Advice to Liberals: Lose and then Reflect
January 20, 2010 · By Greg Farries
Mr. Ignatieff, therefore, has to appeal beyond the travails of today to offer a better tomorrow and, in so doing, reconnect with those convictions that once defined the Liberal Party. Giving effect to those convictions – a strong central government, an activist state and an internationalist foreign policy – will take money that the federal government doesn’t have, and won’t have without raising taxes.
It’s good advice, but it’ll never happen under the current minority government situation; with the Liberal Party a whisper and a vote away from being the next government.
The Liberal Party of Canada needs to spend one term, possibly two, sitting in the opposition benches of a majority Conservative government before any real perspective on governing is achieved. The Liberal party had grown stale and corrupt under the heavy hand of Prime Minister Chretien (as any government would after 12 years) and the constant saber-rattling from the official opposition has done nothing to quell the stench of that staleness. I think the parade of new Liberal party leaders further proves the party needs to do some deep reflection before it can be handed the keys to Canadian government.
It should also be said that if Conservative supporters across the country (both big “C” and little “c”) feel like they didn’t get a chance to effect change – without the hindrance of a minority government situation – they are unlikely to consider any other party in the near future.
Polarization of the vote and constant minority governments may become the norm in Canadian politics, and that should strike fear in any Canadian concerned about the future of Canadian democracy.
The Liberal Party needs to lose and lose badly.
I think we’re just going to have to get used to the concept of minority governments, particularly if any reforms to our current first-past-the-post electoral system are considered. Constant minority governments are certainly not a good idea in the long run, so we may simply have to get used to coalition governments.
Coalition governments sound good in principle, but they never work in practice.
Also, electoral reform will likely never see the light of day, as the two primary parties, the Conservatives and Liberals – who control the majority of the popular support – will never support such initiatives. From a practical perspective, why would they support an initiative that would further erode stable government (and their relative positions of power)?
We don’t need electoral reform, we need to strengthen the role of our elected representatives while at the same time weakening the power of political parties, the party leader offices and the PMO. Those three centralizing institutions have done more to erode representative government in Canada, than any inherent weakness in our electoral system.
The Iggomaniac wants a stronger central government? Good grief, he and his party are already screaming about how much power is concentrated in the PMO. How much more centralized power do they want?
Greg, coalition governments can work just fine. They are the norm in many countries. With multiple parties each grabbing enough electoral pie to make majority governments more unlikely in the future, we can either live with the constant threat of an election, or accept coalition governments.
I agree with your last statement regarding the growing power of the parties and the PMO, and I agree that we need to increase the ability of MPs to work for their constituents, not their party. That doesn’t diminish the need for electoral reform though, IMO.