimacy of the second result is being challenged by anti-Conservatives on the basis 62.35% did not vote Conservative.

    NOW do you get the point? If one is going to question the validity of a result based on the percentage obtained, then one has to be consistent – and critics of the Conservatives have not been.
    A majority in our system means “The political party, group, or faction having the most power by virtue of its *larger representation* or electoral strength.”

    True enough, the Conservatives are in a minority position, and need the support of 12 more MPs to vote with them to be able to pass legislation.

    But the fact 62.35% did not vote Conservative does NOT make them any less legitimate a government than any other previous minority (like Trudeau’s in 1972 for example), or majority (like Chretien’s in 1997), for that matter.

    Finally “Except the other MP’s were elected on a different set of principles that they must hold to.”
    That’s where “compromise” and “negotiation” come in, leading to amendments in legislation.

    Of course, that means that both sides have to give a little. It does NOT mean that the opposition gets to dictate whatever it wants, or to usurp the power of the government by suddenly forming a coalition they had denied planning only a few short weeks ago.

    I hope that clears it up.

  9. thequantumbuddha

    So are you supporting proportional representation? Then Conservatives would have less seats…

    Conservatives are a minority of votes and seats–period. They do not have a majority of either because Canadians do not like Conservative policy or methods.

    Whoever gets 50% + 1 vote will dictate to the others members. Hopefully whoever gets this will act in the interests of all Canadians. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc, (representing an majority of seats AND voters) has that right.

    It is the Conservatives that refuse to compromise. The Liberals and NDP are compromising just fine.

    Please stop trying to say that Harper somehow has the right to govern as a majority, without actually saying it.

  10. “So are you supporting proportional representation? Then Conservatives would have less seats…”

    Clearly, you have completely misunderstood the points I’ve made and ignored the facts I’ve presented.

    “Conservatives are a minority of votes and seats–period.”
    Your hatred for the Conservatives is clouding your reasoning. Any further discussion is pointless.

  11. thequantumbuddha

    This was never a discussion. You have been bashing me with your majority power with minority seats twisted logic.

  12. bluegreenblogger

    Sheesh,
    They showed up, pissed on the rug, and left in a huff because you wouldn’t turn your’ blog over to them.
    I doubt that the CPC will implode, because they’ve spent too long in the wilderness. They will hold their noses and hang together still. I doubt that it will help them though. Harper has somehow pulled one from his hat, and survived for now. He will not survive another election though, because he isn’t likely to pull off a majority, and that’s what his Party wants.

  13. “Gabby in QC” your arguments are nonsensical.

    In the 2008 federal election, 51% of Canadians who voted did so either for Stephane Dion or for parties that said in advance of the election that they would work with him (NDP) or that he was their “second choice” for PM and didn’t run against him in his seat (Green). The coalition is legitimate on this number alone. The fact that the Bloc rather than the Greens is required to prop up the coalition on budget votes is simply a relic of the first-past-the-post voting system that created and nurtured the Bloc in the first place.

    All other arguments are superfluous: on seat count, the coalition is legitimate as it had the signature of every single one of the 163 MPs. On popular votes, it has an absolute majority with the Greens stating they are in favour of it. If you look only at federalist votes it has 5/9 in favour (51% to 39% if you give Harper both of the two independents which he would certainly not get).

    These are raw irrefutable facts. There is nothing more to say. Everything else is just propaganda.

    The fact that propaganda works in our society is the fault of the media and a lack of courage in the regulation of our political system. In the US the media regularly refuse campaign advertising for outright lying or distortions but in Canada they apparently never do. So whose fault is it that we see ignorant liquored-up rednecks calling radio talk shows with “talking points” from conservative.ca and they temporarily convince a majority of poll respondents to answer slanted questions in Harper’s favour? It’s everyone’s fault because the real actual votes and positions stated in advance by the parties are just ignored.

    Also it’s possible for a centrist party to rule the country with under 40% support because it *is* a centrist party. When Jean Chretien got three successive majorities he had two parties to his right (PC, Reform/Alliance) and two to his left (NDP, Bloc) and so could easily take policy from any direction. That is certainly not possible with Harper’s radical Cabinet disguised as moderates.

    Stockwell Day in trade? Peter Van Loan in public safety? Really? This is a setup to trade away Canadian privacy and border control for the right to export dirty oil without limit to the US. Is that really in Canadians’ interests?

  14. All this points to a need for proportional representation (PR). Under PR, even the Libs would have seats in Alberta.

    But lets not forget an essential truth: MPs are responsible for all of their constituents, not just those who voted for them. They also have to take into account the national interest, which is bigger than any partisan consideration.

    Unfortunately, the Cons are arguing, over and over again, against these truths, and are clearly favouring Party over country.

  15. Pingback: Federal Electoral Boundries to be Changed « The Quantum Buddha’s Blog

  16. Pingback: Federal Electoral Boundaries to be Changed « The Quantum Buddha’s Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s