This is an interesting and important development on a couple of fronts, and so far I'm rather surprised at the apparent lack of interest on our cousins' part. I suspect it's a little obscure and not easy to see the meaning and importance of. It's really worth them taking a look at, though.
First, the obvious:
if the deal works, there will be no federal election in Canada in the immediate future, and thus no risk of the right-wing Conservative Party gaining power.
For USAmericans who prefer not to have fans of the Bush Republicans running Canada, this is good news.
Second, the more intellectually fascinating:
deal-making for the benefit of the country and people.
The Cdn Parliament is not like the US Congress, where deal-making is a common
modus operandi. Party discipline is strong in Canada; government MPs who broke party discipline to vote against a government initiative, or opposition MPs who broke discipline to vote with a government initiative that their party opposed, would find themselves sitting in a corner, and not being given their party's support in the next election.
("Free votes" are allowed as a rare exception, for matters on which there is no formal party policy and on which the party's MPs and members and constituents are not in agreement; they tend to be on matters of "conscience", which women's and GLBT rights too often seem to be regarded as, for instance.)
And this deal is not a utilitarian one (on the NDP side), it is a
principled deal. It has
two goals that are both good for Canada, not just the party or its individual MPs in their own constituencies:
- ensure that Canada has a functioning government that gets going on the real business of governing;
- ensure that the governing that gets done is in the interests of the country and the people, not of the Liberal Party and its backers.
There are always risks for the NDP when it "props up" a Liberal government, in terms of its prospects in the next election, whenever it comes:
- the NDP loses credit for initiatives that are popular with the electorate for which it was the necessary motor, but that have the Liberals' name on them;
- the NDP is tarred by its association with a government that is unpopular in many people's minds.
The reverse of the second point also happens: if and when the NDP votes with the rest of the opposition to bring the govt down and force an election, it is blamed for causing the fall of a govt that some people liked, and forcing an election that some people didn't want.
Holding the balance of power can make the party the focal point for just about everybody's negative opinions and feelings about just about anything that happens.
In this case, there was a window of opportunity. In their first budget after the election, the Liberals had proposed a major initiative --
big tax cuts for corporations -- that they had never so much as whispered to the electorate during the election campaign. In the campaign, they focused on their commitment to Canada's social programs.
So the NDP was able to offer something as close to a win-win deal as possible. The Liberals were not required to dance to the NDP's tune -- they were simply required to dance to the tune that
they themselves had played to the voters last summer. And of course they get to stay in power.
I'm seeing this as the new role of the "vanguard" party in a modern liberal democracy. The NDP is not going to form a federal government in Canada in this decade, or even the next. But by taking every opportunity that arises, it can do things to shape Canadian society in ways that are not readily reversible: it helps to create a "new norm".
One way this has happened in the past is through things done by NDP governments of provinces: universal health care originated in Saskatchewan under the NDP, and soon became seen as a norm that should be adopted by the country. The Parti Québécois (back in its progressive days) did this with the universal child care program: it became a functioning model for what the country should have. (This is a plan of action that people in US blue states might be well advised to pursue more actively!)
The other way is by what is being done now: make support for the govt conditional on passing policies supported by the NDP
and by the electorate overall.
The CBC's summary of minority govts in the past:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/minoritygovernment.htmlInterestingly, PM Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative govt fell in 1963 because:
The government had become embroiled in the debate over whether or not Canada should have nuclear weapons as part of a continental defence shield (he was against the idea).
... the
Conservatives opposed a missile defence shield. ;)
Here's an assessment of the NDP's achievements in past minority govts:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/democracy/minority/accomplished.htmlIn Canada, minority governments have frequently sought the support of left-wing parties such as the NDP to remain in power. The smaller party has normally made their support conditional on the government enacting socially progressive legislation:
- In 1925, Mackenzie King’s minority Liberal government agreed to implement old age pension legislation to keep the support of Progressive and Labour party MPs. The legislation was implemented in 1927.
- Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, both the Pearson and Trudeau Liberal minority governments enacted several pieces of legislation to maintain NDP support.
- In the 1960s, Pearson brought in universal healthcare and government loans for university students, and the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP).
- Between 1972 and 1974, Trudeau introduced a program of economic nationalism that included the creation of PetroCanada. In addition, old age pensions were indexed to the cost of living.
If the deal works, USAmericans might actually get to see Canada doing some of the things they think Canada does!
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/26/martin-layton050426.htmlThe proposed deal includes:
$1.6 billion for affordable housing construction, including aboriginal housing.
$1.5-billion increase in transfers to provinces for tuition reduction and better training through EI {(un)employment insurance}.
$900 million for environment with one more cent of the federal gas tax going to public transit.
$500 million for foreign aid to bring Canada in line with promise of 0.7 per cent of GDP.
$100 million for pension protection fund for workers.
Pretty good deal.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
